N. Idaho couple battle "overzealous" EPA (Private Land Rights Violated)

The Coeur d' Alene Press ^ | October 12, 2011 | The Coeur d' Alene Press

[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.

[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?

[dynachrome]

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.”

“

[marty60]

Yes unless you live in the Hamptons.

[PapaNew]

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

[BykrBayb]

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.

[dynachrome]

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

[Sergio]

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

[Liberal Bob]

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

[Last Dakotan]

The Employment Protection Agency

[upchuck]

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.

[BykrBayb]

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.

[The Antiyuppie]

The UnEmployment Protection Agency

Fixed it.

[ully2]

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

[GunPkrBkr]

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.

[Charles Martel]

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.

[Art in Idaho]

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. . .

[Last Dakotan]

Fixed it.

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

[Valpal1]

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?

[Art in Idaho]

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. . .

[optiguy]

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

[Elsiejay]

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.

[absalom01]

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.

[Art in Idaho]

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."

[deks]

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

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

[LucyT]

The Sackett land.

[Rannug]

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

[hal ogen]

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

[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 !

[Amish with an attitude]

“Long on emotion and short of facts.”

Very typical of CDA press journalism.

[Monorprise]

“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.

[Monorprise]

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.

[loboinok]

Bump!

[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?"

[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. . .

[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?””

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.

[OneWingedShark]

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).

[RedMDer]

Click The Pic

Support Free Republic

[Art in Idaho]

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?

[shhrubbery!]

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.