Siding With Property Owners

Siding With Property Owners. I’m Greg Martin with today’s Line On Agriculture.

In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court ruled that property owners are entitled to their day in court when the Environmental Protection Agency asserts jurisdiction over their land. In this case, Sackett v. EPA, the EPA told the Sacketts they had to stop building their new home because it was on wetlands. When the couple asked for a hearing, their request was denied.

PARRISH: We didn’t get the clarity in terms of where EPA can and can’t regulate, but we forced the agency into a position where their decisions are going to get more scrutiny and that’s good. It’s going to be more scrutiny by members of Congress and more scrutiny by the courts. However, we still lack the clarity that I think our landowners want.

American Farm Bureau Regulatory Specialist Don Parrish says Farm Bureau filed briefs in the case because so many of its members are landowners who could face the same situation as the Sacketts.

PARRISH: Over time, EPA has just expanded their regulatory reach so significantly that farmers always seem to be behind the eight ball. EPA can expand their jurisdiction and they really have no opportunity to challenge that regulatory reach. In fact, landowners not only face that kind of nebulous regulatory reach, they’re also facing huge penalties and it’s very difficult for individual farmland owners to engage. So I think it’s very important for organizations that represent them like Farm Bureau to engage. 

EPA claimed the Sacketts were violating the Clean Water Act, but Parrish says that agency has pushed their jurisdiction way beyond what Congress intended when it enacted those regulatory reforms.

PARRISH: We’ve got a long way to go to fix this issue. We’ve got to work with Congress. We’ve got to work with the regulatory agencies. We’ve got a lot to do but we can fix it.

He explains why he thinks the EPA has gone beyond its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

PARRISH: Congress used the term “navigable” for a reason. They intended for the agencies to put a limit on where the federal government can regulate and they intended for the agencies to draw a distinction between what are state waters and what are federally protected waters and the agency didn’t do that. They try to regulate everything and maybe that’s the agency’s mission, but it’s not what Congress intended. I would clearly say that the Supreme Court recognized that there was a limit to federal jurisdiction, but so far the agency has put off trying to clarify what that limit is.

That’s today’s Line On Agriculture. I’m Greg Martin on the Ag Information Network.