Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Americans: 1 EPA: 0   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, Little Guy, EPA, Idaho Panhandle  
•       •       •

9648 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Mar 2012 at 1:05 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-03-21 01:11:28 PM  
FTA: The Sacketts property did not border Priest Lake, but the EPA determined gravel on the lot amounted to a pollutant into "waters of the Untied States."

WTF is an untied state?
 
2012-03-21 01:11:31 PM  
But Alito, in a concurring opinion Wednesday, said for "a nation that values due process," the bureaucracy the Sacketts endured was "unthinkable."

It's completely thinkable, Samuel. This is no different from dealing with any government agency.

They'll probably lose at the hearing.
 
2012-03-21 01:15:09 PM  
The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.
 
2012-03-21 01:15:29 PM  
This all could have been avoided if the original permit process included a check with the EPA to see if the land was protected or not. chances are, had the owners known up front, they would not have chosen that specific parcel.

Now, should the "process" allow for them to have a hearing or redress of some kind with the EPA to try and work out a solution? Absolutely. Should any fines be scaled to the level of the offense? Definitely.

Are they likely to prevail at a hearing? No, at least not outright.
 
2012-03-21 01:19:30 PM  

Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.


Damn time machine!
 
2012-03-21 01:20:10 PM  

Creoena: FTA: The Sacketts property did not border Priest Lake, but the EPA determined gravel on the lot amounted to a pollutant into "waters of the Untied States."

WTF is an untied state?


Dunno, but maybe we can use the fact that Florida and Arizona are "unglued" states and work from there...
 
2012-03-21 01:22:46 PM  

Pardon Me Sultan: Creoena: FTA: The Sacketts property did not border Priest Lake, but the EPA determined gravel on the lot amounted to a pollutant into "waters of the Untied States."

WTF is an untied state?

Dunno, but maybe we can use the fact that Florida and Arizona are "unglued" states and work from there...


Oklahoma and Mississippi are unhinged.
 
2012-03-21 01:25:40 PM  

Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.


That's what reality would like you to believe, isn't it?
 
2012-03-21 01:28:43 PM  

Yakk: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

Damn time machine!


I was really confused by the author's inclusion of this "defeat for the Obama administration" phrase.

the dispute began in 2005 or 2006. oh well, i guess you just have to have a little ffun when you're a journalist, Tebow is an excellent quarterback and will the superbowl if the EPA wins.
 
2012-03-21 01:32:25 PM  

Yakk: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

Damn time machine!


Does this socialist knows no bounds?.
 
2012-03-21 01:32:49 PM  
How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.
 
2012-03-21 01:37:40 PM  
The agency still maintains the land is a wetland, and says the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an "after-the-fact" permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners.

So basically, they bought a lot without having it properly checked out and started building on the lot - again - without having it properly inspected. The EPA said in their haste the couple ruined a wetland and offered the chance to fix it cheaply and quickly after the fact, but the couple decided they don't like the EPA on principle so they spent tens of thousands of dollars in court and still haven't built their house close to ten years later. The only sure fire prediction anybody can make right now is that their basement will be flooded every time it rains.
 
2012-03-21 01:41:19 PM  
So basically, they bought a lot without having it properly checked out and started building on the lot - again - without having it properly inspected. The EPA said in their haste the couple ruined a wetland and offered the chance to fix it cheaply and quickly after the fact, but the couple decided they don't like the EPA on principle so they spent tens of thousands of dollars in court and still haven't built their house close to ten years later. The only sure fire prediction anybody can make right now is that their basement will be flooded every time it rains.

Why do you hate the American dream?
 
2012-03-21 01:43:06 PM  

Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.


How about the farking truth? It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's the U.S. government against the people. While everyone is busy arguing about which party is better/worse and who did what to whom...everyone is missing the farking point. BOTH parties are part of the same bureaucracy that increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of Individual liberty. NEITHER party gives a damn about you personally, only increasing their power over you.
 
2012-03-21 01:44:00 PM  

CygnusDarius: Yakk: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

Damn time machine!

Does this socialist knows no bounds?.


I'm just curious why the Starfleet Department of Temporal Investigations hasn't lowered the boom on him yet.
 
2012-03-21 01:45:10 PM  

SnakeLee: The agency still maintains the land is a wetland, and says the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an "after-the-fact" permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners.

So basically, they bought a lot without having it properly checked out and started building on the lot - again - without having it properly inspected. The EPA said in their haste the couple ruined a wetland and offered the chance to fix it cheaply and quickly after the fact, but the couple decided they don't like the EPA on principle so they spent tens of thousands of dollars in court and still haven't built their house close to ten years later. The only sure fire prediction anybody can make right now is that their basement will be flooded every time it rains.


This article sucks. Paragraph after paragraph about property rights, and these people fighting against bureaucracy. A few big quotes from Alito about how unfair this is. Like, maybe two sentences about the fact that this land was protected.

Hey cnn. How about you discuss why you can't build on wetlands? That seems relevant.
 
2012-03-21 01:45:46 PM  

slayer199: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

How about the farking truth? It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's the U.S. government against the people. While everyone is busy arguing about which party is better/worse and who did what to whom...everyone is missing the farking point. BOTH parties are part of the same bureaucracy that increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of Individual liberty. NEITHER party gives a damn about you personally, only increasing their power over you.


That's a valid point in general, but I don't see how this applies to this case. I don't see anyone's liberties being violated
 
2012-03-21 01:46:09 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.


Scalia was in the dissent in Kelo (along with Thomas). Neither Alito or Roberts were on the court then.
 
2012-03-21 01:46:09 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.


You mean Kelo v New London? It was 5-4 in favor of the city taking land for whatever they darn well wanted. The five were Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The four were O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.
 
2012-03-21 01:46:54 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.


Lol. Better check yourself on what judge was on what side for kelo. The leftist jurists hold that bag.
 
2012-03-21 01:47:24 PM  
*lights up, puffs*

Was it good for you ChubbyTiger?
 
2012-03-21 01:48:34 PM  

Creoena: WTF is an untied state?


Idaho.
 
2012-03-21 01:48:38 PM  

Dafatone: SnakeLee: The agency still maintains the land is a wetland, and says the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an "after-the-fact" permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners.

So basically, they bought a lot without having it properly checked out and started building on the lot - again - without having it properly inspected. The EPA said in their haste the couple ruined a wetland and offered the chance to fix it cheaply and quickly after the fact, but the couple decided they don't like the EPA on principle so they spent tens of thousands of dollars in court and still haven't built their house close to ten years later. The only sure fire prediction anybody can make right now is that their basement will be flooded every time it rains.

This article sucks. Paragraph after paragraph about property rights, and these people fighting against bureaucracy. A few big quotes from Alito about how unfair this is. Like, maybe two sentences about the fact that this land was protected.

Hey cnn. How about you discuss why you can't build on wetlands? That seems relevant.


Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.
 
2012-03-21 01:48:51 PM  

slayer199: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

How about the farking truth? It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's the U.S. government against the people. While everyone is busy arguing about which party is better/worse and who did what to whom...everyone is missing the farking point. BOTH parties are part of the same bureaucracy that increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of Individual liberty. NEITHER party gives a damn about you personally, only increasing their power over you.


No you are missing the point and that is "an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.", this is a Repuglican propaganda piece designed to make the EPA and Democrats look bad. Why? Because Mitt Romeney, the Republican candidate for President, has promised to abolish the EPA if elected.

I'm guessing that we will see many more of these EPA bad propaganda articles, posing as real journalism, before the election is over.
 
2012-03-21 01:49:01 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: *lights up, puffs*

Was it good for you ChubbyTiger?


Niiiiiice.
 
2012-03-21 01:51:16 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.


I hate to rain on your parade of ignorance, but you might want to try reading up on Kelo v. City of New London. That's the case where the city took land from home owners to hand it over to Pfizer so they could build a new corporate office on it. The dissenters (those on the side of the home owners) were Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor (replaced by Alito) and Rehnquist (replaced by Roberts). The majority (those on the side of the corporation) were Stevens (replaced by Kagan), Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter (replaced by Sotomayor), and Kennedy.

