<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/20/MNGV3HBONN1.DTL">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/20/MNGV3HBONN1.DTL</A></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/"><IMG height=21
alt="San Francisco Chronicle" hspace=0
src="http://www.sfgate.com/templates/brands/chronicle/images/chronicle_logo.gif"
width=150 border=0></A><BR>
<DIV id=divider><!--divider--><!--catheader
tophoriznav --><!--divider-->
<HR>
<!-- /divider --></DIV>
<H1><FONT size=4>Water wars await Alito in debut on high court <BR>Future of
nation's rivers, wetlands hinges on 2 key cases</FONT></H1>
<H2><FONT size=3></FONT></H2><!-- END HEADLINE/DECK & SUBHEADLINE/SUBDECK -->
<P class=author><FONT size=1><!-- START WRITER CREDIT--><A
href="mailto:begelko@sfchronicle.com">Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff
Writer</A></FONT></P>
<P class=date><FONT size=1>Monday, February 20, 2006</FONT></P>
<DIV id=contentbody><!-- START OBJECT THUMBS AREA-->
<TABLE id=relatedcontent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width=160 align=right
border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV id=contentobjects><A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/02/20/MNGV3HBONN1.DTL&o=0"
target=""><IMG alt="Samuel Alito. Reuters photo by Ken Heinen"
src="http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/02/20_t/mn_was94_court_alito_t.gif"
vspace=1 border=0></A> <A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/02/20/MNGV3HBONN1.DTL&o=1"
target=""><IMG
alt="Keith Carabell of Chesterfield Township, Mich., has tried..."
src="http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/02/20_t/mn_scotus_wetlands_mico101_t.gif"
vspace=1 border=0></A> </DIV>
<DIV id=utilitymenu>
<UL class=simplemenu>
<LI class=print><A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/20/MNGV3HBONN1.DTL&type=printable">Printable
Version</A>
<LI class=mail><A
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/20/MNGV3HBONN1.DTL&type=friend&emailcolor=%23A73A33&origin=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ffile%3D%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F02%2F20%2FMNGV3HBONN1.DTL">Email
This Article</A> </LI></UL></DIV></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV
id=additionalcontent></DIV><!-- end #additionalcontent --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><SPAN
class=althead><FONT size=2><STRONG>
<P>
<H3></H3>
<P></P></STRONG></FONT></SPAN><FONT size=2>
<P>Samuel Alito will make his Supreme Court debut with a splash this week when
the justices hear two cases that could determine the future of the Clean Water
Act.
<P>The cases, both from Michigan and scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, could
have an enormous impact. For property-rights advocates, an unfavorable ruling
could spread the shadow of federal regulation over every tiny stream and rivulet
in America, stifling development.
<P>Federal authority would extend to "virtually every body of water in the
nation -- every brook and pond, every dry wash -- that has any connection with
navigable waters, no matter how remote," warned a coalition of water suppliers,
farmers and the states of Alaska and Utah in one of more than 50 briefs filed
with the court.
<P>For environmentalists, a loss would strike at the heart of the nation's water
resources.
<P>Federal agencies would be powerless to prevent "the discharge of sewage,
toxic pollutants and fill into ... the large majority of our nation's rivers,
streams and other waters," said clean-water agencies from two-thirds of the
states, including California.
<P>The two lawsuits challenge the federal government's power to prevent
landowners from filling and developing wetlands -- marshes, ponds, drainage
ditches or small streams -- that have some connection with a distant river or
lake.
<P>Lower courts ruled in both cases that the Clean Water Act of 1972, which
allows federal agencies to prevent pollution of navigable waters, regulates the
filling of small wetlands that impact larger waterways, even those many miles
away.
<P>Property-rights groups argue that "navigable waters" must be interpreted to
mean only rivers, streams and lakes that can be navigated by boat, or adjacent
wetlands that significantly affect navigation or commerce on the larger
waterways.
<P>The cases return the court to an issue it left unanswered in 2001, when it
ruled 5-4 that the Clean Water Act did not give the government authority over
wetlands that were used by migratory birds but were isolated from navigable
rivers and lakes.
