• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

EDITORIAL: Water in the Court: Key Wetlands Protection is Riding on Two Cases Coming Up in Supreme Court

Posted on: Sunday, 19 February 2006, 06:00 CST

By Detroit Free Press

Feb. 19--Wetlands have a purpose. They prevent flooding and contamination by sponging up water and filtering crud out of it. Some of the biggest sport fish could not exist if wetlands didn't incubate the plants and animals at the bottom of their food chain. Many a wetland also serve as a wayfarers' inn for migrating ducks and other waterfowl.

In other words, these places that look like swamps or acres of muck provide some of the mightiest labors that nature performs to human benefit, from controlling storm water runoff and keeping drinking water clean to putting food on the table. Fill in a wetland and you push downstream whatever problem it had been solving. In Michigan, all those downstreams lead to the Great Lakes, our irreplaceable treasure.

The value of wetlands needs to be constantly reiterated, because they are constantly threatened, never more so than they will be Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments over two cases from Michigan. The decisions will affect the entire country and may tell where the court is headed environmentally for years to come

The justices will examine the authority of Congress to make rules under the Clean Water Act for wetlands that do not touch major waterways, especially those that lie miles inland from the Great Lakes. Those who oppose a broad interpretation of the law say that interior wetlands matter only to people in the same state and don't have enough interstate impact for Congress to govern them. Any decision that weakens federal oversight of wetlands will encourage more efforts to chip away at the landmark laws protecting America's water, air and other natural assets.

Even with comprehensive federal oversight, as often exercised now, most owners of wetlands eventually get permits for development. By one estimate, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approves more than 90% of development plans.

The Michigan cases coming before the court also have quirks that may complicate any ruling. John Rapanos, a Midland developer who filled in wetlands in three locations, never applied for a permit and got hauled into court by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Keith Carabell wanted to put condos on wetlands in Macomb County that lie only about a mile from Anchor Bay but are separated by a berm from the nearest stream. They got a permit from a state judge, but then the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers refused to give its permission.

The common thread is separation, either by a barrier or distance, from the major waterways that clearly deserve federal oversight. But rain and snowmelt don't make such distinctions, and the loss of wetlands only means that more water sweeps into the lakes, faster and dirtier than if it had been held back and percolated through upland marshes. Downstream property owners have to spend more to alleviate flooding, while anglers and duck hunters fret about whether their pastimes will survive.

Tucked in among the Great Lakes, as Michigan is, it's clear no one can draw a line somewhere upstream and say clean water doesn't matter beyond it -- or say that other states won't be affected by what happens here.

The Supreme Court ought to see it that way -- or the justices could be opening the floodgates to wash away years of important environmental protection.

-----

Copyright (c) 2006, Detroit Free Press

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.

Source: Detroit Free Press

More News in this Category