EPA Loses Court Battle, Supreme Court Sides with Land Owners.

Till now the EPA had the authority to levy extreme fines. Based on court documents, when the EPA prevails against any person who has been issued a compliance order but has failed to comply, that amount is increased to $75,000—up to$37,500 for the statutory violation and up to an additional $37,500 for violating the compliance order. Land owners were required to pay the stiff fines and had no avenue in which to challenge an EPA ruling.



In northern Idaho couple decided to take the EP to court. The case labeled Sackett v. EPA involved the building of a property located on Priest Lake but the EPA had labeled the area a wetland and informed the Sackett's that any disturbance or building on the land would result in stiff fines. The EPA had rules that the Spackett's at times had discharged fill material into wetlands at the site filling approximately one half acre. By causing such fill material to enter waters the Sacketts have engaged, and are continuing to engage, in the ‘discharge of pollutants’. The discharge of pollutants without a permit constituted a violation of section 301 of the Clean Water Act.

The had couple hired several engineers to analyze the land and produced data that disputed the EPA's findings. The Sacketts, who do not believe that their property is subject to the Act, asked the EPA for a hearing, but that request was denied. During an interview last fall Mrs. Sackett reported this conversation she had with the EPA; 'So, why would I stop building my house?' The EPA response? 'Because we told you to.'"

The couple decided to take the EPA to District Court and eventually it was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The ultimate ruling was unanimous (9-0) in favor of the Sackett's.

Justice Alito responded in brief by saying,

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 alot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined upto $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act andanother $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.

We applaud th Supreme Court for taking the correct course of action and limiting the EPA's powers!