There has been multiple blog posts over the history of this site tracking the long and arduous processing of defining federally protected waters under the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the issue on multiple occasions, perhaps most significantly in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) where Justice Kennedy
Pruitt Memo Centralizes Veto Power on Waters of the U.S.
On March 30, 2018, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a memorandum eliminating the authority of Regional Administrators to veto decisions by the Army Corps of Engineers to grant a permit for impacts to streams or wetlands. The veto authority has been re-delegated to the U.S. EPA Administrator.
Any project that results in a discharge of
New Rule Delays Implementation of the 2015 WOTUS Rule
On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in National Assoc. of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense that federal district courts have original jurisdiction to hear challenges to the 2015 Obama Administration Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule which defined the extent of federal jurisdiction over streams and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. After
Supreme Court Ruling Creates Even More Uncertainty on Waters of the U.S.
This week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Def., No. 16-299 that district courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to any rule that attempts to define "Waters of the United States" for purposes of determining the scope of coverage of the Clean Water Act. As detailed on this
Unwind of WOTUS Gets Us Back to the Beginning
The Trump Administration has promised massive deregulation, in particular reductions in environmental regulations. A major target of the Trump Administration’s deregulation agenda is the Obama Administration’s Waters of the U.S. Rule (WOTUS) which defines which wetlands and streams are federally regulated.
However, as described in this post, despite the controversy, all of the regulatory activity
Ohio EPA Limits Use of Expedited Wetland/Stream Permitting to Certain Areas of the State
Developments that have small impacts to wetlands (typically around 1/2 acre or less) or streams (typically around 300 feet or less) have been able to qualify for expedited permitting known as Nationwide Permits (NWP). Projects with greater impacts must obtain individual wetland or stream permits known as a 404 Army Corps Permit and 401 Ohio
Confustion Regarding Wetland Nationwide Permits and Regulatory Freeze
.jpg)
On January 20th, President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus issued a Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies imposing a regulatory freeze. There appears to be a lot of confusion among environmental attorneys and consultants as to whether the freeze applies to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Nationwide Permits (NWP).
Army Corps of Engineers Issues Regulatory Guidance in Response to Hawkes Case
On October 31, the Army Corps of Engineers ("ACOE") issued new guidance as to the types and prioritization of jurisdictional determinations (JDs). Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 16-01 "Jurisdictional Determinations" has very little new guidance in reality. However, some key language in the RGL makes clear the real purpose behind the RGL.
What is
Supreme Court Decides Army Corps JD’s Can be Appealed
In a very significant case for property owners and developers, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision today that Army Corps Jurisdictional Determinations (JDs) are final agency actions which can be challenged in Court. In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, the Court determined that JDs meet the test for final agency actions:
U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Army Corps JDs Can be Challenged in Court
In prior posts, I have discussed the split in the federal circuit courts over whether Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Jurisdictional Determinations (JDs) can be challenged in Court. A JD is the ACOE formal determination as to whether streams and wetlands are federally protected under the Clean Water Act and whether a 404/401 permit is