Contact: 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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.pacificlegal.org/view_PLFNews.asp?iID=331&sTitle=U%2ES%2E+
Supreme+Court+Rejects+Unlimited+Federal+Control+of+Wetlands%2D%2DRuling+
Reverses+Decision+in+Michigan+Landowner%92s+Casehttp://www.pacificlegal.org/view_
PLFNews.asp?iID=331&sTitle=U%2ES%2E+Supreme+Court+Rejects+Unlimited+
Federal+Control+of+Wetlands%2D%2DRuling+Reverses+Decision+in+