EPA

Subscribe to EPA

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…

A federal appellate court has invalidated the U.S. EPA’s approval of a new pesticide, sulfoxaflor, concluding that the agency’s decision was based on “flawed and limited data” and was unsupported by substantial evidence. Pollinator Stewardship Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 13-722346 (9th Cir., Sept. 10, 2015). Sulfoxaflor is part of a subclass…

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…

Do the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations require permits before stormwater runoff from logging roads can be discharged into the navigable waters of the United States?  No, said the Supreme Court in its March 20th decision, reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown. The high court reaffirmed …

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.  …

 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?

A source of great frustration to property owners and developers has been the inability to obtain judicial review of compliance orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.  Instead, under prevailing caselaw, the choices have been either to comply with the order or face civil enforcement proceedings, including possible civil penalties.

Today, the Supreme Court unanimously…