Property Rights Sackett v. EPA—How One Couple's Battle Against the Feds Might Protect Your Land


The Sacketts, alleged violators of federal law.

The decision in the Supreme Court case Sackett v. EPA, due later this spring, could very well affect the meaning of property rights and due process in the United States. So how did a small-town couple from Northern Idaho ever become the center of such a momentous case? talked with the Sacketts and their attorney to find out. 

Mike Sackett dreamed of building a home on Idaho's Priest Lake ever since he camped there with friends in high school.

"I remember coming home, told my mom and dad that I was going to move to Priest Lake, and they just said, 'Oh, no you're not.' And I said, 'Oh yeah. Yeah I am,'" Sackett said.

Priest Lake. Yeah, the view is all right.

Years later, Sackett realized that dream when he and his wife, Chantelle Sackett, bought a plot of land near Priest Lake and started to build. After securing the necessary permits from local authorities, the Sacketts were only three days into the process of clearing the land when officials from the EPA showed up and put their dreams on hold. 

The EPA informed the Sacketts that they suspected they were building on wetlands and had to cease work immediately. The Sacketts were stunned because their property was a completely landlocked lot within an existing subdivision. When Chantelle Sackett asked for evidence, the EPA pointed her to the National Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventory, which showed them that their lot… was not on an existing wetland.

The EPA responded issued what's known as a compliance order, which said that the Sacketts were in violation of the Clean Water Act and subject to fines of up to $37,500 a day.

EPA says this landlocked property is a wetland. And there's nothing you can do about it.

"You go to bed with that on your mind every night," said Mike Sackett, who owns a contracting company. "It's been painful personally. It's been painful on our business."

The EPA refused to offer any documentation or evidence for its position, even after the Sacketts hired their own scientists to refute the wetlands claim. Feeling they had no other choice, they tried to take the EPA to court. Unfortuna

tely, not even this was an option, because the EPA maintained that a compliance order is nothing more than a warning and that they cannot be challenged until they actually enforce the fines, which were racking up by the day.

"The only way the Sacketts could get judicial review that way, was by ignoring the compliance order," said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which took up the Sacketts' case. "EPA still might just sit on its hands and let the possible fines pile up." 

Schiff and the Pacific Legal Foundation lost to the EPA in lower courts, but this afforded them the opportunity to take the case to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in early January 2012. Schiff and the Sacketts both felt heartened by what transpired there. 

"I was surprised by some of the questions that came from the justices," said Mike Sackett. "They were questions that we would've asked."

EPA must have just missed this sign.

If the Sacketts do win in the Supreme Court, they will then have the opportunity to actually challenge the EPA's compliance order in the lower courts. Just having the opportunity to challenge that, says Schiff, would be a major victory for property rights and for due process of law. 

"The agency says it doesn't want to go into court, it shouldn't have to go into court," said Schiff. "The chutzpah, the arrogance, is, frankly, almost unimaginable." 

About 7:38 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Sharif Matar. Additional camera by Paul Detrick, Tracy Oppenheimer, and Weissmueller. Additional footage courtesy of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Music: "Water" by Big Blood, "City Night Line" by Cobra avec Panther, "The River Who Drinks All I've Had" by Makunouchi Bento, "Film 1" by Torture Super Sonic.

Visit for downloadable versions and subscribe to's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live. 

NEXT: Andrew Napolitano on the NYPD's Spy Program

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The reason for the military buildup during the Eisenhower administration does have a rational explanation. In the early 50s, Eisenhower was visited by extraterrestrials. The first group that he encountered (the Nords) offered to provide assistance in our spiritual development. However, they were appalled by our warlike tendencies and demanded that we disarm our nuclear weapons. The Eisenhower administration refused. They were then approached by a second group of extraterrestrials (the Greys) who offered technology in return for permission to abduct American citizens and perform medical experiments on them. The Eisenhower administration agreed to this treaty, although the Greys were quite forceful in pushing the conditions of the treaty.

    1. The technology we received was less than what we had bargained for, and the Greys began abducting many more citizens then they were permitted to by the terms of the treaty. Realizing that the Greys were untrustworthy, the Eisenhower administration feared that the Greys would invade our planet. They then began to develop advanced missile technologies in preparation for a defense against a planetary invasion. Realizing that they could not disclose the extraterrestrial threat to the public, the administration blamed the Russians for the military buildup.

