Justices to Study Scope of '72 Clean Water Act (LAT)

[Career Prole]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will take up a property rights case today that could greatly curtail the federal law credited with cleaning up the nation's rivers, lakes and bays after decades of industrial pollution.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 made it illegal to discharge pollutants without a permit into the "navigable waters of the United States." Federal regulators read this measure as protecting tens of thousands of small streams and hundreds of millions of acres of wetlands that flow toward larger waterways, even if they are far from the nearest river or bay.

But to the surprise of environmentalists, the high court agreed to hear a direct attack on that broad view of the law. Farmers and developers say it is far-fetched to describe low-lying farm fields, or even dry creek beds in the West, as part of the nation's navigable waterways.

<snip>

To refocus the law only on navigable waterways "would cut the heart out of the Clean Water Act and take us back to the 19th century," said Howard Fox, a lawyer for Earthjustice in Washington. "If the court were to adopt the most narrow reading of the law, it would mean more than 90% of the waters now covered will be deprived of federal protection."


This will be Scalito's first turn at bat, and Roberts's first environmental case.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus21feb21,1,5342055.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

[XemaSab]

1. Oh man!

If this gets through, this will be TERRIBLE news for the West. The CWA is really about 30% of what's protecting sensitive habitats out here, with the Endangered Species act being the other 66%.

If this goes through half the people I know will be out of a job.

[papau]

2. "environmental" wouldn't vote to bring up - so they have at least 4 votes

to overturn.

Looks like Clean Water Act dies this summer.

Thank God the GOP is a party that can be depended on to defend property rights.

:-(

[leftchick]

3. well that is the plan after all

to take us back to the 19th century. :(

[confludemocrat]

10. and yet the discussions here at DU about the Alitos was "keep powder dry"

and save our fight for another, "winnable" issue. As if something like this wouldn't pop up in no goddamn time flat.

[Career Prole]

4. I'm curious to see how this turns out, because

of this, (from the article):

Both of President Bush's appointees are veterans of the Reagan administration, which sought to limit the reach of federal environmental laws. As lower court judges, Roberts and Alito hinted that they favored limits on federal authority.

However, in the cases to be heard this week, the Bush administration has allied itself with the environmental movement. U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the justices to preserve the broad reach of the Clean Water Act.

Wouldn't it be a pisser if they voted to limit the CWA and then the 'pukes used that vote as "proof" that bush's judges aren't rubber-stamps for the administration?

[meegbear]

5. I'm interested too - discussed this morning on NPR ...

The case involves a land developer who wanted to build a mall and housing development on land that has been designated as wetlands. To do that, you need to apply for a permit. He thinks that he doesn't need one had a consultant review it. The consultant told him you needed one. He disregarded this and started bulldozing. The Feds and the state, I beleive Michigan, both stepped in.

This guy's been fighting it for years on "priciple"; it's his land and he doesn't need a permit. He feels Congress overstepped their jurisdiction and the law is unconstitutional.

[Career Prole]

7. He paid for a consultant *after* he bought the land?

He paid for a consultant and then blew off the advice?

I wonder if he knew it was designated wetlands when he bought it with an eye towards development.

If he did, that would be the rare "bonehead trifecta".

[jasmeel]

8. What an asshole! I'm glad this guy has "principles"

[rodeodance]

6. oh crap

[wordpix2]

9. "property rights" is code for "I'll do whatever I damn please with my land

and if I contaminate it or build something against the law or without proper approvals, screw you folks downstream of wind or water flow."

[Javaman]

11. Personally, I think it will pass, why you ask?

Because this is about bigger issues. New Orleans for instance.

If this passes, then whole areas of New Orleans that were once wetlands but were settled upon were inhabited by the vast majority of the black population of LA.

they ship them out of state. they tell them that there houses are no more. and then they tell them they can't rebuild because their land was once a wetland and it's being "returned to nature".

thus making a once blue area into an instant red area.

Of course scalito and the rest of the goon squad will have other hearings after this pertaining to other wetlands but those will be done on a "case by case" basis. In other words, unless there are dems living on those future wetlands, the repukes ares perfectly safe.

[Career Prole]

12. Ah...*that* explains why the administration is siding with

environmentalists this time.