U.S. top court backs landowners, limits power of EPA

[OpportunityCost]

U.S. top court backs landowners, limits power of EPA | Reuters

By James Vicini
WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:11pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners can sue to challenge a federal government compliance order under the clean water law, a decision that sides with corporate groups and puts new limits on a key Environmental Protection Agency power.
The justices unanimously rejected the government's position that individuals or companies must first fail to comply with an EPA order and face potentially costly enforcement action before a court can review the case.
The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia was a victory for an Idaho couple who challenged a 2007 EPA order that required them to restore a wetland they had filled with dirt and rock as they began to build a new vacation home near Priest Lake. They were also told to stop construction on the home.
The couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, denied their property had ever contained a wetland and complained they were being forced to comply with an order without a court hearing.
Their appeal drew support from the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Home Builders and General Electric Co, a company that had made a similar challenge to the EPA compliance orders.
The Supreme Court's ruling comes at a time when the EPA has faced fierce criticism from many Republicans in Congress who say it has issued the most ambitious clean air regulations in decades and has become heavy-handed in enforcement actions

Very big news. The EPA can no longer fine a person and refuse to act on the fining process by never going to court. If the EPA wants to begin action against someone they need to do it through the courts, not by issuing fines until they bankrupt a land owner.

 

[EnigmaO01]

U.S. top court backs landowners, limits power of EPA | Reuters



Very big news. The EPA can no longer fine a person and refuse to act on the fining process by never going to court. If the EPA wants to begin action against someone they need to do it through the courts, not by issuing fines until they bankrupt a land owner.

I believe we need an EPA and I'm all for the Clean Water Act. However at the same time this agency has far too much absolute power and needed to be reined in. This is a win for those of us that don't have the resources to battle an agency like this and frankly they've hurt some good people.

 

[Donc]

U.S. top court backs landowners, limits power of EPA | Reuters



Very big news. The EPA can no longer fine a person and refuse to act on the fining process by never going to court. If the EPA wants to begin action against someone they need to do it through the courts, not by issuing fines until they bankrupt a land owner.

Another reason to elect Dems. Gotta get some balance in the top court, are we will all be wearing respirators and eating/drinking green corp slime 24/7.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Good - good to see a slight change in 'business as usual'

"The Supreme Court did not give anyone a license to pollute. Pure and simple. Those who pollute our waters will still be held accountable," he said. The ruling "grants recipients of such orders, at a time of their choosing, a day in court to challenge them to promote speedy resolution of pollution problems."

 

[Samhain]

Its nice to see all federal agencies lose the ability to bar people from filing suit against them.

They can no longer hide behind the "well, we didn't issue a final ruling, so you can't question our orders" shield.

The couple tried numerous times to request a hearing with the EPA to reconsider their decision, only to be told that the decision wasn't final, and they should just wait till they decided to make a final decision, which could come sooner, later, or never. Especially since the EPA was trying to fine them 70,000 a day, for a ruling that couldn't be challenged because it wasn't a "final" decision.

Complete bumpkis, and they got caught with their pants down.

 

[buck]

Another reason to elect Dems. Gotta get some balance in the top court, are we will all be wearing respirators and eating/drinking green corp slime 24/7.

Did you miss the part about this being a unanimous decision? Even the liberals on the court agreed.

 

[Blue_State]

Another reason to elect Dems. Gotta get some balance in the top court, are we will all be wearing respirators and eating/drinking green corp slime 24/7.

These people were being fined and were not getting representation. That is rediculous. They had a legitimate complaint and big government was pushing them around. The courts did right on this one and protected the individual.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Another reason to elect Dems. Gotta get some balance in the top court, are we will all be wearing respirators and eating/drinking green corp slime 24/7.

Uhh, married homeowners, EPA declared their homestead a wetland and refused to do any court proceedings so they could defend themselves. Court ruled unanimously against the EPA. Right or left, this was a good decision on agencies and property rights.

 

[patrickbwayne]

And the same people that praise this decision have no problem with a canadian oil company using eminent domain to take peoples land in Neb, Ok, etc to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Apparently it is just a matter of who's ox is getting gored.

 

[Neal N. Bloeme]

I live near this area where the couple are located. It's big news here and very welcome. The EPA needs to be stood up to. This is tyranny.

 

[OpportunityCost]

And the same people that praise this decision have no problem with a canadian oil company using eminent domain to take peoples land in Neb, Ok, etc to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Apparently it is just a matter of who's ox is getting gored.

You think I like Kelo? Youre mistaken. I have problems with eminent domain, but the two are apples and oranges.