What action was taken to define the scope of federal jurisdiction?
On January 23, 2020, the Trump Administration released the final version of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), which defines which waters and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. The NWPR replaces the Obama Administration’s “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule.
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
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
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
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:
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
Last week, the U.S. District Court for North Dakota imposed a preliminary injunction against EPA’s implementation of its "Waters of the U.S. Rule" which defines the waterways and wetlands regulated under the Clean Water Act. See, North Dakota v. EPA. The Court issued its decision despite the EPA and Army Corps’ argument that exclusive
On May 27, 2015, US EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) released the final version of the rule which defines federal jurisdiction over waterways (referred to as the "Clean Water Rule").
Those who support the rule argue that it merely puts in place existing guidance and practice. Supporters also argue
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), you cannot impact a federally protected stream or wetland unless you obtain a 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The key issue- what is a "federally protected stream or wetland?"
As discussed previously on this blog, which streams and wetlands are protected under the CWA has
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) has provided advice and comment on EPA’s proposed rule that defines which streams and wetlands are federally regulated. The SAB’s comments are interesting in two ways: