myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
9-0 decision against the EPA!
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4107

PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:23 pm    Post subject: 9-0 decision against the EPA! Reply with quote

You guys on the left beat on me for standing up to the EPA on this exact case a few months back. This was govt at its worst.

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON, March 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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.

Scalia concluded the Sacketts may bring a civil lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act to challenge the EPA's order.
He said that since the EPA's decision was final and the couple faced potential large fines, they had no other adequate remedy but to bring a civil lawsuit.

Reading his decision from the bench, Scalia said that the Clean Water Act does not prevent judicial review of such orders.

Under the law, violations of the Clean Water Act can result in fines of up to $37,500 per day, plus as much as an additional $37,500 per day for violating the EPA compliance order.

The EPA issues nearly 3,000 compliance orders a year that require accused violators of environmental laws to stop alleged harmful actions and repair any damage that was caused.

The justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that a compliance order was not subject to judicial review until later when the EPA has brought an enforcement action and seeks to have a judge rule in its favor.


'DAY IN COURT'

The court did not reach the broader question of whether the EPA's order violated the constitutional right of due process. It only held that the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides certain rules for federal regulatory agencies, applied.

Scalia said that the Sacketts would not get an adequate remedy if they had to apply to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit and then file suit if that permit was denied.

He said the Clean Water Act was not "uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into 'voluntary compliance' without the opportunity for judicial review."

Scalia concluded the 10-page opinion by saying the EPA's orders will remain an effective way to secure prompt, voluntary compliance in the many cases when there was no substantial basis to question their validity.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a short separate opinion concurring in the outcome. He said allowing property owners to sue was better than nothing, but urged Congress to adopt new legislation clarifying the reach of the Clean Water Act.

Government attorneys had defended the compliance orders as a quick way to stop environmental damage and argued that allowing accused polluters to get a court hearing would tie the EPA up in lengthy litigation.

An attorney for the Sacketts argued that they should not have to wait for years for judicial review until the EPA decides to go to court and said the compliance order was coercive, requiring action to avoid potentially huge fines.

Damien Schiff, the attorney for the couple, hailed the ruling. "EPA is not above the law," he said.

"That's the bottom line with today's ruling. This is a great day for Mike and Chantell Sackett, because it confirms that EPA can't deny them access to justice. EPA can't repeal the Sacketts' fundamental right to their day in court," he said.

Jon Devine, senior attorney in the water program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the EPA still can issue compliance orders.

"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."

The Supreme Court case is Sackett v EPA, No. 10-1062.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3353

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This a decision about procedure in the filing of claims.I am glad they are making easier for folks to file. The discussion here was about the merits of the Sacketts position, which the Court didnt address.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1471

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems to me that the Supreme Court's decision put the brakes on one level of government tyranny, and allows clean water issues to be addressed in the courts in a fair and timely manner.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4107

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Righttechno, They put a fine of $37,500 per day on "ANYTHING" they deem as an epa issue, which can be anything we do. Put a toy with a hidden battery in the trash etcetera.

In this case, some anarchist who worked for the govt decided to waive his hand and magically deem this property "wetlands". In modern times, there was no evidence of even a puddle on this property.

Even the worst Supreme could see this in a 9-0 decision. A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION to protect us from the abitrary tyrany of an out of control bureacracy.

The fact that this poor family had to wait 5 years with a $37,500 per day fine dangling over their head with no hearing is outrageous. The fact that the obama admin didn't back them up should show you what they are about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3353

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve let me understand this. These folks bought designated wetlands and filled them during the Bush years.
Their case is so important that the new President should be coming to their aid personally over something done to them by Bush?
The President has never helped me in a court case either.
What is this world coming coming to?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2662

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
In this case, some anarchist who worked for the govt decided to waive his hand and magically deem this property "wetlands". In modern times, there was no evidence of even a puddle on this property.

Might wanna be careful, Mr. Bard. There's no doubt that you're much smarter and better informed than the EPA, but wetlands are distinguished by the types of soil and vegetation, not the depth of the puddle.

From Wikipedia: "The primary factor that distinguishes wetlands is the characteristic vegetation that is adapted to its unique soil conditions: Wetlands are made up primarily of hydric soil, which supports aquatic plants."


keycocker wrote:
These folks bought designated wetlands and filled them during the Bush years.
Their case is so important that the new President should be coming to their aid personally over something done to them by Bush?

Remember that above all, the rabid right mantra is "Blame Obama, credit Bush."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4107

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You guys would make very good epa officials. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3353

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have not heard a word here in support of the EPA stupid ass bureaucracy.
They are wondering how Obama gets blamed for a clearly Bush clusterfu$k.
I did not support obama, but discussions of his real failings are buried under blaming him for Bush era events, like this and TARP.
If we could focus on the facts we will have a meaningful exchange.
By the way Bard and iso are not buddies. That was uncalled for.
Bard and Bush were not buddies either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1471

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why are we talking about wetlands? This story has to do with the EPA having the power to tell anyone they think may be impacting the environment in a negative way, that they must cease and desist, and then fining them $37,500 per day with NO recourse for the accused.

This is tyranny regardless of who was in office when the EPA was given this power. I don't know where the political sides stood when the EPA was unleashed, but conservative or liberal, it was wrong. I am glad the Supreme Court finally got their say.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3353

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group