When I read this article, I was so struck by how much that it did not say, that I decided to include it in my journal postings. The article describes a meeting between a Priest lake couple and a group of United States Senators and representatives, including the two Idaho senators (Sen. Crapo and Sen. Risch), and one representative (Rep. Labrador). The couple is involved in a law suit against the EPA over disputed wetlands. The Sackett's case has been accepted by the Supreme Court for this term, and it appears that the Sackett's have fallen into a deep hole in the bureaucracy created by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the agency rules written to implement and enforce the act. However, this article provides no real information about the dispute, the CWA complaint, the EPA compliance order or why the Sacketts didn't just secure a permit or waiver from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to filling in the wetland portion of their lot.
Even though the EPA rule may need to be revised, amended or removed in such cases, it does not mean that the agency itself is evil, unnecessary and unconstitutional. This article clearly has one goal - to sway public opinion of the readers against any potential beneficial actions that the EPA may engage. Words such as "overzealous", "bullying", "victimize" used to describe the agency contribute to direct quotes by the elected officials who have both partisan and ideological opposition to the EPA and many other government regulatory agencies.
Somehow it seems wrong on so many levels to use the power of the press to push a partisan agenda in this way. The Sackett's may very well be innocent of any wrong doing, caught up in inadequate or inappropriate agency rules, and deserve damages and an apology for their ordeal. However, the Coeur d'Alene Press's failure to acknowledge that there are at least two sides to every story, and admit that there are valid reasons for the EPA to exist and protect the interests of all citizens in preserving clean air and water, is an egregious and unethical use of their persuasive power. The subtle purpose of the article is clear when reading the last paragraph of the article. Sen. Crapo and Sen. Risch are dilligently working on legislation that would severly limit the ability of all federal agencies to act, enforce and regulate everything from pesticide use to livestock manure. It appears that this article is not intended to be informational or educational whatsoever, but merely propaganda for gaining constituent support for ideologically motivated federal legislation.
So much for a free press that abides by a code of journalistic ethics!
N. Idaho couple battle 'overzealous' EPA
Posted: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:08 pm
Washington, D.C. - A Priest Lake couple is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court over a land use dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that should have never occurred, according to Members of the Idaho Congressional Delegation. Mike and Chantell Sackett were in Washington, D.C., today as part of a forum convened by Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and attended by Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, Idaho Senator Jim Risch and Idaho Representative Raúl Labrador.
"This is what happens when an over-zealous federal agency would rather force compliance than give any consideration to private property rights, individual rights, basic decency or common sense," Crapo told the Sacketts. Crapo is a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), with oversight of the EPA. He said when Congress wrote the Clean Water Act, it was never intended to authorize actions against citizens such as those that the EPA has engaged in against the Sacketts. The EPA initiated an enforcement action against the Sacketts, paving the way to fine the couple up to $32,500 per day until they complied. In response, the Sacketts sued the EPA for violating their rights to due process under the U.S. Constitution.
"It's stunning to hear this kind of action is happening right here in America," said Risch. "It is critical that Americans understand that federal bureaucrats have gone well beyond their authority to keep our air and water clean. The legislative branch must reclaim its constitutional right to legislate and stop these abuses."
"Listening to the Sackett family tell their story today to Members of Congress was eye-opening," said Labrador. "Hearing their firsthand experience with a bullying federal agency that seems to be above the law is frustrating. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will stand with them, and with the concept of due process enshrined in the Constitution to remind an overreaching bureaucracy that no agency, no matter how big, can run roughshod over the principles of law and order. I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will find that the EPA does not have the power to victimize private citizens as they have with the Sacketts."
The Delegation members say the Sackett case demonstrates why Congress must stay engaged because federal agencies and some members of Congress want to expand federal power over the rights of property owners and individuals. Last Congress, Crapo, Risch and other Senators blocked a bill from consideration that would have drastically expanded the scope of the Clean Water Act and provided legal authority to EPA to engage in the type of overreach seen in the Sackett case.
During the forum, the Sacketts emphasized their case is a violation of their Constitutional rights. "Can EPA take over your land, calling it ‘wetlands,' without meaningful, direct judicial review?" they said. "We believe property owners have a constitutional right to have their day in court and EPA has to be subject to the rule of law."
Crapo has joined with Risch and other Republican Senators on several separate bills that would
curtail further overreach by federal agencies. Similar efforts are underway in the House. The
legislation would stop the government from increasing regulations regarding farm pesticides, farm
dust and livestock manure.
No comments:
Post a Comment