The Pacific Legal Foundation won a Minnesota wetlands case.
The Pacific Legal Foundation won a Minnesota wetlands case.
A family-owned business in Minnesota that ran afoul of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for harvesting peat moss from nearby bogs for use in landscaping went on to win a victory from the Supreme Court.
The Pierce family, which owns Hawkes Company, was told that they had three choices: to stop using the land; spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the permit that would allow their harvesting to continue; or use the land without approval and be fined $37,500 a day, with the threat of criminal prosecution.
In order to harvest peat, the bogs are temporarily drained, the topsoil is replaced and the wetlands are allowed to reemerge. Not all wetlands are subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, says the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the Pierce family in court.
The company did seek approval from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to harvest peat on 150 acres of land near their current operations. Then the Army Corps of Engineers said that they had jurisdiction over the property.
Lower courts dismissed the Pierce family’s lawsuit challenging the Corps of Engineers' determination, saying the determination couldn’t be reviewed in court – and the Pierces took the case to the Supreme Court. Justices ruled in 2016 said that they did have the right to challenge those federal rulings in court.
“The court agreed that it is absurd to spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars for a permit that wouldn’t be necessary if the corps is incorrect about its jurisdiction over the property. The property owners also should not have to forgo their business plans, or risk draconian penalties, without an opportunity to make their case in court,” wrote the Pacific Legal Foundation in a brief about the case.
“On remand, the federal district court ruled the corps had gone too far and failed to provide site-specific evidence that the Hawkes property would have a significant effect on a downstream navigable water located 90 miles away. As a result the property was not subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act.”
Alerts Sign-up