Supreme Court ruling points to the fundamental issue at stake with the EPA

kentucky energy equation

Though most of the controversy between Kentucky's energy sector and the Environmental Protection Agency has been framed in a way that pits Kentucky coal against the commonwealth's beautiful wildlife and waterways, a Supreme Court ruling this week reminds us that there's actually a much more fundamental issue at stake.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "extortionate demands for property in the land-use permitting context run afoul of the Takings Clause not because they take property but because they impermissibly burden the right not to have property taken without just compensation." In a nation where government agencies - including the EPA - tend to get rather creative when it comes to extorting your property, such a ruling is an important protection.

And this news comes right on the heels of a West Virginia chicken-farmer demanding that a federal judge make a ruling on whether the EPA has the authority to force farmers to obtain permits for storm-water runoff associated with their operations, another instance of government agencies playing fast and loose with individuals' property rights.

Property rights are the foundation of a free society, and when bureaucracies like the EPA attempt to encroach on them to further their political goals, the free society is threatened. Just last year, the EPA threatened an Idaho couple in just such a manner, claiming that the couple had no right to question its unilateral mandates forbidding the couple from developing their legally-acquired property. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled otherwise, granting the Idaho couple their day with the EPA in court to protect their land.

If individual property rights are too much to ask, at least allow the states - not a politically-motivated national bureaucracy - to determine how best to weigh the costs and benefits of a property-owner's land improvements. Instead what we have today is a federal behemoth hell-bent on imposing its will on any and all decisions from property-owners to improve their land as they see fit.

So as you see, Kentucky's issue with the EPA goes way beyond the mayfly or alleged wetlands. It's about the fundamental right of property-owners to manage their own legally-acquired land.