Supreme Court to Hear Environmental Case From Idaho

Supreme Court to Hear Environmental Case From Idaho

www.foxnews.com

Mike Sackett remembers what he thought when he saw the eye-popping fines of more than $30,000 a day that the Environmental Protection Agency was threatening to impose on him over a piece of Idaho property worth less than one day's penalty.
"If they do this to us, we're going to lose everything we have," Sackett said.
The EPA said that Sackett and his wife, Chantell, illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.
They say th

(visit the link for the full news article)

The question that should be on everyone’s minds is where does the authority of the EPA or any regulatory agency stop and the lives of the private individuals start? The facts of this case are simple, couple finds a piece of property that they like, decide they want it, purchase it with the intention of building a home on it. It gets complicated when the EPA steps in and tells them that they have to do an environmental impact and to restore the land to its natural setting or face fines. How is this fair and equitable to the couple and how can this be allowed to happen? The EPA is not wanting to go to court, rather stating that it should have never gotten this far, and at the same time, they were not wanting to work or do any sort of review when requested to. There has to be some form of protection for people, and especially when it comes to what they can and can not do on their private property, and such that is sold to them. The rest is a bit fuzzy as we do not have all of the facts, but this bears watching very closely, as it can affect all that live in the USA.


www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by sdcigarpig


This is sad news. If the Supreme Court and its current roster of neocons punches a hole in the wetlands law, "Down goes the Everglades" and millions of more acres like it. Protecting wetlands should be a top priority for all judges and politicians, let alone the human race. The human being--the only animal to purposely destroy forests, wetlands, and oceans.

My favorite part of this story is that the courts claimed nothing could be done because the letter from the EPA was not actually legal action but only the threat of legal action.

So there's nothing you can do until it's already too late and the fines are being levied.

Government apparently can terrorize and threaten you relentlessly and there isnt anything you can do about it until you're already behind bars. But then you're already behind bars losing your property and money so what are you supposed to do then?

America. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Another thing illustrated nicely is the bastardization of law. Here we have an arguably good law on the books to prevent corporations from filling in thousands of acres of land being applied inapropriatly to some guy who just wants to make a small plot useable.

The government is displaying some of it's biggest problems with this case. Complete lack of accountability and total disregard for the spirit o law.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Aleister

Ah but that is the rub, as there is no water or wet lands on the land that this couple purchased, the EPA made a mistake and refuses to admit it.

reply to post by Aleister


you should watch my video:

[Content Removed By Staff]

Watch for the part about the environment.
Scary times indeed!