Posted on 10/11/2005 10:27:23 AM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, venturing into knotty legal territory, said Tuesday it will consider restricting the government's authority to regulate wetlands.
Jumping into a subject that is crucial for both environmentalists, property owners and developers, the justices 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.
With more than 100 million acres of wetlands in the United States, an area the size of California, the stakes are high, justices were told.
Environmental cases have been divisive at the court. In 2002, justices deadlocked 4-4 in a case that asked whether farmers should have more freedom to work in environmentally sensitive areas. In 2001, the court split 5-4 in a ruling that limited the scope of government protection of wetlands, but the decision did not go as far as environmentalists feared.
The latest cases give the court an opportunity to put broader limits on federal authority, and a key player may be new Chief Justice John Roberts. The appeals were the first the court agreed to hear under Roberts' leadership.
Environmentalists have been worried about how Roberts will vote in such cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Doesn't the AP use grammar anymore?
Didn't they outsource most of their editing to India ?
We used to call "wetlands" swamps. Fetid, festering places that bred nothing but undesirable insects and disease. I'm from Boston. Most of this city wouldn't exist (including thousands of homes and businesses) if the "wetlands" weren't filled in. It's good news that the court's addressing this. Congress went too far in the '70s.
The pc name for swamps is wetlands, just like the pc name for jungles is rainforests. Change the name and you can give it a warm fuzzy feeling.
But in the first major oral argument he heard, Roberts had tough questions for a lawyer for Oregon who was there to try to protect that state's physician-assisted suicide law from being trumped by a federal drug law.
This quote shows the article's author really doesn't understand the legal difference between the wetlands cases and drug cases. The assisted sucide case is exclusively a statutory interpretation case involving the drug laws, because the Court has long held the drug laws are a legitimate exercise of Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce. The big issue in many of the wetlands cases is precisely whether the commerce clause extends to wetland regulation, particularly if the given wetland doesn't connect to any navigable body of water. For that reason this group of wetlands cases will give us a far better idea of Justice Roberts' actual thinking than the assisted suicide case will.
There are protected wetlands standing between my property and a developer who wanted to fill them in and build condos adjacent to my yard. That "protected wetland" designation made them back off a hundred feet or so, preserve the treeline that borders the creek, and made everyone happy (or at least as happy as possible).
I don't know if states get to decide what a "wetland" is, but in WI a wetland can be defined as able to float a boat ONE day a year. That qualifies my little creek as a wetland - yea!
And so it begins.
The fate of possibly dozens hapless frogs hang in the balance...
I'm not talking about paving the everglades. I'm saying that just because some water is somewhere, it should not be preserved that way for all eternity. Where would such waterfoul go if a swamp dried up naturally? Would we attempt to keep it wet forever. The common sense line has been crossed beteen property and the environment.
Why not. We paved New Orleans and are going to pay to do it again.
One guide informed me that eagles were exinct on Catalina Island while pointing to a pair in the tree and then delivered a lecture on the evils of DDT, chemical and oil companies straight out of a pamphlet of a eco group. I have been in the pesticide business and am in the oil business now, I fumed in silence because I knew the very young girl was giving the approved lecture and it was not the time, place or people to debate the facts.
Conservatives need to address this problem, commerical companies being co-hearsed into spouting eco drivel.
BTW, I am still peed-off that I paid $60 to see two exinct eagles, the nose of a seal and the splash of a fish, while being given eco lectures.
Where my parents live in WV, its gotten way out of hand. Over 70% of the county has been declared wetlands. When they sweep the roads, the DOH has to haul the dirt & gravel 30 miles so as not to dump in a wetland.
How a dry mountaintop can be declared a wetland perplexes me.
The man-made pond on my parents farm was declared a wetlands. Be careful if you have a swimming pool, that might be next.
definition of an environmentalist... the one who moved in first...
use of environmentalism to prevent property owners from doing what they want with their property is wrong.
give them the power and the state will boot you from your 'wetland'... then we will hear you cheer.
teeman
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.