Posted by
Michael and Chantelle Sackett bought some Idaho land and began
placing gravel fill on the site to prepare for laying a foundation for
their dream home. Then they got something from the EPA: a “Compliance
Order,” declaring that they were in violation of the Clean Water Act,
because their land had been deemed a “wetland” subject to federal
jurisdiction.
By beginning construction without a federal permit, the Sacketts were
breaking the law and exposing themselves to civil and possibly criminal
penalties, according to the Order. The Order instructed them to stop
their construction and restore the property to its “original state” — it
even told them what type of shrubbery to plant on the site, and exactly
where to plant it. If they failed to comply with the order, they were
subject to $37,500 fines per day.
The Sacketts were, understandably, shocked: they had no reason to
think their property was a wetland; their neighbors had been allowed to
build homes, and there was no indication in their title documents that
the land was subject to federal control. So they asked for a hearing —
and that was when they learned that the Compliance Order process does
not entitle them to a hearing. They must either comply with the Order
immediately to avoid the fines, or play chicken with the EPA — waiting
until the EPA decides to file an “enforcement action.” At that time,
they would be allowed to present their arguments that the land is not
actually a “wetland.” But of course, by that time, the fines would have
accumulated to hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.
Worse, these Compliance Orders are issued by a single EPA bureaucrat,
on the basis of “any evidence.” That’s the language of the statute
itself — and federal courts have interpreted “any evidence” to mean even
an anonymous phone call or a newspaper story.
And a Compliance Order doesn’t just demand that you obey EPA’s orders
or face fines — ignoring a Compliance Order is a separately punishable
offense against federal law, aside from the liability for any
environmental damage. In other words, you can face penalties for
violating the Clean Water Act and also for ignoring a
Compliance Order. Worse still, ignoring a Compliance Order can serve as
the basis of a finding of “wilfulness,” and thus the basis of criminal
charges.
Pacific Legal Foundation represents the Sacketts and argues that they
should have their day in court — either under federal statutes like the
Administrative Procedure Act or under the Due Process Clause — without
having to face the possibility of devastating penalties. PLF lawyer
Damien Schiff argued the case today before the Supreme Court; while the
justices were active in probing the weaknesses of both sides, the government’s lawyer didn’t do the EPA any favors. So today may have ended being a very good day for the Sacketts, even if the New York Times editorial page took the alarmist stance
that allowing them to seek pre-enforcement judicial review would be
a ”big victory to corporations and developers who want to evade the
requirements of the Clean Water Act.”
The case is Sackett v. EPA; read the argument transcript here and the briefs here.
This blogpost was coauthored by adjunct scholar Timothy Sandefur, who is a principal attorney at PLF and wrote about the case in Regulation magazine.
No comments:
Post a Comment