Supreme Court to Take Up Wetlands Cases (AP)

[highplainsdem]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/10/11/national/w071459D24.DTL


Supreme Court to Take Up Wetlands Cases

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

10-11) 07:14 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider restricting the government's authority to regulate wetlands, an issue important for environmentalists and developers.

Justices, jumping into an issue that they previously had ignored, will take up claims that federal regulators have gone too far by restricting development of property that is miles away from any river or waterway.

Bush administration lawyer Paul Clement said that the government has long-standing power to protect waterways.

In one of three cases that justices will hear next year, a Michigan man, John A. Rapanos, was convicted of violating the Clean Water Act for filling his wetlands with sand to make the land ready for development.

<snip>


It isn't taking Roberts long to lead the SC in a more pro-corporate, anti-environment direction...

[politick]

1. We Shall See

Maybe he'll surprise us!

Cough -- cough!

There's something in the air, making me choke...

COUGH!

[No Exit]

2. Who needs wetlands? Build build build!

I mean, they didn't bother about stupid stuff like wetlands in Louisiana. And look what a success story New Orleans is.

[SoCalDem]

16. Loss of wetlands = Bird flu

Wild migratory birds prefer wetlands, but when the wetlands are unavailable, they will stop at farmers' ponds, and come into contact with "domesticated" animals..

[zbdent]

3. Buh-bye . . .

wetlands . . .

[Debi]

4. Awww man, we live next to a wetland preserve

Ten years after my husband bought his land and home the County requested permission to flood a portion of the property to expand on a wetland project (they purchased 66 acres next to my husband's land and were plugging tile to create ponds and nesting areas). Of course he agreed and now we live right on top of ponds and trees and wetland habitat. It is beautiful! (And we enjoy the fact that no one will be building next to us because the wetland is protected).

Well, maybe that will change :(

Who needs those damn waterfowl and frogs anyway - just a big breeding ground for mosquitoes ...EEEEK West Nile....West Nile....

[lavenderdiva]

5. Wasn't this, in part, a basis for John Grisham's novel 'The Pelican Brief'

where, one by one, the Supreme Court Judges were being offed? Just wondering.. Hmmmm.....

[blindpig]

6. Not wasting any time, are they?

I saw this coming a mile away. Everyone was so worried about RoeVWade in the Roberts nomination when this kind of thing was his actual target. The ESA won't last a year, even if Pombo's eviseration passes Roberts will stomp it into the ground for spite.

Did the Democrats even question him on environmental issues? Fuck, half of them are corporate whores themselves.

The greed and hatred of Nature of these people are beyond my comprehension. It seems that they are trying to fuck up as much as possible before losing power. Of course we're stuck with Roberts past that. Vodoo maybe?

[Earth_First]

7. Goodbye wetlands...

[mom cat]

8. Goodby earth...Chipping away, just chipping away till....

My other planet is not ready yet...Is yours?

[gulfcoastliberal]

21. More like, goodbye humans. The earth will still be here.

Our "glorious" civilizations and perhaps the species won't. What a wonderful legacy we leave. Glad I don't have any kids - I'd hate thinking about the kind of world they're going to have to survive in.

[mom cat]

22. If it were only the humans...its the polar bears and who knows how

many magnificent creatures. I saw 8 Monarch butterflies yesterday tanking up on my flowers for their long journey. I broke into tears worrying if they would freeze to death as so many have done in the past because of deforestation in their winter homes. I somehow dont care is the humans get theirs. We all deserve it for what we have done to the earth (I include myself in the list of the guilty), but these beautiful creatures have done nothing wrong!

[gulfcoastliberal]

23. It starts at the bottom of the food chain (plankton) and works its way up.

Once the oceans finally die, it's game over for most humans, even if we're still around by then. It might only be methane loving bacteria. We are well past the point of no return. I was watching a show about Greenland on DiscoveryHD and the hawks there have industrial toxins in them from eating fish and other birds - the top of the food chain is polluted. There's no area in the world, no matter how remote, that isn't polluted. It's shameful. All in the name of a quick buck. Brilliant.

[mom cat]

24. Even the plankton will be poisoned. I wonder about the genetic

abberations. What will the DNA damage be....

[Megahurtz]

9. Fuck!

:cry:

[Demeter]

10. If The Supremes Or Anybody Think They Can Take Power From Congress

then they are profoundly ignorant of the Constitution. This falls into Congress's bailiwick, and there isn't any amount of handwaving that can make it not so.

[Bacchus39]

14. yes, Congress could "fix" the law to cover the wetlands in question

in these cases. However, as currently stated the regulations of the Clean Water Act involved are somewhat ambiguous. therefore, the SC does have the power to decide the extent of the government's jurisdiction over the wetlands involved. if Congress wanted to take the power away from the courts, they could pass a law that specifically defines what bodies of water are covered under the Clean Water Act.

[Maddy McCall]

20. Marbury v Madison.

Read up.

[cascadiance]

11. He's gotta fill up the docket with cases other than Sibel Edmonds'!

Gotta have something to do to give Bush some time to ramrod Mieirs into O'Connor's spot before hearing Sibel Edmonds' case! Anyone know how they decide on the order of which cases they hear? Is Roberts responsible for this? I still have to believe that the four liberal justices would vote to hear her case. Haven't heard it being "turned aside" just yet.

Not that cases like this aren't important too, but I really hope that they will get to Edmonds' case SOON, before the RW packs the court hopelessly!