<P>The wetlands in the Michigan cases belong to a larger category of waters that
are "hydrologically" connected to navigable waterways -- that is, they are part
of the same water system.
<P>The two cases, which will be heard together, are the first on the Supreme
Court calendar for Alito, a veteran federal appeals court judge who won Senate
confirmation last month to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
They will also be the first environmental cases for Chief Justice John Roberts,
President Bush's other appointee, who was seated in October.
<P>Conservation groups opposed both nominations, largely because of past rulings
by Alito and Roberts that appeared to take a narrow view of Congress' power to
regulate interstate commerce, the constitutional underpinning of federal
environmental laws. Alito also took part in appeals court rulings that rejected
a federal agency's water cleanup plan and limited private citizens' ability to
challenge water pollution under the Clean Water Act.
<P>The Bush administration, which proposed limiting federal authority over
wetlands in 2003 but backed off in the face of state opposition, is supporting
the government's regulatory power before the court. A ruling is due by the end
of June.
<P>Like many Supreme Court cases, these are small-scale disputes with big
implications.
<P>One landowner, John Rapanos of Midland, Mich., filled 50 acres of wetlands
with sand in the 1980s so he could offer the property for sale to a shopping
mall developer. The land is 20 miles from Saginaw Bay but is linked to it by
ditches and streams. Rapanos was convicted in 1995 of a criminal violation of
the Clean Water Act and could face a prison sentence if the Supreme Court rules
against him.
<P>Developers June and Keith Carabell were stopped by federal regulators from
building a condominium complex on land near Mount Clemens, Mich., that includes
16 acres of wetlands. A berm, or earthen mound that impedes water flow,
separates the swampy acreage from a drainage ditch that leads to a creek and a
lake about a mile away.
<P>What happens in their cases could affect much of the 100 million acres of
wetlands in the United States.
<P>Ecologically, wetlands serve multiple functions: They filter pollutants from
storm runoffs, limit flooding by absorbing water from heavy rains, and provide
habitat for fish and wildlife.
<P>If the Clean Water Act, which protects navigable waters, is interpreted to
allow widespread degradation of wetlands, "it would be like saying you cannot
cut down a tree, but are free to poison its roots," said attorney James Murphy
of the National Wildlife Federation, one of numerous conservation groups taking
part in the case.
<P>But property-rights groups say the issue is not whether sensitive waters
should be protected but who -- the federal government or the states -- should do
the protecting.
<P>"This case is about the federal government overstepping its authority, not
about whether our water will be clean," said Rapanos' lawyer, Reed Hopper of the
Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento. If federal authority was limited, he
said, wetlands would still be "subject to vigorous protections imposed by
states."
<P>Most state governments disagree. Only one-third of the states, including
California, have their own full-scale wetlands protection programs, and few
states are likely to step in if federal regulation is withdrawn, state
clean-water agencies said in court papers.
<P>They said the reasons are both financial and political -- protecting
resources can be expensive, and often yields to "the inevitable competition for
jobs and economic growth."
<P>When the court barred federal regulation of isolated wetlands in 2001, states
that tried to fill the gap found that developers' bulldozers moved more quickly
than regulators, the state agencies said.
<P>But that wasn't true in California, which expanded its wetlands program after
the 2001 ruling, said Walnut Creek attorney Roderick Walston, a former state
lawyer who now represents the water-supply agencies and two states seeking to
narrow federal regulation.
<P>"States are perfectly capable of doing the job once the Supreme Court
establishes the exact dividing point between federal and state regulation," he
said. <BR>
<HR>
What it's about
<P>At stake: The power of the federal government to regulate wetlands, streams
and canals that are connected to navigable waters, even wetlands that may be
located miles from the waterways.
<P>The status: Oral arguments are scheduled for Tuesday at the U.S. Supreme
Court.
<P><I>The cases are Rapanos vs. U.S., 04-1034, and Carabell vs. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 04-1384. E-mail Bob Egelko at <A
href="mailto:begelko@sfchronicle.com">begelko@sfchronicle.com</A>.</I> </FONT><!-- END STORY --></P></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>