|
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects
Unlimited Federal Control of Wetlands--Ruling Reverses Decision in Michigan
Landowner's Case
Contact: "mailto:mrh@pacificlegal.org" M. Reed Hopper
Phone: (916) 419-7111
Washington,DC; June 19, 2006: The United States Supreme
Court today rejected the federal government's efforts to control all wetlands
in the country, reversing lower courts' decisions against a Michigan man who
moved sand on his property.
The decision came in Rapanos v. United States.
"Today's decision is a victory for balanced environmental
protection-common sense and the rule of law have prevailed," said Reed Hopper,
a principal attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing Mr.
Rapanos. "The Court rejected the idea that there are no limits on the federal
government's regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. It is not the role
of the federal government to micromanage every pond, puddle, and ditch in our
country."
In a 5-4 decision, the Court said there has to be a
"substantial" connection between wetlands and truly navigable waters for
federal regulation to apply. No one disputes the federal government's authority
over waterways that can be used for shipping or commerce and wetlands adjacent
to those waterways. But, in Mr. Rapanos' case, the wetlands are 20 miles from
any navigable water.
"The Court has repudiated overreaching by the federal
government," Mr. Hopper said. "The federal government for too long has trampled
on the authority of state and local governments to make land use decisions."
"We agree with Chief Justice Roberts that today's decision
is 'another defeat for the agency [Army Corps of Engineers]' and 'its
essentially boundless view of the scope of its power,'" Hopper said.
This case comes five years after the Supreme Court rebuked
federal officials for asserting authority over small inland ponds in Illinois.
In that case, the Court said the water was outside the jurisdiction of the
federal government.
Hundreds of water agencies that deliver clean drinking water
to tens of millions of Americans supported Mr. Rapanos' position because they
have seen the continuing encroachment of the federal government over
water-areas left to state and local governments for the last 200 years.
"This case was about the abuse of the law by federal
agencies," Mr. Hopper said. "It was never about clean water."
"Local agencies on the front lines of providing clean water
joined us in this case because they have seen the continuing encroachment of
the federal government over local water use by the federal government," Mr.
Hopper said.
About Pacific Legal Foundation
Founded in 1973, Pacific Legal Foundation is the nation's
oldest and largest public interest legal organization dedicated to property
rights protection, limited government, and individual rights.
[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further
information please refer to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |