Supreme Court lets citizens contest government on water permits

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that property owners can contest whether a property falls under the jurisdiction of the 1972 Clean Water Act.

|
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that a Minnesota company could file a lawsuit against the US Army Corps of Engineers over the agency's determination that its land is off limits to peat mining under the Clean Water Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a setback to federal authorities on environmental law by ruling on Tuesday that property owners can challenge the government over the need for costly permits under a water protection statute in a Minnesota peat mine dispute.

The court decided 8-0 in favor of North Dakota-based Hawkes Co Inc, which challenged a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finding that the property at issue includes wetlands protected by the 1972 U.S. Clean Water Act from potential pollution. That law mandates that property owners get permits in such situations.

Hawkes planned to mine peat, which forms in wetlands and has agricultural, horticultural and energy uses, from property owned by two affiliated companies in northwestern Minnesota.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling that when the government decides a property falls under the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction, property owners can contest that finding in court. Previously, they could challenge that determination only at the end of the permitting process, which can last two years and cost up to $270,000, with owners facing penalties of up to $37,500 a day for noncompliance.

"Today's ruling marks a long-awaited victory for individual liberty, property rights and the rule of law," said Reed Hopper of the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, who argued the case before the court for Hawkes.

"Everyone who values property rights and access to justice should welcome this historic victory," Hopper added.

The Army Corps had decided the company must obtain a permit from the federal government because the property was a wetland.

Whether a specific parcel of land comes under the law's jurisdiction is critical to developers and other property owners because such a finding sets in motion the time-consuming and expensive permitting process.

A federal district court dismissed Hawkes' suit but the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015 reversed that action. President Barack Obama's administration then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Business groups including the National Association of Home Builders and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as 29 states, filed court papers backing Hawkes.

The case follows the justices' 2012 ruling that property owners facing enforcement action under the Clean Water Act can ask a court to intervene before being forced to comply or pay financial penalties.

The Obama administration last year issued a new regulation to clarify which bodies of water are covered by the Clean Water Act. A federal appeals court put that rule on hold after it was challenged by 18 states.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Supreme Court lets citizens contest government on water permits
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0601/Supreme-Court-lets-citizens-contest-government-on-water-permits
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe