Small potatoes: EPA bullies Idaho landowners (A Legal Perspective)

Before I begin this post I would like to point out that Creeling’s title on this was hilarious.

I’m a little loath to comment too much about the viability of the couple’s possible suit against the realtor who sold them their property. This is mostly because its summer time and I really don’t feel like doing any formal legal research about what makes a title unmarketable in Idaho. I am confident that if the realtor knew about the regulation and misrepresented the situation to the couple then he would be liable for the shenanigans he pulled. But if that didn’t happen, then I think the buyer’s would have been expected to find that information themselves since it was a public regulation[1].

I do believe that this couple’s suit against the EPA is appropriate and that there is a possibility these people’s due-process rights were violated. Rather than suing on the grounds that the law that allowed them to classify their property as a wetland is unconstitutional, they are suing on the grounds that their rights were violated. The EPA denied them a hearing to contest the classification of their property; and while this may not amount to a taking by the government, the EPA has certainly curtailed their use of the land and these folks should certainly have the opportunity to contest it. If the Supreme Court finds against these homeowners, it is essentially giving the EPA the ability to act with impunity when it decides to regulate what a homeowner can and cannot do on his property. Citizens should always have the right to challenge what the government does in a public forum, and in this case they should have the administrative hearing they requested so they can demand to know why their land was classified this way. Even if the agency never even seriously considers these people’s case and had a perfectly legitimate reason for making their property a wetland, the owners should have the right to a hearing to contest the EPA’s decision because justice demands that government agencies be held accountable for the decisions they make when they affect the lives of citizens.

---

[1] If I didn’t make it clear enough above I want to make it clear now: This is not a formal legal discussion of this case. I haven’t researched it and I’m doing the best my summer-baked brain can to remember last semester’s property class.