Supreme Court case involving Idaho lake house ignites conservative cause against EPA

[alp227]

Chantell and Mike Sackett’s dream house, if it is ever built, will have to be situated just so in order to minimize the view of neighboring homes and maximize the vista of pristine water and conifer-covered mountain.

But their roughly half-acre lot in the Idaho Panhandle has proved to be the perfect staging ground for a conservative uproar over the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency.

This month, the Supreme Court will review the Sacketts’s four-year-long effort to build on land that the EPA says contains environmentally sensitive wetlands. A decision in the couple’s favor could curtail the EPA’s authority and mean a fundamental change in the way the agency enforces the Clean Water Act.

Even before the court takes up the case, the couple has become a favored cause for developers, corporations, utilities, libertarians and conservative members of Congress, who condemn what one ally told the court is the EPA’s “abominable bureaucratic abuse.”

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-case-involving-idaho-lake-house-ignites-conservative-cause-against-epa/2011/12/13/gIQAbgfyWP_singlePage.html

[freshwest]

1. Guess there's no Occupy group there to protect the wetlands.

[tabatha]

2. Wetlands NEED to be protected.

I wish more people understood that.

[freshwest]

3. These libertarians will never understand that. From the link below:

Rightwing libertarians have turned “freedom” into an excuse for greed and exploitation.

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/19/how-freedom-became-tyranny/

[tabatha]

4. Yes, they have. That is why I dislike the whole greedy libertarian movement.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011116132856199157.html

[freshwest]

6. Thank you for that with all the links, too. I found this video years ago:

[tabatha]

7. Thank you for that; it makes me cry.

I have the audiobook of this:

To You We Shall Return: Lessons About Our Planet from the Lakota

[freshwest]

9. Yes, it makes cry, too. I wish I could travel to see such places still. I know they are out there.

That audio book sounds very good, is it available on iTunes or Amazon?

I've downloaded a lot of native music and prophecies (such as they are, not sure if they are genuine) from youtube and also attended powwows. There is an energy there that is like nowhere else that resonates deep within me.

I've also purchased music from Amazon, some is said to be authentic, others are said to not be. TIA if you can answer.

[tabatha]

15. I joined Audible Books

because I was travelling a bit, and wanted to listen to something more substantial than radio.

I have not regretted it - all my choices have been from the Science section - mostly Environment and often Biology.

I don't travel much anymore, but listen on my computer and I quite enjoy not having to hold up a book, but just sitting back and listening.

[freshwest]

16. Okay, I'll check that out. The only one I knew was Librivox.

And lectures in mp3 format from youtube.

[blaze]

18. Thank you tabatha, for sourcing that

The video was so powerful for me.... looking at the book now

[tabatha]

20. Sorry, the text in my post was misleading.

The "this" was about something in the link below that I had bought some time ago, not about the previous post. I should watch my meanings better.

[glinda]

10. Took me eight years but I saved a wetland. Basically occupied all media

outlets, all contacts I could find and every person even remotely connected to the area. Even convinced the planners who then went on to win an environmental award for my idea.

[tabatha]

14. That is admirable!

Thanks for doing that.

[glinda]

25. I was so worn out after that. Thanks.

[freshwest]

17. Wonderful. Who protects the area now?

[glinda]

24. Some of the community along with the City recognizing its importance. EVen one of the people who

wanted to pave through it pays attention and has recognized keeping it.

[minavasht]

40. Have you ever been close to wetlands?

have you lived in/close to wetlands?

[Hugabear]

5. Greed. Pure fucking greed.

That's all it is.

[The Doctor.]

11. No, it's oblivious self-interest.

I know... it's a fine line.

[certainot]

8. environmentalists really need to know how important local RW radio was in this. if they dont then

they might be missing EVERYTHING.

maybe it payed no part. but if it got the attention of the heritage or some other billion dollar REW think tank it's likely it got steady action from the local radio blowhards invisible to the environmentalists. environmentalists have been getting screwed by RW radio for 20 years and have had no clue.

the public 'support' for this test case is probably coming from RW radio to give the 5 majority the cover to go corporate once again.

[freshwest]

19. This is a huge problem. Their 24/7 message in every venue that is killing us all.

RW media sources echoing the message have manufactured consent and given those libertarians in goverment cover. At this point we have the internet, but the corporations pay their people and use bots to generate another form of manufactured consent by post counts, poll numbers and clicks.

We're back to face to face to get things done, and it's hard to talk with those who are just repeating what they heard on RW radio. In fact, half of what is said on those sources is to NOT listen to anyone who opposes what they're being told. Scary.

