A couple on Priest Lake, ID wanted to build a house across the road around the lake. They backfilled low areas to create a building site. The Sacketts were ordered by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to stop, restore the land and apply for a federal wetlands permit, or be fined tens of thousands of dollars per day.
The Sacketts’ property is on part of what was once a large wetlands complex called the Kalispell Bay Fen leading from Priest Lake. Today, a road divides the wetlands, and the Sacketts’ property is across the road from the rest of the wetlands and the lake. The property is similarly within 30 feet of a stream running to the lake but again is separated from the stream by a road.
The Sacketts argue they did not need a permit because the road separates their property from Priest Lake and the other wetlands.
EPA contended that the wetlands on the Sacketts’ property were protected despite the road. Current regulations in place since 1987 protect wetlands separated from larger waterways by roads or man-made barriers, if they have surface or shallow subsurface water connections, and if the two waterways are “reasonably close so as to support a science-based inference of an ecological interconnection.”
The Sacketts sued the EPA, but the agency argued they were not entitled to their day in court until a final agency action was issued. The 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the agency. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 9 th Circuit and made clear that landowners may bring a civil lawsuit challenging a federal government order under the Clean Water Act prior to a final agency action.
But, the SCOTUS ruling only permitted the Sacketts to challenge EPA’s assertion of jurisdiction over their property; the Court did not resolve whether the terms and conditions of the Compliance Order itself were subject to immediate judicial review. Justice Alito recommended that Congress act to clarify issues regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act.
On May 3, 2012, the Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit remanded the Sacketts challenge to the compliance order to the district court, consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. The United States District Court for the District of Idaho ruled against the Sacketts, finding that the area in question was a wetland and had been filled without necessary permits.
After years of litigation, the Sacketts gave up and left the area. Unfortunately, Sackett was convicted of trying to procure a 12 year old girl for sex, was prosecuted, and convicted in North Dakota.
Pretty convenient for the Federal government, no?