Again, what are the odds that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of environmental laws? Slim to none, by this writers estimation.
WSJ.com - High Court to Examine the Scope Of Federal Clean-Water Laws
Wading into a long-running environmental dispute, the Supreme Court agreed to decide how deeply within state lines the federal Clean Water Act extends.In a pair of cases from Michigan, developers contend Congress never intended to regulate “intrastate” waterways with scant connection to interstate commerce. And even if it did, they say, Washington lacks the constitutional power to reach that far.
The implications are broad. “We're talking about thousands of property owners nationwide,” covering as much as 100 million acres of intrastate wetlands in the contiguous U.S., said Reed Hopper, an attorney with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif., which represents one of the developers.
The high court also agreed to consider whether the federal law giving state regulators authority over federally licensed hydroelectric dams that discharge pollutants also applies to facilities that alter water flow without discharging pollutants. S.D. Warren Co. is challenging Maine's efforts to require its five dams to comply with state environmental laws.
The best known of the Michigan cases dates from the late 1980s, when developer John Rapanos began filling in part of his property near Bay City, intending to build a shopping mall. He refused to obtain a permit and ignored regulators' orders to stop until he got one. When the government brought criminal and civil charges against him, Mr. Rapanos fought back, contending the Clean Water Act covered only navigable waterways involved in interstate commerce -- not his property, which he argued lay some 20 miles away from the nearest waterway covered by the law, Saginaw Bay.
..
The difference could lie in the court's newest member: Chief Justice John Roberts, who presided over the private session where the court decided to take the case. At least four justices must agree before the court will hear a case. “The Supreme Court did not take the Rapanos case in 2004 but they're taking it now, and the only factor that's different is that Judge Roberts is there,” Mr. Hopper said.
Bleh.
The first question before the court is whether Congress intended the water act to cover the kind of properties at issue. The 1972 law covers “navigable waters,” defined as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency have interpreted the law broadly, to include not only major rivers and lakes, but also tributaries and wetlands adjacent to them. In a 1985 case, the Supreme Court held that Congress intended “regulate at least some waters that would not be deemed 'navigable' under the classical understanding of that term.” But in a 2001 opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a 5-4 Supreme Court ruled the Corps had exceeded the law's reach when it sought to regulate development of an “abandoned sand and gravel pit” because migratory birds used the site.The water act derives its power from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which grants Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce. Conservatives have sought to constrain federal power by narrowing its scope. Many hope President Bush, who has begun to reshape the high court, will further that aim.
oh and this to:
• Rejected an appeal from a Wiccan priestess angry that local leaders wouldn't let her open their sessions with a prayer. Lawyers for Cynthia Simpson had told justices in a filing that most of the invocations are led by Christians. Ms. Simpson said she wanted to offer a generalized prayer to the “creator of the universe.” Wiccans consider themselves witches, pagans or neo-pagans, and say their religion is based on respect for the Earth, nature and the cycle of the seasons. A federal judge initially ruled county's policy unconstitutional because it stated a preference for a set of religious beliefs. But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the county had changed its policy and directed clerics to avoid invoking the name of Jesus. (Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors)
Tags: Politics, /environmental_law
