To Rural Landowners and Interested Parties:

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:
Ruling Reverses Decision in Michigan landowner’s case
Unfortunately, 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 at:
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 navigable waters."
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 all.”      Ron Ewart

Ron Ewart, President
P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA  98027
425 222-4742 or 1 800 682-7848
(Fax No. 425 222-4743)

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
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 have.