Friday, February 25, 2011
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Petition to Supremes cites danger of 'ruinous' compliance order fines
By Bob Unruh
 Mike and Chantell Sackett |
A legal team asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in an Idaho controversy is warning landowners that under the compliance order procedures being used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency virtually anyone could be told to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in permit fees – or face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties – over ordinary home construction work.
A petition for certiorari has been submitted to the court by Pacific Legal, an organization working on behalf of the Sackett family of Idaho.
They own a half-acre lot in a residential area near Priest Lake and wanted to build a home. But after excavation work was begun the EPA "swooped in" with a "compliance order" that requires them to undo the excavation and restore the "wetlands," and then leave it for three years at which point they could seek a "permit" that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Or they could wait for the EPA to prosecute the alleged Clean Water Act violations, which could result in penalties of $25,000-plus per day.
According to officials with Pacific Legal, the Sacketts' land has no standing water or any continuously flowing water, and they would like an opportunity to challenge the EPA's "wetlands" determination in court.
However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned court in the land, said before a court could issue a ruling on the EPA's order, the family would have to go through a years-long, $200,000-plus process of formally applying for a federal wetlands permit.
According to the petition, "Ignoring the compliance order is no option, for several reasons. First, the CWA imposes significant civil penalties for violating compliance orders. … Just one month of noncompliance puts the landowner at risk of civil liability of $750,000. A year's worth of noncompliance puts the liability at $9,000,000."
WND calls seeking comment from the Environmental Protection Agency did not produce a response.
"The Sacketts are being hit with an unconscionable price tag for the right to challenge the feds' power play," Damien Schiff, lead attorney in the case, said in a prepared statement.
"Basic principles of due process say that the Sacketts deserve their day in court, to argue for their property rights. As we're arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court, putting an exorbitant price tag on the pursuit of justice, and the defense of property rights, is flat-out unconstitutional."
Mike and Chantell Sackett explained their situation themselves:
"The issue in this case is simple, but critically important to all property owners, and everyone who values fair play and due process," Schiff said. "When bureaucrats try to impose their will on private property, shouldn't the owners be permitted their day in court, to challenge the government's claim of control?"
Said Chantell, "They've stopped our life … I just think they're bullying us. I think they do whatever they want."
The video, produced by Pacific Legal, points out that the EPA could exercise such jurisdiction over any parcel of land anywhere in the nation.
Full story HERE
The same thing is happening on a smaller scale to my friend in Lewes DE. The EPA came onto his 3/4 acre property and declared a 33x100 feet portion of his property a wetland. An independent wetlands expert drilled many more cores and found no wetland at all in the 33x100 feet which was TYPICAL. But the last 4x10 foot piece of his land was transitional. But still not definite wetland and is behind an existing bulkhead. Basically the EPA did very poor and incomplete testing but by the poorly written federal law they can still come onto you land and demand you restore the land to a wetland it never was.
ReplyDeleteThis has to be seen as abuse of power. They can commandeer a portion of your property and they have caused at least 3000 dollars in legal and testing costs already. If it has to be restore to wetlands it will cost at least 2000 more. It seems wrong that there is no way to complain about their incorrect testing but there is no way to argue with them in court or with a mediator.