As I was driving in Northern Michigan yesterday, I spotted a large bald eagle flying just off the shoulder. I watched it as it circled overhead and land on a tree limb overhanging the road. The eagle, with its regal appearance capturing equal measures grace and strength, served to remind me of the success of the federal Endangered Species Act in bringing back our national symbol from the point of extinction. In 1963, there were only 417 nesting eagle pairs; today there are more than 7,000 nesting pairs, and last week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unveiled a plan – generally supported by conservationists – that would remove the bald eagle from the list of endangered species.
And yet the eagle and other endangered species face a new challenge today, stemming from a pair of cases being argued today in the U.S. Supreme Court. The lead case, Rapanos v. United States, involves a developer from Midland who, together with a radical property rights group from California, is challenging the constitutionality of the Clean Water Act. (Watch this space, as I’ll post a second entry on this case later in the day). But the scope of the argument could take the legal legs out from under a whole range of federal environmental laws, and turn back the clock decades in our ability as a nation to protect our national treasures.
The success in bringing back the bald eagle and other endangered species – and the progress we’ve made on environmental issues generally – doesn’t just happen. It takes a concerted effort by both the federal government and the states to achieve. Today’s proceedings in the Supreme Court threaten that success. If John Rapanos and his allies in the extremes of the property rights movement get their way, the outcome of today’s cases could take away our ability to implement national solutions to problems that transcend state boundaries.
The bald eagle I saw flying over Northern Michigan yesterday represents what is at stake in today’s cases before the Court. The eagle is a symbol – a national symbol – of what we stand to lose if the Court decides wrongly.
