The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers have jointly issued new regulations to redefine what types of water bodies are covered by the Clean Water Act. Dubbed the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” the new regulations are the culmination of the Trump administration’s efforts to undo the broad interpretation of federal jurisdiction
Wetlands Jurisdictional Determinations are Final Agency Actions Subject to Immediate Judicial Review
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a wetlands jurisdictional determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act is a final agency action subject to judicial review. Hawkes Co., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 578 U.S. ___ (2016). The Supreme Court’s decision resolves a circuit split on
Court of Appeals Issues Nationwide Stay of New Clean Water Act Rules
A federal court of appeals has blocked implementation of new Clean Water Act rules adopted by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v. Ohio et. al., No. 15-3751 (6th Cir. Oct. 9, 2015). In issuing the stay pending full consideration of the case, the court concluded there was a
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Release Proposed Rule on the Scope of Waters Covered Under the Clean Water Act
On March 25, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly released a proposed rule defining waters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act as “waters of the United States.” The wide sweep of the coverage afforded by the proposed rule, if finalized, would represent a significant
The Wetlands Debate Intensifies As House Republicans Question Two Upcoming EPA Studies
In a recent post [“When is a Wetland a Wetland — and How Do We Find Out?“] we described the significant uncertainties in ascertaining the reach of the Clean Water Act over wetlands, ponds, drainage ditches and other small aquatic features only remotely connected to navigable waterways such as rivers and lakes.
The 2012 Edition Curtin’s California Land Use and Planning Law Available Soon!
For over three decades, Curtin’s California Land Use & Planning Law has provided a succinct and definitive summary of the major
provisions of California’s land use and planning laws. Curtin’s has been cited by the California Supreme Court and numerous appellate courts as an authoritative source. Co‐authored by Cecily Talbert Barclay, Matthew Gray and
When Is Wetland a Wetland – And How Do We Find Out?
In recent years, two United States Supreme Court decisions have significantly reduced the scope of federal wetlands jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001); Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). In SWANCC, the Court ruled the Act’s reach did not extend to isolated ponds whose only connection to interstate commerce is their use by migratory birds. In Rapanos, the Court further scaled back the Act’s coverage, ruling it protects only those water bodies with a “significant nexus” to a traditionally-defined navigable waterway such as a river, lake or bay.
Guidance from the EPA and Corps of Engineers
In the wake of these decisions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published joint guidance in 2007 and 2008 seeking to clarify the bounds of their Clean Water Act jurisdiction and to explain how “significant nexus” determinations are made. The stated purpose of the guidance was to create “certainty and consistency,” but in reality the guidance did not alleviate the confusion—or stem the resulting tide of litigation in the federal courts—over what qualifies as a water of the U.S. The state of the law remained woefully unclear on a critical threshold issue under the Act:
- When are wetlands, ponds, ditches, ephemeral creeks and other small aquatic features regulated by the federal government as “waters of the United States”?
- And more specifically, what does it mean to have a “significant nexus” to navigable water?
“Clearer, More Predictable” Guidance and Maybe A Rule-Making (or Maybe Not)
In April 2011, the agencies jointly published new draft guidance that, compared with the prior guidance, provided a significantly higher level of environmental regulation. In publishing the draft guidance, the agencies stated it would help to establish “clearer, more predictable guidelines for determining which water bodies are protected from pollution under the Clean Water Act.”
But instead the draft guidance unleashed a political firestorm. The agencies received more than 230,000 comments on the proposal, many of them harshly critical, and bitter partisan battles ensued in Washington, D.C. Opponents saw the new draft guidance as a “jurisdictional grab”—a backdoor effort to expand Clean Water Act protections beyond what the Supreme Court had prescribed. They also urged the agencies to pursue formal rule-making proceedings, instead of merely adopting interpretive guidance.
Continue Reading When Is Wetland a Wetland – And How Do We Find Out?