|
| ||
|
|
(12/5/2005)
Overreaching Clean Water Act Supreme Court urged to rein in out-of-control legislation DENVER, CO. The U.S. Supreme Court should rule that federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act does not extend to intrastate “wetlands” that are isolated hydrologically from “waters of the United States,” a public interest law firm argued in a friend of the court brief filed today. The brief was filed in a case in which the Supreme Court is reviewing a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that a Michigan man, his wife, and their companies violated the law when they conducted activity on lands that they own. The Sixth Circuit rejected the argument by John A. Rapanos that his lands are miles from navigable water and may not be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “State and local governments were regulating wetlands long before Congress adopted the Clean Water Act and must, under the Constitution, be permitted to address, by themselves, activities that have been traditionally the sole province of those governments,” asserted William Perry Pendley of Mountain States Legal Foundation, which filed the brief. “Moreover, State and local governments as well as private conservation efforts are doing a much better job of protecting wetlands without the cost and burden of the federal government’s command and control regulatory policies.” John A. Rapanos and his wife Judith, through their wholly owned companies, own various parcels of land in Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties, Michigan, known as the Salzburg, Hines Road, Pine River, Freeland, Mapleton, and Jefferson Avenue sites. Over the years, Mr. Rapanos sought to develop these properties for commercial use. Although his properties are approximately twenty miles from the nearest navigable waterway, the EPA claimed jurisdiction over his land pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Mr. Rapanos was charged with and convicted of illegally discharging fill material into protected wetlands at these sites between 1988 and 1997. In July 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected Mr. Rapanos’ contention that the Clean Water Act does not apply to his lands. In November 2004, the Sixth Circuit denied Mr. Rapanos’ petition for a rehearing en banc. On January 28, 2005, Mr. Rapanos sought U.S. Supreme Court review, which was granted on October 11, 2005. Mr. and Mrs. Rapanos are represented by Pacific Legal Foundation of Sacramento, California. In 2001, the Supreme Court limited federal CWA jurisdiction to navigable or open water waters and waters, including wetlands, immediately “adjacent to open water.” In the years since that ruling, federal courts have disagreed over its meaning. For example, a conflict exists between the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal. Mr. Rapanos seeks to resolve the conflict.
| |
|
| ||
