On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Priest Lake residents Mike and Chantell Sackett.  We’ve written about this complicated wetlands case before. The Sacketts are suing the EPA over a wetland determination on their property, and that a compliance order issued by EPA in the case should be immediately reviewable in a Court.

In support of the Sacketts’ position, some 13 parties filed “friend of the court” briefs to expand on the Sacketts’ arguments, including heavyweights like the Farm Bureau, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Home Builders and General Electric.  However, when KEA joined with NRDC, Waterkeeper Alliance, and several other Idaho conservation groups to file a similar brief in support of the EPA, the Sacketts filed a rare objection. The Supreme Court will likely decide whether or not to allow our brief in the next several days.

At issue is the fact that the scenario the Sacketts outline for the Court does not entirely comport to what actually happened. Documents obtained by environmental groups – including a timeline written by Chantell Sackett herself – paint an entirely different picture.

The Sacketts, who argue to the Court that they were blindsided by an EPA Compliance Order regarding the existence of wetlands on their property, fail to acknowledge to the Court that the EPA and their own consultant told them about the wetlands months earlier. (Much later, the Sacketts evidently hired another consultant more to their liking.) The Sacketts who argue about the heavy hand of the EPA fail to acknowledge to the Court that they had ample opportunity to work with EPA to resolve the issues for almost six months prior to receiving the compliance order and for months afterward. The Sacketts who claim that the wetlands permitting process and risk of fines would be financially devastating and would therefore violate their due process rights, fail to mention that an “after the fact” permit would have been very easy and inexpensive to obtain and was offered by the Corps of Engineers as an option.

The Sacketts do not dispute any of these facts. They do, however, in their opposition to our filing, try to explain them away and diminish their significance to the narrow procedural case before the Court.

Indeed, the Supreme Court may decide that the issue of whether the Sacketts’ story holds up or not is the Supreme Court’s problem, and is rather the Sackett’s problem for a later date. The theoretical issues identified by the Supreme Court in granting their review remain the same. The problem, we believe, is that the Supreme Court doesn’t decide theoretical issues, they decide actual cases. We simply believe they should have all the information in this actual case.  We’ll let you know if the Court lets us give our version of the story.

print