DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 77/Tuesday, April 21, 2020/Rules and Regulations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 77/Tuesday, April 21, 2020/Rules and Regulations 22250 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE disclosure is restricted by statute. V. Overview of the Effects of the Rule and Certain other material, such as Supporting Analyses Department of the Army, Corps of copyrighted material, is not placed on VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Engineers the internet and will be publicly A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; Executive Order available only in hard copy form. 33 CFR Part 328 13563: Improving Regulation and Publicly available docket materials are Regulatory Review available electronically through http:// B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.regulations.gov. Regulation and Controlling Regulatory AGENCY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Costs Michael McDavit, Oceans, Wetlands, C. Paperwork Reduction Act 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 120, D. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Communities Division, Office of 122, 230, 232, 300, 302, and 401 E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Water (4504–T), Environmental F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism [EPA–HQ–OW–2018–0149; FRL–10004–88– Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation OW] Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; and Coordination With Indian Tribal RIN 2040–AF75 telephone number: (202) 566–2465; Governments email address: [email protected]; or H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Jennifer A. Moyer, Regulatory Children From Environmental Health Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United Community of Practice (CECW–CO–R), and Safety Risks U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G I. Executive Order 13211: Actions States’’ Concerning Regulations That Street NW, Washington, DC 20314; Significantly Affect Energy Supply, AGENCY: Department of the Army, Corps telephone number: (202) 761–5903; of Engineers, Department of Defense; Distribution, or Use email address: USACE_CWA_Rule@ J. National Technology Transfer and and Environmental Protection Agency usace.army.mil. Advancement Act (EPA). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions ACTION: Final rule. To Address Environmental Justice in Table of Contents Minority Populations and Low-Income SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Populations Agency and the Department of the Army I. General Information L. Congressional Review Act A. Where can I find information related to are publishing a final rule defining the this rulemaking? I. General Information scope of waters federally regulated B. What action are the agencies taking? under the Clean Water Act. The C. What is the agencies’ authority for A. Where can I find information related Navigable Waters Protection Rule is the taking this action? to this rulemaking? second step in a comprehensive, two- II. Background A. The Final Rule 1. Docket. An official public docket step process intended to review and for this action has been established revise the definition of ‘‘waters of the B. History of This Rulemaking 1. The Clean Water Act under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– United States’’ consistent with the 2. Regulatory History 2018–0149. The official public docket Executive Order signed on February 28, 3. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions consists of the documents specifically 2017, ‘‘Restoring the Rule of Law, 4. The 2015 Rule referenced in this action and other Federalism, and Economic Growth by C. Executive Order 13778 and the ‘‘Step information related to this action. The Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United One’’ Rulemaking official public docket is the collection of States’ Rule.’’ Once effective, it replaces D. Summary of Stakeholder Outreach and the ‘‘Step Two’’ Rulemaking materials that is available for public the rule published on October 22, 2019. viewing at the OW Docket, EPA West, This final rule implements the overall E. Overview of Legal Construct for the Final Rule Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, objective of the Clean Water Act to 1. Statutory Framework Washington, DC 20004. This Docket restore and maintain the integrity of the 2. U.S. Supreme Court Precedent Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 nation’s waters by maintaining federal 3. Principles and Considerations p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding authority over those waters that F. Summary of Final Rule as Compared to legal holidays. The OW Docket Congress determined should be the 1986 Regulations Recodified in the 2019 Rule and the 2015 Rule telephone number is (202) 566–2426. A regulated by the Federal government reasonable fee will be charged for under its Commerce Clause powers, G. Existing Guidance III. Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United copies. while adhering to Congress’ policy States’’ 2. Electronic Access. You may access directive to preserve States’ primary A. Key Terms and Concepts this Federal Register document authority over land and water resources. 