High Court Sides With Property Owners in Wetlands Case

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

The Supreme Court is making it easier for landowners to bring a court challenge when federal regulators try to restrict property development due to concerns about water pollution.

The justices ruled unanimously Tuesday that a Minnesota company could file a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the agency's determination that its land is off limits to peat mining under the Clean Water Act.

Federal officials argued that the Hawkes Company could only contest the finding by seeking a permit, an expensive process that could take years to resolve.

The company said it should be able to challenge the order immediately in federal court without having to spend $150,000 on a permit or risk hefty fines.


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/high-court-sides-property-owners-wetlands-case-39502099

---

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — May 31, 2016, 10:08 AM ET

Short article. No more at link.

[melm00se]

1. Unanimous decision

[Botany]

2. Fine go to court and prove your land is not a wetland.

And if you are going to go ahead and mine that peat then you had better have
a damn good constructed wetland to mitigate the run off from you operation.


BTW in the old days the Corp of Engineers did not do the best of things but ....
they are now into ecological restoration in a big way.

[Nitram]

4. I'm afraid my experiences with the Corps suggest they are reluctant to challenge developers

except in high profile cases involving large wetlands.

[24601]

5. It don't believe you have characterized the case accurately. It's not whether your property is

wetlands or not. As the court pointed out, it's whether your wetlands meet the criteria of "wetlands of the United States" which has a specific legal definition but is more difficult to determine.

But while that's the reason for the case, the issue before the court was about the procedural exercise of federal power by the Executive Branch. The court pulled some of that power back and preserved a role for the Judicial Branch.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-290_6k37.pdf

[Nitram]

7. I'm familiar with the law #24601.

The corps is who we call to determine if a wet place is a jurisdictional wetland or stream. I've had them decide that a stream (with healthy meanders, etc) was a ditch when it suited the developer.

[24601]

9. And my response wasn't to you but to Botany. It's just the timing put mine under yours.

[Nitram]

10. I hate it when that happens!

[jtuck004]

3. Good decision. Who needs this stinking planet anyway?

One more match on the fire.

Wonder if the children will have time to spit on our memory before they die?

[christx30]

6. If there was something you wanted to do,

and you thought the government was mistaken, would you want an answer on it right away, or would you want it 6 months to a year or more down the road? That's all this is.

[hack89]

8. Why should it cost a lot of money to challenge the government?

the EPA is not perfect nor omnipotent.

[geek tragedy]

11. the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement

is one that bites all kinds of citizens in the ass, it becomes a catch-22 situation where they just get put through the bureaucratic ringer until they can't afford to pay attorneys anymore.