{"id":7077,"date":"2012-03-22T08:57:19","date_gmt":"2012-03-22T12:57:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=7077"},"modified":"2022-12-02T06:25:27","modified_gmt":"2022-12-02T11:25:27","slug":"the-epa-finally-loses-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=7077","title":{"rendered":"The EPA finally loses one!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all, some good news for a change. The Evironazis running the EPA finally lost one and it was a big one.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The story is all over the internet, and I\u2019m reading the version on Fox. (Which won\u2019t be kind to the Enviroweenies) The story started a few years ago when a couple bought some property and began to prepare it to build a house on it. The morons at the EPA, always looking for a way to steal people\u2019s property, said this was wetlands and that they had to restore it to pristine condition or pay massive fines.<\/p>\n

They fought this and, well I\u2019ll let Fox tell you about it<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Mike and Chantell Sackett bought their land near a scenic lake for $25,000, but when they decided to build a property there in 2007, the EPA ordered a halt, saying the Clean Water Act requires that wetlands not be disturbed without a permit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Needless to say, this was utter bovine droppings. Here is a video telling what happened in the Sacketts own words:<\/p>\n

[youtube]http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=wYf2qSW_yRk[\/youtube]<\/p>\n

They’ve been fighting for the right to challenge the decision in court for several years, and facing millions of dollars in fines over the land.<\/p>\n

The couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order, and noted they don’t know why the EPA concluded there are wetlands on their lot, which is surrounded by a residential neighborhood with sewer lines and homes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And here is the heart of the matter. If they stormtroopers from the EPA say you have to restore some land that YOU OWN, you basically have no rights of appeal or seeking legal relief from the courts…Until today that is.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court has come forcefully down on the side of an Idaho couple in its fight against the Environmental Protection Agency, unanimously ruling<\/a> Wednesday that the couple can challenge an EPA order to stop construction of their home on property designated a wetland.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Consider this. ALL the justices, including the lefty statist government is all powerful justices ruled against the EPA and in favor of the Sacketts. Do you have any idea how unusual this is these days?<\/p>\n

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court ruled the EPA cannot impose fines that could be as much as $75,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

$75,000 a day with no legal recourse? This flies in the face of the founders of the United States and the writers of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

The ruling allows the couple to challenge the EPA head-on in court, but the real battle begins now. The case has brought attention to the EPA’s reach.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The EPA is out of control and has only gotten much worse under the Obama dictatorship<\/em><\/span> administration.<\/p>\n

While the court only allowed a challenge to be brought, in a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the law allowing EPA to demand compliance is overly broad.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As I recall, this law was written decades ago and as is usually the case with those bloviating idiots on Capitol Hill, was sloppily written with no real oversight. A bureaucrats wet dream in other words.<\/p>\n

“The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the act, and according to the federal government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy,” Alito wrote.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No kidding. I\u2019ve heard that if there is a spot on the ground that might be damp a day or so after a heavy rain storm, these thugs could come in and make the owners life a living hell, or even get them thrown in jail.<\/p>\n

“The court’s decision provides a modest measure of relief,” he added. “But the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA’s tune. Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is another alternative and we are dangerously close to seeing it happening. Someone loses it and opens up on an EPA field office. Think it can\u2019t happen? It has almost happened several times in the past. Back in 2001,<\/p>\n

a moron<\/em><\/span> federal judge ruled in favor of a frivolous and flawed biological opinion put forth on behalf of the Endangered Species Act stating that the sucker fish in Klamath Lake required protection. In response to this, the Secretary of Interior, Gale Norton, appointed by President George W. Bush, made the decision to address the Judge’s decision by cutting off ALL irrigation water to 90% of the farmers in the Klamath Basin, a number representing 1400 farming families in two states.<\/p>\n

The farmers have deeded rights to the irrigation water which attach to the irrigated land as an “appurtenance”. In plain English, the farmers who own land in the Klamath Basin irrigated by Klamath Lake, own the irrigation water rights. Klamath Lake was built in the early 1900’s specifically for irrigation and the project was supposed to revert to the farmers ownership when the construction costs were paid for. The costs were paid off, but the government never ceded over the project. Many of these families are veterans who were asked to homestead the land and farm it. They have deeds signed by Presidents of the United States. ((From \u201cThe Stand at Klamath Falls<\/a>\u201d by Jeff Head<\/a>))<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I read through this a few years ago and it seems that we were very close to an outright shooting war between the farmers and the and the federal agents sent to guard the pumping station. Fortunately, someone came up with the idea to bypass the pumping station. As of now the water is flowing.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s things like this that can cause people to go over the edge. When they see that there\u2019s no real hope, they either give up or they take direct, and usually violent, action.<\/p>\n

The couple, which termed the battle “David versus Goliath,” has earned support from several lawmakers who want to reduce the grasp of the EPA on private property. Reps. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Idaho Republican Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, all joined the Chantells and other couples in a forum last fall about limiting EPA authority.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The time for limiting the power of the EPA is long past. Now, it needs to be shut down, all its regulatory authority stripped and all personnel terminated from government service. In my opinion, it can no longer be reformed.<\/p>\n

Labrador congratulated the Sacketts after the ruling.<\/p>\n

“The federal government is an intimidating force against ordinary citizens, and standing up to its bureaucracy requires extraordinary bravery. Thanks to the unwavering courage and selfless sacrifice of the Sacketts, Americans everywhere will be guaranteed the right to appeal a decision imposed by a government agency. Their victory also safeguards individual property rights against the encroachment of the federal government, a fundamental assurance of our Constitution,” he said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Frankly, this shouldn\u2019t have happened in the first place. The Federal, and to a large extent, state and local governments, have been running roughshod of people\u2019s property rights for decades. I think it may be time to write a constitutional amendment reinforcing people\u2019s right to property.<\/p>\n

Some of you may be thinking, \u201cWell if the framers of the Constitution thought it was important, they would have included it.\u201d No, they wouldn\u2019t have for a very simple reason. Back then everyone knew that your land was yours. Even King George III didn\u2019t just strip people of their property rights.<\/p>\n

So what happens now with the Sacketts? My guess is they will file another suit against the EPA after giving the EPA one last chance to BACK OFF! Does anyone actually believe the EPA will back off and stop all this nonsense? Yeah, I don\u2019t either.<\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (3<\/strong> votes, average: 1.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

\n\t
\n\t\t

<\/p>\n\t\t

<\/p>\n\t\t

Should the EPA be reformed, shut down or left as is?<\/strong><\/p>