Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

N. Idaho couple battle "overzealous" EPA (Private Land Rights Violated)
The Coeur d' Alene Press ^ | October 12, 2011 | The Coeur d' Alene Press

Posted on 10/12/2011 4:45:15 PM PDT by WilliamIII

Washington, D.C. - A Priest Lake couple is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court over a land use dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that should have never occurred, according to Members of the Idaho Congressional Delegation. Mike and Chantell Sackett were in Washington, D.C., today as part of a forum convened by Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and attended by Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, Idaho Senator Jim Risch and Idaho Representative Raúl Labrador.

(Excerpt) Read more at cdapress.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; US: Idaho
KEYWORDS: epa; idaho; propertyrights

1 posted on 10/12/2011 4:45:19 PM PDT by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

If this was so important you had to put it in breaking news, why didn’t you bother telling us what it’s about?


2 posted on 10/12/2011 4:49:20 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII; BykrBayb

The article is unclear on the facts. Something about wetlands designation.

“Can EPA take over your land, calling it ‘wetlands,’ without meaningful, direct judicial review?” they said. “We believe property owners have a constitutional right to have their day in court and EPA has to be subject to the rule of law.”


3 posted on 10/12/2011 4:53:48 PM PDT by dynachrome ("Our forefathers didn't bury their guns. They buried those that tried to take them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

Yes unless you live in the Hamptons.


4 posted on 10/12/2011 4:55:37 PM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Article doesn’t detail what actually happened. Anyone have that?


5 posted on 10/12/2011 4:55:49 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

Thanks. I just read it, and still don’t know what it’s about. It seems to be a pointless rant about someone’s opinion of the EPA. Long on emotion and short of facts.


6 posted on 10/12/2011 4:57:20 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

They’ll be ok unless their name is Weaver or Koresh.


7 posted on 10/12/2011 5:02:36 PM PDT by dynachrome ("Our forefathers didn't bury their guns. They buried those that tried to take them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Here is the URL to an article that better describes what’s goin on.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/mike-and-chantell-sackett-vs-the-epa-08112011.html


8 posted on 10/12/2011 5:20:12 PM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Here
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/mike-and-chantell-sackett-vs-the-epa-08112011.html


9 posted on 10/12/2011 5:22:43 PM PDT by Liberal Bob (looneyleft.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

The Employment Protection Agency


10 posted on 10/12/2011 5:33:32 PM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
If this was so important you had to put it in breaking news, why didn’t you bother telling us what it’s about?

BUMP!

Excerpts can be 300 words long. Yours is 73. Where are the other 227?

If you're wondering what this is about, here's a good article from Businessweak from last summer that explains it from the beginning.

11 posted on 10/12/2011 5:43:56 PM PDT by upchuck (Rerun: Think you know hardship? Wait till the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Thank you. Looks like they have a good case. I hope (for their sake and everyone’s) that they win and the EPA gets smacked around good.


12 posted on 10/12/2011 5:56:13 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
The UnEmployment Protection Agency

Fixed it.

13 posted on 10/12/2011 6:11:35 PM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

EPA needs a gigantic injection of weed killer so it can’t come back.


14 posted on 10/12/2011 6:40:27 PM PDT by ully2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Whenever I hear about the EPA strong-arming businesses and private individuals I want to pull my hair out. I would love to eliminate the EPA for good. If someone out there could set up a fund for this family while exposing the EPA, I would be sending donations.


15 posted on 10/12/2011 6:41:09 PM PDT by GunPkrBkr (I'd rather be judged by twelve, than carried by six.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome; archy
They’ll be ok unless their name is Weaver or Koresh.

I'm surprised that nobody has gone "Carl Drega" on an EPA official. Yet.

If they continue on this course, it's just a matter of time.

16 posted on 10/12/2011 6:56:26 PM PDT by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
I know Mike and Chantell Sackett. They are good people. They've been messing with this for two years. The area they're talking about is not a 'wetland'. Total crock. I'm glad they're going all the way with this though they'll be bankrupt if he loses. It's a principle thing. These federal agencies have to be stopped, and after the revolution, dissolved. Just another "make work" path to socialism case. Just one more thing to remember when you vote. Let's see, I'm at about 2000 reasons. . .
17 posted on 10/12/2011 6:58:00 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie
Fixed it.

