With Roberts as chief,
wetlands and pollution at heart of case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court set the stage Tuesday for what could be a
landmark ruling on government authority to regulate wetlands and control
pollution, giving new Chief Justice John Roberts his first chance to limit
federal regulation of property rights.
The justices agreed to take up
claims that regulators have gone too far by restricting development of property
that is miles away from any river or waterway.
With more than 100 million acres
of wetlands in the
The outcome could have
implications for government authority in regulating construction in obviously
environmentally sensitive areas, such as Hurricane Katrina-decimated parts of
The Army Corps of Engineers
regulates work on wetlands, which are home to many plants and animals.
“They define wetlands so
broadly that even dry desert areas of Arizona are being called wetlands,’’
said Paul Kamenar, a lawyer with the Washington Legal Foundation, one of the
conservative groups that called on the court to intervene.
The Bush administration had urged
the court to stay on the sidelines.
Environmental cases have been
divisive at the court. In 2002, justices deadlocked 4-4 in a case that asked
whether farmers should have more freedom to work in wetlands. In 2001, the court
split 5-4 in a ruling that limited the scope of government protection of
wetlands, but the decision did not go as far as environmentalists feared.
Environmentalists have been
worried about how Roberts will vote in such cases.
As an appeals court judge, he
suggested in 2003 that federal power is limited. He had urged the appeals court
to reconsider its decision restricting a
The 1972 clean water law involved
in the Supreme Court cases draws much of its regulatory authority from the part
of the Constitution that gives Congress power to regulate commerce between the
states. The same legal reasoning underpins federal environmental and civil
rights protections, so the outcome of these cases could affect more than land
regulations.
Jonathan Cannon, former top
lawyer at the Environmental Protection Agency who now teaches law at the
Bush administration Supreme Court
lawyer Paul Clement said the government has long-standing power to protect
waterways, even if that means limits on pollution on nearby land.
Justices will review a pair of
cases involving projects in
Because some previous
environmental appeals have been so close, the outcome of these cases could rest
with the replacement for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is retiring. She is
serving until her successor is confirmed. Arguments in the cases will be
scheduled next year.
John A. Rapanos has been feuding
with regulators since the late 1980s. He was convicted of violating the Clean
Water Act for filling his wetlands with sand to make the land ready for
development, and he also lost a civil suit. The second case involves the
development of a condominium in
Justices also agreed to hear a
third clean water case. It was filed by the owner of hydroelectric dam projects
on the
The cases are Rapanos v.
On the Net:
Supreme Court, www.supremecourtus.gov/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Source:
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/10/12/news/nation/wednat01.txt