This fall the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in a dispute that positions property owners against federal environmental laws. The case, Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, involves Chantell and Michael Sackett who were attempting to build a house on land they owned near Priest Lake, Idaho. Before construction of the structure began, the Sacketts received a notice from the Environmental Protection Agency informing them that the land was subject to the federal Clean Water Act. Because of that designation, the EPA charged the couple with illegally placing fill materials into what was described as “jurisdictional wetlands.” The Sacketts eventually took their case to the Supreme Court, after both a district court and circuit court of appeals ruled in favor of the EPA. The higher court never made a clear ruling in the matter, leaving in place a district court ruling declaring that the land in question was a wetland, and the Sacketts had failed to file for the required permits before they began their project. Now the Supreme Court is poised to revisit the issue, trying to determine whether the Sacketts’ land falls under the umbrella of “waters of the United States,” making it thus subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. Delaware Senator Tom Carper and Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio have filed an amicus brief in the case, contending that “the resolution of this matter could have a profound impact” on wetlands protection efforts. The outcome of the case may prove particularly significant to developers and contractors contemplating projects in wetlands areas. What the Supreme Court ultimately decides in the matter, says the National Law Review, will be important, as will how the “Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency interpret and implement that decision.” By Garry Boulard
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Get stories like these right to your inbox.
|