Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-21-2012, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,990,690 times
Reputation: 7118

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty View Post
I see you have been drinking the kool aide again. Since lower courts have repedeatly sided with the EPA on this issue they won't win.
Do you have idea of the chain of command in the judiciary?

Hey, did you hear, SCOTUS found against the EPA today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2012, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,307,027 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch View Post
Pity the Sacketts? Not much - High Country News

Pity the Sacketts? Not much

by Judith Lewis Mernit
It's hard not to feel for Mike and Chantell Sackett, the Idaho couple who saw their plans for a dream home on a remote Idaho lake kiboshed by the EPA in 2007. In early January, when their case against the federal agency went before the U.S. Supreme Court, their lawyer, Damien Schiff, told a story of shock and deprivation, one designed to terrify independent dream-home builders nationwide.
"They have been injured by the EPA," he argued. The agency's "arbitrary and capricious" decision-making has "turned their world upside down."
But the Sacketts aren't the only ones whose dreams are at stake here. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency should also worry another set of Westerners: People whose livelihoods depend on tourists who come to their national forests to fish, relax or otherwise enjoy clean water and public land that is still untrammeled by development. Because as the case plays out in the courts and the news, EPA officials seem increasingly distanced from the people whose natural resources they're charged with protecting.
Even if the nine justices uphold two lower court opinions and throw the Sacketts' case out, the agency and its staff will probably still look like the bullies Chantell Sackett says they are -- or worse, as Idaho Republican Sen. Jim Risch diplomatically puts it -- the "Gestapo."
According to the Sacketts, people in their employ were dredging away on the new lot, 500 feet from the shore of Priest Lake, when three EPA representatives turned up and ordered them to stop: The workers, they said, were destroying a wetland protected by federal law. The EPA then sent the Sacketts a "compliance order" threatening up to $75,000 per day in fines.
The Sacketts lost the $23,000 they invested in their land and their plans were crushed. Worse, they couldn't dispute the wetland designation in court, because a mere compliance order, however threatening, isn't open to such challenges. For that, you have to wait until the feds are about to throw you in jail.
So the Sacketts, with free help from the Pacific Legal Foundation, sued the EPA not over whether their land contains wetlands, but over their due-process right to plead their case before a judge. Attorney Schiff, whose firm lives to dismantle environmental law in the name of property rights, effectively portrayed the Sacketts as a helpless couple trapped in a no-man's land between the permit-granting U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the bullying EPA, confused and misled about what the term "wetland" even means.
The EPA's lawyer, on the other hand, plunged the court into such a thicket of legalese that little useful information emerged unscathed. "We believe that the following steps are necessary in order to achieve perspective compliance with the act, and if you don't do these things you will be subject to the following penalties because you will then be in violation of the act and you will be subject to the penalties," U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart argued.
To which Chief Justice John Roberts appropriately replied, "I didn't follow that."
But the Sacketts don't really deserve the sympathy they're getting. A timeline Chantell Sackett created for the Army Corps of Engineers reveals that she and her husband knew early on that they were building on a wetland. The Sacketts run an excavation and construction business; the law should not have been a mystery to them. Even the local golf course brags about its stunning wetlands.
Nor did the EPA officials show up at the Sackett lot unbidden; they were responding to a complaint from a local resident. Some area residents are battling against a 14-lot subdivision planned for the north end of Priest Lake, which is also a refuge for threatened bull trout in the Kaniksu National Forest.
That forest also supports both black and grizzly bears, along with wolves, elk and caribou. Those creatures might be mere trivialities to the Sacketts, who in an interview with a sneering right-wing radio host shrugged that they see no wildlife save the occasional desultory deer. But many of their fellow residents, including some humans, feel differently. And they have property rights, too.

