<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PostalCode"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoEnvelopeAddress, li.MsoEnvelopeAddress, div.MsoEnvelopeAddress
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:2.0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-element:frame;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in .8in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=4 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>SUPREME COURT CASES:<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=4 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>Justices to Study Scope of '72 Clean Water
Act<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><b><font size=4
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:
bold'>Los Angeles</span></font></b></st1:City></st1:place><b><font size=4
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>
Times – 2/21/06<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=4 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>By David G. Savage, staff writer</span></font></b><font
size=4><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=4 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:State w:st="on"><font size=4
color=black face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>WASHINGTON</span></font></st1:State></st1:place><font
size=4 color=black><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'> — 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.<br>
<br>
The Clean Water Act of 1972 made it illegal to discharge pollutants without a
permit into the "navigable waters of the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region
w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place>." 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.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=4 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=4 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>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.<br>
<br>
Today, the high court will hear the case of John Rapanos, a Michigan developer
who was fined $13 million in a long-running legal battle that began when he
defied federal agents by filling in 22 acres of a wet field he owned about 20
miles from Lake Huron.<br>
<br>
Water from the field can flow into a drainage ditch, which in turn flows into a
stream and a river that leads to the lake. This "hydrological
connection" gives federal regulators authority over the field, government
officials say.<br>
<br>
The Pacific Legal Foundation, a property rights group based in <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Sacramento</st1:City></st1:place>, is defending
Rapanos and urging the court to limit the reach of the federal law.<br>
<br>
It is a "total fiction" to say the Clean Water Act extends much
beyond rivers and bays "where you can actually float a boat," said M.
Reed Hopper, principal attorney for the foundation. "Hopefully, the court
is taking up this case to end this abuse of federal power."<br>
<br>
Environmentalists fear that a win for Rapanos could dramatically cut back one
of the nation's most effective anti-pollution laws.<br>
<br>
Congress passed the law after a decade in which polluted rivers caught fire and
fish in the <st1:place w:st="on">Great Lakes</st1:place> were dying out.
Lawmakers said the nation needed a comprehensive anti-pollution effort to
restore waterways to health.<br>
<br>
Today, according to a Sierra Club report, 60% of the nation's rivers and bays
are safe for swimming and fishing, up from 36% in 1970. It credited the Clean
Water Act.<br>
<br>
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers enforce the
law by trying to prevent pollution from getting into the waterways in the first
place.<br>
<br>
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 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:State w:st="on">Washington</st1:State></st1:place>.
"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."<br>
<br>
To add to the interest, the Rapanos case will be the first to be heard by
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. It will also be the first environmental case to
come before Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Congress has the power to keep the nation's "navigable waters free of
pollution," he said in his brief to the court, and that goal can be
achieved only if regulators can prevent "upstream pollution
discharges" into streams and wetlands.<br>
<br>
About 100 million acres of wetlands in the lower 48 states could be affected by
the outcome. About 75% of the acres are on private land. Besides <st1:State
w:st="on">Alaska</st1:State>, the states with the largest areas of wetlands are
<st1:State w:st="on">Florida</st1:State>, <st1:State w:st="on">Louisiana</st1:State>,
<st1:State w:st="on">Minnesota</st1:State> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:State
w:st="on">Texas</st1:State></st1:place>.<br>
<br>
In <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:State w:st="on">California</st1:State></st1:place>,
the court's ruling will determine whether federal regulation extends to the
thousands of miles of canals, ditches and streambeds, many of which are dry for
most of the year.<br>
<br>
In all, 34 states, including <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:State w:st="on">California</st1:State></st1:place>,
urged the court to maintain broad federal regulation over streams and wetlands.<br>
<br>
But not all state and local officials are in agreement. Lawyers for the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California say that obtaining a federal
permit can be a costly nuisance. The district operates aqueducts that bring
water to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Los Angeles</st1:City></st1:place>.<br>
<br>
"It seems a tad ridiculous that we have to get a 'wetlands' permit when we
are working in the desert," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general counsel for
