Posted by Jakeman on June 21, 2006, at 20:46:27
In reply to Re: PBS Show About Iraq, Frontline, posted by Jost on June 21, 2006, at 20:29:01
That's true, this ruling could have vast implications. I work in land planning. A change in the Clean Water Act rules would affect every city and millions of properties. Even simple things like putting in silt fence to prevent runoff and pollution from construction sites because they are too close to a tributary could be eliminated.
> If one justices who wrote in opposition to the change were to be replaced by someone who joined the four who supported it, there could be major retrenchment on the act. Plus knowledge that such a large bloc exists on the SCOTUS could spur legislative and other administrative actions that would have a detrimental effect on definition and treatment of wetlands.
>
>
> From the NY Times:
>
> "WASHINGTON, June 19 — The Supreme Court on Monday came close to rolling back one of the country's fundamental environmental laws, issuing a fractured decision that, while likely to preserve vigorous federal enforcement of the law, the Clean Water Act, is also likely to lead to new regulatory battles, increased litigation by property owners and a push for new legislation.
>
>
> With four justices on one side arguing for a sharp restriction in the definition of wetlands that are subject to federal jurisdiction, and four justices on the other arguing for retaining the broad definition that the Army Corps of Engineers has used for decades, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy controlled the outcome in a solitary opinion.
>
> Justice Kennedy said that to come within federal protection under a proper interpretation of the Clean Water Act, a wetland needs to have a "significant nexus" to a body of water that is actually navigable.
>
> He then made clear, in his 30-page opinion, that whether such a relationship existed in any specific case was largely a technical and scientific judgment on which courts should defer to the federal regulators. The four parcels of land at issue in the case, all in Michigan, were likely to meet the definition, he said.
>
> Environmental advocacy groups reacted to the decision, which sends the cases back to an appeals court, as if they had dodged a bullet, which in many respects they had. An opinion for four justices, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, would have stripped protection from many areas that federal regulators have treated as wetlands under the 1972 law."
>
> Jost
poster:Jakeman
thread:659496
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060610/msgs/659930.html