So to say that the outcome would be different if the land was going to be handed over to a corporation is to be ignorant of the history of eminent domain law in the US.
 
2012-03-21 01:51:35 PM  

MyRandomName: Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.


Nobody cares, until they find themselves up against the EPA.
 
2012-03-21 01:53:04 PM  
My brother bought a house that had a portion of his backyard dedicated to a small wildlife refuge. "Don't build there, don't fill it in, don't disrupt the plants, etc." It was all clearly laid out before he bought the house and he got a pretty, small wild pond out of it. These cases don't always have to resort to "little guy" vs. the "big bad government" or partisanship as long as the buying party is clearly informed beforehand.
 
2012-03-21 01:53:58 PM  

ChubbyTiger: Kelo


MyRandomName: kelo


Damn me and my slow typing.
 
2012-03-21 01:54:44 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Because Mitt Romeney, the Republican candidate for President, has promised to abolish the EPA if elected


(citationneeded.jpg)
 
2012-03-21 01:54:45 PM  
i301.photobucket.com
 
2012-03-21 01:55:23 PM  
Aryan hicks in the Idaho panhandle do not represent Americans, subby.
 
2012-03-21 01:57:10 PM  

max_pooper: Pardon Me Sultan: Creoena: FTA: The Sacketts property did not border Priest Lake, but the EPA determined gravel on the lot amounted to a pollutant into "waters of the Untied States."

WTF is an untied state?

Dunno, but maybe we can use the fact that Florida and Arizona are "unglued" states and work from there...

Oklahoma and Mississippi are unhinged.


Texas is unstable
 
2012-03-21 01:57:23 PM  

MyRandomName: AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.

Lol. Better check yourself on what judge was on what side for kelo. The leftist jurists hold that bag.


That's why I asked the question. I didn't know who voted which way and didn't feel like looking it up. I still believe if this was a case against a corporation, the SCOTUS would side with the corporation, especially Roberts.
 
2012-03-21 01:59:10 PM  
Sound pretty clear cut to me.

Couple bought land that they knew was wetland and tried to build on it before anyone found out. Couple got caught and was told fix the mess they created.

Just because you buy land doesn't mean you have the right to do with it whatever you please. It's your responsibility to know what you can do with it, and to follow the laws.

Hell, if they went thought he proper process 9/10 times they'll get a ruling saying the wetland is instead a vernal pool and be allowed to fill it in, less some rare creature is found in it.
 
2012-03-21 01:59:18 PM  

Dafatone: This article sucks. Paragraph after paragraph about property rights, and these people fighting against bureaucracy. A few big quotes from Alito about how unfair this is. Like, maybe two sentences about the fact that this land was protected.

Hey cnn. How about you discuss why you can't build on wetlands? That seems relevant.


Maybe they could add a sentence or two about the fact that all the land owners wanted was a hearing regarding whether or not their property actually met the definition of a wetland, instead of just having to take the EPA's word for it. That's all this case was about, whether or not they were entitled to a hearing. That doesn't seem too unreasonable, especially considering that the EPA has a history of going out of its way to avoid defining 'wetlands' so that they can use the power at their discretion to screw over some land owners and not others, even when the land at issue is nearly identical.
 
2012-03-21 02:00:09 PM  

SnakeLee: The agency still maintains the land is a wetland, and says the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an "after-the-fact" permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners.

So basically, they bought a lot without having it properly checked out and started building on the lot - again - without having it properly inspected. The EPA said in their haste the couple ruined a wetland and offered the chance to fix it cheaply and quickly after the fact, but the couple decided they don't like the EPA on principle so they spent tens of thousands of dollars in court and still haven't built their house close to ten years later. The only sure fire prediction anybody can make right now is that their basement will be flooded every time it rains.


They bought a lot in a designated subdivision. A subdivision that already had other homes and had gone through the County Planning and Zoning process.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider checking on the wetlands designation for a lot in a subdivision.
 
2012-03-21 02:01:53 PM  
MyRandomName:
Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.


there's a ranting idiot in this thread, but it ain't the guy you quoted...
 
2012-03-21 02:04:20 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I still believe if this was a case against a corporation, the SCOTUS would side with the corporation, especially Roberts.


Most people wouldn't admit that they hold onto their prejudices despite solid evidence to the contrary. I applaud your honesty.
 
2012-03-21 02:05:48 PM  
Talondel: Dafatone: This article sucks. Paragraph after paragraph about property rights, and these people fighting against bureaucracy. A few big quotes from Alito about how unfair this is. Like, maybe two sentences about the fact that this land was protected.

Hey cnn. How about you discuss why you can't build on wetlands? That seems relevant.

Maybe they could add a sentence or two about the fact that all the land owners wanted was a hearing regarding whether or not their property actually met the definition of a wetland, instead of just having to take the EPA's word for it. That's all this case was about, whether or not they were entitled to a hearing. That doesn't seem too unreasonable, especially considering that the EPA has a history of going out of its way to avoid defining 'wetlands' so that they can use the power at their discretion to screw over some land owners and not others, even when the land at issue is nearly identical.


Thats fine and all, but that's something you do before construction.

They wanted a hearing and they wanted the fines to stop until that hearing. The EPA told them rightfully to DIAF. They tried using the dog ate my homework logic.

They were also offered help restoring it to not be fined.
 
2012-03-21 02:07:36 PM  

MyRandomName: Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.


Hey did you know that there are guidelines? The easiest way to tell is checking to see if there are a bunch of plants that only grow in wetlands there. You can also take soil samples and compare them to a set of swatches like you would have for house paint. The swatches have the colors of different soils that have been seeped in water to varying degrees. All you have to do is compare really quickly. It's not really that complicated and there are clear indicators.
 
2012-03-21 02:07:58 PM  

weiserfireman: They bought a lot in a designated subdivision. A subdivision that already had other homes and had gone through the County Planning and Zoning process.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider checking on the wetlands designation for a lot in a subdivision.


There are subdivisions here in Utah that should have NEVER been built in parts of the Salt Lake Valley. Many homeowners in these areas get farked when the water table rises, basements flood out, two year old homes that have cracks in the walls from heavy machinery driving by to grade the next set of lots...
Palms were greased, and city officials signed off for the developers. Homeowners can't sue since the developer in broke or out of business.

Some of these "lake front" Idaho properties might have been built the same way... Hurry up and build before someone actually checks it out. Guaranteed that local officials are holding some prime lots as gifts.
 
2012-03-21 02:08:08 PM  

ChubbyTiger: You mean Kelo v New London? It was 5-4 in favor of the city taking land for whatever they darn well wanted. The five were Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The four were O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.


Yep, all to build luxury condos.

Did I say luxury condos? I meant a dump (new window).
 
2012-03-21 02:08:24 PM  
A picture of the "wetlands" in question, notice the lake in the background. EPA said this was wetlands because runoff from the lot might carry the fill into the lake.
www.pacificlegal.org Homeowners just wanted a hearing on whether it was a wetland or not. EPA didn't want to allow a hearing on this issue. The EPA feels that it will open a whole can of worms that they don't want to deal with if people can challenge the designation of what is wetland or what isn't without going through the permit process.
 
2012-03-21 02:08:51 PM  

weiserfireman: They bought a lot in a designated subdivision. A subdivision that already had other homes and had gone through the County Planning and Zoning process.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider checking on the wetlands designation for a lot in a subdivision


A.) I would absolutely check, but that is because I know about this stuff and B.) This is a good lesson for you.

Where is the party of personal responsibility on this?
 
2012-03-21 02:10:39 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.


They voted *AGAINST* the majority in Kelo, at least Scalia did. Alito and Roberts weren't on the court at the time. O'Connor authored the dissent, which was signed by Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Thomas also authored a separate dissent.

Those who voted for the majority, and thus approved of government taking private property via eminent domain in order to transfer it to corporations (and not for public use, like a library or a highway) were the liberal wing of the court: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer.

Kelo v. City of New London Wikipedia page.

Yes, the conservatives thought it was an abuse of eminent domain, but the liberals were fine with it.
 
