Officials cheer Sackett ruling

SANDPOINT — Local, state and federal elected officials are cheering Mike and Chantell Sackett’s victory at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation’s high court ruled that the Priest Lake couple is allowed to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency determination that wetlands are present on property they have been trying to develop for years.

Idaho Congressman Raúl Labrador issued a statement Wednesday saying that he was “overjoyed” with the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling.

“The federal government is an intimidating force against ordinary citizens, and standing up to its bureaucracy requires extraordinary bravery. Thanks to the unwavering courage and selfless sacrifice of the Sacketts, Americans everywhere will be guaranteed the right to appeal a decision imposed by a government agency,” Labrador said.

Labrador added that the Supreme Court ruling underscores the belief that the Constitution is meant to protect citizens from overbearing federal regulation.

Bonner County commissioners, who are currently locking horns with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service over the designation of critical habitat for woodland caribou, were also pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“This is a great day for freedom, and for the American people to be protected from the oppression of over-regulation and the bureaucratic processes used by the federal government,” said Commissioner Mike Nielsen, a Republican from Priest Lake.

Governor Butch Otter, who has had his own troubles with EPA over the development of his property, applauded the Sacketts’ perseverance, but said that it was unfortunate that it took a ruling from the highest court in the land to resolve a fairly simple issue.

“This decision should serve as a clarion call to Congress, and I look forward to continue working with Idaho’s delegation to develop common-sense restrictions on how EPA implements the Clean Water Act,” Otter said in a statement.

But the court development was not cheered by all.

The Kootenai Environmental Alliance, which filed a brief supporting EPA’s position in the Sackett matter, downplayed the ruling as “narrow” and “procedural.”

In a post on its blog, KEA said the ruling simply allows the Sacketts to challenge EPA’s determination now rather later.

“This may very well an uphill battle since their consultant (and others) seemed to indicate that the wetlands clearly existed prior to the Sacketts bulldozing the site and filling it with gravel,” the post read.

The alliance anticipates the ruling will likely prompt EPA to re-write its orders to be less final and more warning-like.