Fox and Friends Highlights Another Federal Land-Grab
Author: Anne Hayes
Does anyone believe the Clean Water Act was passed so that federal bureaucrats could force American citizens to pay outrageous fees just to build a little house on their own property in rural Idaho? Well, the EPA does.
Thursday morning at 6:50 a.m. Eastern, Fox and Friends co-anchor Steve Doocy will be interviewing PLF clients Mike and Chantell Sackett, who are facing this EPA-concocted nightmare.
We have discussed the Sackett case in PLF's blog before. The Sacketts are being singled out by the EPA for filling in a "wetland" without a permit. This "wetland" is a small plot of land in a fully-built out neighborhood in the little town of Priest Lake, Idaho. There are houses on either side of the property, and two raised road-beds on the other sides of the property.
Given these facts, it's hard to see how this is a protected "wetland," especially since none of the Sacketts neighbors have ever had to get a permit–including all the houses that are across the street on the shores of Priest Lake. Never mind. That does not stop the EPA from trying to shakedown the Sacketts, including demanding that they remove all the fill material they put on the land in preparation for building a modest 3-bedroom home, or face fines of up to $32,500 per day. (Yes, per day.) After all of that, the Sacketts will have to let the land sit for three years (while they pay taxes on it) and then they'll finally be able to apply for a permit to fill these "wetlands"–a permit that will cost more than the property is worth and take years to process.
Be sure to tune in to hear more from the Sacketts about their battle against the EPA, tomorrow morning at 6:50 a.m. EDT on Fox and Friends. PLF would like to take this opportunity to thank Steve Doocy and Fox and Friends for helping us to get the word out about the Sacketts, as well as some of our other clients, such as Bob Slobe and Denise McLaughlan, whose private property rights are being actively destroyed or undermined by government bureaucrats.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›