Paul:
I'm glad I could shed some light on the subject. However, I should make one
correction to my earlier post for the legal scholars out there (thanks Jason
for pointing out my error).
I misspoke when I said that the Supreme Court recently found that the
regulations governing Army Corps permitting of wetland fill (the regs that
contain the Migratory Bird Rule) exceeded the respective agencies' jurisdiction
under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. I was actually correct when I
stated later on that the basis of the Court's decision was that the regulations
exceeded the Corps' jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and, therefore, the
Court limited the Corp's authority over permitting wetland fill to those
wetlands that are hydrologically connected to "navigable" waters. A decision
that limited the scope of the Commerce Clause may have had a dramatic impact on
many environmental laws, so we dodged a bullet there, although the decision is
still pretty bad.
I second your encouragement to comment on the proposed rule as it has the
potential to lead to the destruction of many isolated wetlands that were
previously wholly or partially protected by the regulations. This loss could
have a profound effect on the many bird species that are dependent on these
wetlands for various stages of their life cycles.
Philip
"Paul P." <cheep@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Philip, that helps a lot. I really had it messed up (and should
have kept my fingers shut). That said, it looks like we should keep an
eye out for that rulemaking as it would be worth commenting on.
Good Birding,
Paul Pisano
Arlington, VA
cheep@xxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
You are subscribed to VA-BIRD. To post to this mailing list, simply send email
to va-bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To unsubscribe, send email to
va-bird-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.
