The Boston Globe is frustratingly vague in their
"heads up" this morning, but it looks as if one of the first major decisions for the Roberts Court will have major consequences for the environment.
The justices agreed to take up assertions that regulators have gone too far by restricting development of property that is miles away from any river or waterway.
With more than 100 million acres of wetlands in the United States, a total as large as California, the stakes are high, the justices were told.
The outcome could have implications for government authority in regulating construction in obviously environmentally sensitive areas, such as parts of Louisiana and Mississippi decimated by Hurricane Katrina, as well as land that is not adjacent to water.
Not adjacent to water?? As planners, geologists, wildlife biologists, flood victims and others can tell you, water is not something that defines its territory and sticks to it.
My guess is that Roberts will side with the "property rights" side, and we will start to see even more sprawl and greater damage to the natural systems that protects us from flooding and help to clean our water supply. If water is the next battleground (after oil), the wrong approach to our remaining wetlands will make the problem even worse.