Property Rights, Schmoperty Rights
Bob Unruh writes at WND of a couple looking to build a home who bought a $23K plot of land in a residential subdivision and got started -- only to have the EPA come down on them, tell them to stop and threaten them with $40 million in fines:
The case developed when the Sacketts bought a .63-acre parcel of land for $23,000 in a subdivision in their hometown of Priest Lake, Idaho. The land is 500 feet from a lake, had a city water and sewer tap assigned, had no running or standing water and was in the middle of other developed properties.The couple obtained all of the needed permits for their project and started work. Suddenly, the Environmental Protection Agency showed up on the building site, demanded that the work stop and issued a "compliance order" that the couple remove the fill they had brought in, restore the land to its native condition, plant trees every 10 feet, fence it off and let it sit for three years.
...Then they would, for costs estimated at roughly a quarter of a million dollars, be allowed to "request" permission from the government to build on their own land.
Or else, warned the agency, there is the possibility of fines of $37,500 per day - with the total now surpassing $40 million.
Chantell reported she was told by the EPA that if "you're buying a piece of property you should know if it's in wetlands."
"I started to do research. I said, 'So how do I find this piece of property in the wetlands [registry]'? And she said, 'Here's the coordinates.' When I actually pulled up the coordinates, it's not there."
No matter, said the government. Do what we want.
...The brief explains that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But the Clean Water Act gives the EPA authority to issue compliance orders, then fine defendants who are "in violation."
"Any citizen engaged in a range of activities may run afoul of the act," the brief explains. "The Clean Water Act's reach is extremely broad, requiring a permit for the discharge of 'pollutants' from a 'point source' into the 'waters of the United States,' which phrase has been interpreted by regulation to include 'wetlands.'"
The regulations, the brief contends, had been defined so broadly by the EPA that they have pertained to "land that appears to be totally dry."
"If the EPA has completed an analysis and made a determination that the property contains jurisdictional 'wetlands,' the citizen has no right to judicial review of that analysis. If the citizen hires professionals to conduct a 'wetlands' determination, EPA is not obligated to accept it. Despite any evidence, professional opinions, or agency advice the citizen obtains, EPA may still impose sanctions by a compliance order if it has 'any information' that" it wants to use to call it wetlands, the brief explains.
Which group of Americans do you think let this happen?
Which other group of Americans has been ridiculed for drawing attention to endless stories like this?
Robert W. at November 25, 2011 12:22 AM
So how come EPA's definitions of whatever are not taken into account by the town in giving the water and sewer taps and the permits? Shouldn't all these be the responsibility of the county that is giving the permits and does giving the permits and taps not mean that it is EPA compliant? Isn't it the job of different govt. agencies to act in unison rather than separately?
And even if EPA clearance has to be obtained separately, would the state not have that specified in the legal work to be done before construction can be commenced? This incident makes the USA sound like some third world country where the law is as per the interpretation of the government officials with massive discretion at their disposal.
Redrajesh at November 25, 2011 12:54 AM
A house?
If you were building, say a sprawl-mart you would have fewer problems with 'wetlands' or the EPA.
As it happens here in SWFL:
It used to be 'wetlands', now it's a Lowe's. But they put in several 'retention ponds' to replace the wetlands.
Woman buys land nearby to build a house. OOOpsy, you cannot build a house there, because of the Scrub Jays (which must not have frequented the wooded area that is now Lowe's).
Hey, it's only money.
DrCos at November 25, 2011 7:50 AM
Ah, but this is not new.
~30 years ago, not only did you have to have the approval of 16 different agencies to replace an existing dock piling at a Florida marina, then-Governor Bob Graham decided that all the land under the mean high water mark now belonged to the State - regardless of what your title said. If you had a dock, you would now be charged a fee to keep it based on the area it and its coverage subtended. Yes, you'd have to have permits to remove it, too. The state cabinet communication also stated that living on a boat was a "non-traditional use" of Florida waterways and would be discouraged. Clearly, they were not from around there.
The public said, as usual, "screw those rich people", again ironically making it harder for themselves.
The lesson is clear: if you have money, especially to pay county and state officials, you can do what you want.
You must pay them. They do not represent you.
Radwaste at November 25, 2011 7:56 AM
Sound???
Sound???
brian at November 25, 2011 8:30 AM
"So how come EPA's definitions of whatever are not taken into account by the town in giving the water and sewer taps and the permits? "
Probably because the Eric Stork Agency can and does change its mind on a whim.
Cousin Dave at November 25, 2011 11:38 AM
I used to live in a suburban tract in the outer Maryland suburbs of Washington DC. At the entrance to our tract was a small empty lot that was always a kind of a mudhole. People would park there when a nearby park and ride lot was full.
The developer of our tract put some dirt down and
filled in the mud. The EPA prosecuted him for
polluting a "waterway" that could drain into the Potomac River, more than 5 miles away.
This whole prosecution was so unnecessary. the developer got jail time for the "offense" of fixing this mud hole. But once the EPA gets a
crazy idea, there's no place for common sense.
Mike at November 25, 2011 2:41 PM
Associating any government agency and common sense is never going to happen.
When you think that every living, breathing human and animal takes in oxygen and puts out carbon dioxide -- but it is now an illegal gas. So by living your are a polluter.
Jim P. at November 25, 2011 5:03 PM
Cheaper to build the house, bundle fifty grand for a democratic senator and get your waiver. You silly land owners who work for a living have no idea how graft works.
Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at November 25, 2011 7:13 PM
This reminds me of the stuff I've seen/heard about the Lake Sunapee area in New Hampshire. My maternal grandmother's family has had a cottage on the lake there for >100 years now and we sort of all consider it partly ours. In the last few decades the "preservation society" has gained more and more power and now there the costs have gone through the roof. There are only two types of owners left: Old families (like ours) or the very rich. This year they jacked up the property tax by something like 45% which everyone in the area contested, but you have to pay it while fighting it. We "might" get some of that money back.
A few years ago my cousins back there tried to get a permit to expand part of the house, by closing in what already existed as a porch. Denied on the grounds that it would "change the rain water runoff to close to the lake." Which is a complete lie, the roof wouldn't change, there's already a roof over the porch.
Essentially you have to have enough money to grease the right palms. It's interesting how we were denied that change, but we see plenty of old places torn down and replaced with completely new (and far larger) places by the very rich owners.
There are apparently also rules limiting dock construction. Same thing about money, but for those that can't pay that much, if your dock is destroyed by the ice, you have something like 1 year (which really means 3 months since the work can only happen in the summer) to replace it. If you miss that window.. too bad... no dock anymore.
Miguelitosd at November 26, 2011 12:40 AM
My step-sister had a bunch of pine trees at her house blown down by the April tornadoes. (She was incredibly lucky that none of them fell on the house.) Because she lives lakeside on the Tennessee River, she had to get permission from TVA to have the trees that fell cut up and hauled off. Think about that: she had to get permission to cut up trees that had already fallen. What else was she supposed to do -- just let them lay there? Fortunately, TVA hasn't yet caught on to the game of extracting a lot of money for these permits, but it's still awfully silly.
Cousin Dave at November 26, 2011 8:35 AM
CD,
There's probably less technocracy involved in removing a human corpse from that property.
(Not recommending she try it.)
Crid at November 26, 2011 5:05 PM
Take off and nuke the EPA from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
mpetrie98 at November 27, 2011 1:25 PM
Leave a comment