Nah, I like it that they protect you from employment.

18 posted on 10/12/2011 7:15:07 PM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Art in Idaho

Do you know what caused the EPA to show up on their doorstep in the first place? Anonymous complaint??

Meaning, what is the scuttlebutt on who the puppetmaster is? Who benefits from preventing this house from being built?


19 posted on 10/12/2011 7:22:41 PM PDT by Valpal1 ("Stupid people are running America." Herman Cain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
I have to admit I don't know the knitty-gritty details of the case. It's just been known locally as a crock case. Haven't actually sat down with Mike and Chantell to get the details. He is not talking now I'm sure given the current circumstances. I heard about it about two years ago. Evidently the Feds showed up 4 years ago. Sounds like a planned puppetmaster deal.

We're in North Idaho. There are no "wetlands" up here. Gimme a break.

Definition of Wetland: A wetland is an area of land whose soil is saturated with water either permanently or seasonally.

You mean the moist black dirt farmland in Iowa where I grew up is all wetland? Who decides what saturation means? Let's get scientific here. Your saturation may not be what I think is valid. 3% 10%? 30%? So the whole state of Iowa is a wetland?

You're gonna' love this Wetlands pic:

Pic is from Here.

Don't even think about building in any of these areas. Whaa? The whole states of Minnesota, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Mississippi and Florida? Feds Gone Wild! Disband the anti-capitalist EPA!

Last line of the article: "The bottom line: The Supreme Court could turn a minor land dispute between an Idaho couple and the EPA into a far-reaching case on government power." I hope the Sacketts win. .

BTW, in a related case, the EPA diminished our snowmobiling trails because it might hurt the caribou. None of the old timer locals have ever seen a caribou in these parts - and that's up to the border. We're too far south, mainly Canadian critters, and of course, Alaska. Anyway, lots of court fights. That went on for years too. . .

20 posted on 10/12/2011 8:37:03 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel

I share your opinion. I’m surprised as well.


21 posted on 10/12/2011 8:37:53 PM PDT by optiguy (Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.----- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Over zealous control freaks have for several decades been plotting and agitating to exploit the federal Clean Waters Act and the powers of the Corps of Engineers to extend bureaucratic control over land use decisions affecting every acre of land in America. The definition of navigable waters has been expanded beyond the bounds of rationality by administrative rulings and opinions of compliant federal judges.


22 posted on 10/12/2011 9:17:22 PM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

This could, if all goes well, go well beyond wetlands designations, though the SCOTUS is a distressingly weak reed to grasp when it comes to the project of restoring liberty to our republic.

What happens now is that the EPA, indeed governments at all levels deal very cavalierly with property rights, using “administrative” rule-making regulations pertaining to land use, which regulations have the force of law. The holy grail of some property rights folks has been to have the courts regard some of the most restrictive regulations as a “taking” under the fifth amendment. Doubtful that would happen in this case, but moving in that direction would be a huge step in the direction of liberty.

Which is why the usual suspects have their knickers in a knot over this case.


23 posted on 10/12/2011 9:23:43 PM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
Our new Representative Labrador:

""Listening to the Sackett family tell their story today to Members of Congress was eye-opening," said Labrador. "Hearing their firsthand experience with a bullying federal agency that seems to be above the law is frustrating. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will stand with them, and with the concept of due process enshrined in the Constitution to remind an overreaching bureaucracy that no agency, no matter how big, can run roughshod over the principles of law and order. I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will find that the EPA does not have the power to victimize private citizens as they have with the Sacketts."

24 posted on 10/12/2011 9:28:25 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All

EPA to property owner: ‘Your land is our land’ ($40 million in fines pending)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2783174/posts


25 posted on 10/12/2011 10:33:33 PM PDT by deks ("...the battle of our time is the battle of liberty against the overreach of the federal government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The Sackett land.

26 posted on 10/12/2011 10:43:29 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Calling all Sackets: Galloway, Jubal, Logan, etc.


27 posted on 10/12/2011 10:48:39 PM PDT by Rannug ("God has given it to me, let him who touches it beware.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rannug

Go to the Pacific Legal Foundation site. They fight this crapola in the courts all the time.


