Justices Take Case Disputing U.S. Power Over Private Wetlands

Get ready for a wetland fiasco. Will they back developers over Mother Earth? The New York Times on the case of John Rapanos, wealthy Michigan developer.

In the late 1980's, Mr. Rapanos began clearing part of a 175-acre tract he had bought in the Midland, Mich., area in hopes of selling it to a mall developer and adding to the already substantial fortune he had built through years of hard work. In preparing the land for an eventual mall, he spread sand over part of it, even though state officials had warned him that some of his property consisted of protected wetlands.
Environmental officials say wetlands are vital for flood control and as habitat for fish and wildlife, and that they must be guarded to avoid polluting nearby waterways. But most of the 100 million acres or so of wetlands in the contiguous United States are on private property, a situation that has spawned bitter debates over environmental protection vs. property rights.
And few, if any, of the disputes have been as bitter as the one with Mr. Rapanos at the center.
"Sure, I filled it, but I didn't fill wetlands," he said in a 2004 interview with The New York Times, disputing the official designation of his property.
In the Rapanos case and two companion cases, the legal question for the justices is whether the Clean Water Act applies to wetlands that are not part of a navigable waterway and, if so, does Congress have the authority to extend federal jurisdiction over such lands?
Environmental officials insist that Mr. Rapanos made his own troubles. They note that a federal jury found that he had illegally filled in wetlands, despite his supporters' assertions that they were mere puddles. The officials say Mr. Rapanos invited prosecution by thumbing his nose at authority when he could have avoided trouble and still developed his property if he had been willing to follow regulations.

May in fact be on private propety but wetlands are essential parts of the environment (look at what happened in New Orleans). Activities on a small wetland have an impact beyond the wetland area (think water table, animal life, runoff....

So who is behind Rapanos? None other than Pacific Legal Foundation. The group's trustees include developers and cattlemen. Interesting piece from their site:

Americans want a clean, healthy environment. They also want a strong economy and a high overall quality of life. Accordingly, environmental/endangered species protection laws and public land management policies should be measured against the cost to people. Paradoxically, too many of our environmental laws and regulations, albeit well-intentioned, are unfairly punitive and senseless— i.e., they are based on “junk science,” disregard human health and safety, undermine private property rights, impede economic growth and technological innovation, and do little to improve the environment. Pacific Legal Foundation believes that good law should start with people and that good intentions are not enough in developing environmental policy. Thus, PLF challenges in court heavy-handed laws and regulatory actions that endanger human lives, undermine private property, unjustly limit the use of natural resources or impose exorbitant penalties for activities that do not pose a significant, immediate threat to health and safety or to environmental resources.

Hmmmm. "Junk science" is a key word. I bet they don't hold any belief in global warming. I also question their "heavy-handed laws and regulatory actions that endanger human lives". Environmental laws endanger human lives? I do love their "...significant, immediate threat to health and safety or to environmental resources." "Immediate" means right now (at least I think). So if a chemical will cause cancer in 20 years, it is okay to dump in the rivers and lakes?

I think we all can guess where PLF stands as far as environment versus money. How will the courts rule? Big business, developers....now if I was a betting man.....