Idaho couple takes on EPA at the Supreme Court over land rights [Protected Waters action]

KY3 Broadcasting (Missouri) ^ | 10/03/2022 | Molly Martinez

[SES1066]

US Supreme Court 1st hearing on 3 October 2022.

The case revolves around Michael and Chantell Sackett who bought a soggy plot of land near Priest Lake, Idaho in 2004.

With the intention of building a home on the property, they began back-filling the low lying wet area.

The EPA stepped in, claiming they were interfering with protected wetlands.

[SES1066]

Note that no governmental agency ever 'succeeds' by not pushing regulations to the last degree! This is an example of this type of action!

The EPA defines 'inland / non-tidal' wetlands as; "Many of these wetlands are seasonal (they are dry one or more seasons every year), and, particularly in the arid and semiarid West, may be wet only periodically. The quantity of water present and the timing of its presence in part determine the functions of a wetland and its role in the environment. Even wetlands that appear dry at times for significant parts of the year -- such as vernal pools-- often provide critical habitat for wildlife adapted to breeding exclusively in these areas."

As can be expected, the EPA does not come out before the purchase the purchase but only upon a complaint. So the new owner depends upon the assurances of the prior land owner that the water is only short time. If the EPA disagrees, there are ongoing fines until the fill-in is removed and the site is 'RESTORED'. At one end of the spectrum, those penalties could last forever as can such ever really be actually restored to original condition!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto: Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

https://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html

[Jim W N]

The EPA is patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Constitution gives the feds NO power or right to regulate the “environment” nor interfere with individuals’ private property rights.

Again, NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE EPA.

BAN THE EPA!!!!

[SuperLuminal]

This has arrived at the SCOTUS at the best possible time...
It will be a true final test of the “so-called” conservatives on the court...

[Repeal 16-17]

I hope the Opinion of the Court is written by Justice Thomas.

[crz]

https://www.mackinac.org/3963

The case of Richard Delene and his wife.

[pierrem15]

"Even wetlands that appear dry at times for significant parts of the year -- such as vernal pools-- often provide critical habitat for wildlife adapted to breeding exclusively in these areas."

This may be completely true, but it is completely irrelevant legally.

A 'vernal pool' is not a "navigable waterway of the United States," which is the only basis of Federal regulation under the plain text of the Constitution.

SCOTUS needs to tell EPA to pound sand.

[sasquatch]

The epa thinks they own our gutters...

[Twotone]

Every bureaucrat that abused these people needs to have their retirement income seized to make them whole again. Instead, over this many years, so many are already enjoying retirement while this case continues.

[Roccus]

What Are “Waters of the United States”?
Presents definition of this term as found in federal statute.
Under Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section (§) 122.2Exit the TCEQ , “Waters of the United States” or “waters of the U.S.” has a specific meaning:

(a) all waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

(b) all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

(c) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds that the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:

(1) which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;

(2) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(3) which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;

(d) all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;

(e) tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition;

(f) the territorial sea; and

(g) wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this definition.

Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA are not waters of the United States. This exclusion applies only to man-made bodies of water which neither were originally created in waters of the United States (such as disposal area in wetlands) nor resulted from the impoundment of waters of the United States. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/stormwater/WQ_us_waters_definition.html

[ALPAPilot]

"Even wetlands that appear dry at times for significant parts of the year -- such as vernal pools-- often provide critical habitat for wildlife adapted to breeding exclusively in these areas."

This may be completely true, but it is completely irrelevant legally.

A 'vernal pool' is not a "navigable waterway of the United States," which is the only basis of Federal regulation under the plain text of the Constitution.

Scalia made this clear in Rapanos vs. United States. He wrote the Majority Opinion in a 5-4 decision. The EPA didn't like it, so they adhere to Kennedy's less strict concurring opinion.

I believe the Sacketts will prevail.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1034.pdf

[ridesthemiles]

IIRC, their property as adjacent to others with like conditions, and NONE of them had been targeted.

This has dragged on for over 18 years.

[ridesthemiles]

In Oregon, you cannot collect rain water from YOUR roof to water YOUR garden.

[ridesthemiles]

“NAVIGABLE” is also part of the description somewhere.

[Jim W N]

The answer is to KILL THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL EPA!!!!!

Look either WE KILL the unconstitutional portion of the feds or they will KILL US!

[itsahoot]

calia made this clear in Rapanos vs. United States.

Unfortunately the supremes don't have police power so the democrats just ignore the decisions they don't like, they win because they know conservatives obey the constitution.

[itsahoot]

In Oregon, you cannot collect rain water from YOUR roof to water YOUR garden.

Unfortunately in Oregon the state owns the water unless of course it causes damages then they don't acknowledge that their water caused it.

[itsahoot]

Look either WE KILL the unconstitutional portion of the feds or they will KILL US!

Too soon old and too late smart for us old timers.

[Roccus]

I know what you’re talking about.
There was a fight about that not that long ago and sadly, I don’t remember what the outcome was. I seem to remember it just dying somewhere in the House or the Senate....not sure. Perhaps another, more knowledgeable FReeper can help with that.

[Roccus]

Bestest I can figger, the EPA has substituted “waters of the US” for “navigable waters of the US”. IIRC the EPA attempted to codify this change, but right now that effort is in limbo.
The EPA is waging asymmetric lawfare on citizens by interchanging climate crises, habitat conservancy and anti pollution regulations to keep up constant attacks which end up being dragged through the courts.

https://www.epa.gov/wotus/navigable-waters-protection-rule