Home > Blogs > North Carolina > Iredell County > Mooresville > Supreme Court Sides with Property Owners in EPA Appeals Case
89,364 views

G.I. Lawrie Lawrence-(704) 994-8641

By G.I. LAWRIE LAWRENCE, Realtor | Broker in Mooresville, NC

Supreme Court Sides with Property Owners in EPA Appeals Case

Daily Real Estate News | Thursday, March 22, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court handed private property owners a victory yesterday with a decision allowing a couple to appeal an EPA ruling that their property contains a wetlands.

The court's decision is supported by the National Association of REALTORS®, which along with other organizations submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.

The ruling is on a narrow procedural issue: whether the owners have the right to appeal the EPA's wetlands determination or wait until they first restore the property to its original state and then institute expensive and time-consuming monitoring activities, as EPA directed them to. Noncompliance with the directive can subject violators to fines of up to $75,000 a day.

Lower courts have sided with the EPA, saying the agency's compliance orders aren't subject to judicial review. Only when the agency goes before a judge to assess a fine for noncompliance is the order reviewable by a court. But the Supreme Court in its unanimous decision said it's appropriate to allow parties to contest agency decisions before having to first comply with the order.

NAR argued in its brief that the property owners in this case were being denied due process because the compliance procedures take years to work through and the costs are significant — all before the main question of whether the property contains a wetlands is even considered.

In this case, Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a piece of property in an already developed subdivision near Priest Lake in Idaho with sewer infrastructure already in place. After they started to prepare the property for construction of their house, they were directed by the EPA to stop and mitigate the changes they had made to the land out of a concern that the property contained a wetland — even though the property was adjacent to other developed properties and there was no water on the site at the time.

The Sacketts sought a hearing for their case to determine whether the property contained a wetlands, but EPA said that question couldn't be decided until after they undertook the restoration and monitoring activities, or refused to do that and were levied a fine.

With the Supreme Court decision, the Sacketts can now get their day in court.

By Robert Freedman, REALTOR® Magazine

Comments

By Bryant Denson,  Fri Mar 23 2012, 08:52
As a soon to be member of RPAC, (Realtor Political Action Committee) I support this decision with great applause. It never ceases to amaze me how our very complicated and sophisticated government; often need help with a simple common sense solution.

While protection of the Wetlands is the right thing to do, this appears to be a unique case where, there was no clear case for the need of that protection. In these economic times to force an expensive process that might not be necessary and possibly deny an American family that right to every Americans dream is unthinkable.

Thank goodness that organizations like NAR, (the National Association of Realtors) are there to help protect the interests of the public. I am proud to be a member! This is a victory not only for the Sacketts but for all homeowners. We can all be happy and share in the spoils!

POST
 
Copyright © 2014 Trulia, Inc. All rights reserved.   |  
Have a question? Visit our Help Center to find the answer