To Rural Landowners and Interested
Sometimes we get it wrong. We
received an e-mail yesterday that was a press release from the Pacific Legal
Foundation (PLF). The headline read:
U.S. SUPREME COURT REJECTS
UNLIMITED FEDERAL CONTROL OF WETLANDS
Ruling Reverses Decision in Michigan landowner’s
the PLF headline and the press release were
misleading. Yes, the justices did rule in favor of Rapanos from Michigan,
but they also did what they usually do. They didn't settle the matter
definitively. In fact, they just complicated the issue even more.
The court is still stacked to the left and it was the left's decision that ruled
the day. Here is the June 20th Associated Press version of what
happened at the Court yesterday regarding wetlands. Read the whole article
Some excerpts from the article:
"Neither environmentalists nor property rights activists
had a clear-cut victory. "It muddied already muddy waters on this issue,"
said Jim Murphy, wetlands counsel with the National Wildlife Federation.
The court's four conservative justices favored sharply curtailing the
government's jurisdiction over wetlands under the 1972 Clean Water Act, while
the four liberal members argued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should have
discretion to protect wetlands adjacent to tributaries of waterways such as
rivers and lakes. Roberts and the court's other three conservatives
complained in an opinion that virtually any land in America would be
covered under the government's interpretation of the law. But the
controlling vote was cast by moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He joined the
conservatives in overturning lower court rulings against Carabell and developer
John Rapanos, yet said wetlands could come under the Clean Water Act if they
"significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity" of nearby
In a companion article it was said:
"The court's four liberal members said the conservatives would have
opened up sensitive wetlands to polluters."
So it wasn't the constitutional law the four
liberal justices were worried about, it was the issue that all sensitive
wetlands might be open to polluters. What a
stretch. "Green, green, the grass is green" and
so are the four liberal justices of this high court. So no. Only
Rapanos won in this case. Rural landowners did not win. It just got
more complicated, as usual. It will take a covey of lawyers for each rural
landowner, to sort it all out. Most won't be able to afford the legal
costs and thus will lose to the all powerful government, again.
Government 100; rural landowners 0.
We apologize for not completely researching the
court's decision before issuing our first e-mail on this issue.
“There are those that recognize danger and
act. There are those who "see" it, but do nothing. But
unfortunately there are way too many of those who don’t "see" anything at
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL
P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA
425 222-4742 or 1 800
(Fax No. 425 222-4743)
"THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL
The National Association of
Rural Landowners (NARLO) is a non-profit corporation, duly licensed in the State
of Washington. It was formed in response to draconian land use ordinances
that were passed by King County in Washington State (Seattle) in the late
Fall of 2004, after vociferous opposition from rural landowners. NARLO's
mission is to begin the long process of restoring, preserving and protecting
Consttitutional property rights and returning this country to a Constitutional
Republic. Government has done a great job of dividing us up into little
battle groups where we are essentially impotent at a national level. We
will change all that with the noisy voices and the vast wealth tied up in the
land of the American rural landowner. The land is our power, if we will
just use that power, before we lose it. We welcome donations and
volunteers who believe as we do, that government abuses against rural landowners
have gone on for far too long and a day of reckoning is at hand. To learn
more, visit our website at www.narlo.org.
President Roosevelt, in his 1933
inaugural address said, “…. The only thing we have
to fear is fear itself”.
I maintain that the only thing we have to fear is unbridled
government. The only
way unbridled government can exist is if WE THE PEOPLE allow it. Unfortunately, we