Thread: Ron Paul Blasts the EPA’s Theft of the Sacketts’ Land

The Supreme Court will hear the case of Sackett v. EPA. In advance, Ron Paul has identified what is at stake. Here is his statement.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments in Sackett v. EPA, a case of blatant federal agency overreach and abuse of private property rights. Without any proof or reason, and no chance for appeal, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that a small single home lot was a “protected wetland.” The owners, Mike and Chantell Sackett, were ordered to halt construction already underway, to remove all of the work already done, and plant trees and shrubs consistent with a wetlands environment. After making these costly changes, the Sacketts then would have to wait several years for the EPA to decide if they would be allowed the use of their own property. Refusal to comply with these outrageous and arbitrary commandments would result in daily fines greater than the value of the property!

Outraged, the Sacketts sought relief through the courts, but court after court determined that they had no standing. The actions of the EPA were not subject to judicial review until a mountain of fees had already been assessed. This is just another example not only of how federal agencies wield enormous power over average citizens, but also how little practical protection our court system provides when such citizens are harmed by those agencies.

Constitutionally, when the government determines private property is needed for public use, it is taken through eminent domain. In that process the owner is due fair market value in compensation for any condemned property. The EPA not only refuses to compensate the Sacketts for effectively taking their land, they are assessing– or threatening to assess– ruinous penalties that greatly exceed the value of the land. They arrogantly claim the power to determine how certain property owners can use their land, while assessing fines or ordering actions that must be undertaken at the property owner’s expense. All of this is done at the administrative level, with no judicial oversight. In short, the EPA does not believe the Constitution applies to them.

A decision on this case is expected this summer. My fervent hope is that the Supreme Court will thwart this rogue agency and stand up for property rights and the right of people to have their day in court when they find themselves unwittingly accosted by the EPA.

My own district in Texas is no stranger to these issues. Again, with no evidence to support their decision, the EPA arbitrarily determined Matagorda County to be an “Ozone Nonattainment Region”, meaning the air quality is substandard. In fact, the population in this county has been decreasing and the small amount of emissions reported from Matagorda County has actually declined in recent years. The Texas agency charged with environmental protection disagrees with the EPA. Yet Matagorda County, like the Sacketts, finds itself at the mercy of the EPA. New business and construction will be stymied until the Washington masters are satisfied.

Unless Congress acts, EPA bureaucrats will continue to inflict potentially devastating economic consequences on communities like Matagorda County and people like the Sacketts. Destroying the economy is no way to save the environment. A thriving economy and a fair judicial system that respects property rights and the Constitution provide the best protection of the environment.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

There will be no permanent relief. The U.S. government’s executive agencies publish 70,000 pages a year of new regulations.. These appear in the Federal Register. Few of these are ever reviewed by Congress. They are the law of the land.

Continue Reading on paul.house.gov




43 Pastors and Laymen Arrested in New York City for Tebowing

Historic Supreme Court ruling allows the Sacketts to fight EPA takeover of their land

March 21, 2012 by ppjg

Submitted by: Heather Gass

——————————————————————————–

March 21, 2012

Contact:
Damien M. Schiff James S. Burling
Director of Litigation Principal Attorney
Pacific Legal Foundation






“This is a great day for Mike and Chantell Sackett, because it confirms that EPA can’t deny them access to justice. EPA can’t repeal the Sacketts’ fundamental right to their day in court.”

– Damien M. Schiff,
PLF Principal Attorney
WASHINGTON D.C.; March 21, 2012: In a precedent-setting victory for the rights of all property owners, the United States Supreme Court today held that landowners have a right to direct, meaningful judicial review if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency effectively seizes control of their property by declaring it to be “wetlands.”

The Court ruled in favor of Mike and Chantell Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, who were told by EPA – and by the Ninth Circuit – that they could not get direct court review of EPA’s claim that their two-thirds of an acre parcel is “wetlands” and that they must obey a detailed and intrusive EPA “compliance” order, or be hit with fines of up to $75,000 per day.

In their challenge to EPA’s takeover of their land, the Sacketts are represented, free of charge, by attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation, the leading legal watchdog organization that litigates for limited government, property rights, and a balanced approach to environmental protection, in courts nationwide.

PLF Principal Attorney Damien M. Schiff argued the Sacketts’ case at the Supreme Court on January 9. He issued this statement today, after the Court’s ruling in favor of the Sacketts was announced:

“EPA is not above the law,” said Schiff. “That’s the bottom line with today’s ruling. This is a great day for Mike and Chantell Sackett, because it confirms that EPA can’t deny them access to justice. EPA can’t repeal the Sacketts’ fundamental right to their day in court. And for that reason, it is a great day for all Americans, for all property owners, and for the rule of law. The justices have made it clear that EPA bureaucrats are answerable to the law and the courts just like the rest of us. EPA can’t try to micromanage people and their property – it can’t order property owners to dance like marionettes – while denying them any meaningful right to appeal to the courts. It can’t threaten property owners with financial ruin and not have to justify its threats to a judge. And it can’t issue lazy, drive-by ‘wetlands’ edicts about private property. It will have to put in some honest work and use credible science, because the regulators must be able to justify their wetlands orders in a court of law.
The Sacketts empty lot



“Rest assured, while today’s ruling strengthens everyone’s individual rights and property rights, and everyone’s access to justice, it does not weaken legitimate environmental protection one iota,” Schiff continued. “Regulators will simply have to be professional and thorough, not careless and slipshod, when they issue wetlands orders. In the case of urgent pollution threats, EPA will still have the power, as it does now, to seek an immediate court injunction. But when there is no emergency, EPA can’t start ordering property owners around – and threatening them with tens of millions of dollars in fines, as with the Sacketts – without first doing some genuine due diligence. EPA will have to be prepared to show a reviewing court that its wetlands regulations are really necessary – not just a power trip.”
Mike Sackett issued this statement:

“We are very thankful to the Supreme Court for affirming that we have rights, and that the EPA is not a law unto itself and that the EPA is not beyond the control of the courts and the Constitution,” said Mike Sackett. “The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell for the past five years. It said we could not go to court and challenge their bogus claim that our small lot had ‘wetlands’ on it. As this nightmare went on, we rubbed our eyes and started to wonder if we were living in some totalitarian country. Now, the Supreme Court has come to our rescue, and reminded the EPA – and everyone – that this is still America, and Americans still have rights under the Constitution. We want to thank Pacific Legal Foundation for defending us, without charge! Without Pacific Legal Foundation, this day would have not come, and this Court ruling that vindicated the rights of all Americans against bureaucratic bullying, would not have happened.”
The Sacketts’ saga: EPA overreach and a Ninth Circuit denial

Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a small parcel in 2005 with the intent to build a three-bedroom family home. The lot is in a residential area, and neighbors have built their own houses. The Sacketts obtained a county permit to build, and started laying gravel. But then they were devastated by EPA, which came in, without hearings or notice, and claimed the property is “wetlands” – and ordered them to return it to the agency’s liking, on pain of astronomical fines.

With good reason to believe the land is not “wetlands,” the Sacketts wanted to contest EPA’s claim. But EPA denied their request for a hearing – and the Ninth Circuit ruled they had no right to immediate judicial review. It held that they would first have to go through a years-long “wetlands” permit process, which could cost 12 times the value of their land!

Represented by attorneys with PLF, the Sacketts were asking the Supreme Court: When property owners are hit by an EPA wetlands “compliance order,” do they have a right to meaningful judicial review – or is EPA effectively above the law? Today, the Supreme Court answered, in effect, that EPA is under the law, not above it, and that Americans still have the right to their day in court.

ABOUT PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION: Donor-supported PLF (PLF - Pacific Legal Foundation ) is the leading watchdog organization that litigates, without charge, for limited government, property rights, individual rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations, in courts nationwide. The Sackett case marks the seventh time that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a PLF case for review. Previous high-profile PLF property rights victories at the Supreme Court include Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987); Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1996); Palazollo v. Rhode Island (2007); and Rapanos v. United States (2006).