      1. I will keep posting this comment until the truth is heard!! It has to get out there! Otherwise you cannot truly be free! Don’t you all understand the system? The holograms they have set up? Brain waves can power an electric train! Do you understand the implications of that? People call me crazy. That’s only because the system has made a protocol in which they try to discredit people who see past the illusion! They appear to be crazy because they see things that aren’t there, and they don’t see things that are there. What is really going on is they have a natural immunity to the holograms! The system created by these “Greys” dictates our laws. Certain medical compounds derived from plants (Salvia Divinorum, certain strains of Marijuana, Psilocybin mushrooms) can cause interference with the Reality Inhibiting Field Transmitter’s signal!

        1. Cool story, bro

          1. Meh. Better than a loon screaming that we are all secret Republicans hargle bargle!

              1. Freegoper!

              2. Not cool bro

        2. But water melts the Greys, yo.

          1. No, you’re thinking of the Tenctonese.

        3. Really? “The Nords”?

          1. Avord the Nord!


              On January 30, 1989, Kenneth Lamar Noid, a mentally ill customer who thought the ads were a personal attack on him, held two employees of an Atlanta, Georgia, Domino’s restaurant hostage for over five hours. After forcing them to make him a pizza and making demands for $100,000, getaway transportation, and a copy of The Widow’s Son, Noid surrendered to the police.[5] After the incident had ended, Police Chief Reed Miller offered a memorable assessment to reporters: “He’s paranoid.”[6] Noid was charged with kidnapping, aggravated assault, extortion, and possession of a firearm during a crime. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

              1. I’m sorry, but that’s just all kinds of awesome.

                1. His real mistake was forcing them to make him a Domino’s Pizza.

                  Unless, of course, that was all part of his plan to plea insanity.

            1. “Space Brothers” are northern European viking looking blondes? I smell a conspiracy.

              1. Hang on… Space Brothers aren’t blonde white guys!

          2. Yes, the Nords.

            “I used to visit Eisenhower like you, but then I took an arrow in the knee.”

        4. I detect a whiff of reasonite trolling. Or not.

        5. “I have come here today to kick ass and chew bubblegum and I’m all out of bubblegum”.

  2. This case drives me mad every time I see it reported. At least it’s being reported.

    But what was done to these people? I’m glad they have the fortitude to carry on, because a lot of people would have given up the fight.

    Good on ya, Sacketts.

    1. Yeah. I fail to see how the EPA has even remotely provided a fig-leaf to due process.

      1. According to the Attorney General, if the bureaucrats say you’ve had due process, then by definition, you’ve had due process.

      2. Citizens must go to the Supreme Court for permission to challenge an EPA order. With lawful procedure like this, there is no hope for the U.S.A.

        Burn the Constitution now!

  3. Why do I have this image in my head as the weeping sore masquerading as the EPA agent?

  4. Also, the fact that the Sacketts “lost in the lower courts” – unconscionable, and unbeliev…no, wait, totally “believable”. Unfortunatley.


    1. As a matter of established law it’s pretty straightforward that they don’t have standing to sue until actually harmed. I seriously doubt that any lower court wants to set a precedent that government advice gives standing to sue.

      I mean, it’s clear that the EPA is abusing its ability to issue warnings here, and in fact I’d say that if they want to say it’s just a warning, then they shouldn’t be allowed to start counting the days for the fine at that point. But this would represent an entirely new legal theory which probably has to be originated by SCOTUS.

      1. They are using intimidation to expand their purview. There must be recourse and hopefully SCOTUS will rule so.

        I think your solution is quite reasonable. You can threaten, but until you issue the fine you can’t start accrual.

      2. See veemee’s comment below – better stated than I could say it

      3. The threat itself is damage, it significantly harms the property value.

      4. I don’t think this is really novel. I don’t know of a case in the administrative law arena. However, it’s pretty well established that if a a prosecutor threatens to bring criminal charges against you for certain planned conduct unless you do x, you are entitled to sue him for declaratory judgment/injunction on the basis that the planned conduct is not a crime and he has no right to require you to do x. See e.g.

