Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Our Klamath Basin
Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
|
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects
Unlimited Federal Control of Wetlands--Ruling
Reverses Decision in Michigan Landowner’s Case 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. ### To arrange interviews on this issue, journalists and producers may contact PLF's Media Director, HYPERLINK "mailto:dmc@pacificlegal.org"Dawn Collier, at (916) 419-7111. * * * * * * * Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds--that we cannot be happy without being free--that we cannot be free without being secure in our property--that we cannot be secure in our property if without our consent others may as by right take it away. - John Dickenson
http://www.pacificlegal.org/view_PLFNews.asp?iID=331&sTitle=U%2ES%2E+Supreme |
Home
Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:14 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2005, All Rights Reserved