Those rights are hardly helped, however, by the EPA's clumsy communication and apparent institutional hostility to the press -- or to any kind of good storytelling, even before the nation's highest court.
Forty years ago, Congress wrote the Clean Water Act with the clear understanding that individuals alone can't protect the clean lakes and streams upon which they depend. Enforcing that law certainly includes restraining developers big and small who might carelessly pollute our waterways. But unless someone in the Obama administration steps up to tell that story -- to explain that the EPA is in fact an agent of the people, acting on our behalf -- these kinds of little-guy-faces-down-the-feds scenarios will continue to dominate the discussion over how best to protect our water, air and wilderness. The forces that want to eliminate those protections altogether will prevail. And we'll all lose.
Judith Mernit Lewis is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). She is a contributing editor for High Country News and lives in Venice, California.
© High Country News
Why didn't you go ahead and highlight the portion of your article that I put in red that follows your highlighted part? Of course, it is obvious why you didn't but go ahead and say it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Lakeside
5,266 posts, read 8,756,813 times
Reputation: 5702
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Whose land is this picture of, just so I can know something about the whole thing. Scroll down to the picture and tell me who it belongs to.

http:Case | PLF and the Sacketts take EPA to the Supreme Court - Pacific Legal Foundation
That picture in your link is the Sackett's lot. Those plants surrounding the fill are wetlands plants and there is water all around that. The adjacent land is wet and the photographer is standing on the road. Behind him is open marsh. It's possible the houses in the picture are also built on wetlands but I'm assuming they've been there a long time. They are right on the lake.

The EPA shouldn't have much trouble justifying their wetlands designation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,307,027 times
Reputation: 4269
If this picture stands up against the riverranch then it appears that the signs are quite a bit lower than the supposed construction site. I don't see how land that much lower is involved in wetlands.

I hate that word wetlands because it shows up all the time in the words of ICLEI and Agenda 21. Is there any chance of some collusion here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,307,027 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch View Post
That's not even the land in question.
We have your word and I don't intend to accept it without some proof. Nasty old man, huh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Lakeside
5,266 posts, read 8,756,813 times
Reputation: 5702
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Why didn't you go ahead and highlight the portion of your article that I put in red that follows your highlighted part? Of course, it is obvious why you didn't but go ahead and say it.

If I were trying to hide it, I would have clipped it out. I'm not a fan of the EPA's heavyhanded tactics either and I'm glad that citizens have a recourse against them. But I also don't like people riding roughshod over rules put in place to protect the environment and lying about it.

Of course this is just blah, blah blah to you, I'm assuming because no rules protecting the environment are good ones?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,307,027 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch View Post
True...because the land in question has piles of fill standing in water and cattails.
Come on and provide some of your own pictures since you are calling all these people liars with nothing but your word.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Lakeside
5,266 posts, read 8,756,813 times
Reputation: 5702
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
We have your word and I don't intend to accept it without some proof. Nasty old man, huh.

No, just a predictable and stupid one. For that matter..you're probably not even a man. Just a sour old woman impersonating a man on the internet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 05:12 PM
 
208 posts, read 318,570 times
Reputation: 220
The EPA is a joke. Don't believe me? On recent example: they contracted with a certain solar panel company that I cannot name to purchase panels to put on some buildings in NY. In their words...didn't matter if the units worked or not b/c they just needed to "look green." The cost was going to be over 500K just for this one project. So...500K of our money, to buy stuff that didn't work, so they could give us all the illusion that their buildings were green.

I don't know the full details of the Sackett story but did read up on some of it. Regardless of timelines, etc...I think they're pretty stupid if they want to build their "dream home" on swampland, filled in our not, but at the same time I don't agree with the EPA strongarming citizens with governmental power and threats of financial ruin over privately owned land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Lakeside
5,266 posts, read 8,756,813 times
Reputation: 5702
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Come on and provide some of your own pictures since you are calling all these people liars with nothing but your word.

You have the picture. Do you see the wetlands plants around the fill? If I run up and take a picture you'll accuse me of making that up.

Meh...you're a silly old fool. No need bothering with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top