According to the 5th Circuit in Belle v. Army Corps of Engineers, nothing has changed with regard to the inability of a property owner to challenge an Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) decision that federally protected wetlands exist on the owner’s property.
The initial step in the federal wetland permitting process is the
When does placing fill in a wetland or disturbing a stream for construction require a federal permit? Seems like this should evoke a pretty straightforward answer. However, for more than a decade the extent of federal permitting regulations has been unclear. Now EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) are attempting, once again, to
Ever since Rapanos, EPA has struggled to consistently apply the "continuous surface connection" and "significant nexus test" which both emerged from the Supreme Court decision. The two tests are to be used to determine whether wetlands fall within federal jurisdiction.
To combat these inconsistencies, the Army Corps (ACOE) has adopted guidance documents to help
.jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions, Rapanos and SWANCC, which interpret the extent of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Since these decisions were issued the Army Corps of Engineers as well as Courts have had difficulty applying the tests for determining federal jurisdiction in a consistent and coherent manner.
The Army Corps
On June 18th the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on a vote of 12-7, passed the amended version of the Clean Water Restoration Act. The proposal is seen by some as an attempt to fix a major hole in the Clean Water Act. Others see it as a major extension of federal regulation. I see it as a State’s rights issue…
The debate over the bill has centered on whether federal jurisdiction should cover essentially all streams and wetlands. (for a discussion of the jurisdiction issue see the extended entry to this post) The hardcore supporters or detractors appear to break into two camps:
If you think I’m painting the camps too dramatically let me provide some examples. First from the protection camp (post on Blue Living Ideas).
Without CWRA, we could return to the times of the Cuyahoga River burning and the Great Lakes smelling like cesspools. The Clean Water Act is important legislation that needs restoration. It’s about birds; it’s about clean water; it’s about drinking water. CWA was intended to protect all of America’s waters from pollution, not just those that are navigable.
Now from the farmer’s perspective (post on Drovers).
Under current law, the federal government has jurisdiction over "navigable waters of the United States." However, by removing the word "navigable" from the definition, the CWRA would expand federal regulatory control to unprecedented levels – essentially putting stock tanks, drainage ditches, any puddle or water feature found on family farms and ranches—potentially even ground water—under the regulatory strong-arm of the federal government.
There are of course other perspective, such as the U.S. Chamber’s. In a letter to the Senate Committee the U.S. Chamber opposes the Clean Water Restoration Act because it fears the expansive language will be used by citizen groups to stop development projects:
It has been well-documented that deletion of the term “navigable” from the definition of “waters of the United States” could lead to the unnecessary expansion of the CWA to certain intrastate waters. The bill does attempt to address this problem by listing the specific types of waters explicitly covered by the CWA and exempting others. However, the Chamber’s primary concern is that, despite the good intentions of the Committee in negotiating a compromise, S.787 as drafted is still subject to manipulation by activist groups whose only goal is to stop development.
Lost in the debate seems to be Republican notions of federalism. When it comes to environmental protection, States seem to often loose the argument that they can craft better regulations or even be trusted to adopt any regulation at all.
The lack of trust makes groups push hard for federal regulation, which is unfortunate because State crafted water quality regulatory programs should be a much better alternative. Here are some reasons why an expanded Ohio jurisdiction over waterways and wetlands may be preferable to "putting all waters under federal protection."
A state water permit program is not only a possibility, it was proposed by Ohio EPA in the fall of 2008 in response to shrinking federal regulation. The State’s proposal has met with significant resistance which has slowed the rule development process down to a crawl. However, for the reasons articulated above perhaps its worth reconsidering positions on the proposal.
Those groups opposing both the Clean Water Restoration Act and Ohio EPA’s proposed Water Quality Permit Program must realize they will not get it both ways. There is too much support for protecting streams and wetlands to have no regulatory program in place. Without a strong push for State regulation, the default will be to push for federal regulation.
To fend off federal regulation through adoption of effective state regulation, supporters must address the perception of many that State’s engage in a "race to the bottom" when enacting environmental regulation. Federal legislation like the Clean Water Restoration Act get pushed because fear by many groups that if regulation is left up to the State’s they will all compete to have the least amount of protections or requirements.
(Photo: Colin Gregory Palmer/everystockphoto.com)Continue Reading Clean Water Restoration Act- Federal Expansion or Restoring Protections?
.jpg)
U.S. EPA’s Office of Inspector General released a report regarding the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos on enforcement of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The report, titled Comments Related to Effects Jurisdictional Uncertainty On Clean Water Act Implementation, contains some interesting observations and discussion. Bottomline, the lack of clarity
After the Supreme Court issued its decision in Rapanos, a lack of clarity persists as to how to determine whether a waterway or wetland is federally protected under the Clean Water Act. This of course pretty critical in deciding which types of permits you may need to impact a stream or wetland.
On December
On September 12, 2008, Ohio EPA issued proposed rules that would require a new permit, called a "state water quality permit", for all dredge or fill impacts to non-federally regulated streams. Ohio may be the first state in the country to try and expand state stream permit requirements in reaction to recent U.S. Supreme
In a prior post discussing the impact of the Supreme Court’s rulings limiting federal jurisdiction over waterways, I discussed how state’s may feel increasing pressure to fill the gaps in federal authority. A recent article in the Boston Globe on diminished EPA enforcement suggests the states are probably dusting off their legal theories as we speak.
The USA Today did a story on the huge debate taking place over the limits of federal jurisdiction over waterways. The debate ensued in the aftermath of two major Supreme Court cases dealing with federal jurisdiction over wetlands.
Early on the focus after Rapanos and SWANCC was which wetlands would receive federal protection. Now, after a series