Agricultural News
Supreme Court Sides With Landowners Against EPA- EPA's Lisa Jackson Responds to Oklahoma Senator Inhofe
Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:40:10 CDT
Updated- On Thursday of this week- just a couple of days after the decision was handed down by the Supreme Court that ruled against the EPA in the Sackett case- EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe in a Committee hearing that the the EPA would abide with that ruling- but would not stop moving forward with a public statement of guidance of how much jurisdiction they have under the Clean Water Act. We have the audio from that exchange between Inhofe and Jackson- click on the LISTEN BAR below to listen to first Senator Inhofe and then the EPA's Jackson on this subject.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling favoring landowners over the enforcement power of a federal government agency. In a unanimous decision in Sackett v. EPA, the court said an Idaho couple can sue to challenge a compliance order issued by the Environmental Protection Agency against their property under the Clean Water Act.
The ruling was hailed by many as a David v. Goliath victory.
At issue in the case was a home site purchased by Mike and Chantell Sackett near Priest Lake in Idaho in 2007. The property did not border the lake and was surrounded by other homes. The Sacketts received a building permit from the county. They had spent three days hauling fill dirt to the lot in preparation for construction when officials from the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers ordered a halt to the work. The reason? The EPA suspected the property was a wetland. Six months later the Sacketts received a compliance order requiring them to return the property to its original condition or face astronomical fines.
The Sacketts attempted to appeal the compliance order and filed suit against the EPA. Lower courts sided with the EPA, basically agreeing that the agency's decisions were above review.
The Supreme Court saw the case differently and ruled the Sackett's case against the EPA can go forward on its merits.
Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation responded quickly to the news:
"The American Farm Bureau Federation is pleased with the Supreme Court's unanimous decision on behalf of property owners in Sackett v. EPA. AFBF filed amicus briefs in the case to educate the court about the legal and on-the-ground consequences of Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act policies.
"The Sacketts' homebuilding was halted by EPA in 2007 based on the agency's assertion that the Idaho couple's home site was a wetland. Although the couple believed their land was not a wetland, they were denied any opportunity to challenge EPA's 'compliance order' and faced up to $37,500 per day in potential fines until the matter was settled. Today's decision vindicates the rights of landowners like the Sacketts to challenge EPA compliance orders that improperly assert jurisdiction over their land. The decision gives landowners like the Sacketts their day in court, overriding the position taken by EPA and many prior courts that have denied them that right.
"We agree with Justice Alito's concurring opinion that the federal government has too often 'put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of the Environmental Protection Agency's employees.' We also agree with Justice Alito that, while allowing landowners to sue is a start, Congress needs to clarify the reach of the Clean Water Act.
"Farm Bureau is optimistic that today's decision will help curtail EPA's efforts to illegally expand its regulatory jurisdiction over farming and other land-based activities. At the very least, landowners have another tool to hold EPA accountable."
The Supreme Court's ruling is relatively short and can be read by clicking here.
WebReadyTM Powered by WireReady® NSI
Top Agricultural News
More Headlines...
