Court gives property owners who want to build get a boost

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court strengthened the rights of property owners who are confronted by federal environmental regulators, ruling Wednesday that they are entitled to a hearing to challenge the government’s threats to fine them for building on their own land.

The 9-0 decision is a victory for an Idaho couple portrayed by critics of the Environmental Protection Agency as victims of heavy-handed regulators.

Michael and Chantell Sackett were told they faced fines of up $75,000 a day if they failed to restore their residential lot to its natural state.

The Sacketts had bought the lot near Priest Lake in Idaho planning to build a home, but after they had cleared the land, they were told by EPA officials that it was a regulated wetland.

And when the Sacketts sought to challenge this order, they were told by EPA officials, by a federal judge and by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that they had no right to a hearing. Instead, they were told to comply with the order first and then seek a permit to resume building.

Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking in the courtroom, mocked the EPA’s view that the Sacketts’ small lot was protected by federal law as part of the “navigable waters” of the United States. The couple, “never having seen a ship or other vessel cross their yard,” questioned that their lot was a wetland, Scalia said, and they are entitled to a civil hearing before the agency to contest the EPA’s jurisdiction over their property.

Critics of the EPA say the agency’s employees use “compliance orders” and threats of huge fines to force landowners to agree to strict limits on building.

Defenders of the EPA say these orders are crucial in halting pollution or development projects that could cause environmental damage.

Wednesday’s decision in Sackett vs. EPA gives the landowners a new tool for challenging the agency, but it does not change the law on what constitutes a wetland.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. faulted Congress and the EPA for not clarifying the definition of a wetland.

“Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands,” he said. “Allowing aggrieved property owners to sue under the Administrative Procedure Act is better than nothing,” he added, “but only clarification of the reach of the Clean Water Act can rectify the underlying problem.”

More in Local News

Within an hour, 2 planes crash-land at Paine Field

One simply landed hard and went off the end of a runway. Another crash involved unextended landing gear.

Mill Creek’s Donna Michelson ready to retire at year’s end

The city’s longest-serving council member says she has every intention of staying involved.

Leanne Smiciklas, the friendly lady who served customers of her husband’s Old School Barbeque from a schoolbus parked in front of the Reptile Zoo east of Monroe, has died at 64. (Dan Bates / Herald file)
Without her, beloved BBQ hotspot in Monroe can’t go on

Leanne Smiciklas, who ran the now-closed Old School BBQ along Highway 2 with her husband, died.

Foundation awards grants to Arlington schools

The Arlington Education Foundation on Nov. 13 presented a check to the… Continue reading

Snohomish County firefighters head to California for 18 days

They’re from Fire District 26 in Gold Bar, Getchell Fire and Fire District 7.

State commission reprimands Snohomish County judge for DUI

Judge Marybeth Dingledy had pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a day in jail.

Driver arrested after car strikes pedestrian in Everett

The pedestrian was crossing the road near 12th Street and Broadway. He was injured.

Active Casino Road volunteer honored for work

Molina Healthcare recently honored Jorge Galindo, from Everett, as one of its… Continue reading

Over $12K raised to InspireHER

InspireHER, a local organization that encourages female empowerment, raised over $12,000 at… Continue reading

Most Read