|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
January 13, 2004ENVIRONMENT: Milliken keeps watch on rulingCourt to decide who can sue under MEPAByRecord-Eagle staff writer TRAVERSE CITY - Former Gov. William G. Milliken considers the Michigan Environmental Protection Act a cornerstone of his administration. But the Traverse City Republican fears the 34-year-old law could be seriously eroded by what he termed a "business-friendly" state Supreme Court. The high court takes up a case today over who may pursue a lawsuit under MEPA, which could have widespread impact on environmental disputes throughout Michigan. "It is very disturbing to me that the very meaning - the intent of the law - may be set aside by the Supreme Court," said Milliken, who took the unusual step of filing a third-party brief in the case involving an Upper Peninsula iron ore mine. Milliken said he stepped into the case because of his personal involvement with the MEPA law, and because he's worried about the current Supreme Court's track record on public involvement and the environment. "I am concerned...the court is dominated by very conservative individuals who are basically not in sympathy with the idea of what's intended by the enactment of this law," Milliken said. "I don't want to anticipate the decision, but I'm not totally sanguine about what may come about with the court's ruling." The case stems from the proposed expansion of a mining operation in Marquette County that involves filling some wetlands and a stream with mining waste, to be mitigated at other locations. The National Wildlife Federation and a coalition of Upper Peninsula environmental groups sued under MEPA over the state's expansion approval. A Marquette County circuit judge dismissed the suit in early 2001, ruling the groups had no standing to bring suit because they hadn't shown any personal stake or direct injury. The state Court of Appeals reversed the decision in an unpublished opinion. It ruled the parties could challenge the state's approval of the mine expansion under MEPA, which provides for "the attorney general or any person" to sue over public resource and environmental issues. The Empire Mine owners appealed. The appeal involves what legal experts describe as a relatively narrow question of whether the state Legislature can grant broader legal "standing" - the right to bring a lawsuit - beyond what the courts have determined. "In our mind, one of the issues at stake is how many hoops are we going to have to jump through to bring a MEPA claim," said Traverse City attorney Scott Howard, who worked on Milliken's court brief. Howard said a "worst-case scenario" would be for the high court to decide that the "citizen suit" provision of the law is unconstitutional. "It's the thing that worries us the most," Howard said. Milliken, who signed the MEPA law in 1970, said lawmakers intended it to have broad rights for the public to pursue environmental issues in court. "That was the intent of the Legislature...(that) the individual citizen didn't have to be personally harmed to be involved," he said. "This is a crucial decision of the Michigan Supreme Court. Much is at stake." In its court briefs the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., co-owners of the Empire Mine, argues the circuit court was correct to dismiss the case. "The mere assertion of environmental harm cannot and should not operate to confer standing on a person either under the common law or under any statutory scheme," mining company attorneys said." (Case law) and the Michigan Constitution mandate that litigants bringing MEPA claims satisfy traditional actual-injury standing requirements." Court rules require the high court to issue a ruling in the case by July 31.
|
|
