A weak defense of EPA

Scotusblog ^ | Jan 9 2012 | Lyle Denniston

[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 nation’s waterways, the Supreme Court on Monday seemed well on its way toward finding some way to curb that agency’s 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 EPA’s 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 Monday’s 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 EPA’s 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 “can’t happen in the United States.”

[SteamShovel]

Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over this “navigable waterway”

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.

[ridesthemiles]

Ask them what kind of craft can ‘navigate’ your waterway )ditch).

Ask for pictures.