Supreme Court sympathetic to property owner in wetlands dispute
Source: Reuters
World | Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:45pm EDT
Supreme Court sympathetic to property owner in wetlands dispute
WASHINGTON | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared likely to rule that property owners can challenge the federal government in court over the need for permits under a national water protection law in a case involving a company's plans for a Minnesota peat mine.
The court heard a one-hour argument in a case balancing property rights and environmental law, in this instance the landmark 1972 U.S. Clean Water Act. A majority of the eight justices appeared sympathetic toward North Dakota-based Hawkes Co Inc, which is fighting an Obama administration finding that its property includes wetlands.
The law mandates that property owners get permits in such situations.
Whether a particular plot of land falls under the law's jurisdiction is important to developers and other property owners because such a finding triggers a lengthy and expensive permitting process.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concern about the current arrangement's burden on property owners.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-water-idUSKCN0WW22D
= new reply since forum marked as read
> Liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concern about
> the current arrangement's burden on property owners.
i.e, there is little difference between the two when it comes to prioritising
business interests above all else.
> ... a lengthy and expensive permitting process
And that's precisely what it should be.
The reason for the law is to PROTECT the water & the wetlands, not to
pay lip-service to environmental issues and just let the industries pollute
at will, even if there is a minimal fee to be paid from petty cash.
Let's face it, this particular case really shows the court's priorities:
> a company's plans for a Minnesota peat mine.
Deliberately extracting peat - either for burning or for petty gardening.
Just why the fuck should they be allowed to make a profit from
destroying the planet?
And these "liberal and conservative justices" are concerned about the
impact on the exploiters bottom line?
