No prosecution for illegal river opening and flooding
The federal court’s ruling is a victory for water rights advocates who had call해운대출장안마ed the case before the court about the federal government’s attempt to expand the federal River Protection and Enforcement Act into New England.
The plaintiffs argued that the rivers protected by the law are more than 100 years old and that their status as federally protected was irrelevant because the tribes didn’t even know that they had a treaty with the federa대전 출장 마사지l government.
The judges on Tuesday sided with the tribes, which argued that the tribes didn’t even meet the definition of federally protected because the river is designated a National Forest in New England, a status the court said is necessary to be treated the same as a National Wildlife Refuge.
In its ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael D. Goss said the federal government’s claims to the tribal lands were “invalidated” because the tribes never properly applied for the tribes to enter into a treaty with the United States.
The judges also found that the tribes were never given notice of the legal action to sue because federal officials never sought comment to show the Indians that such an action was appropriate.
In the lawsuit, the tribes argued they had no obligation to enforce the federal government’s efforts to expand the law.
U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, D-Wisc., one of the lead attorneys on the case, said, “New England’s rivers are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and this decision shows the American people that they can protect these sacred rivers without카지노 being pressured and intimidated by people who cannot stop their own government.”
Comments