Wetlands Case Highlights Fragility of Property Rights

Reed Hopper

After hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and 14 years of court battles with no end in sight, Michigan’s John Rapanos finally gave up his fight to defend himself against accusations that he illegally filled wetlands on his private property in violation of the Clean Water Act.

Despite winning his case in the U.S. Supreme Court, Rapanos recently settled it with the federal government. He agreed to pay fines and mitigation fees approaching $1 million. Federal prosecutors immediately hailed the settlement as a vindication of their virtually limitless power to regulate local wetlands nationwide.

But this settlement only demonstrates the inability of individual citizens to stand up for their rights against the overwhelming resources of Big Government.

Read Full Article

Our water is our water, not state’s

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

This is the title of a letter written by Robert Lagana regarding an amendment authored by State Sen. Liz Brater, a Democrat.  Sound scary? There’s more; this proposed “taking” of groundwater by the government of Michigan would have been the single largest confiscation of private property in state history, according to Russ Harding, the former director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and now the director of the Mackinac Center’s Property Rights Network.

The full letter is located here.

Alan Taylor Follow Up

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

The Detroit Free press wrote a followup article on the Alan Taylor Case.  He is to be sentenced October 15th and faces a fine of up to $5000 and up to a year in jail.  In addition, the site must be mitigated, which Alan estimates will cost between $100,000 and $200,000.  The DEQ does not accept this estimate, but thinks it will cost tens of thousands.

Will this lawsuit result in the loss of 100 jobs for Michigan?  Jennifer Granholm may intervene with her vow “to go anywhere and do anything” to keep Michigan Jobs.  Only time will tell.

Troy’s War of Roses Cont…

Telly’s is still battling with the city of Troy. Click here to get an update.

Troy’s War of the Roses

An article from the Detroit Free Press illustrates yet another story of the erosion of property rights in the State of Michigan.  In short, a local nursery named Telly’s is being dragged to court by the city of Troy, Michigan.  The city believes that Telly’s should have applied for permits on the 10 greenhouses that were built in previous years.  The city had sued Telly’s in previous years and lost, but decided to try again.  Customers of Telly’s are very concerned with the potential outcomes of the legal issues.  Click here to read full article.

Beach Affront

Summary: The Michigan Supreme Court should follow the example set by an Ohio court and respect the private property rights along the Great Lakes.

A trial court in Ohio recently held that Lake Erie beachfront property owners have the right to exclude others from their property. As the right to exclude is a traditional and fundamental aspect of owning property, it seems odd that such a holding would be newsworthy. But in 2005, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the general public has a right to walk the Great Lakes shoreline, and that trumps the property owners’ right to exclude. These divergent results indicate that there must be constant vigilance to prevent property rights from being weakened.