1. Typical Year electronically under the ‘‘Federal This final definition increases the 2. Perennial, Intermittent, and Ephemeral Register’’ listings at http:// predictability and consistency of Clean 3. Breaks www.regulations.gov. An electronic Water Act programs by clarifying the B. Territorial Seas and Traditional version of the public docket is available Navigable Waters scope of ‘‘waters of the United States’’ through EPA’s electronic public docket federally regulated under the Act. C. Interstate Waters D. Tributaries and comment system, EPA Dockets. You DATES: This rule is effective on June 22, E. Ditches may access EPA Dockets at http:// 2020. F. Lakes and Ponds, and Impoundments of www.regulations.gov to view public ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a Jurisdictional Waters comments as they are submitted and docket for this action under Docket ID G. Adjacent Wetlands posted, access the index listing of the No. EPA–HQ–OW–2018–0149. All H. Waters and Features That Are Not contents of the official public docket, documents in the docket are listed on Waters of the United States and access those documents in the I. Placement of the Definition of ‘‘Waters of the http://www.regulations.gov website. the United States’’ in the Code of Federal public docket that are available Although listed in the index, some Regulations electronically, including the economic information is not publicly available, IV. State, Tribal, and Federal Agency Datasets and regulatory analyses for the final e.g., CBI or other information whose of Waters of the United States rule. For additional information about VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:12 Apr 20, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21APR2.SGM 21APR2 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 22251 EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA States are waters within the ordinary similar artificial feature, or through a Docket Center homepage at http:// meaning of the term, such as oceans, debris pile, boulder field, or similar www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and natural feature. A lake, pond, or Although not all docket materials may wetlands, and that not all waters are impoundment of a jurisdictional water be available electronically, you may still waters of the United States. The final is also jurisdictional if, in a typical year, access any of the publicly available rule includes the agencies’ longstanding it is inundated by flooding from a docket materials through the Docket category of the territorial seas and territorial sea or traditional navigable Facility. traditional navigable waters. A water, or tributary, or from another ‘‘tributary’’ is defined in the final rule jurisdictional lake, pond, or B. What action are the agencies taking? as a river, stream, or similar naturally impoundment. In this notice, the agencies are occurring surface water channel that The final rule defines ‘‘adjacent publishing a final rule defining ‘‘waters contributes surface water flow to a wetlands’’ as wetlands that abut a of the United States’’ in 33 CFR 328.3 territorial sea or traditional navigable territorial sea or traditional navigable and 40 CFR 120.2. water in a typical year either directly or water, a tributary, or a lake, pond, or indirectly through other tributaries, impoundment of a jurisdictional water; C. What is the agencies’ authority for are inundated by flooding from a taking this action? jurisdictional lakes, ponds, or impoundments, or adjacent wetlands. A territorial sea or traditional navigable The authority for this action is the tributary must be perennial or water, a tributary, or a lake, pond, or Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 intermittent in a typical year. The impoundment of a jurisdictional water U.S.C. 1251 et seq., including sections alteration or relocation of a tributary in a typical year; are physically 301, 304, 311, 401, 402, 404, and 501. does not modify its jurisdictional status separated from a territorial sea or traditional navigable water, a tributary, II. Background as long as it continues to be perennial or intermittent and contributes surface or a lake, pond, or impoundment of a A. The Final Rule water flow to a traditional navigable jurisdictional water only by a natural berm, bank, dune, or similar natural The U.S. Environmental Protection water or territorial sea in a typical year. feature; or are physically separated from Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department A tributary does not lose its jurisdictional status if it contributes a territorial sea or traditional navigable of the Army (Army or Corps) (together, water, a tributary, or a lake, pond, or ‘‘the agencies’’) are publishing the surface water flow to a downstream jurisdictional water in a typical year impoundment of a jurisdictional water Navigable Waters Protection Rule only by an artificial dike, barrier, or defining the scope of waters subject to through a channelized non- jurisdictional surface water feature, similar artificial structure so long as that federal regulation under the Clean structure allows for a direct Water Act (CWA or the Act), in light of through a subterranean river, through a culvert, dam, tunnel, or other similar hydrological surface connection to the the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New “Waters of the United States” Definition Released
