EPA IDIOCY - WILL THE MADNESS EVER STOP?

[CG6468]

EPA to property owner: 'Your land is our land'
$40 million in fines pending over plan to build new home
Posted: September 23, 2011
9:50 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

Mike and Chantell Sackett

Just imagine. You want to build a home, so you buy a $23,000 piece of land in a residential subdivision in your hometown and get started. The government then tells you to stop, threatens you with $40 million in fines and is not kidding.

That's the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, with briefs being filed today by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a Priest Lake, Idaho, family, Chantell and Mike Sackett.

Attorney Damien Schiff, who will be arguing before the high court in the case, said it's simply a case of a government run amok, and it poses a potential threat to perhaps not every landowner across the nation, but untold millions.

The Sacketts, Schiff said, "bought property, and the government in effect has ordered them to treat the property like a public park."

"The EPA has not paid them a dime for that privilege," he said. "The regime we have operating now allows the EPA to take property without having to pay for it, or giving the owners the right to their day in court.""

Jan the Man Napolitano is drunk with power, power that is unconstitutional.

YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

[formerlurker]

The Sacketts appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for the right to go straight to a federal judge. The high court agreed to hear the case in its fall term. It is being watched closely by environmentalists and property rights activists because of its potential scope. A ruling in the Sacketts’ favor would blunt one of the agency’s favorite enforcement tools. Each year it issues up to 3,000 “administrative compliance orders” to businesses and individuals, demanding an end to alleged environmental violations and applying enough pressure that those who are accused typically give in before the agency has to justify the action before a judge.

“The compliance order tool is one of a few mechanisms that EPA has to resolve, and resolve quickly, pollution problems,” says Jon P. Devine, a senior attorney with the National Resources Defense Council. The EPA argues the rules are reasonable. While fines may accrue, they won’t actually be assessed until the Sacketts have a chance to make their case to a judge, it says. Agency officials declined to be interviewed.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/mike-and-chantell-sackett-vs-the-epa-08112011.html


Some idiot minion in the EPA received a complaint and took it upon his or herself to take this down the path of unintended consequences. 

Say your land was situated on a breathtaking view of/bordering on federally owned body of water.   A commercial developer comes in, purchases adjacent land, starts tearing it  up, filling in the water area to create beach front, tearing down trees, etc. etc.    Because SCOTUS comes back with an order that effectively makes EPA's authority null and void, any cease and desist letter from the EPA to the commercial property will be completely ignored (as it costs a lot of money for the commercial owner to stop work and wait out the process).    By the time the day in court is had that picture perfect world that you purchased is destroyed.  Commercial owner gets a my bad fine, and life goes on. 

The EPA's heavy hand in this one is going to cost them dearly.   Idiots.



I am having a hard time believing this is wetlands.  What gorgeous property that is.

[Texacon]

The EPA is the absolute WORST government agency.  Anyone who has to do anything with them understands just how powerful and horrible that agency is.  WHY the DUmmies like them?  Because they are government run amok.  They can do anything they want with impunity.

KC

[JohnnyReb]

That picture looks like the waste area for the spoils off of other lots. He may have been a wet area before it was filled with waste....or someone may have pissed on it the day EPA came out.

A few cattails in a mudhole made by a log skidder cost the local school board about a $100,000.00 the other year.

[MrsSmith]

5th ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.  

The EPA operates in a blatantly unConstitutional manner.

[ollie]

The EPA is just one agency of many I think we could do without. Think back 50 years, did we need a Department of energy a Department of Transportation. Housing and Urban Developmentt, etc. Nope, the Greatest Generation got along fine without them. Want to save money, dump those useless money wasters. I almost forgot, who needs a Department of Education? Why can't the state's handle it?  Just a thought!

[rich_t]

The EPA is just one agency of many I think we could do without. Think back 50 years, did we need a Department of energy a Department of Transportation. Housing and Urban Developmentt, etc. Nope, the Greatest Generation got along fine without them. Want to save money, dump those useless money wasters. I almost forgot, who needs a Department of Education? Why can't the state's handle it?  Just a thought!

We don't need a Department of Education either.

[Rugnuts]

im starting to believe we dont need a Department of Government [period]

[CG6468]

   
September 27, 2011
EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion
Published: 11:57 AM 09/26/2011 | Updated: 1:31 PM 09/26/2011
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller


The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be “absurd” in application and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.

The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn’t give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency’s authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.

The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.

Soylent Greenhouse Gases

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Burning down the EPA would be worth the carbon credits.

[CG6468]

The bastard and his EPA are well on their way to destroy this country.

[JohnnyReb]

Cost of $21 billion my ass....that's just the salaries.

Government benefits, buildings, computers, cars, gas, etc, etc......$200 billion would be more like it.

230,000 employees times $100,000 salary = $23,000,000,000 ....and that ain't no DUmmie math. A HAA-vard education is getting worth less and less everyday.

[CG6468]

Cost of $21 billion my ass....that's just the salaries.

Government benefits, buildings, computers, cars, gas, etc, etc......$200 billion would be more like it.

I think your estimate is far too low. The total, with associated damages, may be 5x to 10x that number. Remember - unintended consequences.

[Karin]

Holy God, this is crazy!  They have to be stopped!

Herman Cain said in the last debates, when asked which government agency he would close, answered EPA.  Scrap it and start over.  Amen.  Every state has their own, anyway.  NYDEC runs amok plenty on it own. 

JohnnyReb:  Cattails!  Those godforsaken things have become just like a bear cub.  Steer clear and run!  CT had a big brouhaha some years ago over those, they were on some dirtbag abandoned property and it was a big stinking deal.  I remember as kid I used to pick them for my mom.  Can you imagine what would happen to me now? 

[Erasmus]

And here I was thinking that eminent domain provisions were being abused by the states in anti-competitive ways.