|
WASHINGTON, Feb 14, 2006 -- U.S. Newswire
The Supreme Court of the United States is poised to hear a series of cases on February 21, 2006 that could radically reshape the reach of the Clean Water Act, experienced litigators and scholars today told reporters. These cases will be the first oral arguments heard by new Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, and the first environmental cases before new Chief Justice John Roberts. The cases S.D. Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers all deal with the ability of states and the federal government to protect water resources in the United States. S.D. Warren will also have important implications for federalism and the rights of states to set environmental standards. Rapanos and Carabell could have a major impact upon the federal government's ability to set minimum protections for the vast majority of our nation's streams, wetlands, ponds and other waters. On February 21, oral arguments are set in the case of S.D. Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection. This landmark case concerns a radical effort to reverse Congress's 35-year-old mandate in the Clean Water Act, which allows states to mitigate the water quality impacts of hydroelectric dams and other federally licensed activities. For more details on this case and its significance, as well as to review all of the briefs, see http://www.americanrivers.org/supremecourt As formal parties to the case, American Rivers and Friends of the Presumpscot River (FOPR) strongly support the state of Maine's right to regulate dams on its rivers. Renowned Supreme Court scholar Professor Richard Lazarus from Georgetown University authored the brief on behalf of American Rivers and FOPR. Supporting this position is the Bush administration along with Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT), a bipartisan group of 36 state attorneys general, a coalition of more than four dozen conservation and fishing groups, American Indian tribes, and leading river scientists and engineers, and others which filed amicus or "friend of the Court" briefs. "The S.D. Warren company and the hydropower industry are trying to exempt themselves from the Clean Water Act," said Andrew Fahlund, vice president of protection and restoration for American Rivers. "If they are successful, the owners of hydropower dams would be able to avoid their responsibility to minimize the damage they cause to our nation's waterways. Such special treatment would put other industries and municipal sewage treatment plants at a significant economic disadvantage and leave America's rivers less healthy. While many dams provide benefits, they also cause considerable harm to rivers, as well as local communities. Dams have depleted fisheries, degraded river ecosystems, and diminished recreational and economic opportunities on rivers across the nation. Since 1970 states have used their authority under the Clean Water Act to require hydroelectric dams to mitigate their detrimental effects on water quality. If states are not able to set basic conditions for the operation of hydropower dams, hundreds of our nation's rivers will never fulfill the fundamental goal of the Clean Water Act. Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers Like the S.D. Warren case, the Rapanos and Carabell cases involve industries asking the Court to reverse decades of progress under the Clean Water Act, by allowing discharges of toxic chemicals, sewage, dredging sludge, and other pollutants into a great majority of this country's tributaries and adjacent wetlands. The cases have been consolidated and both involve commercial developments in Michigan wetlands adjoining streams that are tributaries of the Great Lakes. In both, developers have been joined by industrial polluters to challenge the definition of "federally protected waters" under the act, arguing that they can pollute - even destroy - these waters without a Clean Water Act permit. "By asking the Court to require some rivers, streams, and wetlands to comply with the Clean Water Act but allow others upstream to be exempt, the petitioners ignore basic physics and common sense. Even a six year old can tell you that water flows downhill and if someone is allowed to pollute a small headwaters stream, the folks below are going to know it," said Fahlund. American Rivers has joined with seven other local and national non-profit groups to file an amicus brief on the side of the U.S. government in the two cases, supporting the longstanding protections offered by the Clean Water Act. The organizations are represented by Earthjustice in that brief. http://www.usnewswire.com News Provided By |