[certainot]

26. we can start by getting our universities out of limbaugh radio

limbaugh just got deserved recognition as the loudest voice for denial and unfortunately many of our biggest unis endorse him by broadcasting sports on his stations.

his week of pushing the 'climate-gate' lie was instrumental getting it into the mainstream in time to undermne copenhagen somewhat. some of those scientists he named repeatedly and threatened got death threats.

15 of 16 of the 2011 NCAA Bball finalists, and many more, broadcast on limbaugh stations- that needs to end.

many of the sports associations go way back before the radio stations were bought up for RW propaganda.

they are essentially 'requiring' their student to listen to those stations.

the global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan propaganda contradicts any university's mission statement and they need to be pressured to break their contracts. other stations should be encouraged/subsidized to bid on those contracts if nothing else, to cause the stations to begin offering balance.

IMO many limbaugh stations could not make it without those associations and the ad money they bring in.

it is a shame that so much activism and volunteer effort and donations are neutralized merely by RW talk radio- the main tool for obstructing action the last 20 years. and it is a shame that so many protests and protestors have been brushed off by some dipshit blowhard with a big microphone. it is a shame that those protestors aren't going to those stations and getting our universities out of the global warming denial business.

[freshwest]

27. You are really knowledgeable on that aspect. Do you see any actions taking place to stop this?

[certainot]

32. i haven't seen any actions to counter RW radio in 20 years, while it's been kicking liberal ass.

there may have been one or two organized protests at radio stations, and the glenn beck boycott got him off CNN but that wasn't for his radio show, which reaches more people.

the problem is there is little or no recognition of the dominant part talk radio plays. while other mediums are significant in what they omit and ignore there is still competition and alternatives there- only radio can do the real classic propaganda. 1000 think tank-coordinated radio stations all repeating the same basic messaging developed in the think tanks on a daily basis to message over anything the left gets lucky with. the coordinated repetition works to 'catapult the propaganda' and the national blowhards are the biggest PC cops and censors-by-threat in the country and have a lot to do with what is acceptable or not in the rest of the media.

basically the right puts people on every corner and stump in the country to scream all day that all things liberal and all their reps and candidates are shit and the left walks by with their iPods in their ears waiting for the internet to save them.

OWS is the about the only thing the last 20 years louder than RW talk radio and the radio just keeps going, with no organized opposition.

the progressive talkers that get better ratings than the RW talkers are basically shut out by the monopoly. the right and many on the left continue to repeat the lie that it's what the markets demand- that 95% of a population that voted overwhelmingly for obama wants RW radio. or that 95% of people who listen to RW radio (50 mil a week) are racist idiots. the fact is that in most parts of the country there are no alternatives for free politics/current events while driving or working. NPR doesn't count.

while it has dominated local and national politics for 20 years the 'left' has ignored it because it gives us headaches to listen to it and there is no written record to read. so it is left out of the analysis except for occasional exposure of racism or stupidity from the limbaughs, while it messages and frames and swiftboats with focus, as opposed to the diverse and unfocused internet and the corporate owned happy-to-oblige print and TV.

as long as the left ignores it there will be no real democracy and reform in the US.

[freshwest]

33. Last paragraph sums it up. Instead of infighting. But I was hoping the students would do something

Regarding the sports sponsorship angle. I'm not sure what their main concerns are, but it appears most of them, except OWS are accepting the RW environment.

I know a lot of people that feel overwhelmed. Although they don't agree, they've already heard all their ideas slammed and don't know who it's safe to talk to in the public arena. It's hard in local communities where one's livelihood or family may be affected by the RWers retaliating.

These programs tell them they should destroy anyone who even asks a question, no matter how neutral, if it's not against the government, against liberals, etc. Perhaps the new language of Occupy will break through this. Because of their lack of party affiliation, refusal to be labeled politically, they can make the points.

Since Obama was elected, the hate radio has trebled and people that wanted to celebrate a Democrat in the White House and make plans were afraid to speak about it. They became closet Obama supporters, didn't talk to anyone except on line. Not in person, they were afraid.

It's been sad that we can't have a difference of opinion anymore in this country. Just because we have different solutions to our problems we are having trouble talking.

[certainot]

34. the dominance of limbaugh especially makes it impossible for moderates in the GOP

and that party is going off a cliff. unfortunately it's dragging the rest of the country with it.

[AndyTiedye]

12. The Supreme Court Decision is a Foregone Conclusion

They don't need any cover from anybody.

[fasttense]

13. Destroying an entire wetland so one family can build a house.

Now that is the perfect philosphy for a psychopath.

It's all about me, me, me. No one cares about you because they are following in the footstep of the one psychopath able to articulate their selfish ideals - Ayn Rand.

