Environmentalists are reeling over a recent decision by the U.S.Supreme Court. They’re concerned that ruling could put as much oftwenty percent of the nation’s wetlands at risk. That could affecthundreds of thousands of acres in the Great Lakes region alone. Earlyreports indicated the decision weakens a portion of the federal CleanWater Act, and could allow major damage to natural areas and animalhabitats. Since then, experts have had time to closely read the SupremeCourt ruling. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reportsthe long-term ramifications of the decision are unclear:
Transcript
Environmentalists are reeling over a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. They’re
concerned that ruling could put as much of twenty percent of the nation’s wetlands at risk.
That could effect hundreds of thousands of acres in the Great Lakes region alone. Early
reports indicated the decision weakens a portion of the Federal Clean Water Act, and
could allow major damage to natural areas and animal habitats. Since then, experts have
had time to closely read the Supreme Court ruling. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Jonathan Ahl reports the long-term ramifications of the decision are unclear.
A group of 23 communities have been fighting for more than a decade to site a landfill at
an abandoned mine in the Chicago suburb of Bartlett. The Illinois E-P-A signed off on
the plan, but the U-S Army Corps of Engineers blocked the move, citing the Clean Water
Act. The Corps contended that the dozens of migratory birds that use the ponds at the
site as temporary habitats are part of interstate commerce. That designation would give
the Federal Government ultimate control over the land. But the Supreme Court ruled that
since the ponds were not connected to any other bodies of water, the Clean Water Act
does not apply, and the federal government does not have any jurisdiction. The narrow
majority ruling by the Supreme Court may be a sign to environmentalists to change their
strategy as they seek to protect land. Barry Kellman is an environmental law professor
at DePaul University.
“It seems that at least from the perspective of environmentalists and
conservationists the area that they should be focusing their efforts is with state
governments.”
Kellman says activists tend to go to the Federal Government seeking legislation to protect
the environment because it casts a wider net. He also says this ruling undermines that
philosophy, and will force environmentalists to spend more time lobbying state
legislatures. But not everyone believes the ruling means environmentalists should shift
their focus to state government. Howard Lerner is the Director of the Environmental
Law and Policy Center in Chicago. He says the burden is on now Congress to be clearer
when adopting environmental law:
“In order to fix the damage done by the Supreme Court’s decision, Congress
needs to act to clarify the clean water act , and provide the clear statement that the five to
four majority found lacking.”
Lerner says the long-term effect of this court ruling is a requirement that Congress tighten
up environmental legislation to close out such loopholes if the laws are to be effective.
But there is another opinion that the decision is not clear enough to make any changes in
the drafting or enforcement of environmental legislation. Patricia Ross McCoven is an
Environmental Law Professor at Southern Illinois University. She says the ruling is
narrow enough that it may not be a precedent setting case:
“That isn’t easy to jump from and then step into other environmental
laws like the Clean Air Act or the Superfund law and have clear, direct implications for
those statues. So I think it may be more subtle than being the death knell for all Federal
environmental statutes.”
The court ruled that the language of the Clean Water Act was not clear, and the Army
Corps of Engineers does not have the right to interfere in such cases. McCoven says that
is significant because the court still left open the possibility that a differently written law
could give the federal government jurisdiction over state and local bodies in land use
issues. But that change would raise a constitutional question the court did not address –
are migratory birds or other environmental factors equivalent to interstate commerce, and
therefore guarantee that federal statutes can protect wetlands and other habitats? That
issue will likely have to be settled by another Supreme Court decision. For the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.