Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (463560)	1/5/2012 5:28:41 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Homeowner takes fight with EPA to Supreme Court Idaho couple and their conservative allies argue that they should be able to challenge the agency's contention they need a permit to fill wetlands. By Teresa at MSN Real Estate 13 hours ago Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case that pits a homeowner who wants to build near a lake against the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to enforce the Clean Water Act. Mike and Chantell Sackett want to build a home on their lot of just more than half an acre in Priest Lake, Idaho. The EPA says that their building site contains wetlands and that they need a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. "There's no common sense, and the EPA, they've gone rogue," Chantell Sackett told The Associated Press. "They do whatever they want. They bend the rules and they make your life hell." The case has drawn the interest of property-rights advocates, including the National Association of Home Builders, who argue the EPA has too much power, and of environmental groups that argue that power is necessary to protect the environment, including wetlands. The issue to be argued in the case is not about wetlands protection but about whether the EPA can force compliance with its orders without allowing the property owner to challenge the order in court first. The Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif., which is representing the Sacketts for free, says no. The lower courts that heard the case, as well as other federal courts, have agreed with the EPA's contention that property owners get the "due process" mandated by the Constitution because the EPA cannot impose fines without taking the owners to court, where they can then challenge the EPA's action. The Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups, which support the EPA, argue that the Sacketts knew that the property, which they bought for $23,000, contained wetlands and choose to mount a legal battle rather than negotiate with the federal agencies for permission to build. "This case is really challenging an important enforcement authority that Congress granted the EPA to move for a speedy resolution of environmental harms," Lawrence M. Levine, a senior lawyer at the council, told The Washington Post. "It’s really a war against federal regulation of any kind." No matter what happens, the Sacketts are unlikely to get their dream house any time soon. The issue has already been pending for four years, and even if they win, they will still have to go to court and argue their case that no permit is required. realestate.msn.com