the water district, which supplies drinking water to 18 million people in <st1:place
w:st="on">Southern California</st1:place>. It joined with seven other water
districts in the West in arguing that the federal law should cover only actual
pollution flowing into the waterways.<br>
<br>
Environmentalists were taken aback in October when the Supreme Court agreed on
a single day to hear three major challenges to the Clean Water Act — all
of which were brought by developers and industry officials.<br>
<br>
But it comes as no surprise that the high court's conservatives seek to limit the
reach of the law. Five years ago, they joined together to rule that isolated
ponds and wetlands that did not flow into a stream were beyond the reach of
federal regulators.<br>
<br>
Speaking for the 5-4 majority, then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the
Clean Water Act should be read in line with the federal government's
"traditional jurisdiction over waters that were or had been navigable in
fact."<br>
<br>
That ruling answered one question and raised another: What about the tens of
thousands of tiny streams and inland wetlands that send water flowing toward
the sea? Are they are covered by the Clean Water Act?<br>
<br>
The Rapanos case, to be heard first today, poses that question directly.<br>
<br>
Next, the justices will hear the appeal of June Carabell, a <st1:State w:st="on">Michigan</st1:State>
developer who was blocked from building condominiums on a parcel of low-lying
land north of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Detroit</st1:City></st1:place>.<br>
<br>
Her lawyers note that the parcel is surrounded by a man-made berm that blocks
the flow of water.<br>
<br>
"We can't pollute navigable waters because we are not connected to them.
It's a physical impossibility," said Timothy Stoepker, a lawyer for
Carabell.<br>
<br>
Nonetheless, federal regulators refused to grant a permit to fill the wetland
areas. Lower courts upheld the government decision because the property was
near <st1:place w:st="on">Lake St. Clair</st1:place>, a navigable waterway.<br>
<br>
After the two wetlands cases, the high court will hear a <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:State
w:st="on">Maine</st1:State></st1:place> case that represents a clash between
energy and the environment. At issue is whether the states can regulate the
river flows passing through about 1,500 power dams, including scores in <st1:place
w:st="on">Northern California</st1:place>.<br>
<br>
The Federal Power Act gave federal energy regulators sole authority over the
dams that generate electric power.<br>
<br>
However, the Clean Water Act gave states a role in preserving the water quality
in their rivers. State permits were required before anyone could add or
discharge anything into the river. And state officials use this permitting
power to force dam operators to maintain enough water flow to satisfy both fish
and kayakers.<br>
<br>
But the high court agreed to hear a challenge to this authority brought by the
S.D. Warren Co., which operates five power dams in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:State
w:st="on">Maine</st1:State></st1:place>. Its lawyers argue that water flowing
through a dam is not a discharge, and therefore the states have no right to
require a permit from them.<br>
<br>
The court's ruling on this legal question could have a crucial effect on <st1:country-region
w:st="on">America</st1:country-region>'s rivers, said Patrick Parenteau, an
environmental law expert at the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Vermont</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Law</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">School</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>.<br>
<br>
"Without this permitting authority, the states are powerless to restore
and improve the habitat for fisheries," Parenteau said. "With it,
they have a powerful lever." <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:PersonName w:st="on"><em><i><font size=3 color=gray
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:gray'>Byron
Leydecker</span></font></i></em></st1:PersonName><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:gray'>Chair, Friends of <st1:place w:st="on">Trinity
River</st1:place></span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:gray'>Advisor, California Trout, Inc</span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on"><em><i><font
size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:gray'>PO Box</span></font></i></em></st1:Street><em><i><font
color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span style='color:gray'> 2327</span></font></i></em></st1:address><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><em><i><font
size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:gray'>Mill Valley</span></font></i></em></st1:City><em><i><font
color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span style='color:gray'>, <st1:State w:st="on">CA</st1:State>
<st1:PostalCode w:st="on">94942-2327</st1:PostalCode></span></font></i></em></st1:place><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:gray'>415 383 4810 ph</span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=3 color=gray face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:gray'>415 383 9562 fx</span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><a href="mailto:bwl3@comcast.net">bwl3@comcast.net</a></span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><a href="mailto:bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org">bleydecker@stanfordalumni.org</a></span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><a href="http://www.fotr.org">http://www.fotr.org</a></span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><u><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>http:www.caltrout.org</span></font></u><font
color=lime><span style='color:lime'> </span></font></i></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>