Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court wades into Michigan dispute over wetlands [property rights]
Pittsburgh Post Gazette ^ | October 12, 2005 | Michael McGough

Posted on 10/12/2005 9:28:20 PM PDT by grundle

Accepting the appeal of a Michigan developer who has become a hero to the property-rights movement, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday said it will decide whether the federal government has the authority to regulate wetlands miles away from a river or other waterway.

The justices will decide whether John Rapanos, a grandfather in his 70s, was within his rights when he filled in wetlands on his property without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Rapanos had hoped to build a shopping center on his land.

They must decide whether to sustain $13 million in civil fines and fees imposed against Mr. Rapanos. He was also convicted in a separate criminal case, but was sentenced to probation.

The court also agreed to review a decision against two other Michigan property owners, June and Keith Carabell, who were denied a permit to fill part of their land for the construction of condominiums.

The outcome could have implications for government authority in regulating construction in obviously environmentally sensitive areas. The Army Corps of Engineers regulates work on wetlands.

"They define wetlands so broadly that even dry desert areas of Arizona are being called wetlands," said Paul Kamenar, a lawyer with the Washington Legal Foundation, one of the conservative groups that called on the court to intervene.

(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: armycorpsofengineers; dispute; govwatch; into; libertarians; michigan; over; propertyrights; scotus; ussupremecourt; wades; wetlands

1 posted on 10/12/2005 9:28:23 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grundle

"They define wetlands so broadly that even dry desert areas of Arizona are being called wetlands," said Paul Kamenar


This is the best line on this subject. Can't make it any better. The enviro whackos must be put in their place. Roberts' credentials and leadership will be known soon.


2 posted on 10/12/2005 9:58:06 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
Actually, anything even remotely resembling "wetlands" in AZ probably ought to be protected..
That is a situation where a broad designation might be justified..

However, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and other states in that general region have a literal surplus of wetlands..
Certain areas, not contiguous to rivers and lakes, or part of a recognized wetlands "system" should not be considered endangered, critical, necessary, etc..

The problem, of course, is that government agencies have taken the broadest interpretation of the wetlands act, and implemented it to the ridiculous..
Some simple common sense is needed..
Too bad it has to go all the way to the Supreme Court in a search for someone with common sense..
And, unfortunately, there is no guarantee that common sense will be found in the SCOTUS..

3 posted on 10/12/2005 10:10:27 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drammach

The quote was obviously sarcastic.

I hope Roberts will show his leadership and conservatism on these cases. They should cut the crap out and limit the definition of Wetlands. In any case, what role and right does the Federal Government have controlling and regulating land use in a locality?


4 posted on 10/12/2005 10:17:17 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

Dollars to donuts it's the Interstate Commerce Clause, ICC, of The US Constitution. It's the most overused clause and was never intended for such acts.

There's actually a case (can't find the cite) where wetlands protection was upheld because ducks who used a pond were engaged in "interstate commerce". Actually, I think it was the hunters who were engaged in interstate commerce, but it sure would sound funny if the ICC abuse wasn't true.


5 posted on 10/12/2005 10:21:34 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

Totally ridiculous to apply the Commerce clause to this madness. Time for the SCOTUS to give control back to states.


6 posted on 10/12/2005 10:23:39 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
In any case, what role and right does the Federal Government have controlling and regulating land use in a locality?

The constitution..
Federal authority over rivers and waterways..
If a "wetland" is a contiguous part of a river-type system or some other waterway, then feds have jurisdicion..
It's the same authority that applies to the US Corps of Engineers work on rivers, dams, levees, canals, etc..

7 posted on 10/12/2005 10:25:50 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Drammach

Constitution gives the right to the Feds to control land miles away from rivers and waterways?


8 posted on 10/12/2005 10:32:50 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

Here's a history of the interpretation of the commerce clause insofar as it affects waterways.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/29.html


9 posted on 10/12/2005 10:50:46 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

As long as it is a navigable stream.


10 posted on 10/13/2005 12:00:20 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (France is an example of retrograde chordate evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Drammach

Look at a map of AZ, it's got lots and lots rivers and lakes.


11 posted on 10/13/2005 12:02:56 AM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: drlevy88
Look at a map of AZ, it's got lots and lots rivers and lakes.

But only one river, and a few creeks, actually contain water. The lakes are there because developers willed that they exist.

(Posting from Rotorua, NZ this week)

12 posted on 10/13/2005 12:35:41 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Let's get a few facts in here -

1) Rapanos was convicted of interferring with water evaporation, the new “migratory molecule” rule. Under this new rule, any water on private property may be regulated under the Clean Water Act because it might evaporate and migrate to a navigable waterway.

2) Rapanos never interferred with any wetland on his property.