Rob Rivett
President
Pacific Legal Foundation

Supreme Court Rules Against EPA In Unanimous Decision
Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:19
Share
inShare1
1

Advertisement
Remove Ads

Originally published on LonelyConservative.com


In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA’s contention that a couple does not have the right to go to court when disputing the agency. (See my previous post on the Sacketts who have been trying to build their Idaho home, but the EPA won’t let them.)

The Washington Post has the latest.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled for an Idaho couple who have been in a four-year battle with the Environmental Protection Agency over the government’s claim that the land on which they plan to build a home contains sensitive wetlands.

The decision allows Mike and Chantell Sackett to go to court to challenge the agency’s order.

[...]

The question for the justices was whether the couple had the right at that point to appear before a judge and contest the agency’s contention that their land contained wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act.

Scalia joked in summarizing the decision from the bench that the Sacketts were surprised by the EPA decision that their land contained navigable waters of the United States “having never seen a ship or other vessel cross their yard.”

[...]

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined in the criticism in a concurring opinion, saying the position taken by the federal government in the case “would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency employees.” (Read More)

The people at the EPA think they’re above the law. This ruling says they are not.


Tweet

Follow The Lonely Conservative on Twitter - twitter.com/lonelycon

Read more at The Lonely Conservative
The Lonely Conservative | Observations from a conservative in a blue state. With a little help from my friends!


Before It's News





Before It's News

Just because the Sacketts won their case doesn't mean it is over the EPA is still trying to steal all of our lands any way they can!!!!!

April 7, 2012 by ppjg

PRESS RELEASE

Court Order Prohibits Motorized Vehicle Travel on 42 Popular OHV Routes
Release Date: Apr 4, 2012 Placerville, CA

Forty-two off-highway-vehicle routes that cross meadows in the Eldorado National Forest may be closed to motor vehicle travel this recreation season while the Forest Service completes an environmental analysis, announced Eldorado National Forest Supervisor Kathy Hardy.

The potential travel prohibitions are the result of a February 2012 court order by U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton. The order said the Forest Service failed to comply with the National Forest Management Act in 2008 when it designated “open for public motor vehicle use” portions of 42 routes that cross meadows. Judge Karlton ordered the Forest Service to “set aside” the decision that designated these segments as open and to reconsider the decision.

A final court order with further direction to the Forest Service is pending. In the interim, Karlton ordered the 42 routes remain closed to motorized public use. The final order will identify specifically where travel will be prohibited until a new environmental decision is made.

“I know that prohibiting travel on these routes will be a big disappointment to forest visitors, but we have to be responsive to the order.” said Hardy. “I have a team of people lined up to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement as quickly as possible.”

The SEIS is scheduled to begin in April or May 2012 and to be completed by April 2013.
Hardy says many popular high county routes may be affected by the closure. Some of these routes include: Barrett Lake Jeep Trail; Squaw Ridge Four Wheel Drive Trail; Clover Valley/ Deer Valley Trail; Strawberry Four Wheel Drive Trail; Carson Emigrant Trail; Allen’s Camp Motorcycle Trail and the Bucks Pasture Motorcycle Trail. The Rubicon 4wd Trail is not affected by this court order.

Maps and a complete list of the routes affected by the court order will be posted on the Eldorado National Forest website at: Eldorado - Home

These maps will be modified to reflect the final court order once it is received. A free-of-charge motor vehicle use map that shows the routes that are open to wheeled motor vehicle use will be available at all Eldorado National Forest offices in June 2012 reflecting the final order.

“I intend to close the routes where it makes sense to do so if the final order prohibits travel on routes that cross meadows,” said Hardy. “A route may be closed near a meadow or some distance away depending on how difficult it is to turn a vehicle around.”
Some routes will also be closed indirectly because they branch off closed routes and will not be accessible.

Here’s the PR guy for this press release:

Frank E. Mosbacher, Accredited in Public Relations

Public Affairs Officer

530-621-5268 (Office)

530-621-5297 (fax)


Agenda21 – Wildlands Plan is in full swing in California – 42 Roads to close in El Dorado National Forest « The PPJ Gazette