Skip to comments.A weak defense of EPA
Posted on 01/10/2012 8:11:44 AM PST by WilliamIII
With a federal government lawyer conceding almost every criticism leveled at the way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency compels landowners to avoid polluting the nations waterways, the Supreme Court on Monday seemed well on its way toward finding some way to curb that agencys enforcement powers. Their task was made easier as Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart stopped just short of saying that EPA was just as heavy-handed as its adversaries and several of the Justices were saying.
Perhaps the most telling example: when several of the Justices expressed alarm that a homeowner targeted by EPAs efforts might face a penalty of as much as $37,500 each day of alleged violation, Stewart made it clear that the fine actually might be doubled, to $75,000 a day, although he tried to recover by saying that was only theoretical, and that he did not think that EPA had ever taken that step.
The argument in Sackett, et al., v. EPA (docket 10-1062) did not appear to portend a slam-dunk loss for EPA during the first half of Mondays argument, when the lawyer for an Idaho couple faced quite rigorous questioning about whether the couple had exercised options that might have been open to them to avert the dire consequences of EPA enforcement. But the tenor of the session changed abruptly as soon as the line of argument chosen by EPAs lawyer, Stewart, unfolded.
It all came to something of an explosive verbal climax when Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., suggested that the scheme that Stewart had outlined would be considered by the ordinary homeowner as something that cant happen in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
That was a fun read. Thanks!
Hey Sammy...and we got a Kenyan/Indonesian guy in the White House.....something that cant happen in the United States"....?
Pester your rep and Senators to get control over the administrative monsters they created.
Looks like the EPA is going to get slammed in the decision. It’s about time!
There is another dimension to this.
An associate purchased a home in a subdivision only to discover that the surface storm drainage from some adjacent lots ran across his back yard. As he researched his remediation options, he found that this ditch was marked as a dashed blue line on the USGS topographical map. It turns out that this also means the Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over this “navigable waterway”. So, he talked to the local Corps office and they informed him that he could apply to have his remediation plan approved by them, and that he could not otherwise modify the waterway in any manner. To top this off, his plan would have to be submitted by an approved engineer. When he researched that demand, he found that their fees for the “study” they would have to perform and document would start at $10,000.
He was also told that the Corp regularly opposes such plans.
Land of the Free? Not any longer.
If I’m reading the stories on this right, the EPA tried to say they were the only arbiters of this case and the owners had no right to challenge them in court, and then threatened them with harsher penalties if they tried. Am I missing something?
I wouldn’t count my chickens before they hatch.
Statements by the Judges and their verdict may not be the same.
Even if the Sacketts win this-—will it slow down the atrocities of the EPA? They are still closing coal plants and coal fired electric generation plants, and I would bet that everyone who has faced what the Sacketts are facing will still be facing an agency that is running wild.
No one is going to remove the head of the agency, no one is going to get fired from the agency , and even a ruling against the EPA will not amount to squat.
The EPA clearly violates the U.S. Constitution concerning due process and eminent domain.
If the government wants private land for a nature preserve, they should pay the otherwise going market rate for it AFTER due process. However, the EPA simply declares that YOU must maintain your land as a nature preserve and continue to cover all associated costs of keeping it to EPA specifications. Henry VIII had more restraints on action concerning private lands than the EPA now has.
Supreme Court kick some EPA rear end here. But don’t forget EPA lied and presented FRAUDULENT AGW/IPCC CO2 DATA to influence your decision in ruling CO2 a dangerous pollutant. DON’T LET THESE SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT FRAUDS GET AWAY WITH THIS.
How has that zoning control worked in cities like Deadtroit?
Americans are just beginning to reap what has been sowed for more than forty (40) years.
Yup. And even if a Republican is elected president and even if those EPA regulations are rescinded, it will be too late. Dozens of plants will have already been shut down and the damage to our power supply begun.
None of us can afford not to vote in the upcoming election -- no matter how we may detest the eventual nominee.
Am I missing something?
I wish you were. Unfortunately, it’s as bad as you suggest.
The unfortunate reality of the 21st century in America is that the government can do what ever they want. If they want to take your property to give it to someone else or simply render it worthless, they will. They can and will arrest and imprison you for any reason or no reason at all. The police can kick in your door at any time and for any or no reason, kill your pets and drag you away to prison. You have little or no recourse and no chance of recovering damages from such abuse.
There are dozens of threads right here on FR about just these things happening all over the country.
Lying and presenting fraudulent data has been a common practice within the EPA since at least the Clinton era. nothing that comes from them can be trusted as it all has a political bias and has always had one. It needs to be made to go bye-bye.
This is another BS thing EPA has done in the last few years. They redefined "navigable waterways" to include ditches, many which sit dry most of the year.
I have one that cuts my property in half. It was a ditch when I bought the place. How does the US Government have the right to change the definition after the fact and redefine the rules associated with affected properties? The mere definition of "navigable waterway" applied to a ditch that isn't even 4 feet wide or deep is ludicrous. It is a man made drainage ditch, created for the purpose of drainage. It is not a natural stream.
Ask them what kind of craft can ‘navigate’ your waterway )ditch).
Ask for pictures.