Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of The Reporter, its publisher or its staff. You can submit your own Letter to the Editor by email to News@ReadTheReporter.com. Please include your phone number and city of residence. The Reporter will publish one letter per person per week.
Dear Editor:
I read with interest the letter written by Alex Libby (Dec. 8, 2023) discussing the Supreme Court Case Sackett v. EPA.
The Sacketts are a couple who purchased land in Priest Lake, Idaho, to build a home. This case took 16 years in supporting the Sackett’s claim against the EPA.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) became involved and told the Sacketts they had to stop their construction of their home immediately or be fined thousands of dollars per day if they continued their construction of their home.
The Sacketts had obtained all the permits in 2004 to build their home which was in a subdivision. Take note: “in a subdivision,” which had to be approved by the local authorities. Were other homes already built in this subdivision or in the process? Why were the Sacketts singled out?
It may be that their lot was in the area of “the waters of the United States.” The Sacketts had to level out the dirt by backfilling on their lot in preparation of building their home. The EPA declared this backfilling was against the Clean Water Act alleging the property was a protected wetland under federal authority.
The issue here is the definition of navigable waters. In this case their property drained into a ditch which drained into a creek which drained into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
The problem with the act initiated by Congress in 1972 has caused confusion about adjacent wetlands and adjoining wetlands near covered navigable waters. Adjacent means side by side and adjoining indicates connecting.
In the case of Rapanos v. United States, “To assert jurisdiction over an adjacent wetland under the CWA, a party must establish “first, that the adjacent [body of water constitutes] … ‘water[s] of the United States’ (i.e., a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters); and second, that the wetland has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.”
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. He asked these questions about “waters of the United States.” “The Act applies to “the waters of the United States,” but what does that phrase mean? Does the term encompass any backyard that is soggy enough for some minimum period of time? Does it reach “mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, [and] wet meadows? How about ditches, swimming pools, and puddles?”
In the Sacketts’ case, how much water will be coming from their property with a continuous flow from the pipe to the ditch to the creek continuing on to Priest Lake? Will their ditch be a seasonal puddle?
This Supreme Court case was very important to property owner rights and using common sense about ambiguous laws concerning government overreach. As stated in the facts of this case, the EPA provided the Sacketts “no proof of any violation and no opportunity to contest its claims.”
Libby claimed, “With the snap of its fingers, land can be lost, water can be polluted, and humans can suffer.” The Sacketts suffered for 16 years of court cases and most likely financial stress.
Mari Briggs
Sheridan