SC starts to dismantle Clean Water Act

[cali]

This is a really, really bad decision.


Court Splits Over Wetlands Protections

By DAVID STOUT
Published: June 19, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 19 — The Supreme Court set the stage for a re-examination of the 1972 Clean Water Act, as it narrowly ruled today in favor of two Michigan property owners who have sought to develop tracts designated as wetlands.

By 5 to 4, the justices overturned lower court judgments against the Michigan land owners, who had run afoul of the Clean Water Act over their plans to build a shopping mall and condominiums.

The ruling was not the resounding, unambiguous triumph that the land owners, John A. Rapanos and June Carabell, may have hoped for. Instead, five justices found that regulators may have gone too far in trying to thwart their plans, and it returned the case to lower courts for further deliberation. One of the five justices, Anthony M. Kennedy, even suggested in a separate opinion that the property owners might lose once again in the lower courts.

Whatever happens in the cases of Mr. Rapanos and Ms. Carabell, the splintered outcome at the Supreme Court not only guaranteed more litigation in the lower courts, it also may prompt more debate in Congress, should the lawmakers feel obliged to refine the language of the Clean Water Act to minimize future confusion.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/washington/19cnd-wetlands.html?hp&ex=1150776000&en=d36aa195bc2f85bc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Chipper Chat]

1. Gee, I wonder which 5 compose the majority?

Thank goodness the Dems "kept their powder dry" and let Alito through.

[cali]

3. They should have forced the repukes to use the nuke

option. Alito would still be in the court, and they would be unable to filibuster future SC nominees, but at least they would have done everything they could.

[Armstead]

2. Bah. Clean Water....That's sooooo 70's.

Haven't you realized that environmentalism isn't cool anymore?

[Benhurst]

4. If the American people want clean water,

let them buy Perrier.

[xxqqqzme]

5. '...Mr. Devine said that today's decision

"muddies the waters for applying the law" and should impel Congress to reaffirm the act's jurisdiction...'

SHOULD but probably will not!