|
''Rapanos v. United States'', 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice, Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006 and issued a decision on June 19, 2006. While five justices agreed to void rulings against the plaintiffs, who wanted to fill their wetlands to build a shopping mall and condos, the court was split over further details, with the four more conservative justices arguing in favor of a more restrictive reading of the term "navigable waters" than the four more liberal justices. Justice Kennedy did not fully join either position.〔 〕 The case was remanded to the lower court. Ultimately, Rapanos agreed to a nearly $1,000,000 settlement with the EPA while not admitting to any wrongdoing. == Background == The case involves developers John A. Rapanos (Midland, Michigan) and June Carabell whose separate projects were stopped because of the environmental regulations that make up the Clean Water Act. In the late 1980s, Rapanos filled of wetland that he owned with sand in preparation for the construction of a mall without filing for a permit. He argued that the land was not a wetland and that he was not breaking the law, but his own consultant and state employees disagreed. Rapanos claimed that his land was up to from any navigable waterways. However, the term "navigable waterway" has been broadly interpreted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to include areas connected to or linked to waters via tributaries or other similar means. Rapanos was convicted of two felonies for filling wetlands in violation of law in 1995. The conviction was overturned and restored several times but, in the end, he was forced to serve three years of probation and pay $5,000 in fines.〔 〕 Eventually, Rapanos appealed the civil case against him, which included millions of dollars of fines, to the Supreme Court of the United States.〔 Carabell, who was involved in the associated case ''Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers'', did seek a permit to build condominiums on of wetlands, but the request was denied by the Army Corps of Engineers. Carabell took the issue to the courts, arguing that the federal government did not have jurisdiction. After losing in the Federal District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Carabell appealed to the United States Supreme Court.〔 In ''United States v. Riverside Bayview'' the unanimous Court had found that wetlands abutting Lake St. Clair were included in the Corps' jurisdiction over waters of the United States. In 2001 a divided Court found that the migratory bird rule could not reach isolated ponds in ''Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers'' (SWANCC). All waters with a "significant nexus" to "navigable waters" are covered under the CWA; however, the words "significant nexus" remains open to judicial interpretation and considerable controversy. Some regulations included water features such as intermittent streams, playa lakes, prairie potholes, sloughs and wetlands as "waters of the United States".〔''Code of Federal Regulations,'' (33 CFR Part 328 ); (40 CFR 122.2 );(40 CFR 230.3(s). )〕 The case was argued on the same day as ''S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection'' with the Pacific Legal Foundation arguing for Rapanos and United States Solicitor General Paul Clement arguing for the Government. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Rapanos v. United States」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|