|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
– About
AMDA – Hunt
&Events –.Membership
Information-AMDA Programs-Links
|
| The Christian Science Monitor calls it "a landmark case over the scope of federal power" to regulate private property. An expert quoted by the Legal Times terms it one of the most "important environmental cases in a decade." The Inman Real Estate News service describes it as a "titanic land use battle." They're talking about Rapanos v. United States, Pacific Legal Foundation's latest case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court heard oral arguments in Rapanos this past Tuesday, with PLF's Reed Hopper making the opening presentation. In Rapanos, PLF is challenging an astonishing federal power grab over land use regulation nationwide. Traditionally, zoning has been the prerogative of local governments, in keeping with the Constitution's limits on the national government in our federal system. But in recent years, federal regulators have attempted to become arbiters of land use, through a contorted interpretation of the Clean Water Act. The act’s plain language gives the federal government oversight only over property that abuts "navigable waters"--major rivers that flow between states. In defiance of common sense, the feds have now defined that term to mean almost any water, anywhere. As Investors Business Daily puts it, "If collected rainwater drains into a gully, thence into a ditch, thence into a river, it's now deemed under government control." Thus, the predicament of PLF's client, John Rapanos: The feds claim the right to nix his plans to develop his property in Michigan--even though it is miles from the nearest "navigable water." States and localities have the authority to safeguard water quality, and they are exercising it. There is no need for Washington to push them aside and assume powers not authorized by the Constitution, which limits the federal role to matters of "interstate commerce." Indeed, PLF and Mr. Rapanos are supported by friend of the court briefs from the nation's largest urban water district (the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California), and groups representing hundreds of water agencies around the country. These agencies fear the danger articulated by Investors Business Daily: If the federal regulators' argument prevails, "that means the feds can move in on virtually any private property." On Tuesday, PLF's Hopper urged the justices to insist on an interpretation that is more honest about what the Clean Water Act says, and more faithful to the meaning and mandate of the Constitution. Read the New York Times' background article on PLF's case; New York Times' report on Tuesday's oral argument; coverage of the argument by the Washington Post; and the editorial in Investors Business Daily. ________________ The PLF Sentry is published by Pacific Legal Foundation and may be redistributed in its entirety with proper attribution to PLF. If you have been forwarded this e-mail message from a friend and would like to subscribe to receive future issues of The PLF Sentry, visit our home page. Established in 1973, PLF is the oldest, largest, and in the words of the Washington Post, "perhaps most influential" public interest law foundation of its kind. PLF is a tax-exempt, charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and relies entirely upon private donations for its support. Copyright
© 2002 All Rights Reserved |
