Homeowners and small business owners donot expect to have too much personal involvement with the federalgovernment. After all, most issues arelocal in nature. Historically, property issues and issues of public safety have been local issues, within the jurisdiction of local, county and state officials.

An exception to this has been in the area of environmental regulation. Though most pollution is local, in other words, it affects a single property or neighborhood, the federal government, through broad federal laws, has played avery active role in many environmental cleanup cases. And for the past 30 years, the prevailing view was that if what the federal government was doing was ultimately protective of the environment, it was legitimate; even if not technically legal.

Our courts have seemed generally willing to go along with this expansive view. For example, our federal Superfund law has been given a very broad interpretation so as to cover things that, some might argue, really should be regulated by state or local authorities. OSHA has also been expansively interpreted by the courts.

Similarly, our wetlands laws have also been broadly interpreted by the courts. As you know, wetlands are special properties that have a pro-environment benefit and are generally protected from development. Though state laws apply, federal law also regulates wetlands.

The federal law that controls wetlands iscalled the Clean Water Act. The act applies to "navigable waters" in the United States. When a normal person thinks of navigable waters, they think in terms of rivers and lakes that connect states and allow for commerce of some sort.

Over the years, federal environmental regulators have tried to broaden the reach of our wetlands laws. Not content with just regulating really navigable bodies, wetlands found along side of navigable bodies are also regulated by federal law. And the law has been stretched so as to cover many properties that seemingly have nothing to do with navigation. Generally our courts have allowed such expansion -- though incorrectly, I believe.

Thank You, Supreme Court, that has now ended. In the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. Army Corps of Engineers, the Supreme Court reversed a federal trial court and federal appeals court decision that supported a very broad interpretation of the wetlands laws. At issue was an abandoned deep mine. Hardly a navigable body of water.

Nonetheless, the feds tried to regulate the old mine. The mine had closed inthe 1960s and was vacant since. Several Chicago area municipalities were interested in turning the old mine into a trash landfill. Since the mine required excavation when it was a going concern, the old excavated pits turned into man-made lakes. And, the lakes hosted some endangered species. The feds tried to stop the project while every other regulatory agency gave a go-ahead.

What happened next was government against government, this time the local municipal governments against the UnitedStates. The municipal officials alleged that this had nothing to do with the feds, and that the feds should keep its "we are here to help" hands out of this purely local matter.

After all, the munis asserted, this was an old mine that had nothing at all to do with navigation. Trying to regulate the mine under the wetlands provisions of the Clean Water Act was completely disingenuous, the municipalities alleged.

But the federal courts at both the trial court and appeals court level, were all to willing to toe the federal regulator line. Even if this was just an abandoned pit that had nothing to do with federal law, what harm was there if the feds got involved, anyway?

To the rescue, the Supreme Court. And with its commanding voice, the Court hasset the feds straight: that there really is a limit to how much the feds can legitimately regulate. The Court reminded that regulation of land and water has historically been a state function, not a federal function; that the exception to the tradition existed for waters that were navigable, flowed between the states, for commerce purposes. The Court confirmed that while there might be room for a broad interpretation of what falls within this scope of regulation, the feds can only go so far. And, according to the Supreme Court, the regulation of an old mine was a good example of the feds going too far.

Now, the Supreme Court has in effect warned federal regulators that they cannot go too far. It is very possible that the opinion will reach beyond the area of wetlands regulation. You may very well find a retrenchment in other areas of federal regulation, such as Superfund, OSHA, and water pollution laws --especially now that the feds know that someone big is watching.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.