EPA is an Agency Run Wild

Ron Paul: Outrageous Overreach of the EPA

January 16, 2012

Infowars.com - Ron Paul comments on Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, a case of property rights taken to the U.S. Supreme Court on January 9th and awaits a decision.

Transcript from Ron Paul’s House web page:

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments in Sackett v. EPA, a case of blatant federal agency overreach and abuse of private property rights. Without any proof or reason, and no chance for appeal, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that a small single home lot was a “protected wetland.” The owners, Mike and Chantell Sackett, were ordered to halt construction already underway, to remove all of the work already done, and plant trees and shrubs consistent with a wetlands environment. After making these costly changes, the Sackets then would have to wait several years for the EPA to decide if they would be allowed the use of their own property. Refusal to comply with these outrageous and arbitrary commandments would result in daily fines greater than the value of the property!

Outraged, the Sacketts sought relief through the courts, but court after court determined that they had no standing. The actions of the EPA were not subject to judicial review until a mountain of fees had already been assessed.

This is just another example not only of how federal agencies wield enormous power over average citizens, but also how little practical protection our court system provides when such citizens are harmed by those agencies.

Constitutionally, when the government determines private property is needed for public use, it is taken through eminent domain. In that process the owner is due fair market value in compensation for any condemned property. The EPA not only refuses to compensate the Sacketts for effectively taking their land, they are assessing – or threatening to assess – ruinous penalties that greatly exceed the value of the land. They arrogantly claim the power to determine how certain property owners can use their land, while assessing fines or ordering actions that must be undertaken at the property owner’s expense. All of this is done at the administrative level, with no judicial oversight. In short, the EPA does not believe the Constitution applies to them.

A decision on this case is expected this summer. My fervent hope is that the Supreme Court will thwart this rogue agency and stand up for property rights and the right of people to have their day in court when they find themselves unwittingly accosted by the EPA.

My own district in Texas is no stranger to these issues. Again, with no evidence to support their decision, the EPA arbitrarily determined Matagorda County to be an “Ozone Nonattainment Region”, meaning the air quality is substandard. In fact, the population in this county has been decreasing and the small amount of emissions reported from Matagorda County has actually declined in recent years. The Texas agency charged with environmental protection disagrees with the EPA. Yet Matagorda County, like the Sacketts, finds itself at the mercy of the EPA. New business and construction will be stymied until the Washington masters are satisfied.

Unless Congress acts, EPA bureaucrats will continue to inflict potentially devastating economic consequences on communities like Matagorda County and people like the Sacketts. Destroying the economy is no way to save the environment. A thriving economy and a fair judicial system that respects property rights and the Constitution provide the best protection of the environment.

From Pacific Legal Foundation:

Can federal bureaucrats seize control of your hard-earned property – and deny you a meaningful right to appeal the land grab?

This is the compelling question in Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – the latest PLF case to be accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Observers on all sides see history in the making – a case that could break new ground in environmental law, and win a broad-impact precedent for property rights.

Sackett could have “a sweeping effect,” UC-Davis law professor Richard Frank told NPR. It has the potential “to bolster the rights of landowners facing costly demands from the federal government,” reported Bloomberg/Business Week magazine.

Read more