One of the fundamental tenets of our founding principles is the right to property. The Environmental Protection Agency is the antithesis of that principle. I will go even further and state that the EPA is the embodiment of the arrogance and disdain that all central planners have for a free people who value liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. This agency has run roughshod over our federalist system; and the Sackett Saga is proof in point:Four years ago the Sacketts were filling in their lot with dirt and rock, preparing to build a simple three-bedroom home in a neighborhood where other houses have stood for years. Then three federal officials showed up and demanded they stop construction. The agency claimed the .63-acre lot was a wetland, protected under the Clean Water Act.
The Sacketts say they were stunned. The owners of an excavation company, they had secured all the necessary local permits. And Chantell Sackett says that before work began, she drove two hours to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, to consult with an Army Corps of Engineers official. She says the official told her orally, though not in writing, that she didn’t need a federal permit. “We did all the right things,” she says.
The EPA issued an order requiring the Sacketts to put the land back the way it was, removing the piles of fill material and replanting the vegetation they had cleared away. The property was to be fenced off and the Sacketts would be required to submit annual reports about its condition to the EPA. The agency threatened to fine them up to $32,500 a day until they complied.
Give credit to the Sacketts. They didn’t tuck tail and run. They stood up to this authoritarian agency – at great expense, and demanded that they get their day in court. The only problem is they had to go to the Supreme Court to get justice:
The justices unanimously ruled Chantell and Mike Sackett can appeal a compliance order that said wetlands on their residential lot were improperly filled with rocks and dirt. A building permit was then revoked.
"Since the agency's decision was final and since the Sacketts have no other adequate remedy in a court, they may bring their suit" under federal law, said Justice Antonin Scalia
Of course, critics are aghast that citizens should have the right to challenge the EPA. They believe that a non-cowering populace would interrupt their totalitarian ambitions. If property owners are able to defend themselves against the abuses of an overbearing bureaucrat, it would eventually undermine the authority of the EPA; and by extension their “authority.”
Today is a good day for liberty. It will be a better day, when the EPA no longer exists.
The justices unanimously ruled Chantell and Mike Sackett can appeal a compliance order that said wetlands on their residential lot were improperly filled with rocks and dirt. A building permit was then revoked.
"Since the agency's decision was final and since the Sacketts have no other adequate remedy in a court, they may bring their suit" under federal law, said Justice Antonin Scalia
Of course, critics are aghast that citizens should have the right to challenge the EPA. They believe that a non-cowering populace would interrupt their totalitarian ambitions. If property owners are able to defend themselves against the abuses of an overbearing bureaucrat, it would eventually undermine the authority of the EPA; and by extension their “authority.”
Today is a good day for liberty. It will be a better day, when the EPA no longer exists.