28 posted on 10/13/2011 4:15:48 AM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

We should have a law that forbids ANY regulatory agency of the federal or state government from creating new regulations, and only allow them to submit proposed regulations to Congress. Congress would then debate, and vote on each regulation. This would serve 2 purposes: 1)It would make elected Representatives responsible for each regulation. 2)It would keep them busy so they wouldn’t have time to do their usual skullduggery !


29 posted on 10/13/2011 8:00:35 AM PDT by Edgerunner (Second Amendment Spoken Here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

“Long on emotion and short of facts.”

Very typical of CDA press journalism.


30 posted on 10/13/2011 8:00:49 AM PDT by Amish with an attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Edgerunner

“We should have a law that forbids ANY regulatory agency of the federal or state government from creating new regulations, and only allow them to submit proposed regulations to Congress. Congress would then debate, and vote on each regulation. This would serve 2 purposes: 1)It would make elected Representatives responsible for each regulation. 2)It would keep them busy so they wouldn’t have time to do their usual skullduggery !”

Keep the State and Federal Government separate. The Federal Government has no right to tell our state Government what to do.

PS: if you want to deal with regulations your going to have to repeal existing law.

All a “regulation” is legally is the exclusive branch implementing the “broad discretionary powers” granted to it by an incompetent legislator, which can’t be bothered with all the nitty gritty details of governing in all the vast areas of life they have usurped power over.


31 posted on 10/13/2011 10:54:42 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Art in Idaho

If the feds could they would overthrow every state goverment and instead institute themselves as the absolute goverment over everyone and everything.

Instead they are simply focused on enslaving our States as administrative vessels of themselves.

The Constitution of 1787 would never have been ratified if the States then existing thought this is what would happen.


32 posted on 10/13/2011 10:57:19 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Elsiejay

Bump!


33 posted on 10/13/2011 2:06:34 PM PDT by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
The Constitution of 1787 would never have been ratified if the States then existing thought this is what would happen.

You got that right. Can you imagine The Founders hearing about this or reading the Obamacare Bill and saying, "What the hell is this all about? Are you kidding?"

34 posted on 10/13/2011 2:11:54 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
Doesn't look like 'Wetlands' to me. . . That's pretty normal 'ground' around here in lots of areas. Rocky ground and lots of trees. . .
35 posted on 10/13/2011 2:18:04 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Art in Idaho

“”The Constitution of 1787 would never have been ratified if the States then existing thought this is what would happen.”

You got that right. Can you imagine The Founders hearing about this or reading the Obamacare Bill and saying, “What the hell is this all about? Are you kidding?””

That would be only one of thousands of complains. By far the most persuasive that would have had them running away would have been the 600 thousand dead in Lincoln’s war to force union.

No State would have joined a union they couldn’t get out of, it would have defeated the whole underlining point of the American Revolution.

Never-mind the numerous legal inventions sense that have effectually rendered the written Constitution but a piece of paper, and the Federal Government boundless in its power.

The shear number of abuses by the same Federal makes King George looks like a saint.


36 posted on 10/13/2011 3:39:46 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

If it is a civil case, then the 7th Amendment stands (I assume the land is worth more than twenty dollars), if criminal than the 6th, and both of these amendments guarantee a trial.

Furthermore, the 5th Amendment prohibits the taking of property for public use without compensation; if they try to declare the land wetlands and kick the people off their own land, how is it not taking the land for the government’s (which is public) own use (which is to keep it fallow and undeveloped).


37 posted on 10/13/2011 6:00:50 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Click The Pic

Support Free Republic

38 posted on 10/13/2011 8:15:59 PM PDT by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Heard today via the grapevine the Sackett land wasn't even on the EPA's 'wetland' map. This is a big case and means a lot to every American. Overshadowed by all the ows crap, and now we're sending troops to Uganda?
39 posted on 10/14/2011 4:30:44 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Art in Idaho
Doesn't look like 'Wetlands' to me. . . That's pretty normal 'ground' around here in lots of areas. Rocky ground and lots of trees. . .

The reason it looks dry and rocky is that the Sacketts dumped tons of dirt and gravel on the site.

Which shows the weakness of some arguments I'm seeing posted here, i.e. that this site is not a wetland. People don't usually fill a site like that ... unless it's wet.

Btw I have no dog in this fight. It's just that there aren't enough facts in these articles to make a fair judgment about what's going on here.

40 posted on 10/14/2011 11:55:43 PM PDT by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson