March 21, 2012 was a great day for the freedom of the Sacketts and the American people.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled against the EPA.  The story started when the Sacketts purchased a parcel of land to build their dream home. The EPA told them they could not build there because the land might be considered a wetland.  The EPA deemed that their land fell under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

This is a landmark decision, because up until now no one has been able to challenge an EPA compliance order before enforcement actions begin.

The ruling gives property owners the right to challenge an EPA compliance order from the time it is issued, rather than waiting for the agency to begin enforcement actions.[1]

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion stating, “There is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review—even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the EPA’s jurisdiction.” [2]

While the Supreme Court’s decision did not give the Sacketts clearance to build their home, it gives them the opportunity to bring their case before a judge to dispute whether their property is a protected wetland.

This ruling against the EPA is the first step in Americans’ ability to challenge the power of Bureaucracy in the EPA.

You work hard, you buy the land and start planning for your dream home.  Not so fast!  The EPA has a problem with your plan and is about to ruin your dreams.

In 2005, Chantell and Mike Sackett started to build their dream home near the shores of Priest Lake, Idaho. But an anonymous call to the EPA brought their plans to a screeching halt.

The Sacketts had obtained all the permits required by the county to build on their 2/3 acre weed-covered plot.  One day, two people from the EPA and a third from the Army Corps of Engineers showed up to cite the Sacketts for violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA); they were told they would not be allowed to build on their own land.[1]

America’s founders deemed it critically important to protect our right to own property without risk of government encroachment. This protection is stated in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution:

No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[2]

Unless … the EPA gets involved.

After the visit from the EPA, the Sacketts learned that the land they owned was possibly considered “wetlands.”  According to EPA’s website, the CWA (section 404) involves “navigable waters.”  Tributaries such as interstate waters, intrastate lakes, rivers and streams fall into this section of the CWA.

The EPA sent the Sacketts a compliance order telling them they had to restore the site or face penalties, including fines of up to $32,500 a day.[3]  Mind you, they purchased the property for $23,000.

The Sacketts decided to stand up to the EPA, and have been on a legal journey ever since.

“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.”[4]

The idea that the Sacketts “may not challenge the government agency in court at all” is a stark and sobering judgment.  When a court decides that an agency of the Government is above challenge, we the people are in dangerous times.

“In the United States, where we have always benefited from private property and free enterprise, our biggest threat to continued prosperity lies in the slow erosion of the respect for private property by government through taxation and regulation.”[5]

The ruling by the court was not going to stop the Sacketts.  They found an attorney, Damien Schiff, to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  During the hearing, Judge Alito raised the following question to the attorney representing the EPA:

“Don’t you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States? 

“You buy property to build a house. You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to.”

Alito was also critical of the government’s contention that “There is no way you can go to court to challenge [EPA’s] determination that this is a wetland until such time as we choose to sue you.”[6]

The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to make a ruling on the case, but the decision is expected to change the way the EPA operates. The Sacketts’ plans to build a home are on hold at this point.

One of the most important foundations of true capitalism and our Constitution is individual landownership.  When the first settlers came to America, they had adopted communal ownership of land and property.  As a result, most of them starved to death or died of disease[7] – a problem endured in later centuries by virtually every communist country that adopted collective agriculture.

As the EPA and other Government bureaucrats continue in their quest to control more of our liberties and circumvent the rights of the people, our very existence as a free capitalist society is threatened.

In the upcoming election cycle we must support candidates who understand that protection of our right to private landownership is vital to the health and survival of this Nation.

If we continue to allow agencies like the EPA to have unlimited power and access to dictate landownership and its usage, we will lose a fundamental right given to all American’s by the Constitution.