The Sacketts and a Story of Lost Liberty
- Print print this page
- Discuss 15 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
Until the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 this past week against the Environmental Protection Agency, I'd never heard of either Michael or Chantell Sackett.
I didn't know that in 2005, the couple bought a small lot near a lake in a residential neighborhood of Idaho, and had begun clearing the land for a three bedroom house. Shortly thereafter, the EPA came along and ordered the Sacketts to cease and desist construction on their land, claiming the property to be a "wetland" and that the Sacketts were in violation of the Clean Water Act. Unless the Sacketts put the property back into its original state, the EPA decreed it would charge them $37,500 for each day they did not comply.
Now, the kicker in this sorry tale of an apparent rogue agency run amok is that the Sacketts, up until the day the Supreme Court finally heard the case, were not allowed a hearing or review with the EPA.
The EPA made its decision that the property was a wetland, even though there are pictures and video showing the plot to be water-free and case closed. For each day the Sacketts didn't fix the land or send in their check for $37,500, the EPA considered them criminals, guilty of "noncompliance."
The Supreme Court stepped in and ruled only that the Sacketts deserved a hearing and further review with the EPA.
Where to begin? First of all, I am trying to imagine the sequence of events leading up to the EPA's arrival on the Sackett property. I see a "For Sale" sign somewhere out front. Perhaps the Sacketts had seen the available property in one of those real estate brochures. Maybe they had already met with a broker, who alerted them to the small parcel that was for sale. Maybe they just drove by it one weekend afternoon and thought, "What a lovely spot to build a home."
I see them making their decision to buy, going to a bank to see about a mortgage and building loan. They reach an agreement with the bank and the seller, and the deal is closed. Perhaps they meet with an architect, or maybe since their budget is tight, they use store-bought plans for the modest home they will build.
They secure their permits with the county, check to see that the land perks, and no sooner do they break ground than along comes the EPA police, who take their land away.
Questions: With an annual budget of $10 billion of your tax dollars and 17,000 agents at its disposal, is the EPA so inefficient that it is incapable of designating the lot a wetland before the Sacketts purchased it? How did the Sacketts meet with all the people they likely did before breaking ground and none were aware that the lot was a "wetland"?
Who gave the EPA the authority to confiscate land, assess fines, and all the while without having to grant an audience to the landowners after confiscation and punitive assessment? Where on earth does the EPA think the average American is going to be able to come up with $37,500 a day to comply with its ridiculous orders?
Dear Reader, there is something about this story that is so revolting on its surface, and so frightening in its implications for individual liberty, that to think that it occurs right here in the good old USA is almost too much to believe.
So much for a government agency of common sense, decency, and serving its people efficiently. The EPA was created with the noble cause of cleaning out pollution from our waterways. Where did it get police state authority to essentially take away lawfully purchased private property?
And if the EPA is to designate what is wetland and uninhabitable, then shouldn't it have an obligation to designate the land as such, before the property is bought?
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will begin to hear testimony on whether the federal government can impose fines on individuals for not purchasing health care under the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act. The case is critical to individual liberty in the face of government power and overreach.
For the Sacketts, it's probably just another sad day in a world they have become all too used to.
Geoff Cutler is owner of Cutler Tree LLC in Southern Pines and is a regular contributor to The Pilot and PineStraw. Contact him at geoffcutler@embarqmail.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
PBinNC 1 year, 2 months ago
You hit the nail on the head in all respects. It's gotten so Americans have to be afraid of their government.
MikeNC 1 year, 2 months ago
Right on Geoff. Hopefully "The Supremes" will act supreme once again starting tomorrow. It should be a case just as cut & dry as the Sackett's.....Mike
geoffcutler 1 year, 2 months ago
I would suggest to you, im_a_harleyman, that if nine justices have a problem with this story, and you don't, then that probably says more about your leanings, whatever they are?, and less about mine. This isn't really a story conducive to the left/right thing. But you seemed to have found it.
