This transcript is automatically generated
-- update now on a story that we brought you last week a couple in northern Idaho suing the EPA because the agency blatantly abused its power.
And interfered with their right to build a home.
Our home that they wanted to construct with all of the appropriate permits.
Already given them.
Mike and Jen tells -- up on a lot two thirds acre lot.
That the EPA decided to -- a wetland.
You can see there that it is surrounded by other homes doc structures in streets of cases now scheduled to go before the Supreme Court early next year we talked with a -- its.
Last week here and we talk for their congressman -- Labrador.
Who -- taken up their fight because the -- -- says they must.
Called his office.
The office of Idaho's governor Butch Otter has absolutely refused to comment.
On this case and is not as far as we know joining in this fight at all on behalf of these citizens of the state of Idaho joining us tonight is senator Mike Craig thought.
Of Idaho and senator it is good -- -- to be here.
This is to say the least a deeply troubling.
Frustrating doesn't go to -- this is such an outrage it's hard to describe it.
How do you feel.
Well well you're absolutely right -- and one of the biggest concerns about this is it's not atypical.
It's not a typical in the way that the EPA has threatened this -- with 32000.
Dollar a day fines if they don't simply and immediately comply with their demands and it's not a typical of the efforts of the EPA to a certain jurisdiction.
Over literally all waters of the United States we're -- a big battle here in congress and we're fighting with the GPA right now.
Over massively intrusive regulatory actions on their part.
To try to assert control over water that has generally been under the jurisdiction of the states not the federal government.
In the case of money can change how Sackett.
They described three.
One not two but three EPA represented showing up on their two thirds acre lot.
Is they're trying to build of having garnered and gathered and have approved all of the permits necessary.
And they should they treated them as they described -- like some sort of criminal enterprise.
And they have not responded to the -- -- they have not responded to us they have responded to -- one BP A who in the world what are we created here what are we permitting to operate.
Well frankly -- one of the things that you're seeing play out in this case is a frustration.
That my constituents are expressing to me day in and day out as I meet with them across the state of Idaho and I think it's across the country.
It's a very incredibly high powered enforcement.
Mentality at the EPA where the the attitude basically is that they're going to -- incredibly broad jurisdiction.
They are going to tell those who they are regulating or in this case who they are trying to prosecute.
That if they don't comply immediately with EPA demands that they are gonna face phenomenally.
Crippling fines and sometimes even criminal prosecutions.
We'll -- -- respond to you will -- -- respond to you.
They probably wouldn't respond on this case because when something gets in the court.
Members of congress are not allowed to interfere with the court case.
But they definitely will and should respond so you can't you can't represent the interest of your constituents because it's important.
You -- want me.
-- once that wants a case goes to court.
The separation of powers in the constitution prohibits members of congress.
From interfering with the court case however it does not stop them from advocating the issues with regard to the agency.
We're trying to do everything they can to assure that the individuals.
Get absolutely fair treatment.
Well we hope that that is the outcome -- we've got some great news senator I know that like me you may be surprised by this development I'm about to announce.
But we want to congratulate the New York Times it weakens -- know that story.
The New York Times reporting yesterday that Idaho and couples -- fight.
Dragging wetlands back to the Supreme Court.
They have a slightly different global take on it.
-- but you know what they gave extensive time to the story and we wanna just welcomed the New York Times.
Well we're delighted that they decided to follow are reporting here.
So have to say -- I've read that article although I don't usually tend to read the times and I do think that they did some good reporting there that and we would we would agree.
In in all respects with -- -- -- senator thanks for being here we appreciated so much come back soon I'll do it.