2012-03-21 02:11:58 PM  

weiserfireman: A picture of the "wetlands" in question, notice the lake in the background. EPA said this was wetlands because runoff from the lot might carry the fill into the lake.
[www.pacificlegal.org image 550x367] Homeowners just wanted a hearing on whether it was a wetland or not. EPA didn't want to allow a hearing on this issue. The EPA feels that it will open a whole can of worms that they don't want to deal with if people can challenge the designation of what is wetland or what isn't without going through the permit process.


Right, it's a seasonal wetland and is directly in the line of where all the run off for the area flows into the lake. There are ways to divert the water, they could have addressed that after the fact. Trust me, you don't want a house built in the line of that. It is going to cause major structural damage, flood all the time and it will pollute the lake that everyone is using. The yard will be an ice field all winter. It only doesn't look like a seasonal wetland in that picture because they dumped gravel all over it.
 
2012-03-21 02:12:16 PM  

weiserfireman: A picture of the "wetlands" in question, notice the lake in the background. EPA said this was wetlands because runoff from the lot might carry the fill into the lake.
[www.pacificlegal.org image 550x367] Homeowners just wanted a hearing on whether it was a wetland or not. EPA didn't want to allow a hearing on this issue. The EPA feels that it will open a whole can of worms that they don't want to deal with if people can challenge the designation of what is wetland or what isn't without going through the permit process.


Looks like they filled it as fast as they could so it would look dry. Even from that pic, you can tell that the building, center left towards the lake is sitting on a pretty thick base!
That lot was a low marshy spot before the fill.
 
2012-03-21 02:15:16 PM  
FTFA: "If you related the facts of this case -- as they come to us -- to an ordinary homeowner," Justice Samuel Alito asked the government's attorney, "don't you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can't happen in the United States?"

Um, since they didn't yet build the house, how do they qualify as 'homeowners' to Alito? Landowners, sure, but not homeowners.
 
2012-03-21 02:17:22 PM  
One other tidbit, EPA said that the only solution, besides restoring the "wetlands", and applying for a permit, was to wait until the EPA lost patience and initiated a lawsuit. Then there would be the huge fines for violation of the Clean Water Act and additional fines for ignoring their demand letters.

EPA said the Homeowners don't have the right to initiate the legal proceedings.

I don't know if this was a wetland or not. I don't know if the EPA was acting appropriately or not.

But I did agree with the SCOTUS, I didn't think it was appropriate, if the homeowner didn't agree with the wetlands designation, for them to have to spend thousands of dollars to restore the property, apply for a wetlands permit and have to wait for the permitting process to finish, and have the EPA to say "oh sorry, the wetlands designation was inappropriate, you don't need a permit"

There should be a process that the Landowner can use to challenge the designation, besides the permit process. If they lose the challenge, the fines will be enforced to the day of the letter, as they should be. But not being able to challenge the letter without complying with it first? That is just wrong.
 
2012-03-21 02:18:30 PM  

dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

They voted *AGAINST* the majority in Kelo, at least Scalia did. Alito and Roberts weren't on the court at the time. O'Connor authored the dissent, which was signed by Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Thomas also authored a separate dissent.

Those who voted for the majority, and thus approved of government taking private property via eminent domain in order to transfer it to corporations (and not for public use, like a library or a highway) were the liberal wing of the court: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer.

Kelo v. City of New London Wikipedia page.

Yes, the conservatives thought it was an abuse of eminent domain, but the liberals were fine with it.


Way to stick it to......er I mean stick up for the little guy libbys!!! Keep fighting the good fight!!!!
 
2012-03-21 02:19:19 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: No you are missing the point and that is "an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.", this is a Repuglican propaganda piece designed to make the EPA and Democrats look bad. Why? Because Mitt Romeney, the Republican candidate for President, has promised to abolish the EPA if elected.

I'm guessing that we will see many more of these EPA bad propaganda articles, posing as real journalism, before the election is over.



You can name most any government agency, and you can find a case where they've abused or exceeded their power at the expense of individual liberty and property rights. The EPA is only one such agency. Keep drinking the cool-aid. Your party is perfect, the EPA is perfect and Obama can do no wrong. People like you who have blind faith in their party and point the finger at the other party are part of the problem. Thanks for making my point for me.

slayer199: How about the farking truth? It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's the U.S. government against the people. While everyone is busy arguing about which party is better/worse and who did what to whom...everyone is missing the farking point. BOTH parties are part of the same bureaucracy that increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of Individual liberty. NEITHER party gives a damn about you personally, only increasing their power over you.


I'm neither a republican nor a democrat. I hate both parties.
 
2012-03-21 02:20:21 PM  
On another issue,

I believe that if the EPA designates land as wetlands, they should be required to attach that restriction to the Deed so that a Title search will find that information.
 
2012-03-21 02:20:52 PM  

weiserfireman: One other tidbit, EPA said that the only solution, besides restoring the "wetlands", and applying for a permit, was to wait until the EPA lost patience and initiated a lawsuit. Then there would be the huge fines for violation of the Clean Water Act and additional fines for ignoring their demand letters.

EPA said the Homeowners don't have the right to initiate the legal proceedings.

I don't know if this was a wetland or not. I don't know if the EPA was acting appropriately or not.

But I did agree with the SCOTUS, I didn't think it was appropriate, if the homeowner didn't agree with the wetlands designation, for them to have to spend thousands of dollars to restore the property, apply for a wetlands permit and have to wait for the permitting process to finish, and have the EPA to say "oh sorry, the wetlands designation was inappropriate, you don't need a permit"

There should be a process that the Landowner can use to challenge the designation, besides the permit process. If they lose the challenge, the fines will be enforced to the day of the letter, as they should be. But not being able to challenge the letter without complying with it first? That is just wrong.


Due Process is a crutch.
 
2012-03-21 02:21:03 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's a valid point in general, but I don't see how this applies to this case. I don't see anyone's liberties being violated


I was refuting the claim that the EPA was a Bush or Obama win/loss. It's neither and both.
 
2012-03-21 02:21:09 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.


Alito and Roberts weren't on the Court for the Kelo decision.

O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas were the dissenting opinions.

The majority and concurring opinions were Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens.

After the ruling, George W. Bush issued an Executive Order stating the federal government would restrict the use of eminent domain "for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

Basically, the conservatives were sticking up for the rights of the property owners.
 
2012-03-21 02:23:43 PM  
Another one of Bush's little time bombs going off.
 
2012-03-21 02:26:28 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: AdolfOliverPanties: I still believe if this was a case against a corporation, the SCOTUS would side with the corporation, especially Roberts.

Most people wouldn't admit that they hold onto their prejudices despite solid evidence to the contrary. I applaud your honesty.


Roberts was a corporate lawyer. He is the Chief Justice. I get that I was wrong on the Kelo decision, but I admitted not knowing who was on the court at the time. I asked, for fark's sake.

IANAL and don't play one on TV. I believe what I believe, but I would hesitate to call it a prejudice. I trust Roberts about as far as I could throw Sotomayor.
 
2012-03-21 02:27:44 PM  
The county who issued the permit badly failed these homeowners if they didn't know their project would be subject to EPA inspection under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). On the other hand, the EPA would be overstepping their bounds if they claimed the wetlands as "Waters of the US" if the Corp of Engineers didn't claim this wetland as such, as they're the regulator of such things. I wish the author of TFA knew more on the process instead of being a cheerleader against Obama...
 
2012-03-21 02:28:17 PM  

SnakeLee: Hey did you know that there are guidelines?


Yes there are. Here it is:

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."
[taken from the EPA Regulations listed at 40 CFR 230.3(t)]

Plenty of vauge concepts that are there which give very large leeway to define how you want.
 
2012-03-21 02:32:17 PM  
Everyone arguing over whether the landowners are in the wrong or right about the wetland designation is missing the point. The case was about whether they could have a court hearing on a regulatory decision, which I don't think anybody would say they shouldn't.
 
2012-03-21 02:32:45 PM  

slayer199: It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's the U.S. government against the people.


This kind of non partisan talk will NOT be tolerated here on Fark. Now go sit in the corner until you learn to suck the wang of either the letter R or D.
 
