Thread Rating:
01-10-2012, 10:26 PM
I never realized this, but according to this article the EPA issues nearly 3,000 citations per year. I wonder how many Appalachians have done this exact same thing at one time or another?
The EPA said that Mike and Chantell Sackett illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.
The couple, who attended the Supreme Court arguments, said they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property. They paid $23,000 for their property in 2005 and decided two years later to build a three-bedroom home. Workers spent three days filling in just under a half-acre of land.
Three EPA officials showed up, said they believed the land was wetlands, asked for a permit and told the workers to stop. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that triggered the court case. The Sacketts wanted to challenge that order, but lower courts have said that they cannot.
Alito leveled some of the strongest criticism against the EPA, noting that the Sacketts had to wait until the EPA sued them to even challenge the idea that there were wetlands on their property.
âYou think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: âYou have filled in wetlands, so you canât build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to,ââ Alito said. âYou have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you donât do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.â
Chief Justice John Roberts said that because of the potential fines, few people are going to challenge the EPAâs determinations.
âBecause of the administrative compliance order, youâre really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners arenât going to say, âIâm going to risk the $37,000 a day,â Roberts said. âAll EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, itâs never going to be put to the test.â
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/supreme-...-wetlands/
[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/wp-conten...kToTop.png]
[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/wp-conten...kToTop.png]
[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/wp-conten...kToTop.png]
The EPA said that Mike and Chantell Sackett illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.
The couple, who attended the Supreme Court arguments, said they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property. They paid $23,000 for their property in 2005 and decided two years later to build a three-bedroom home. Workers spent three days filling in just under a half-acre of land.
Three EPA officials showed up, said they believed the land was wetlands, asked for a permit and told the workers to stop. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that triggered the court case. The Sacketts wanted to challenge that order, but lower courts have said that they cannot.
Alito leveled some of the strongest criticism against the EPA, noting that the Sacketts had to wait until the EPA sued them to even challenge the idea that there were wetlands on their property.
âYou think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: âYou have filled in wetlands, so you canât build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to,ââ Alito said. âYou have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you donât do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.â
Chief Justice John Roberts said that because of the potential fines, few people are going to challenge the EPAâs determinations.
âBecause of the administrative compliance order, youâre really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners arenât going to say, âIâm going to risk the $37,000 a day,â Roberts said. âAll EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, itâs never going to be put to the test.â
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/supreme-...-wetlands/
[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/wp-conten...kToTop.png]
[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/wp-conten...kToTop.png]
[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/wp-conten...kToTop.png]
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
01-10-2012, 11:23 PM
I read an article on this somewhere today, but I can't find it now. Someone in the article said the couple knew that they were buying land that is considered wetlands, when they bought it. If that was the case, I wouldn't have bought the land. But, I don't like to be told that I can or can not do with my land if I'm not harming the environment. But, then again, I live in the city, and can't do a whole lot with my land that I own now.
01-11-2012, 03:50 AM
IMO the EPA is a joke for the most part and always have been.
Theres a reason they are there, and that is a good reason. But i dont think its what there doing.
Its getting harder and harder to do any type of mining in appalachias. Any time we do anything its scrutinized. And God forbid we move a creek or river around something, even though it flowss the same way, and sometimes even better if it was moved.
Theres a reason they are there, and that is a good reason. But i dont think its what there doing.
Its getting harder and harder to do any type of mining in appalachias. Any time we do anything its scrutinized. And God forbid we move a creek or river around something, even though it flowss the same way, and sometimes even better if it was moved.
01-11-2012, 08:29 AM
TheRealVille Wrote:I read an article on this somewhere today, but I can't find it now. Someone in the article said the couple knew that they were buying land that is considered wetlands, when they bought it. If that was the case, I wouldn't have bought the land. But, I don't like to be told that I can or can not do with my land if I'm not harming the environment. But, then again, I live in the city, and can't do a whole lot with my land that I own now.
According to the video (in the link) with the Sacketts, the previous owner told them they had checked with the Corps of Engineers and they told them the lot was ok to build on.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
