Share This Page

Restoring due process

The U.S. Supreme Court must curb the EPA's gross overreach in a case with private property rights and fairness at stake.

Oral arguments were held on Monday in Sackett v. EPA , which concerns a couple's four-year battle to build a home on their half-acre Idaho lot. It stems from what the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) calls the EPA's increasing tendency to define "dry land as 'wetlands' and 'waters of the United States' based on sweepingly expansive interpretations of the Clean Water Act."

(The EPA even has redefined "waters" as "moistures.")

Claiming the residential lot, with houses on each side, was a "wetland," EPA told the Sacketts they'd have to return it to its original condition, then seek an expensive development permit -- or face tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

And the all-too-Orwellian EPA wouldn't even grant them a hearing. Whatever happened to due process•

"In the face of this expanding claim of agency power, property owners desperately need a quick way to obtain clarity in court," says Sam Kazman, general counsel for CEI, which filed an amicus brief supporting the Sacketts.

The justices at least must ensure a quick hearing for the Sacketts -- and should rein in EPA's penchant for expanding its own power far beyond the limits of law and common sense, too.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.