Court Split Over Wetlands Protections

This just popped up on the Washington Post site:

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday that regulators may have misinterpreted the federal Clean Water Act when they refused to allow two Michigan property owners to build a shopping mall and condos on wetlands they own.

At the same time, justices could not reach a consensus on whether government can extend protections for wetlands miles away from waterways.

The decision is the first significant environmental ruling for the high court headed by new Chief Justice John Roberts, and justices were so fractured that the main opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia only had the votes of four justices.

Roberts, one of those four, said that the result was so confusing that "lower courts and regulated entities will now have to feel their way on a case-by-case basis."

The court voided rulings against June Carabell and John Rapanos, who wanted to fill wetlands they owned near Lake St. Clair in Macomb County, Michigan. Carabell wanted to build condos on wetlands she owns about a mile from the lake. Rapanos wanted to put a shopping mall on his property, which is about 20 miles from the lake.

Instead of ruling in the property owners' favor, as they requested, justices said lower courts must reconsider whether ditches and drains near wetlands are waterways.

The court's four most conservative members wanted a more sweeping ruling, clearing the way for development of land unless it was directly connected to waterways.

The court's four most liberal members said that such a ruling would reject three decades of practice by the Army Corps of Engineers and threaten the environment.

Pay special attention to that second to last sentence that says the four most "conservative" members wanted a stronger ruling that would clear the way for development of land. In what way can they honestly be called conservative? Does being conservative have any thing to do with conservation of natural resources? Apparently not. Does being conservative have anything to do with respecting three decades of precedent in the way the Clean Water Act was interpreted by the Army Corps of Engineers and prior court rulings? Apparently not. What does it really mean to be a conservative today? It's a meaningless term.