2012-03-21 02:33:46 PM  

HeadLever: For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."
[taken from the EPA Regulations listed at 40 CFR 230.3(t)]

Plenty of vauge concepts that are there which give very large leeway to define how you want.


You can't just grow wetland specific plants anywhere. You can't fake soil composition. People aren't saying this is a wetland because of some ulterior motive. They're saying all of this shiat is going to flow into a communal body of water and the house is going to have severe structural damage soon after due to the water flow. The other side is saying they didn't check the ground well enough and they took a big developer's word for it when they bought the house.

Nobody is faking this shiat and they couldn't if they tried.
 
2012-03-21 02:35:26 PM  

YixilTesiphon: Everyone arguing over whether the landowners are in the wrong or right about the wetland designation is missing the point. The case was about whether they could have a court hearing on a regulatory decision, which I don't think anybody would say they shouldn't.


Neither does the Supreme Court, thankfully. Not often you get a 9-0 decision these days.
 
2012-03-21 02:37:02 PM  
I'd be suing the asshole who sold me property on a wetland.
 
2012-03-21 02:38:23 PM  
I like my kids but I don't even know if I will like my kids' kids. With that being the case I don't feel there is any need to try to leave things for people down the line. If I don't like my kids' kids, I doubt I'll like anyone else in the future. Let's just build now, where we want, how we want and forget people down the line. Do you really think people in 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now are really going to care if they have any resources left to use to build and for business, or just go enjoy a picnik? The answer is probably no. They'll have virtual realities like the Holo-deck on Star Trek. So while we waste our time trying to save these things in trust for future generations, they'll reward us by having Holo-sex with Scarlet Johanson and other epic hotties every day. Fark them. Build now, for the future!
 
2012-03-21 02:41:33 PM  

SnakeLee: You can't just grow wetland specific plants anywhere. You can't fake soil composition.


I am not saying you can. What I am saying is that the regulation is very vauge on these items. Just look at the qualifers included:

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."

How do you quantify the bolded items in order to give it a yea or nay on its designation?
 
2012-03-21 02:42:38 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: But Alito, in a concurring opinion Wednesday, said for "a nation that values due process," the bureaucracy the Sacketts endured was "unthinkable."

It's completely thinkable, Samuel. This is no different from dealing with any government agency.

They'll probably lose at the hearing.


Probably.

If I'm reading it, they were pissed they had no due process.

What happens when they get their due process, and the lose? Another suit?
 
2012-03-21 02:45:56 PM  
The agency still maintains the land is a wetland, and says the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an "after-the-fact" permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners.

???

But they spent ten years and God knows how much money in court instead, all so they could...take this thing back to court again. And probably lose. But, hooray! Now we can give more money to trial lawyers! EPA baaaaad! Reagan gooooooood!

W.T.F.
 
2012-03-21 02:47:13 PM  

SnakeLee: weiserfireman: They bought a lot in a designated subdivision. A subdivision that already had other homes and had gone through the County Planning and Zoning process.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider checking on the wetlands designation for a lot in a subdivision

A.) I would absolutely check, but that is because I know about this stuff and B.) This is a good lesson for you.

Where is the party of personal responsibility on this?


The lot should never have been sold in the first place. If the county is going to grant permits and the municipality is going to zone the land and sell it to a developer then those issues should be taken care of that point. This is a failure of governmental communication, not a failure of personal responsibility. The people purchased the land in good faith and received a permit from the county in good faith. The fact that the government changed their mind about the suitability of the land for residential use is a violation of that good faith.
 
2012-03-21 02:48:08 PM  

mitchcumstein1: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

That's what reality would like you to believe, isn't it?


Eric Holder saw fit to drop the prosecution of the Black Panther voter intimidation case that was started under Bush. That makes it clear that if the Obama administration continues with something the Bush administration started, it means they want to, and it therefore becomes theirs.
 
2012-03-21 02:54:30 PM  

meat0918: What happens when they get their due process, and the lose? Another suit?


Nah, they are pretty much hosed. (new window)

They won a very important court case, but for them personally, it will likely be much of a victory.
 
2012-03-21 02:55:10 PM  

jimpoz: ChubbyTiger: You mean Kelo v New London? It was 5-4 in favor of the city taking land for whatever they darn well wanted. The five were Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The four were O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

Yep, all to build luxury condos.

Did I say luxury condos? I meant a dump (new window).


Yep. That case still pisses me off.
 
2012-03-21 02:55:39 PM  

HeadLever: it will likely not be much of a victory


fifm
 
2012-03-21 02:57:28 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: The agency still maintains the land is a wetland, and says the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an "after-the-fact" permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners.

???

But they spent ten years and God knows how much money in court instead, all so they could...take this thing back to court again. And probably lose. But, hooray! Now we can give more money to trial lawyers! EPA baaaaad! Reagan gooooooood!

W.T.F.


This establishes the precedent that there has to be due process for these type of EPA actions and not just an unappealable diktat handed down from on high. Yeah, it still sucks that you're going to have to pay for that appeal, but that's still a step up from "Here's our ruling, if you don't like it, tough". Anybody who thinks the EPA is infallible and we should just do whatever it says wants a system of government that's anathema to most Americans.
 
2012-03-21 02:57:33 PM  

weiserfireman: On another issue,

I believe that if the EPA designates land as wetlands, they should be required to attach that restriction to the Deed so that a Title search will find that information.


...or just not have a crap real estate agent.
When i bought a house my agent, title company, inspector and mortgage provider ALL checked for special circumstances on my property.

These people skipped or ignored the correct steps and tried to get away with it. Got caught and then cried when the EPA said "fix it first and then we can talk about it."
Very little sympathy for these assholes, as the same shiat is going on in northern MN. People doing something first, getting caught and then getting all "we didnt know" and "it shouldn't be that way"
 
2012-03-21 02:59:28 PM  

Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.


poh-TAY-toh, poh-TAH-toh.
 
2012-03-21 02:59:57 PM  

Pinner: Aryan hicks in the Idaho panhandle do not represent Americans, subby.


Mike and Chantel Sackett aren't Aryans. I can pretty much guarantee you that. They are, however, avid snowmobilers.
 
2012-03-21 03:03:56 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.


lol, nice. You'll get some bites with that.
 
2012-03-21 03:08:35 PM  

yelmrog: Pinner: Aryan hicks in the Idaho panhandle do not represent Americans, subby.

Mike and Chantel Sackett aren't Aryans. I can pretty much guarantee you that. They are, however, avid snowmobilers.


Look pretty Aryan to me.

i.ytimg.com

Also, she has white trash jaw. I have no idea what causes that.
 
2012-03-21 03:15:51 PM  

Rapmaster2000: yelmrog: Pinner: Aryan hicks in the Idaho panhandle do not represent Americans, subby.

Mike and Chantel Sackett aren't Aryans. I can pretty much guarantee you that. They are, however, avid snowmobilers.

Look pretty Aryan to me.

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Also, she has white trash jaw. I have no idea what causes that.


Oh, aren't you just precious?

Having met both of them, I'm pretty sure that it was an honest mistake. I'm sure they trusted whomever at the county who cleared the building permit. They've been around Priest for years and years as local business owners and have a pretty damn good rep in a town where nobody has a good rep.
 
2012-03-21 03:18:43 PM  

Pinner: Aryan hicks in the Idaho panhandle do not represent Americans, subby.


Why not? Is their skin not dark enough for you? Are you trolling? Who, in your infinite wisdom, DOES represent Americans then? Or can you just stick to the subject without dragging some silly racial comment like that into things?
 
2012-03-21 03:30:09 PM  

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: Pinner: Aryan hicks in the Idaho panhandle do not represent Americans, subby.

Why not? Is their skin not dark enough for you? Are you trolling? Who, in your infinite wisdom, DOES represent Americans then? Or can you just stick to the subject without dragging some silly racial comment like that into things?


I think he was trying to smear all North Idahoans with the Aryan Brotherhood brush. Most of them left North Idaho after they lost their headquarters compound in a lawsuit. There are still some kicking around, but not nearly as bad.
 