DaveyNC 1 year, 2 months ago
Zing!!! @geoffcutler. Well done. 9-0 is about as clear cut as it can get.
moonchild7 1 year, 2 months ago
Wasn't there a case similar to this one right here in Moore Co. in the past year or so? A family also purchased property that at purchase showed "No Signs" of being "Wetland" but turned out to be "Wetland"? Didn't the EPA or Soil and Conservation do something similar to them? Does anyone know that story and what happened? Real Estate Agents are supposed to know these things but often don't tell "everything" they know about the lands that they are selling.
Thatcher 1 year, 2 months ago
Great column Geoff. Very well-written.
fugitiveguy 1 year, 1 month ago
Well done Geoff. Refreshingly relevant!
MikeNC 1 year, 1 month ago
The EPA, like Unions in the 30s, once a good thing that has now soured. As for the out come with the Supreme court this week, I feel, with regret, will up hold the law. Obamacare is going to have to be repealed. States challenging the U S government over health care. A Religion being forced to follow government mandate on something the religion opposes. The federal government suing states that want to protect their borders. Agencies finding people guilty without due process and then sentencing them with unrealistic fines. A teacher giving their middle school students the assignment of digging up dirt on GOP candidates and then tell the kids to find a way to send it to the Obama Election camp. It's Surreal. Diane
OldSpook 1 year, 1 month ago
Very well written Mr. Cutler, scares the hell out of me that an Agency of this country has such unquestionable power over those that it was created to serve.
kiki 1 year, 1 month ago
Geoff - I am in agreement with your issues with gov't agencies like the EPA.
I am pleased that the SC ruled that the Sacketts get a hearing. I would only say that your "sequence of events" didn't quite happen that way. I would caution against making the Sacketts out to be innocent victims. I think their actions were calculated and deliberate although sometimes it takes people like these and the type of attorney that they had to make changes.
Remember . . . their land still may be determined to be a "wetland" but they will at least have their "day in court".
Question . . . with whom do they appeal (grammar?)? EPA? Courts?
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
The question that needs to be answered, I think, is, where did the EPA get the authority to seize an individual's private property and levy fines? From what I've read, the EPA seems to have given itself that authority, and thus it probably falls first to Congress in administrative/legislative hearings to re-establish what the role is, and is not, of the EPA.
The Supreme Court ruling was a narrow one, to do only with forcing the EPA to give the Sacketts a hearing. Based on comments made my Justice Alito, it seems clear he would have liked to have had a chance to go after the broader issue of the EPA 's abuse of power over individuals.
moonchild7 1 year, 1 month ago
The "government" always has the right to seize property under Eminent Domain and probably "tell" people how and what they can do with and to their property at any time without much notice. As property "owners to be" everyone should know these facts. But Geoff, at least we always are allowed to have our day in court and hope it goes our way. I'm going to send this to my son to see if he has any other take on it since he works as an Urban Planner and had to study "Land Use and Planning" a lot in college. He works in that area somewhat today and might know something we don't. I've been a land and property owner since the age of 19 and believe it or not I too am upset when the government feels they can come and tell you what you can and can't do with the property you own.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
Moon, The EPA did not, until the Supreme Court ruled, have to give the people a day in court. That's what's at issue. The Sackett's property was seized after the fact, and the EPA did not allow a hearing. That's why the case went to the Supreme Court.
The EPA considered the Sacketts guilty of a crime without trial or review for every day they refused to comply with $37.500. Due Process violations, maybe? Actually, the fine was double the $37,500, or $75,000 a day. This was acknowledged in the SC hearing by Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart. 37.5 for everyday the land wasn't returned to its original state, and 37.5 everyday for violation the Clean Water Act.
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
Lucky there was a court to right this wrong. I have no idea how long it would have taken to get this on the ballot so the people could decide.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
I was waiting for you, Jim, and you don't disappoint. Predictable, perhaps, but not disappointing. The difference here is the system of checks and balances worked as it's meant to, and the SC stopped what amounts to government tyranny against an individual. That'll get my support everytime. The next step will be to shut this agency down altogether, or at the very least, require it to stick with its mandate, which is clean water.