{"id":18343,"date":"2023-05-25T21:47:38","date_gmt":"2023-05-26T01:47:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/?p=18343"},"modified":"2023-05-26T14:18:11","modified_gmt":"2023-05-26T18:18:11","slug":"n-y-post-supreme-court-strikes-blow-against-bureaucratic-tyranny-in-epa-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2023\/05\/25\/n-y-post-supreme-court-strikes-blow-against-bureaucratic-tyranny-in-epa-case\/","title":{"rendered":"N.Y. Post: Supreme Court strikes blow against bureaucratic tyranny in EPA case"},"content":{"rendered":"

New York Post, May 26, 2023\"\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

Supreme Court strikes blow against bureaucratic tyranny in EPA case<\/a><\/h1>\n
\n
By \u00a0James Bovard<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The Supreme Court on Thursday finally ended one of the most brazen examples of bureaucratic tyranny<\/a> in modern times. Naturally, liberals were outraged and warned that curbing federal power will doom the environment.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 to prevent pollution of the nation\u2019s waterways.\u00a0In subsequent years, federal judges decided the law also applied to adjacent wetlands<\/a>, since they could contribute to pollution.<\/p>\n

But \u201cWhat is a wetland?\u201d is the DC version of \u201cHow many angels can dance on a pinhead?\u201d Since 1972, federal agencies have changed the definition of wetlands jurisdiction 13 times.<\/strong> Up to 100 million private acres fall under federal sway, depending on the definition of wetlands (which could be dry 300 days a year). Because the Clean Water Act imposes strict criminal liability, farmers plowing their own fields can be treated like midnight dumpers heaving barrels of dioxin into a river.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thursday\u2019s decision settled the case of Michael and Chantell Sackett, who started building a home on the small vacant lot they purchased for $23,000 in 2005 in a residential subdivision near Priest Lake, Idaho. After they began backfilling the lot to build a house, the Environmental Protection Agency shocked them by preliminarily classifying their property as a wetland and threatening a $ 75,000-a-day fine unless construction ceased. The Sacketts were prohibited from challenging the EPA edict until the agency issued a final ruling \u2014 which EPA endlessly delayed.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 2012 the Clean Water Act was not \u201cuniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of [property owners] into \u2018voluntary compliance\u2019 without the opportunity for judicial review.\u2019\u2019 Justice Antonin Scalia mocked EPA\u2019s definition of wetlands, noting the Sacketts had never \u201cseen a ship or other vessel cross their yard.\u201d Justice Samuel Alito declared<\/a>, \u201cThe reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear,\u201d and its harsh penalties leave \u201cmost property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA\u2019s tune.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Obama administration responded with a massive propaganda campaign to place far more private land under EPA jurisdiction. EPA spent tax dollars on a covert publicity campaign on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, linking to the Natural Resources Defense Council to generate positive comments for proposed regulations. In 2015, the Government Accountability Office condemned EPA for running an illegal propaganda campaign \u2014 especially since recipients were unaware EPA was sending the messages. No EPA official was fined or jailed for violating that federal law.<\/p>\n

President Donald Trump groused in 2017 that Obama\u2019s EPA wetlands rule could apply to \u201cnearly every puddle or every ditch on a farmer\u2019s land or everywhere else that they decide,\u201d which he labeled \u201ca massive power grab.\u201d In 2020, the Trump administration issued new wetlands regulations that the Biden administration nullified in 2021.<\/p>\n

Despite the 2012 Supreme Court rebuff, the feds kept hounding the Sacketts, and their case returned to the highest court late last year. EPA demanded the Sacketts get a federal Clean Water Act permit to build their house, their lawyers complained, because \u201cPriest Lake is a navigable water; a non-navigable creek connects to Priest Lake; the non-navigable creek is connected to a non-navigable, man-made ditch; the non-navigable, man-made ditch is connected to wetlands; these wetlands, though separated from the Sacketts\u2019 lot by a 30-foot-wide paved road, are nevertheless \u2018similarly situated\u2019 to wetlands alleged to exist on the Sacketts\u2019 lot.\u201d<\/p>\n

EPA persisted even though the agency \u201crecognizes\u201d that \u201cno water at all \u2014 surface or subsurface \u2014 flows from the Sacketts\u2019 lot to the wetlands or to the ditch across the street,\u201d Pacific Legal Foundation lawyers complained.<\/p>\n

All nine Supreme Court justices agreed Thursday that federal bureaucrats had no right to seize control over the Sacketts\u2019 property.<\/p>\n