re: US Rep says EPA trying to control private property in US

quote:

---

In 2005 Mike and Chantell Sackett paid $23,000 for a small piece of land on Priest Lake in Idaho. The vacant lot was zoned for residential construction, and they planned to build a modest home there.

But construction was halted shortly after it began. After they filled in their lot with rocks and gravel in order to grade it, EPA officials arrived on the property and declared that it was a protected wetlands area.

The government ordered the Sacketts to restore the land by removing the gravel, and then apply for a wetlands permit before beginning to build again. That process could take years and typically costs thousands of dollars, but the EPA said they would incur a fine of $37,500 for every day they failed to comply. The gravel-removal estimate alone was more than the couple paid for the property.

The Sacketts dispute that their home site is a protected wetland, but finding a court willing to consider that possibility was a tall order. Federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, have ruled not only that the Sacketts must comply with the EPA’s orders, but that they may not challenge the government agency in court at all.

---

A bit old and possibly rectified by now, but should people have to deal with this type of thing?

Partial rectified. They won in the SC 9-0. They are allowed to challenge the EPA.

However, 9 years later, they still haven't been able to build yet. LINK

I've heard that one can fight and win against a newspaper that buys ink by the barrel...and even more likely...a organization that prints money by the trillions.

Between a rock and hard place. Government...hard to live with it...harder to live without it. Bend over.

quote:

---

So, what have you done about it?

---

Got drunk.

quote:

---

quote:

By controlling the water.


Because the water flowing through a creek is the "private property" of the person who owns the land around it.

sure

---

you seem to have a career (i don't know what but i think it might be some type of science) that requires a great deal of intelligence, but your posts are filled with 3rd grade ability ... maybe i'm just wrong, tho ...

Adding 120 plants is not my issue.

Changing the criteria on the classification system is. Switching from requiring 3 or 4 leading indicators to simply 2 to require a wetlands classification is a big deal.

Meaning a crawfish burrow and hydric soil automatically would classify it as a wetland.

He'll I have crawfish burrows in my yard when it rains hard and I'm inside of BR.

Ironically enough, it's the very fact that so much of coastal Louisiana is privately held is precisely what will destroy it. People in the coastal zone want to build a house on a slab, and then build a levee aound their community. That's a recipie for disaster.

Then, the very thing that might save them, sediment-laden water from the Mississippi, they won't tolerate flooding their 'land'.

It's a complicated issue that will eventually be resolved for us.

quote:

---

There's lots of land that the people would love that Mississippi River water to flood onto, but the army corps of engineers will never let that happen because they control all rivers and navigable streams, aka, all land around any kind of water in the entire country.

---

The Corps only does what Congress charges them to, nothing more, nothng less.

But no, the majority of the people living in the coastal zone don't want what it takes to save their land. Th large absentee owners? Yeah, maybe, but probably not even them because they're generally just in it for the subsurface resources.