        1. LAWPWNED!!!

      5. I seriously doubt that any lower court wants to set a precedent that government advice gives standing to sue.

        Tulpa… what’s your definition of “advice” here?

        If the EPA is an enforcement agency… can you see where I’m going here… then that means that any enforcement agency can threaten you with consequences– in this case a fine, in another case, something much more dire and… permanent– and the only way to challenge the “advice” is to not comply with the advice, thus forcing the enforcement agent to enact his consequence…

        I’m really not comfortable with your assertion.

        1. I agree that it’s a Catch 22, but it’s just advice. It’s like a traffic cop saying you can’t drive faster than 50 because of the road conditions on a highway that’s usually 65. You can’t sue until the penalty is enforced.

          1. It’s only similar if the cop can start the meter ticking on fines that multiply hourly/daily/whatever as soon as he tells you that you can’t do it.

          2. Let’s take another tack (coming about!)

            A police officer sees you walking across the parking lot and says, “if you get in that car, I’m going to taze you”. You ask why, and he responds, “Because you may have been drinking…”

            I’ll let the rest play out in your head due to 900 character limits.

            The officer has provided no proof that you’re drunk, and even when you demonstrate to the officer that there is in fact, no evidence that you’re drunk, the officer shrugs, says, “Don’t really care” and stares at you waiting for you to get in your vehicle.

            This is analagous to what the EPA has done to the Sacketts.

            This isn’t advice, it’s a complete rape of due process.

            1. Yes, this. In the case of the Sacketts, they contend that their property is not a wetland, but they have no way to plead their case unless they actually start violating the EPA “advice”. As it stands, the EPA wants arbitrary and incontestable powers to declare and protect any bit of land as a “wetland”.

            2. You are smart, Paul. It sounds like you never attended law school.

          3. Totally different, Tulpa. It would be more similar if the cop stood beside your car when you tried to sell it and said he would ticket anyone who bought it if they drove over 50.

          4. I’d argue that this situation is different because the warning is not simply advice if it is somehow tied to the level of fines if they do get charged.

            1. Its not even just a warning. Its actually an order. Its called a compliance “order.” It affirmatively directs the recipient to do certain things and prohibits him from doing other things, and then threatens him with fines if he doesn’t. Calling this “advice” is like saying a military officer’s statement to an enlistman to ‘get down and give me 20 or I’ll throw you in the brig’ is “advice.”

      6. You’re right in that you don’t have standing to bring a case until you’ve actually been harmed.

        But you’re wrong in claming that they haven’t. The constitution clearly states that you cannot be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law. They are being denied the use of land that they legally own without any opportunity to dispute the EPA’s declaration. Their constitutional rights were violated because they were not afforded due process of law.

        Saying that they haven’t actually been damaged until the fines are enforced is hogwash. They are being denied use of their property NOW. The fines are being accumulated NOW.

        If the law worked according to your logic then you could imprison somebody for their entire lives without ever bringing them to trial, because the damage isn’t actually done until they are officially sentenced.

  5. “The chutzpah, the arrogance, is, frankly, almost unimaginable.” Sadly, it’s quite imaginable to me (and likely to most folks who are regulars ’round these parts).

    1. If you have any respect for the government or those loyal to it, it’s your fault.

  6. The EPA refused to offer any documentation or evidence for its position, even after the Sacketts hired their own scientists to refute the wetlands claim.

    Fuck you, that’s why.

    Unfortunately, I am not optimistic about the statists on the SCOTUS ruling against EPA even in a case as egregious as this one.

  7. I have the same reaction as Almanian. I’ve already heard about this case and it’s just infuriating.

    At the very least the EPA should have to limit the fines to a reasonable amount until the fines can be challenged in court. The current setup seems specifically designed to deprive people of due process.

    1. The current setup seems specifically designed to deprive people of due process.


    2. The current setup seems specifically designed to deprive people of due process.

      Eric holder defined “due process” as due process, not judicial process. And he’s the attorney general of the united states.

      1. I thought Stedman Graham was the Attorney General of the United States.

        1. Stedman is merely oprah’s pet name for eric holder.

      2. Due process is the process that’s due you, under the highest law of the land, the Constitution. When the politicians start re-writing dictionaries to circumvent their oaths, WORRY.