2012-03-21 03:33:39 PM  

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: Pinner: Aryan hicks in the Idaho panhandle do not represent Americans, subby.

Why not? Is their skin not dark enough for you? Are you trolling? Who, in your infinite wisdom, DOES represent Americans then? Or can you just stick to the subject without dragging some silly racial comment like that into things?


anyways, they looked pretty white to me. I guess some iranians are pretty light skinned, but it's uncommon for them to have blonde hair.
 
2012-03-21 03:34:13 PM  
The potential for gravel to travel from a near but not on 2/3 acre property into a 26,000 surface acre, with a max depth of 370', lake formed by glaciers is now considered pollution and punishable by a fine of $13,687,500/year until fixed. I'm not sure why people have a problem with this.

Won't someone think of the pollution gravel causes to glacial lakes?
 
2012-03-21 03:35:10 PM  

yelmrog: Rapmaster2000: yelmrog: Pinner: Aryan hicks in the Idaho panhandle do not represent Americans, subby.

Mike and Chantel Sackett aren't Aryans. I can pretty much guarantee you that. They are, however, avid snowmobilers.

Look pretty Aryan to me.

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Also, she has white trash jaw. I have no idea what causes that.

Oh, aren't you just precious?

Having met both of them, I'm pretty sure that it was an honest mistake. I'm sure they trusted whomever at the county who cleared the building permit. They've been around Priest for years and years as local business owners and have a pretty damn good rep in a town where nobody has a good rep.


Why is that though when you go into a Waffle House and all the waitresses have this jaw that sticks way out - especially when they talk? I've noted that when I stick my jaw out and try to talk that it makes me sound like an extra from "In the Heat of the Night". You can imagine the way her voice sounds from a picture. Crazy.
 
2012-03-21 03:35:17 PM  

Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.


It was the Obama admin that had to argue it. They just wrote that because the Executive Branch had to argue the case. That's how these things work.

Also, who cares if they're ultimately right or wrong or about wetlands? The point was that the EPA can't just fark you over to the point where you can't even get due process. The whole "here's our ruling. Fix it. If you don't fix it you'll owe us $30k a day. If you argue it in court you still owe us $30k a day" is BS.

This is all about due process, not wetlands. And how badly Congress writes laws and how broadly the Executive branch likes to 'interpret' them. Which isn't a new problem.
 
2012-03-21 03:36:26 PM  
Congrats on the big win. Here's your prize.


pubs.usgs.gov

Seriously though, it sounds like this ruling just lets a citizen file a mountain of paperwork to get a 5-minute hearing, where they have about as much chance of winning as I have of sleeping with Monica Bellucci.
 
2012-03-21 03:39:42 PM  

Rapmaster2000:

I have no idea what causes that.


Broken record, aren't ya?
 
2012-03-21 03:51:46 PM  

Creoena: FTA: The Sacketts property did not border Priest Lake, but the EPA determined gravel on the lot amounted to a pollutant into "waters of the Untied States."

WTF is an untied state?


That's the state my kids' shoes are continually in.
 
2012-03-21 03:57:58 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: But Alito, in a concurring opinion Wednesday, said for "a nation that values due process," the bureaucracy the Sacketts endured was "unthinkable."

It's completely thinkable, Samuel. This is no different from dealing with any government agency.

They'll probably lose at the hearing.


Tell that to the boys in Gitmo, Sammy. Or does "due process" only apply to wealthy white people? You sure don't seem to value it when it is put to a real test.
 
2012-03-21 03:59:39 PM  
I gotta love FARK a 9-0 decision yet Alito and the other conservatives on the court are trolls and despite the fact the the Obama administration continued the Bush policy in this case the big O has NO part of these proceedings!

You folks are pathetic!
 
2012-03-21 04:09:24 PM  

MyRandomName:

Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.


Wetlands Definitions (new window)

Generally, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, December 1979). Wetlands vary widely because of regional and local differences in soils, topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and other factors, including human disturbance. Indeed, wetlands are found from the tundra to the tropics and on every continent except Antarctica.

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."

[taken from the EPA Regulations listed at 40 CFR 230.3(t)]

/ranting idiot, indeed...
 
2012-03-21 04:43:55 PM  

TabASlotB: MyRandomName:

Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.

Wetlands Definitions (new window)

Generally, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, December 1979). Wetlands vary widely because of regional and local differences in soils, topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and other factors, including human disturbance. Indeed, wetlands are found from the tundra to the tropics and on every continent except Antarctica.

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."

[taken from the EPA Regulations listed at 40 CFR 230.3(t)]

/ranting idiot, indeed...


But, based on two US Supreme Court decisions, a connection between the wetlands and navigable waterways for the Clean Water Act to have jurisdiction. Not all wetlands are covered by EPA jurisdiction. Having lost in SCOTUS twice on the scope of their wetlands coverage, to this day, the EPA has only promulgated vague regulations defining the scope of their authority. See Rapanos v US and Carabell v. United States

Link to the regulation about what Wetlands the EPA has jurisdiction over
 
2012-03-21 04:47:24 PM  
Not sure why that link didn't work Link (new window)
 
2012-03-21 05:07:28 PM  

SnakeLee: weiserfireman: A picture of the "wetlands" in question, notice the lake in the background. EPA said this was wetlands because runoff from the lot might carry the fill into the lake.
[www.pacificlegal.org image 550x367] Homeowners just wanted a hearing on whether it was a wetland or not. EPA didn't want to allow a hearing on this issue. The EPA feels that it will open a whole can of worms that they don't want to deal with if people can challenge the designation of what is wetland or what isn't without going through the permit process.

Right, it's a seasonal wetland and is directly in the line of where all the run off for the area flows into the lake. There are ways to divert the water, they could have addressed that after the fact. Trust me, you don't want a house built in the line of that. It is going to cause major structural damage, flood all the time and it will pollute the lake that everyone is using. The yard will be an ice field all winter. It only doesn't look like a seasonal wetland in that picture because they dumped gravel all over it.


Good luck getting authority to fill in a stream from the EPA. And yes, anywhere that water flows when, even only when it rains, is a stream.
 
2012-03-21 05:27:45 PM  

SnakeLee: MyRandomName: Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.

Hey did you know that there are guidelines? The easiest way to tell is checking to see if there are a bunch of plants that only grow in wetlands there. You can also take soil samples and compare them to a set of swatches like you would have for house paint. The swatches have the colors of different soils that have been seeped in water to varying degrees. All you have to do is compare really quickly. It's not really that complicated and there are clear indicators.


I choose words for a reason moron. Guidelines are not definitions. The EPA agent has administrative power. He can ignore guidelines until a hearing is in place.

And no, guidelines are not clear indicators. You can find stories of EPA wetlands that actual scientists laugh at.
 
2012-03-21 05:30:11 PM  

MyRandomName: And no, guidelines are not clear indicators. You can find stories of EPA wetlands that actual scientists laugh at.


Here is the Sackett story (new window)
 
2012-03-21 05:31:48 PM  

weiserfireman: Not sure why that link didn't work Link (new window)


Based on your link a direct connection to a navigable waterway isn't required for jurisdiction, merely for jurisdiction to be assumed. This is reasonable for a nationwide policy (to protect arroyos in the southwest states, for instance) although it still leaves a lot to the USACE's and EPA's opinion.

Back to the case at hand, the Supreme Court decision could have some interesting impacts on who is determined to be responsible to inform local residents on the nuances of federal policy. This whole case could/should have been avoided by a better system on the part of the local permitting agency. I fear it will only mean more red tape, though...
 
2012-03-21 05:48:40 PM  

MyRandomName: AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.

Lol. Better check yourself on what judge was on what side for kelo. The leftist jurists hold that bag.


Please don't destroy their comfy lib vision of the court with facts. It will ruin their day.

I have no idea about the facts of this Idaho case, but getting the court to agree on the color of the sky is nearly impossible and this vote was 9-0. That's pretty damned strong.
 
2012-03-21 05:50:17 PM  

TheMatchHare: This whole case could/should have been avoided by a better system on the part of the local permitting agency.


Not necessarily. The wetland designation was not clearly defined for this parcel of land. There was no apparent designation as such until the EPA/ACE folks conducted a drive-by survey. Even at that, the EPA refused to put thier findings into the written record.

Some of these confusing and stonewalling tactics are described here (new window)
 
2012-03-21 05:51:35 PM  

JustGetItRight: I have no idea about the facts of this Idaho case,


See my link in the post above. It give a pretty good synopsis.
 
2012-03-21 05:57:31 PM  

jjorsett: This establishes the precedent that there has to be due process for these type of EPA DHS actions and not just an unappealable diktat handed down from on high. Yeah, it still sucks that you're going to have to pay for that appeal, but that's still a step up from "Here's our ruling, if you don't like it, tough". Anybody who thinks the EPA DHS is infallible and we should just do whatever it says wants a system of government that's anathema to most Americans.


It's funny, if you change a few words, it sounds just like the opposition.
 
2012-03-21 05:58:47 PM  
Jesus, it's done nothing but rain for 3 solid days here. If I were about to build here, the EPA might deem my property a wet land.
 
2012-03-21 06:29:04 PM  

TabASlotB: MyRandomName:

Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.

Wetlands Definitions (new window)

Generally, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, December 1979). Wetlands vary widely because of regional and local differences in soils, topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and other factors, including human disturbance. Indeed, wetlands are found from the tundra to the tropics and on every continent except Antarctica.

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."

[taken from the EPA Regulations listed at 40 CFR 230.3(t)]

/ranting idiot, indeed...


Again. That is a guideline. Those are not exacting definitions in the least. Are you arguing there is no leeway in that vague guideline. Do you now know why I added a frequency and duration to my example.

Idiot indeed.
 
2012-03-21 06:44:53 PM  

MyRandomName: TabASlotB: MyRandomName:

Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.

Wetlands Definitions (new window)

Generally, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, December 1979). Wetlands vary widely because of regional and local differences in soils, topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and other factors, including human disturbance. Indeed, wetlands are found from the tundra to the tropics and on every continent except Antarctica.

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."

[taken from the EPA Regulations listed at 40 CFR 230.3(t)]

/ranting idiot, indeed...

Again. That is a guideline. Those are not exacting definitions in the least. Are you arguing there is no leeway in that vague guideline. Do you now know why I added a frequency and duration to my example.

Idiot indeed.


Are you actually arguing that "Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland" is a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines posted?
 
2012-03-21 06:48:38 PM  

TabASlotB: Are you actually arguing that "Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland" is a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines posted?


Is it possible to have a situation in which

"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions."

could arise, but only show a puddle 1 day a year?

If so, then it can be assumed that this is a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines.
 
2012-03-21 06:53:52 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: could arise, but only show a puddle 1 day a year?

If so, then it can be assumed that this is a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines.


That is correct. Wetlands do not require the presence of any surface water to be designated as such. It could just be shallow groundwater.
 
2012-03-21 06:56:08 PM  
Once it got to the "take THAT, Obama!" part, I knew this was one of those Poe's Law things where in a sane universe this would be scathing satire of a conservative ideology having gone completely off the rails, instead of a passionate story meant to be taken seriously.
 
2012-03-21 07:10:03 PM  
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
 
2012-03-21 07:19:15 PM  

slayer199: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

How about the farking truth? It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's the U.S. government against the people. While everyone is busy arguing about which party is better/worse and who did what to whom...everyone is missing the farking point. BOTH parties are part of the same bureaucracy that increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of Individual liberty. NEITHER party gives a damn about you personally, only increasing their power over you.


So vote republican.
 
2012-03-21 07:19:49 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: TabASlotB: Are you actually arguing that "Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland" is a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines posted?

Is it possible to have a situation in which

"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions."

could arise, but only show a puddle 1 day a year?

If so, then it can be assumed that this is a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines.


MyRandomName's "Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland" clearly states that the presence of a "small puddle" once a year is a qualification for a wetland by the EPA. This is not correct. It is, in fact, brazenly asinine hyperbole.

As you correctly noted, the actual qualifications for wetlands are...drumroll...wet land. Specifically, as you wrote, "inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater" to a sufficient extent such that the local flora & fauna are adapted to "saturated soil conditions." The number, size and frequency of surface puddles may indicate the presence of saturated soil conditions, but do not, in of themselves, (dis)qualify the label of wetland for a given parcel of land.

I will stipulate that it is not impossible that saturated soil conditions conditions may exist in a hypothetical wetland that results in merely a single small puddle once a year. However any reasonable person would have to admit that such narrow parameters (saturated soil conditions, but only a single, diminutive annual pooling of surface water) are exceedingly unlikely to exist for scale- and time-appropriate evaluations of a parcel of land that could reasonably gain wetland designation. Further, I would argue, pending a contrary example, that the parameters given are sufficiently exceedingly unlikely as to dismiss altogether as grandstanding tripe. (However, should someone offer a documented case of a wetland that meets the given criterion I'll happily offer a mea culpa.)
 
2012-03-21 07:20:16 PM  
As someone who works in determining jurisdictional waters as part of my job, I'm not getting a kick out of the EPA. A joke in my work is that they are the fourth branch of government. With the right to create AND enforce policies
 
2012-03-21 07:20:17 PM  

HeadLever: SnakeLee: Hey did you know that there are guidelines?

Yes there are. Here it is:

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."
[taken from the EPA Regulations listed at 40 CFR 230.3(t)]

Plenty of vauge concepts that are there which give very large leeway to define how you want.


Perhaps vague, but that is the legal definition which is subsequently used to develop the technical guidelines. They conveniently developed a manual to specifically define and delineate what is and isn't a wetland for everybody to use, the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. It makes everything quite clear.
 
2012-03-21 07:21:31 PM  

TabASlotB: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TabASlotB: Are you actually arguing that "Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland" is a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines posted?

Is it possible to have a situation in which

"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions."

could arise, but only show a puddle 1 day a year?

If so, then it can be assumed that this is a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines.

MyRandomName's "Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland" clearly states that the presence of a "small puddle" once a year is a qualification for a wetland by the EPA. This is not correct. It is, in fact, brazenly asinine hyperbole.

As you correctly noted, the actual qualifications for wetlands are...drumroll...wet land. Specifically, as you wrote, "inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater" to a sufficient extent such that the local flora & fauna are adapted to "saturated soil conditions." The number, size and frequency of surface puddles may indicate the presence of saturated soil conditions, but do not, in of themselves, (dis)qualify the label of wetland for a given parcel of land.

I will stipulate that it is not impossible that saturated soil conditions conditions may exist in a hypothetical wetland that results in merely a single small puddle once a year. However any reasonable person would have to admit that such narrow parameters (saturated soil conditions, but only a single, diminutive annual pooling of surface water) are exceedingly unlikely to exist for scale- and time-appropriate evaluations of a parcel of land that could reasonably gain wetland designation. Further, I would argue, pending a contrary example, that the parameters given are sufficiently exceedingly unlikely as to dismiss altogether as grandstanding tripe. (However, should someone offer a documented case of a wetland that meets the given criterion I'll happily offer a mea culpa.)


Actually, some wetlands don't even puddle once a year.

TMYK
 
2012-03-21 07:24:19 PM  

constructor5179: HeadLever: SnakeLee: Hey did you know that there are guidelines?

Yes there are. Here it is:

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."
[taken from the EPA Regulations listed at 40 CFR 230.3(t)]

Plenty of vauge concepts that are there which give very large leeway to define how you want.

Perhaps vague, but that is the legal definition which is subsequently used to develop the technical guidelines. They conveniently developed a manual to specifically define and delineate what is and isn't a wetland for everybody to use, the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. It makes everything quite clear.


It's less clear than you'd believe. But in the other way. There are variances on wetland determinations that are too many for me to get into. The people in this case, assuming they knew it was a wetland ahead of time, could have probably gotten the proper approval to build of they went through the correct guidelines. Probably under some nationwide permit they could have gotten.
 
2012-03-21 07:25:11 PM  

babysealclubber: Actually, some wetlands don't even puddle once a year.

TMYK


I'd love an example. Really. I like learning and I'm OK with being wrong.
 
