States' Power to Regulate Rivers Upheld (US Supreme Court)

[jpak]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-scotus/2006/may/15/051503155.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - States have broad power to regulate the quality of their rivers, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

By a 9-0 vote, the high court upheld a ruling by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court that allowed the state to set additional conditions on a hydropower dam owner in exchange for renewing his license to operate five dams on the Presumpscot River.

A ruling against Maine would have eliminated a key regulatory tool used by nearly every state to improve the quality of waterways. The state said the operation of the dams had caused long stretches of the natural river bed to be essentially dry.

"The alteration of water quality ... is a risk inherent in limiting river flow and releasing water through turbines," Justice David Souter wrote. "Changes in the river like these fall within a state's legitimate legislative business and the Clean Water Act provides for a system that respects the states' concerns."

<not much more>

[Robbien]

1. The Supremes voted unanimously for an anti-business bill?

Guess they had to choose between state's rights and business rights. The good guy won this time.

[havocmom]

2. wish I spoke legal

Would be nice to know how this would affect Montana re Missouri River flow from here during drought years when streams not feeding the Missouri toward its source. Also curious to watch how this might impact battles here with extraction companies that wanna throw high-salt ground water down a few water courses to get at methane more cheaply.

edit: typo

[happyslug]

3. Here is the Written opinion of the Court.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1527.pdf

Scalia did not agree to part "III-C" of the opinion, he did not write a dissent but would NOT agreed to Section "III-C" of the opinion. Since Part "III-C" dealt only with the use of Congressional debates as to the meaning of the Clear Water Act. Thus Scalia's refusal to agree with Part "III-C" is in accordance with Scalia's long refusal to rely on Congressional "intent" independent of the actual wording of what Congress actually passed. Scalia did agree with the rest of the Justices in that the Clean Water Act gave the state the right to regulate ANY discharge into a River, even if the Discharge is water previously removed from the River, run through turbines to run electric Generators and than returned to the River. The Court Ruled that the Term "Discharge" means in the Clean Water Act what most people would think the term "Discharge" means and that the Petitioner can NOT use any other definition of the Word "Discharge" that would exclude water taken from the river and then returned to the River.

This is a simple construction of a Statute case, the court ruled you read such statures first by reading the words used in the Statute and giving those words their common meaning unless there is evidence in the statute itself, that clearly shows a different meaning (For example in the National Firearm Act the term "Firearm" is defined as an automatic weapon, thus the ban on "Firearms" in the National Firearms Act does NOT ban all firearms, just those defined as "Firearms" in the stature). OR the term is a legal term of art whose meaning is clear by long understanding (The "Act of God" provisions which covers any act NOT of human causation and by long practice understood by most lawyer and even most laymen).