Farm News
06-23-06
Court rules on wetlands
By RANDY MUDGETT- Managing Editor
AMES — The first major Supreme Court decision in more than 30 years
concerning the Clean Water Act and jurisdiction over wetlands was handed down
Monday, and the court muddied the waters by delivering a split decision.
At issue was the federal government’s reach in determining what can be
regulated under the Clean Water Act. In the cases before the court (Rapanos v.
United States and Carabell v. Army Corp of Engineers) property owners wished
to clear the wetland areas they owned in favor of building a shopping mall and
condominiums. In the court’s split decision, justices said all water bodies should
not be under the jurisdiction of the government.
According to Roger McEowen, Iowa State University Extension economist,
the court only reached a 5-4 decision on the case after Justice Anthony Kennedy
agreed to concur but only after delivering a plurality opionion.
‘‘Kennedy’s message makes this a very important opinion in the view of the
public and for the farmer,’’ McEowen said.
McEowen said when tthe Clean Water Act was written, language specifically
states that ‘‘waters of the United States’’ fall under the jurisdiction of the act. The
court disagreed with the argument to a point as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that
the Corps of Engineers stretched the definition of ‘‘waters’’ to include all wetlands
even though they are not directly connected to a continuous flowing water body.
In the Michigan case, the property owner was nearly 20 miles away from a lake.
‘‘The court is saying that just because you can connect the dots from one water
source to another via drains or other connections it is not right to regulate all
water,’’ McEowen said. ‘‘That is good news for farmers, especially those who live
in the prairie pothole regions or areas where seasonal ponding occurs.’’
Ultimately the court voided the rulings in the Michigan cases and delivered a
boisterous split in the court between liberal and conservative sentiments.
Conservatives were seeking a ruling that would favor property owners while
liberals sought continued broad protection for wetland areas.
McEowen said the ruling did point to the court’s indecision on the matter, but
opened the door for states to decide matters on a case-by-case basis.
‘‘The opinion was the Army Corp of Engineers need to abide by the law as
written by the Court,’’ McEowen said. ‘‘That was clear when the justices wrote
that the Corp needs to rewrite the rules as setup by the law. In other words, the
Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said the ruling
shows that the court has faith in farmers to be caretakers of the land. ‘‘This ruling
supports our position as expressed in our friend-of-the-court brief that fields and
pastures that have been used by farmers and ranchers for many years should
not be regulated the same as rivers and streams.’’
American Rivers said the ruling shows that Congress must step in and rewrite
the rules to clarify what is protected by the Clean Water Act. ‘‘Leaving this mess
unresolved isn’t an option and leaving it up to the Army Corps of Engineers to
write more confused rules will not help matters either,’’ said Rebecca Wodder,
president of American Rivers, a non-profit conservation organization with 75,000
members nationwide.