2012-03-21 07:28:08 PM  

TabASlotB: babysealclubber: Actually, some wetlands don't even puddle once a year.

TMYK

I'd love an example. Really. I like learning and I'm OK with being wrong.


All I have is anecdotal evidence through work. The wetland determination is actually more about soil composition and plant types. Really shallow groundwater can create a wetland that doesn't puddle. A lot of the wetlands I occur are under half an acre as well.
 
2012-03-21 07:31:50 PM  

TabASlotB: babysealclubber: Actually, some wetlands don't even puddle once a year.

TMYK

I'd love an example. Really. I like learning and I'm OK with being wrong.


Sorry. I would if I could. And if I did, it probably would violate some client confidentiality agreement.
 
2012-03-21 07:35:43 PM  

babysealclubber: constructor5179: HeadLever: SnakeLee: Hey did you know that there are guidelines?

Yes there are. Here it is:

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."
[taken from the EPA Regulations listed at 40 CFR 230.3(t)]

Plenty of vauge concepts that are there which give very large leeway to define how you want.

Perhaps vague, but that is the legal definition which is subsequently used to develop the technical guidelines. They conveniently developed a manual to specifically define and delineate what is and isn't a wetland for everybody to use, the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. It makes everything quite clear.

It's less clear than you'd believe. But in the other way. There are variances on wetland determinations that are too many for me to get into. The people in this case, assuming they knew it was a wetland ahead of time, could have probably gotten the proper approval to build of they went through the correct guidelines. Probably under some nationwide permit they could have gotten.


Yea, I've never been in a position to do a wetland delineation, so have no experience in the variety of conditions that could make the determination more difficult. My brother does wetland deliniations for a living, and my father was a biologist focusing on wetlands so in general I am a little more cognizant than most in how broad the definition of a wetland can be. Big picture it would be nice if the property purchase/development process included formalized checks like they do for flood zones. This may save land buyers a lot of hassle down the road and help prevent them from buying property they can't develop. Many engineering firms offer these services but people don't really know the importance of asking for them.
 
2012-03-21 07:49:33 PM  

constructor5179: babysealclubber: constructor5179: HeadLever: SnakeLee: Hey did you know that there are guidelines?

Yes there are. Here it is:

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."
[taken from the EPA Regulations listed at 40 CFR 230.3(t)]

Plenty of vauge concepts that are there which give very large leeway to define how you want.

Perhaps vague, but that is the legal definition which is subsequently used to develop the technical guidelines. They conveniently developed a manual to specifically define and delineate what is and isn't a wetland for everybody to use, the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. It makes everything quite clear.

It's less clear than you'd believe. But in the other way. There are variances on wetland determinations that are too many for me to get into. The people in this case, assuming they knew it was a wetland ahead of time, could have probably gotten the proper approval to build of they went through the correct guidelines. Probably under some nationwide permit they could have gotten.

Yea, I've never been in a position to do a wetland delineation, so have no experience in the variety of conditions that could make the determination more difficult. My brother does wetland deliniations for a living, and my father was a biologist focusing on wetlands so in general I am a little more cognizant than most in how broad the definition of a wetland can be. Big picture it would be nice if the property purchase/development process included formalized checks like they do for flood zones. This may save land buyers a lot of hassle down the road and help prevent them from buying property they can't develop. Many engineering firms offer these services but people don't really know the importance of asking for them.


You'd think it would be more well known than it is. All I know is any land that I ever buy will be inspected accordingly.
 
2012-03-21 07:52:33 PM  

constructor5179: Yea, I've never been in a position to do a wetland delineation, so have no experience in the variety of conditions that could make the determination more difficult. My brother does wetland deliniations for a living, and my father was a biologist focusing on wetlands so in general I am a little more cognizant than most in how broad the definition of a wetland can be. Big picture it would be nice if the property purchase/development process included formalized checks like they do for flood zones. This may save land buyers a lot of hassle down the road and help prevent them from buying property they can't develop. Many engineering firms offer these services but people don't really know the importance of asking for them.


MyRandomName: Again. That is a guideline. Those are not exacting definitions in the least. Are you arguing there is no leeway in that vague guideline. Do you now know why I added a frequency and duration to my example.

Idiot indeed.


I used to do them all the time. The key point of all of this is just looking at the vegetation. Wetland plants cannot grow if there is not a wetland. Since they are plants, there may be a lot of wetland vegetation mixed in with lots of non wetland stuff that grows well wherever, or it may be completely inundated with wetland vegetation. That is why the guidelines can't say "it needs to be 60% exactly wetland vegetation" - there are too many other factors. They also can't say if there is a single wetland plant then it is a wetland, because that would be silly.

If it is inconclusive based on the vegetation, which again is almost always completely conclusive, there are easy ways you can just drill into the earth and get a soil sample, then compare it to a swatch.

In any case, the wetland in this particular instance is going to completely fark up the house and it is going to put a ton of sediment and whatever chemicals are involved in building the house directly into the wetland. It will be a nightmare. People don't just call things wetlands because of some conspiracy or just to be dicks as you seem to be implying; there are actual factors at play. The majority of people who are against this have no background in it and spout off like they are experts, then say completely unsubstantiated things like "You can find stories of EPA wetlands that actual scientists laugh at" and then call people idiots based on their completely ridiculously uninformed opinions based on the situation. I'm sure you can find a couple of instances in the half decade of the EPA being in existence, but 99% of the time the evaluations are dead on. This is not a time they are wrong, either.

I can't tell you how many houses I saw that were hastily built on wetlands and the problems they faced. The environmental issues aside, if you don't properly set up drainage for this house (which is going to be expensive), the house will fall apart within 15 years. Every argument I've seen leveled against the EPA in this thread has an easy counterpoint, you just can't convince people who already made up their mind before they put any honest effort into understanding why things are.
 
2012-03-21 07:53:53 PM  

SnakeLee: half decade


half century, damnit
 
2012-03-21 09:05:27 PM  

Eshman: slayer199: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

How about the farking truth? It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's the U.S. government against the people. While everyone is busy arguing about which party is better/worse and who did what to whom...everyone is missing the farking point. BOTH parties are part of the same bureaucracy that increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of Individual liberty. NEITHER party gives a damn about you personally, only increasing their power over you.

So vote republican.


Oh hell no.
 
2012-03-21 09:37:19 PM  
I'm pretty liberal and against the majority of Eminent Domain laws, so I side more with the smaller couple against the federal government.

So question - What the fark is this?

FTFA: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

For starters, how is that a defeat of the Obama Administration. These two people are Americans, the EPA is an American agency, and the President is America. THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL WIN OR LOSE!

Secondly, the EPA is running off guidelines that President Bush signed into law. Not President Obama.
 
2012-03-21 09:43:12 PM  
They hoped to build a three-bedroom home, surrounded by neighbors' houses, and had obtained a county permit. Gravel had already been laid for the foundation when EPA officials told them their land was a wetland. That barred any development.

They were ordered to immediately "restore" the land to its natural state or risk fines of up to $37,500 a day.


I'm not saying the EPA doesn't (and shouldn't) have stopped the work. However assuming the part about the gravel already being laid is true, the following should have happened:

1. If the county approved the permit, the county is on the hook to restore it and compensate the people. The EPA and county can go biatch it out, but level the people out of it.
2. If the builder did this without a permit (or the proper permits), lied to get the permit, or anything like that, then the builder is on the hook to fix it and refund the purchase price for the land.
3. If the couple is lying and laid the gravel themselves without permission, then they are on the hook.
 
2012-03-21 10:34:46 PM  
From what I read in one of the articles linked in this thread, this guy owns an excavating service.
Most people I know in that field know damn well what a wetland is and that they should fill one without a USACE or NPDES construction permit. They even joke after a rainy day that maybe another permit process will be needed before they can resume work.

I find it hard to believe that he was just innocently grading his land and filling it with gravel and the big bad EPA brought the hammer down. Of course, he's enough of an idiot to try and build on a drainage pathway, so who knows.
 
2012-03-21 10:41:31 PM  
Wellon Dowd

The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

Well thank the FSM that the obama admin reversed this asinine bush policy and dropped the support of the case rather than CHANGING course.
 
