Free Market Carnivore's Blog

You may have noticed that our reflection of agriculture’s displeasure with the EPA has become a sentiment shared by enough citizens and businesses that politicians and the media – at least conservative media – have noticed.  Issues and principles that farmers and ranchers have argued for decades have finally become important to much of the rest of America.

 On Monday, Jan. 9, 2012, a case with far reaching implications for all will be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court, the first case this year for which oral arguments will be presented.  Just as a small pink house in Connecticut became the focus of private property rights in the Kelo case in 2005, a house not yet constructed in Idaho will again put the spotlight on property rights in 2012.  The case involves private property rights at a fundamental level and its favorable resolution could significantly bolster Americans’ rights, as they seek to get Constitutional rights back from a big government that has seized them.

 In 2008, an Idaho couple who purchased a lot in a platted subdivision already occupied with houses suddenly found the EPA telling them that not only were they forbidden to build a house on the lot but the substantial amount of gravel they had put on the lot must be removed.  The EPA had declared the lot that the county had given them a permit to build on a “wetlands.”  Michael and Chantell Sackett found out removing the gravel they’d already put on the lot would cost more than the lot itself.  On top of that, the EPA, unless they removed the gravel and returned the lot to its pristine state, would begin fining them $32,000 day.

 To add insult to injury, two levels of courts told the Sacketts they were not allowed to challenge the EPA in court.  Luckily for them – at least short-term – the Supreme Court is allowing them their day in court.  It is to be hoped that the Sacketts get justice much more in line with what Americans think are their rights under the Constituion than Susette Kelo did.