    3. The current setup seems specifically designed to deprive people of due process.

      What, really? That never occured to us. *cough* suckers *cough*

    4. “The current setup seems specifically designed to deprive people of due process.”

      Yep. Kinda seems like it. Who else is stunned that the EPA would do something like this? I mean the EPA????

  8. the Sacketts were only three days into the process of clearing the land when officials from the EPA showed up

    Gosh, I wonder how the EPA became aware of this horrendous crime.

    1. Collaborators, Nazi occupied France had them too.

    2. That’s always my question to all these posts…which fuck stick neighbor turned them in?

  9. Probably an asshole neighbor who didn’t want the lot by their house developed.

    1. then shouldn’t that neighbor be in some trouble, too, for having built on a non-existing wetland?

      1. Not if the neighbor’s house was constructed prior to the current wetland rules.

        1. Grandfathering’s a bitch, though. Make any significant changes, and you lose it.

          Good luck proving that you haven’t made any disqualifying changes. And it sure looks like the burden of proof would be on you.

        2. Not true. As Homer Simpson found out, when a screamapillar makes your yard his habitat, you’re subject to the EPA telling you what you can and cannot do with it.

          In reality, of course, the EPA is much stricter than they were with Homer. 200 hrs of community service is chicken feed compared to $37k a day.

  10. I wish the Sacketts all the best, but I have a hunch they are in for a brutal disappointment.

    One day, the EPA or one of its sister goose-steppers will come up against someone with nothing to lose, a large cache of weapons and the DC address of the agency.

    I’ll buy popcorn for that event, but sadly, I suspect the public reaction will be the exact opposite of what it should be, because this country is monumentally fucked.

    1. I’ll drink to that. If they get arrested and not shot in the back, I’ll even contribute to their defense.

      Since they’re guaranteed to be railroaded into jail, I’ll find out how to add to their inmate account.

    2. I’ll buy popcorn for that event, but sadly, I suspect the public reaction will be the exact opposite of what it should be, because this country is monumentally fucked.

      You mean like this guy? (Guy who crashed plane into IRS office building in Austin). Most people I read who commented, thought he was a nut, and couldn’t understand that taxes were the price we pay for civilization, etc…

      Cookie Thornton got pushed around (to varying degrees of “pushed around”) by his local county and city gov’t, too. He showed up at a city council meeting and hilarity ensued, but nothing else happened.

      It is surprising though that things like that don’t happen more often, especially in emotional situations like family law.

      1. Joe Stack, may he rest in peace, never having to pay taxes again.

        1. Don’t forget about me!

  11. Just what I was thinking.

    “Those assholes think they can ruin our view by building a home on their land? We’ll see about that.”

    1. Remember: an environmentalist is someone who already has a mountain-top house in the wilderness. Or a beach house on a secluded island. Hell, a redwood deck, for that matter.

  12. Louis L’Amour’s Sackett family would have handled this issue differently. Very Differently.

    But those were simpler times….

    1. +1….

      What happened to America, those were the first books i learned to read when I was 6 or so. Probably why I’m at this site today.

  13. I expect the SCOTUS will announce all future administrative “warnings” may be settled by a challenging the offending bureaucrat to the Holmgang.

    1. I would bet bureaucrats would be much more circumspect if that were to be the case.

  14. So, why isn’t the EPA tearing down all the existing properties? A drunk on a bulldozer seems right up their alley.

  15. they don’t have standing to sue until actually harmed.

    Thank goodness having reasonably expected use of your land stolen from you doesn’t qualify as “harm”.

    1. And it’s not considered a ‘taking’ either. Thank goodness.

  16. There’s lots of procedural ins and outs to this case, which unfortunately provides our cowardly SCOTUS with lots of opportunities to avoid the real issues.

    As a side note, this is the “agency-only” due process that AG Holder was lauding in his speech on assassination.

    1. Good point Mr. Dean.

      And since when can departments pass policies with the full force of law? And has this been challenged in the SC yet, because it runs counter to our entire system of checks and balances.

      1. Congress passed the legislation giving the EPA that power and, in theory, could repeal that legislation at their pleasure. So it’s not like they had no say.

