Greenland Conservation Commission v. New Hampshire Wetlands Council
New Hampshire Supreme Court
913 A.2d 776 (2006)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Endicott General Partnership (Endicott) received planning permission to construct a subdivision on a plot of land that encompassed protected wetlands. Endicott applied to the Department of Environmental Services (DES) for a dredge-and-fill permit to build 13 roadway crossings over protected wetlands. The proposed construction would involve filling approximately 1.7 percent of the total wetlands on Endicott’s subdivision site. DES issued the permit to Endicott but required Endicott to comply with certain mitigation conditions, including the establishment of a conservation easement. Greenland Conservation Commission (GCC) (plaintiff) challenged the issuance of the permit before the New Hampshire Wetlands Council (NHWC) (defendant), which affirmed. GCC appealed to the superior court, which also affirmed the permit’s issuance. GCC then appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, arguing that (1) the scope of DES’s impact assessment should not have been limited to the proposed dredge-and-fill roadway crossing project in the wetlands; (2) DES should have considered the cumulative effects of the subdivision as a whole, including the impact related uplands construction projects could have on the wetlands; and (3) DES should have considered the impact of future, subsequent uses of the proposed roadway crossings.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Broderick, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.