Our society is psychotic. We allow individuals and corporations, run by sick, defect people, to destroy everything except what they want. And eventually what they want is to destory all of us not like them.

[hack89]

21. They bought a lot with an installed sewer hook up in an existing development

they did not buy a pristine plot of land.

[MicaelS]

22. "Destroying an entire wetland"?????

What hyperbole. It is .63 acres That is 27,742 sq ft. Are area of land 166 ft on a side. How much of a wetland can be on that space? If it so important to the Federal Government, then let them buy the land at a price to be determined by binding arbitration.

[Mopar151]

23. No hype - just reality.

How big a hole are you going dig in that swamp, to put the foundation in? How will the foundation be kept dry? Was the wetland a known issue when they bought the lot? How is the EPA to blame for some fool buying a non-buildable lot? How much should the taxpayers subsidize their flood insurance?

Wetlands are important to a lot more than the feds - they are our "Britta filter" for ground and surface water - and mucking up 1/2 an acre can affect much more

[christx30]

28. In that case,

I would like to see the homeowner sue the person from which he bought the land. It's pretty much worthless if they can't build on it.

[SixthSense]

36. that's the real problem

if you buy a piece of land with the stated intent to build on it, and afterwards through no fault of your own (post-facto determination) you find out you can't, you've just been swindled out of your money, and now have to pay property taxes on a piece of land you can't use

and to make it even worse, once it's public record that it's protected land, you can't sell it either... and unlike eminent domain, you don't get compensation

The right way to do it is when a piece of land is sold, before the purchase is complete an official determination should be made as to what restrictions apply to land use.

[alarimer]

29. Fuck these people and their house.

Rich assholes.

[and-justice-for-all]

30. They will not be happy until everythig is resource is used up and burnt to the ground.

They all see is dollar signs.

[Gringostan]

31. These are the very same people

These are the very same people whom; If I were to open a private business, operating as a rehab center, in their neighborhood, would be knocking little old ladies over as they ran to the court. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, they want government out of their lives so that they can do what they want, but if somebody wants to interfere with their right wing Shangri-La they will beet feet to the courts.

[AlecBGreen]

35. this "F you leave me alone" mentality runs deep

People think: its my land, I can do what I want with it, to hell with how it affects others.

Case in point: A neighbor upstream from us developed 100 acres. The stream is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, a place we truly love. My dad noticed the builders were not complying with legal requirements to stop erosion and the stream was getting filled with silt. We went to the owners and said "hey, follow the law." We got death threats because of that They named the entrance to the development Clean Water Drive as a big F you to use every time we go home. I just have to laugh at how petty and spiteful people can be. Its either that or get enraged and life is too short to poison my self with all that hate.

[The Green Manalishi]

37. Trying to understand

why the EPA shouldn't have to go through due process.

If the case for saving these wetlands is strong enough there should be no problem.

no matter HOW NOBLE the reason, a person should never be deprived of due process. It looks to me like the government and EPA is saying "you don't even have a right to challenge me in court." Not sure if I like that.

Yes, keeping someone from using their land for a purpose that was legal when they bought it (which is the subject of the dispute that the EPA doesn't want adjudicated) should fall under eminent domain; no government agency should have power without accountability, under any administration,

This is going to be a loser for the environmental movement, the EPA should have picked its battle a bit better and not come off as so arrogant, no mater how righteous the goal.

[uncle ray]

39. there is no great noble cause here.

the property owner is refusing to take even the first step towards resolution by the EPAs existing rules(and that would be Bush's EPA when this conflict started). step one was to remove the fill that he, an excavating contractor, brought in for the purpose of filling in low land. do you think that low land necessitating fill may possibly be wetlands? should the burden be on the EPA to remove the fill material, or try to make their case with the land being altered from the state it must be in for permitting to take place? any excavator should know that you DO NOT make significant changes to the land until permits are in place.

it is the landowner who chose his battle poorly.

[One_Life_To_Give]

38. Wetlands

An area owned/desired by a developer not affiliated with the party in power.

[EBL]

41. Common Sense on this issue should prevail.

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/supreme-court-takes-up-idaho-property.html

Of course the EPA has to be subject to judicial review. This is a no brainer. The whole issue of this case is whether you can go to court if the EPA rules against you. Remember the EPA guy in Ghost Busters? These EPA guys in Idaho were worse.

[theAntiRand]

42. The environment outweighs property rights every time

Some people just never get it. There's people who would drain a wetland even if it was home to frogs that held the cure for every disease known to man. They'd drain it and wipe out the frogs even if they knew the frogs had said cure. There's people who would burn down a forest even if God itself appeared to them and warned them that burning down the forest would directly cause humanity's extinction ten years later. All for their precious little house and the ego boost that comes with it.