2012-03-21 10:47:05 PM  
I should have added to the end of my post that I do believe the Supreme Court was right. There are a lot of administrative processes that can take place at both the federal and state levels with no judicial oversight, and that needs to be corrected. Really, anything that can take property or liberty should be subject to a judicial hearing, an not to the whims of a bureaucrat and subject to a review by another bureaucrat that draws a paycheck from the same agency that is being argued against.
 
2012-03-21 11:10:10 PM  

SnakeLee: The environmental issues aside, if you don't properly set up drainage for this house (which is going to be expensive), the house will fall apart within 15 years.


Which they were doing by bringing in fill. You seem to think you know quite a bit about this parcel, but yet you seem to have no idea of how they were constructing the house. That does not seem to stop you from drawing conclusions that seem to have a faulty premise.
 
2012-03-21 11:11:40 PM  

Lumpmoose: My brother bought a house that had a portion of his backyard dedicated to a small wildlife refuge. "Don't build there, don't fill it in, don't disrupt the plants, etc." It was all clearly laid out before he bought the house and he got a pretty, small wild pond out of it. These cases don't always have to resort to "little guy" vs. the "big bad government" or partisanship as long as the buying party is clearly informed beforehand.


Yeah, I think this couple may have grounds to sue the developer that sold them the property for non-disclosure of this little gem of information.

If the EPA designated the property as a wetland *after* they had bought it, then the EPA should bear the burden for timely notification and setting guidelines for reasonable remediation.
 
2012-03-21 11:14:47 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: For starters, how is that a defeat of the Obama Administration. These two people are Americans, the EPA is an American agency, and the President is America. THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL WIN OR LOSE!

Secondly, the EPA is running off guidelines that President Bush signed into law. Not President Obama.


A couple of things.

1) The Obama Administration through the EPA was in charge of defending this policy via being in power at the time the case was heard. The EPA is an executive bureaucracy.
2) Bush did not start the wetland guidelines. That was done as a part of the Clean Water Act passed back in 72.
 
2012-03-21 11:22:09 PM  

buzzcut73: I find it hard to believe that he was just innocently grading his land and filling it with gravel and the big bad EPA brought the hammer down.


The county permitting process did not bring it up, plus the area was a subdivided lot surrounded by county roads and new homes. They obtained them without any indication of the parcel being a wetland. The way it sounds, the area was not deemed wetland until the EPA drive-by survey performed after work started.
 
2012-03-21 11:23:52 PM  

ha-ha-guy: 1. If the county approved the permit, the county is on the hook to restore it and compensate the people. The EPA and county can go biatch it out, but level the people out of it.
2. If the builder did this without a permit (or the proper permits), lied to get the permit, or anything like that, then the builder is on the hook to fix it and refund the purchase price for the land.
3. If the couple is lying and laid the gravel themselves without permission, then they are on the hook.


They did obtain a county permit for the building prior to work starting.
 
2012-03-21 11:26:46 PM  
For those of you asking about wetlands that don't show much pooling of water, look at Indiana. Most of Indiana would be considered "wetlands" because the water table is at or just below ground level. The only way farms exist in most of the state is because of drainage tiles (pipes) under the fields that must be replaced every few decades. We looked at a map of Indiana's drainage tiles in a Geography of Indiana class and the page was pretty much a solid black. Most of the woods I've seen outside of southern Indiana are "flatwoods," a type of wetland, but you don't see standing water anywhere in there except after rainstorms.

If you look at the fields in Indiana after a harvest or before spring planting, you'll see lots of depressions or other spots where the ground is a bit darker. Those are places where there is no standing water only because of the drainage tiles, and if the tiles were taken out the rest of the field would also be soaked to the surface even though there wasn't pooled water. The whole state was either swamp/marsh or flatwoods, except for the prairie wedge that was maintained by burning down the flatwoods annually in NW Indiana. If Indiana were discovered today, I think most of the land would be deemed off-limits to development or farming.
 
2012-03-21 11:28:37 PM  

Bonzo_1116: If the EPA designated the property as a wetland *after* they had bought it, then the EPA should bear the burden for timely notification and setting guidelines for reasonable remediation.


The way that I understand it, the EPA claimed that the parcel was on the wetland inventory and this triggered the drive-by survey when construction started. However, come to find out, there were problems with the inventory mapping used, but the EPA refused to back off. Both sides dug in their heels and the rest is history.
 
2012-03-21 11:43:25 PM  
What happened has become a six-year fight pitting business and property rights groups against the federal government

Dammit Obama! When you took office 6 years ago, I foresaw all these problems!
 
2012-03-22 12:30:46 AM  
babysealclubber: TabASlotB
TMYK

I'd love an example. Really. I like learning and I'm OK with being wrong.


We have vernal pools on the mesas here in San Diego that only form during years with heavy rains, and only stay for weeks (sometimes only days) before they dry up. There are plants and animals that only live there (fairy shrimps, mesa mint, etc etc), because it's a desert. We've plowed something like 95% of these pools under because mesas are awesome places to build houses and such for people. Flat, nice views, etc etc.

If the Marines ever sell off the south end of the Miramar airstation to some developer, fairy shrimps could be gone forever and ever.

I mean how cool, freshwater shrimp that live in the desert, where the eggs hide in the dry soil in off years like seeds.

waynesword.palomar.edu
 
2012-03-22 01:36:20 AM  

HeadLever: Which they were doing by bringing in fill. You seem to think you know quite a bit about this parcel, but yet you seem to have no idea of how they were constructing the house. That does not seem to stop you from drawing conclusions that seem to have a faulty premise.


Haha you read the whole article? Where do you think you are?? Digg? Go fark yourself
 
2012-03-22 08:39:23 AM  
If there was one agency that i wish would go away, it is the EPA.
/The second would be TSA.
Third would be ATF
 
2012-03-22 10:03:22 AM  

SnakeLee: Haha you read the whole article?


Yeah, plus I live in Idaho where this has been a big deal for quite some time. Your entire premis seems to be made up in order to support some type of preconcieved notion about the situation here. The problem is that your preims has very little to do with what acually happened or the site characteristics.
 
2012-03-22 10:19:55 AM  
coming from the son of a building inspector and city planned engineer that had nothing but trouble with the EPA. I don't think it's unreasonable for the EPA to expect you to use the appropriate fill material when you are working in areas that might run off into natural water ways. In VA, very large parts of the state have controls over what happens in the way of construction and run off because of how greatly that stuff effects the Chesapeake Bay and personally I am glad for it, and anyone that has enjoyed the bay would agree.

Having said all that, they should give them the chance to remove the inappropriate fill material and remediate the site to be in compliance. Weirdly the EPA tends to not what to give people the chance to do that, which I have seen on more than one occasion cause people to leave problems in place because they are barred from continued work.
 
2012-03-23 05:38:44 AM  

SnakeLee: The agency still maintains the land is a wetland, and says the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an "after-the-fact" permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners.

So basically, they bought a lot without having it properly checked out and started building on the lot - again - without having it properly inspected. The EPA said in their haste the couple ruined a wetland and offered the chance to fix it cheaply and quickly after the fact, but the couple decided they don't like the EPA on principle so they spent tens of thousands of dollars in court and still haven't built their house close to ten years later. The only sure fire prediction anybody can make right now is that their basement will be flooded every time it rains.


Sadly, the shooting deaths of all the EPA-holes who have prevented them from building their house won't be a sure-fire prediction.
 
2012-03-23 05:43:03 AM  

TyrantII: Sound pretty clear cut to me.

Couple bought land that they knew was wetland and tried to build on it before anyone found out. Couple got caught and was told fix the mess they created.

Just because you buy land doesn't mean you have the right to do with it whatever you please. It's your responsibility to know what you can do with it, and to follow the laws.

Hell, if they went thought he proper process 9/10 times they'll get a ruling saying the wetland is instead a vernal pool and be allowed to fill it in, less some rare creature is found in it.


Which is why you always inspect the land and exterminate any endangered species before calling the EPA to come inspect.
 
Displayed 144 of 144 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report