From
the WSJ:
In 2005, Michael and Chantell Sackett bought a small property in an Idaho residential neighborhood, intending to build a home. Once construction began, the EPA decided without any notice that the plot was a "wetland" because it was near a lake. There is no water on the property. The agency's pen pushers served the Sacketts with a "compliance order" that said they were violating the Clean Water Act and would be fined $37,500 per day until they restored the property to its original condition, if not criminal charges as well.
As Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart revealed during oral arguments, the Sacketts were actually liable for twice that—$37,500 per day for violating the Clean Water Act, and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order. Mr. Stewart defended the double secret penalties by saying the EPA had no statutory obligation to disclose them.
These things happen also in Israel. Thousands of businesses are being tortured for uncomprehensible reasons.
10 comments:
There wil be a backlash.
This is a tyranny.
Anon.
Who can oppose the Defenders of Mother Earth?
Unanimous decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court are rare in high visibility cases. However the EPA was so egregious in its actions that even Kagan and Ginsberg did not side with it. Both are on the far left and will seek to extend government power. That said, this decision is fairly narrow in scope, and will do little to rein in this rogue agency. It mainly has to do with procedure.
The EPA is preciously the kind of creature the Founding Fathers sought to avoid. Little did they realize how much future lawyers and bureaucrats would twist the meanings of words. EPA jurisdiction should be limited to navigable water ways, and not include every little patch of water you can find. The root problem here is the administrative law process where the legislature lets bureaucrats write the operational rules and procedures.
Here's a short Reason magazine video about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40iHXAOjJ3U
The cliches abound, because they are true - power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Given them an inch and they will take a mile. Give them a puddle and they will call it a navigable waterway.
K
Even the liberals on the court could not stand that the Government had put citizens (not evil corporations but plain ordinary homeowners) in a catch -22 situation. The homeowners could not appeal the order but if they defied it they were liable for massive fines.
If you think about this, it was a case of bureaucratic bridge too far , which is now going to impair the EPA's unbridled power. Had the EPA officials had a shred of common sense they would have realized that it was not worth putting the agency's reputation at risk by bullying a middle class couple. Instead they probably thought the opposite - we can do whatever we want because these people will not have the resources to fight us.
K
Bureaucrats MUST apply the rules equally to be effective. They cnnot bully only large corporations.
There is a lot of discretion on what constitutes a "wetland" and whether it is "adjacent to a navigable water". There was no pressing reason why they had to regulate a 1,000 sq. meter residential lot with a few puddles on it, that was several lots away from the lake shore - it was just bureaucratic greed to enlarge their sphere to the largest possible domain.
K
Interesting how many people post here with no actual knowledge of the case. Have you been to the Sackett's property? Do you understand what a wetland is or the benefits that it provides? Are you a qualified hydrologist to verify whether the site is a actually a wetland or not?
In this case the ruling was actually very narrow, with both sides claiming victory or at least redemption...Basically it states the Sacketts can now appeal a compliance order, but EPA still has jurisdiction and can enforce the Clean Water Act. That has not changed. From what I have seen, the Sacketts will likely lose the appeal based on the facts in the case.
Be careful what you wish for... The Clean Water Act is responsible for cleaning up much our worst pollution. Before the Act we had rampant untreated sewage closing beaches, rivers catching on fire and we were losing wetlands at an alarming rate. This law has literally saved or restored to health thousands of waterways around the country. Can an agency make a mistake? Absolutely, which is why we now have an appeal process. But be careful what you wish for - diminish or do away with the EPA or the CWA and be ready for the consequences. Hint: it won't be just about some couple building a home.
Yes, thank God for the EPA - it's bureaucrats have helped make the US a rich and powerful nation that dominates world manufacturing. Detroit, Akron and other US manufacturing centers are now unrivaled in prosperity thanks to the EPA.
K
Post a Comment