        1. Policy does NOT equal the LAW. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Congress to just delegate its law making authority to some agency.

          1. You must have been asleep during the last 40 years WTF.

            1. Unfortunately, I have been a witness to the whole pathetic mess.

          2. Congress is given the power to regulate interstate commerce; it doesn’t specify that it has to micromanage precisely how the regulation is enforced.

            You could argue that the EPA’s functions don’t truly constitute regulation of interstate commerce, but that’s another debate.

            1. I’d be willing to go out on a limb and say that levying fines in the tens of thousands of $$$ a day constitutes regulation for a local issue is way out of bounds of “regulating interstate commerce,” but that’s just me.

              1. Nope, Wickard v Filburn son! Congress can tell you how much wheat to grow or not grow on your own land, because this totally relates to making commerce among the several states regular.

        2. Exactly. As I recall it was originally associated with lead in gasoline during the 70’s.

          The suckitude of the EPA still cannot outweigh the suckitude of Congress.

        3. Congress passed the legislation giving the EPA that power and, in theory, could repeal that legislation at their pleasure. So it’s not like they had no say.

          All regulation passed by all regulatory agencies should be given a thumbs up or thumbs down vote by Congress. All regulations/laws/criminal penalties should be directly passed by our representatives.

          I have a serious reform idea for our regulatory agencies that I believe would actually work. I doubt Congress is interested because not being in direct control of the EPA is a feature, not a bug to them.

          1. I doubt Congress is interested because not being in direct control of the EPA is a feature, not a bug to them.

            Congress critters get to be heros to their constituents by helping them navigate the bureaucratic mess the congress critter helped create.


        4. Congress passed the legislation giving the EPA that power and, in theory, could repeal that legislation at their pleasure. So it’s not like they had no say.

          That doesn’t mean it’s Constitutional, and as you will recall, laws are struck down for just that reason.

          Again, I’ll ask: has the policy of departments passing rules with the force of law been challenged to the SC yet?

          1. Again, I’ll ask: has the policy of departments passing rules with the force of law been challenged to the SC yet?

            Yes, it has. The Constitution lost. Most recently, in Mistretta:

            Applying this “intelligible principle” test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it “constitutionally sufficient” if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.

            1. But that had to do with sentencing guidelines, not legality/illegality. I don’t think it applies here, or in any broad sense.
              IANAL,* so I may be wrong.

              *I enjoy typing that. It lets people know I’m a person.

            2. Yes it has been challenged and upheld a few times, but it’s not settled in the least.

              There are serious questions as to what qualifies as clear delineation of the general policy and the boundaries of the delegated authority.

              Even in these rulings where things have been referred to as “constitutionally sufficient” there is a clear indication that creating amorphous agencies with insanely ambiguous jurisdiction and simply given carte blanche to create any regulations they see fit on the spot would not pass constitutional muster. By even using the phrase “constitutionally sufficient” they are not so subtley saying that even these cases are perilously close to that line.

          2. Yes. It was challenged long ago- teh first case was heard when Marshall was still Chief Justice. Only one case has been successful- Panama Refining v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935).

            1. That’s not accurate. There have been several things invalidated for violating the presentment clause and the nondelegation doctrine.

              It’s rare when it happens, but it has happened more than once. And no case has yet been heard concerning the constitutionality of agencies like the FDA and EPA.

              Challenges have been made and lost to the constitutionality of the IRS, but that agency is much more limited in scope. They don’t actually make tax law, they are merely tasked with collecting them. And they do actually have a clearly defined general policy and boundaries to their authority. Neither of which exist with either of the two agencies I previously mentioned or any that have been created since.

        5. Congress passed the legislation giving the EPA that power

          Congress lacks the authority to override a person’s Constitutional right to due process.

          1. Also, if you could point me to the provision of the Constitution that empowers Congress to delegate the drafting and passage of new laws to anyone, much less the executive branch, I would be much obliged.

            1. I agree. The ruling seems to take for granted that the burden of having Congress vote on every single “policy with the force of law” is a bug, rather than a feature.

            2. Can you state what the bright line is between drafting laws and writing regulations that state what the enforcing agency considers a violation of the law? You have to admit this is pretty hazy. Any law is going to have some ambiguity. It seems likes it’s to all of our benefit for the enforcing agency to try to limit that ambiguity through regulation.

            3. What I find interesting is that Congress has delegated not just the legislative power to an Executive Branch agency, but also the judicial. These agencies write the regs, enforce them, and adjudicate the “violations.”

              You’d think some judge somewhere would have seen a separation of powers issue with this.

            4. Oh how cute!! You think congress cares about the Constitution!

    2. Good observation.

      Also note that the process for killing a human US citizen is much easier than the process for evicting a muskrat from its wetland home.

      1. When the federal government starts playing God by intentionally killing off one species so another can thrive, then I’ll really worry about their insane God complex.

        Aw, shit.

        1. We have to kill off all the douchebag Californians so the rest of us can survive.

          1. I don’t know quite how to take that, Jim.

            1. Well, he did specify the douchebag Californians, which would exempt the few non-douchebag ones.

              1. [whew]

                1. [whew]

                  Not so fast there, Sloopster…

                  1. …the fuck?

        2. Yeah, I saw that. Interesting how the “natural” state has to be artificially enforced.

          Not that I can find it now, but I remember reading an article reporting that the spotted owl was just a variation on the barred owl. Recessive genes, analogous to the red hair, blue eyes kind of thing. If true, isn’t this genocide? Or is it genocide anyway?

    3. Thanks, RC.

  17. My old man lives on a lake – anyone who builds a house there has to deal with the EPA since all of the dunes are “critical”.

    Back in the 70s, people just bulldozed the dunes over (and dealt with some terrible erosion problems), put down a foundation and built a house. Now? The additional cost to build on a dune requires some additional (read expensive) costs.

    Some neighbor with an empty lot decided to put a foundation on his land before selling it – okay, I don’t understand why, but it appears he was trying to sell the house plan and lot as one package. Anyway, he had the trees on the dune cut down, sand removed, and concrete pylons driven on top of the dune.

    Needless to say, when the EPA found out – from one of the neighbors – they went batshit nuts with fines. 2 1/2 years later, that lot is just sitting there with nothing but a foundation and a dune that is slowly eroding.

    1. der, “The additional cost to build on a dune requires some additional (read expensive) costs.”


      “Now to build on a dune requires some additional (read expensive) costs with foundations something being off the body of the dune.”

  18. All of this goes to show that again, the EPA is an unconstitutional and decidedly undemocratic organization.

    We have to reform these agencies so that our elected representatives pass EPA rules, not EPA regulators.

    Which elected representative would stand up and say, “I support and endorse what’s happening to the Sacketts”. I’d bet none. They’d all do that vegas handclap, walk away from the table and say, “What the EPA does is not my responsibility.”

    1. Which elected representative would stand up and say, “I support and endorse what’s happening to the Sacketts”. I’d bet none. They’d all do that vegas handclap, walk away from the table and say, “What the EPA does is not my responsibility.”

      Which is precisely why they will never be reformed. The regulatory agencies are a brilliant and painless (to the lawmakers) way of controlling people without having to actually take any responsibility for it.

      1. ^^^ THIS ^^^

    2. I recommend reforming them by chopping their balls off with a rusty axe.

  19. I think that there is a case to be made for government protecting wetlands (or requiring mitigation if someone has reason to fill wetlands). They really are important to clean water, and clean water really is a public good. But pretending that telling people they can’t use their property is not a taking is bullshit. If the wetlands are so absolutely critical, then the government should buy the land, not arbitrarily limit what people can do with their own property.

  20. I thought Nick and Matt told us that the EPA was a good thing?

    1. A lot of government powers that are not bad in theory turn terrible when unchecked by due process and accountability.

  21. Applying this “intelligible principle” test to congressional delegations

    A fool’s errand, if ever there was one.

  22. What I find most disturbing about this whole thing is that there are people willing to do this sort of thing for the EPA. These people really are little Eichman’s.

    1. No shit.
      I am not really surprised having met loons on the left who make it look like the EPA is acting sane and reasonably.

  23. Let me suggest that step one is stopping any new land development. After that effort is successful we can move on to step two; undeveloping other lands.

  24. We need to collect funds to help these people win this battle.

  25. Charge ’em with extortion.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.