[Massacure]

12. Off the heals of Katrina, this should be an easy win for environmentalism.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

13. Do these assholes know that wetlands help filter

the crap that pours out of our nation's storm sewers? Do they even give a flying fuck that the seafood industry is in serious trouble?

:grr::grr::grr:

[CatholicEdHead]

15. No, they see it as just worthless swampland

which in their eyes is cheap development land.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

17. Cheap development land

that gets blown away in the next hurricane, that the insurance industry won't pay out for adequately, that will be sold to another cheap-ass developer (or maybe the same one) to perpetuate the meaningless cycle.

Words can't express the depth of my anger right now...
I need many more of these :grr:

[Bacchus39]

18. if the land isn't considered covered under the Clean Water Act

it isn't cheap development land. even if it is covered, it still doesn't mean its cheap. think Florida. the issue before the court is the interpretation of the regulations that cover wetlands and whether or not they cover certain wetlands located distantly from navigable water bodies. The Clean Water Act covers navigable water ways like large rivers and the oceans. The regulations state that wetlands adjacent to navigable water bodies and their tributaries are covered under the act. one of the questions under review is whether wetlands that have no clear connection with streams and rivers are covered under the Act.

[NashVegas]

19. More Info

"The landowners in both Michigan cases claim that the area alleged to be a wetland is too distant from navigable waters to be connected to them, while the federal government argues that if the water from the property could theoretically reach a navigable water, federal jurisdiction is proper."

I got that from Mackinack, a policy institute that wants current wetland rules thrown out. I won't taint you with a link.

The feds are right on this one. SCOTUS could screw us all if they overturn current policies.

[blindpig]

25. navigable water

This is a real problem. Many important wetlands are not connected to such: the prairie potholes of the northern plains and the temporary pans of southern Arizona come to mind. These habitats support millions of birds and other wildlife in season. While the spirit of the law should protect them the letter may not. This desperately needs to be fixed. If there are not big changes in 06 we're going to lose much forever. Even then I wonder ;( .

[anitar1]

26. Goodbye, wetlands. n/t

[Igel]

27. A lot of people have this funny idea that all wetlands are

marshes. Some aren't. You write a definition, you don't want to get it changed because there's not sufficient cause, and then you have to apply the definition. Even if what 'wetlands' means is different from how people interpret it and constitutes doublespeak.

I worked for a church in the '80s in Oregon. They had saved for a long time, and had been setting money aside to build a church to house its offices, hold sabbath services, choir practice, and store stuff needed for the annual retreat. The pastor bought an old farmhouse on the outskirts of town, with a bit of land, hoping to have a large vegetable and flower garden one day, retire there; the church bought acres of adjoining land. It had once been farmed, then it was used (when part of a larger, adjacent plot) as pasture for horses.

In the winter, it had large, persistent puddles. They'd dry up from time to time in the spring and fall, be completely absent in the summer, but be there in the winter. It rains a lot in the Willamette Valley in winter and the soil on the property was gumbo.

The church didn't have enough money to build immediately. The land sat empty for three-four years. Then it had enough money and manpower to build, with some carpenters and woodworkers able to build a simple structure. We started charetting. We looked into getting permits.

The EPA had declared it wetlands. We could apply for having horses on it again, and that could be approved, maybe, if we could prove no adverse effect to the wetlands. Not too much crap or too many hoofprints for 9 months out of the year: pretty much whenever it would have grass growing on it. And we had to prove it to the satisfaction of the administrator. Otherwise, it was wetlands. Some birds might use it; nobody had to show migratory birds actually *did* use it. We could sue the previous owner, but had no real grounds--the use had been grandfathered in; but he had retired, stopped keeping horses (the reason he sold that chunk of land), and *his* property was also now wetlands. He was screwed: 70 years old, and he couldn't sell most of his property. Even he didn't know keeping horses had been merely tolerated by the real owner of the land, some petty bureaucrat in Portland or DC.

The church's land was completely unsalable: only something like the Nature Conservancy would want it, since it would sit there, unused except as overgrown scenery, in perpetuity, but no conservancy needed to buy it to conserve it. In fact, some of the land that the pastor bought with the house was also wetlands.

The EPA had duly published in some notice that the land was being considered for wetland status. One line, by state/county/plot number, in a very, very large list; a couple of copies of the notice existed in the entire state. They fulfilled the law.

This was justice? This was what the wetlands preservation laws intended?

This kind of nonsense makes wonder who's side I'm on in this case: it's one thing to like preserving swamps and marshes for endangered species. It's another to preserve a large mud puddle just in case a goose decides to stop there and take a crap every few years.

[semillama]

29. Actually, thosetypes of wetlands are pretty important to migratory birds

especially shorebirds. Some of my best shorebird sightings have been in seasonably wet fields. In fact, a lot of the great habitats around where I live, if you didn't know they they were marshes in the winter and spring, you'd just think it was an empty field with weeds.

And it's precisely these types of wetlands that are most likely to be destroyed. And it's not just birds that benefit - there's all sorts of insect life that depend on seasonal wetlands.

Sorry about your church, but there are other options. God probably would prefer a wetland rather than a building.

[0rganism]

28. This is Robert's first great opportunity to strut his anti-eco plumage

I expect we'll see all manner of environmental regulation dismantled under his watch. Wetland protections are a fantastic place for him to start, because the results will be so immediately apparent.