3) He refused to pay a $270,000 tribute to the leech attorneys and junk scientists hanging around the fascist EPA to "study" the wetlands on his property. That's why he was charged.

4) The US attorney in this case engaged in illegal harassment and violated his civil rights. Government witnesses lied under oath, illegally trespassed on his property and attempted to force bribes from Rapanos.

5)The US Supreme Court overturned Rapanos’ conviction and told the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the case in light of its Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States (SWANCC) decision. This decision states that the Clean Water Act cannot extend to such non-navigable waterways like puddles and ponds and standing water. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals told the USSC to go take a flying leap and convicted Rapanos again.

This case tells of a fascist federal bureaucracy gone crazy and a rogue appeals court hoisting the black flag of anarchy in the courtroom.

“If this bureaucratic juggernaut is not firmly reigned in by the Supreme Court - and soon - the founding principle of the people's right to own, and reasonably use private property, will be irreparably damaged,” wrote M. David Stirling, vice president of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public-interest legal organization that represented Rapanos in several stages of this case.

Rational observers looking at the Rapanos decision come to the indelible conclusion that parts of the federal government are certifiably insane: Puddles are navigable waterways. Supreme court decisions are ignored by an appeals court. Original intent of Congressional law is keelhauled. The law is whatever an unelected bureaucrat says it is. And American citizens are expected to sit and eat this totalitarian garbage.

Bureaucrats must be stripped of their illegal law making power, judges that ignore supreme court decisions must be impeached and politicians that allow unelected tyrants to write law must be thrown from office.

The Rapanos harassment makes clear that environmental law has nothing to do with the environment. It’s about control. It’s about expanding federal power over every blade of grass and tree in America.


13 posted on 10/13/2005 7:09:49 AM PDT by sergeantdave (Member of Arbor Day Foundation, travelling the country and destroying open space)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; indianrightwinger
As long as it is a navigable stream.

I had a dispute with a neighboring property owner. They thought they could ride their horses on my land. I had asked them not to.

I built a pond. WV law gives me the right to do so, without a permit, under certain conditions. I built my pond, accordingly, on the side of a mountain (1085 ft above sea level), along a PART TIME (seasonal) stream.

My neighbors found an opening, and filed a complaint. I ended up being fined $5000 because I did not get a permit from the Corps of Engineers. Go figure...

We're in court now, Round 3 (discovery)...

14 posted on 10/13/2005 7:18:51 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
Constitution gives the right to the Feds to control land miles away from rivers and waterways?

Check back on my #7..
The operative word is "contiguous"..

As opposed to "continuous, where each point is actually connected to the next, in the case I stated, those points only need to be "in Proximity" to each other to be considered a SYSTEM.. and therefore connected..

You could have several or numerous swamps, bogs, lakes, ponds, etc., that are interconnected in some way, and they would be considered "part of" a waterway or system of waterways..
In keeping with the fed's overreaching attitude, ALL would be within their authority..

Not saying it's right or proper, just saying, give 'em an inch,.....

15 posted on 10/13/2005 6:04:08 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Drammach

My hope is that the Roberts' court will keep them with an inch. :-)

Limited government power should be the operative word.


16 posted on 10/14/2005 2:18:09 AM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo

That's horrible that your neighbors and the government are doing that to you.


17 posted on 10/14/2005 8:10:13 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

RFE List PING.


18 posted on 10/14/2005 8:18:43 AM PDT by uglybiker (This tagline sponsored by the Masonic/Illuminati/NWO Conspiracy. BOO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abbi_normal_2; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; AMDG&BVMH; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

List of Ping lists

19 posted on 10/14/2005 11:23:30 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

BTTT!!!!!!!


20 posted on 10/14/2005 11:26:36 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
21 posted on 10/14/2005 11:26:44 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Wetlands=Swamp.

If I pee on my lawn, will the DOI come in and declare it a "wetland?"

22 posted on 10/14/2005 11:29:15 AM PDT by Clemenza (Gentlemen, Behold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Thanks for posting.


23 posted on 10/14/2005 12:15:05 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
"It's the same authority that applies to the US Corps of Engineers work on rivers, dams, levees, canals, etc.."

Oh? Then what is the Corps doing in the mountains in the middle of Idaho, classifying as wetlands bog areas where snow stays into late spring?

If we had a congress that actually did something, this would never happen. The Corps of Engineers should never have been allowed this type of unregulated authority.

24 posted on 10/14/2005 1:34:01 PM PDT by Cuttnhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cuttnhorse

maryland has based its entire wetland regulations on a corps of engineer flyover assessment... they took the corps suggested wetland areas and made them law... if there is a disputed area, then they will come out and declare it a wetland so there is no mistake...

been there, tried to stop it.

teeman


25 posted on 10/15/2005 5:38:13 AM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson