Environmental Protection Agency
Why Is the Army Corps Still Harassing Idaho Landowners?
Idaho landowners are facing ruinous fines because the Army Corps of Engineers refuses to follow the Supreme Court’s Clean Water Act ruling in Sackett v. EPA.
You don't need a law degree to know that when the federal government loses a case at the U.S. Supreme Court, it's supposed to follow the ruling. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—three-time losers in Clean Water Act (CWA) cases—seem to think those rulings don't apply to them. Now, landowners in Bonner County, Idaho, are paying the price for that defiance.
The Army Corps district engineer is attempting, through a convoluted workaround, to assert federal CWA authority over an isolated alleged wetland on Rebecca and Caleb Linck's property, which flagrantly disregards the 2023 landmark ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, involving other Bonner County residents.
The Lincks own a 4.7-acre parcel in Kootenai, Idaho. The land has been in Caleb Linck's family for over four decades. The Lincks want to live quietly on their property and, one day, use the land for agricultural purposes. Their lot is about one mile from a stream and roughly two miles from a lake and contains no land features subject to federal regulation.
When the Lincks hired a wetlands consultant to ensure compliance with the CWA, they had no reason to expect trouble, especially in the wake of Sackett. That decision provided a definitive answer to a question that has vexed landowners for approximately 50 years: When can wetlands be regulated under the CWA?
The Court held wetlands cannot presumptively be regulated and are covered by the CWA only when they are indistinguishably part of a traditionally recognizable body of water, like an ocean, lake, river, or stream. To be federally regulated under the CWA, the Court wrote that the wetland must have "a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the 'water' ends and the 'wetland' begins." Given this test, the Lincks' property should clearly fall outside the federal government's regulatory purview.
There are striking similarities between the Linck lot and the lot of Michael and Chantell Sackett, the petitioners in Sackett v. EPA, which should make this an even easier case. Both lots are bordered to the north by a road that separates them from a larger alleged wetland. Both contain a subsurface hydrologic connection to that larger alleged wetland area. And in both cases, the Corps concluded that the alleged wetlands are part of the same "wetlands complex" as the larger alleged wetland area across the road to the north.
Because the Supreme Court directed judgment to be entered for the Sacketts on these same facts, this should be an easy case. Easier still because, whereas the Sacketts' lot is only 30 feet from the allegedly covered "water," the Lincks' lot is 350 feet away. Moreover, the district engineer failed to sample the alleged wetland on the other side of the road to determine if it is even a wetland. (Given that it is used for farming, it very likely is not.)
The Lincks had no reason to believe their lot was subject to federal authority after the Sackett ruling. This matters because any landowner who unknowingly fills a wetland or discharges rocks or dirt into it is liable for civil penalties exceeding $68,000 per violation, per day.
The Lincks are fighting back to restore their right to make productive use of their own land and ensure that the Corps follows the Supreme Court's clear ruling. Those who flout clear Supreme Court rulings must be held accountable.
