FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!
Interesting indeed!
Posted on 10/11/2005 12:57:57 PM PDT by Pragmatic_View
The Supreme Court, venturing into legal territory that it historically has avoided, said Tuesday it will consider restricting the government's authority to regulate wetlands.
Jumping into a subject that is crucial for environmentalists, property owners and developers, the justices will take up claims that federal regulators have gone too far by restricting development of property that is miles away from any river or waterway.
The cases give the court an opportunity to put limits on federal government authority, and a key player may be new Chief Justice John Roberts. The appeals were the first the court agreed to hear under Roberts' leadership.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!
Interesting indeed!
My guess is that Roberts is casting the fourth vote that is deciding to take these cases. Rehnquist was too old and tired for the battle. Roberts has no problem with it. The benefit of youth on the court, right Harriet?
The constitutional reason for federal waters was to preclude tariffs on trade between states. The historic definition of "waters of the United States" was any river that could accommodate a vessel over 40DWT.
Needless to say, federill agencies have ignored that ruling for decades.
I hope that the SCOTUS reins in the tendency for wetlands regs.
People have gone to jail because of gubbermint powergrabbing in this area.
Actually, they're using discernable plant life that distinguishes "wetland" from dryland...
By the way, what's 40DWT? Forty tons draft weight???
40 Dead Weight Tons.
Environmentalists Organizations Exposed
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b870f13654c.htm
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State-.Art.IV,sec3.
The way I read this,the congress may only legislate for D.C. and any forts,naval docks,etc.
'Bout time!
'Cept during the summer, when you have to leave it lay until winter to see if it absorbs moisture...
In the 6th Circus, the black-robed Marxists have given the okay to the brand spankin' new "migratory molecule rule."
What is the migratory molecule rule, you ask.
Under this socialist dream, any water on private property that may be evaporated by the sun and fall into any navigable waterway may be regulated under the clean water act.
So that puddle on your two-track road now can be regulated because a molecule of H2O may flutter away to an ocean and eventually float an aircraft carrier.
"Navigable waters" of the United States form in ordinary condition by themselves, or by uniting with other waters, a continued highway over which commerce carried on with other States or foreign countries by customary modes; navigable waters accessible from a State other than that in which they lie; substantial and permanent character of commerce; not waterbodies where commerce internal to States; not small streams that are not habitually used as arteries of interstate commerce.
The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. 557 (1870):
"...they constitute navigable waters of the United States within the meaning of the acts of Congress, in contradistinction from the navigable waters of the States, when they form in their ordinary condition by themselves, or by uniting with other waters, a continued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other States or foreign countries in the customary modes in which such commerce is conducted by water. If we apply this test to Grand River, the conclusion follows that it must be regarded as a navigable water of the United States. From the conceded facts in the case the stream is capable of bearing a steamer of one hundred and twenty-three tons burden, laden with merchandise and passengers, as far as Grand Rapids, a distance of forty miles from its mouth in Lake Michigan. And by its junction with the lake it forms a continued highway for commerce, both with other States and with foreign countries, and is thus brought under the direct control of Congress in the exercise of its commercial power."
Levoy v. U S, 177 U.S. 621 (1900):
"...It is a safe inference from these and other cases to the same effect which might be cited, that the term, 'navigable waters of the United States,' has reference to commerce of a substantial and permanent character to be conducted thereon. The power of Congress to regulate such waters is not expressly granted in the Constitution, but is a power incidental to the express 'power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;' and with reference to which the observation was made by Chief Justice Marshall, shall, that 'it is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a state, or between different parts of the same state, and which does not extend to or affect other states.' Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 194, 6 L. ed. 69.
"While, therefore, it may not be easy for a court to define the size and character of a stream which would place it within the category of 'navigable waters of the United States,' or to define what traffic shall constitute 'commerce among the states,' so as to make such questions sheer matters of law, yet, in construing the legislation involved in the case before us, we may be permitted to see that it was not the intention of Congress to interfere with or prevent the exercise by the state of Louisiana of its power to reclaim swamp and overflowed lands by regulating and controlling the current of small streams not used habitually as arteries of interstate commerce."
" The trial judge instructed the jury as follows:
'What is a navigable water of the United States? It is a navigable water which, either of itself, or in connection with other water, permits a continuous journey to another state. If a stream is navigable, and from that stream you can make a journey by water, by boat, by one of the principal methods used in ordinary commerce, to another state from the state in which you start on that journey, that is a navigable water of the United States. It is so called in contradistinction to waters which arise and come to an end within the boundaries of the state. . . . But, if from the water in one state you can travel by water continuously to another state, and the water is a navigable water, then it is a navigable stream of the United States. . . . If it was navigable, and connected with waters that permitted a journey to another state, then it is a navigable water of the United States...'
"If these instructions were correct, then there is scarcely a creek or stream in the entire country which is not a navigable water of the United States. Nearly all the streams on which a skiff or small lugger can float discharge themselves into other streams or waters flowing into a river which traverses more than one state, and the mere capacity to pass in a boat of any size, however small, from one stream or rivulet to another, the jury is informed, is sufficient to constitute a navigable water of the United States.
"Such a view would extend the paramount jurisdiction of the United States over all the flowing waters in the states, and would subject the officers and agents of a state, engaged in constructing levees to restrain overflowing rivers within their banks, or in regulating the channels of small streams for the purposes of internal commerce, to fine and imprisonment, unless premission be first obtained from the Secretary of War. If such were the necessary construction of the statutes here involved, their validity might well be questioned. But we do not so understand the legislation of Congress. When it is remembered that the source of the power of the general government to act at all in this matter arise out of its power to regulate commerce with foreign countries and among the states, it is obvious that what the Constitution and the acts of Congress have in view is the promotion and protection of commerce in its international and interstate aspect, and a practical construction must be put on these enactments as intended for such large and important purposes."
No - that makes way too much sense. Would never work.
When water evaporates, it leaves the pollutants behind, I believe. Therefore, a polluted lake in your backyard would leave the pollution in your backyard if it evaporated. That doesn't mean pollutants can't seep into groundwater and spread that way, however.
And your point is....
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.