    County Action Needed New “Waters of the United States” Definition Released Counties are strongly encouraged to submit written comments on potential impacts of the proposed regulation to the Federal Register On April 21, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly released a new proposed rule – Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean Water Act – that would amend the definition of “waters of the U.S.” and expand the range of waters that fall under federal jurisdiction. The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register, is open for public comment until November 14, 2014. The proposed rule uses U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) draft report on Connectivity of Stream and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence, which is currently undergoing review by EPA’s Science Advisory Board, as a scientific basis for the new definition. The report focuses on over 1,000 scientific reports that demonstrate the interconnectedness of tributaries, wetlands, and other waters to downstream waters and the impact these connections have on the biological, chemical and physical relationship to downstream waters. Why “Waters of the U.S.” Regulation Matters to Counties The proposed “waters of the U.S.” regulation from EPA and the Corps could have a significant impact on counties across the country, in the following ways: Seeks to define waters under federal jurisdiction: The proposed rule would modify existing regulations, which have been in place for over 25 years, regarding which waters fall under federal jurisdiction through the Clean Water Act (CWA).
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting America's Wetlands Under Rapanos: Defining "The Waters of the United States"
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 23 Issue 1 Volume 23, Spring 2008, Issue 1 Article 8 Protecting America's Wetlands Under Rapanos: Defining "the Waters of the United States" Adam Redder Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROTECTING AMERICA'S WETLANDS UNDER RAPANOS: DEFINING "THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES" ADAM REDDER* INTRODUCTION When can a landowner dredge and fill wetlands on his or her property without fear of intervention by the federal government? If one wants to build a structure on his or her property, should he or she be concerned about the small stream or wetland in the backyard? Does the size of the stream or wetland matter? Does it matter if the stream flows continuously throughout the year? What if there is a lake nearby? What if one receives a nod from state authorities to go forward with a development project-can one initiate such a project without authorization from the federal government? The answer to these questions is unclear even in light of a recent United States Supreme Court case specifically addressing the matter.1 The scope of federal jurisdiction over wetlands and other land features exhibiting saturated soil conditions in the United States is defined by the Clean Water Act (hereinafter CWA).2 The Supreme Court has attempted to appropriately define the * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Over Groundwater Discharges After County of Maui V
    CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTION OVER GROUNDWATER DISCHARGES AFTER COUNTY OF MAUI V. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND Jocelyn Lee* The Clean Water Act is the principal federal law aimed at controlling pollution of the nation’s water resources, yet it does not provide comprehensive oversight of pollutants entering groundwater, the subsurface water that often feeds into rivers, lakes, and oceans. This Note examines a recent Supreme Court decision, County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, which appeared to endorse a theory of federal regulation of groundwater discharges under the Clean Water Act. County of Maui established a “functional equivalent” standard, under which a discharge through groundwater is subject to the Clean Water Act’s permitting requirements if it is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge into jurisdictional surface waters. While the Court outlined several factors for courts to consider in making a functional equivalent determination, the decision offers limited guidance for lower courts applying the test. Moreover, it leaves an important regulatory question unanswered. This Note aims to address some of the persisting uncertainties by proposing that Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” standard from his Rapanos v. United States concurrence can be illuminating. This Note argues that overlaying the significant nexus standard on the functional equivalent test offers a practical strategy for lower courts applying the test in difficult cases. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 2774 I. THE ROAD TO FEDERAL REGULATION OF GROUNDWATER DISCHARGES UNDER THE CWA ........................................... 2777 A. The CWA ......................................................................... 2777 B. Theories of CWA Jurisdiction over Groundwater Discharges .................................................................... 2779 1. The Navigable Waters Theory ................................. 2779 * J.D. Candidate, 2022, Fordham University School of Law; B.A., 2016, Cornell University.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdictional Limits Locations Report Oracle D.Tech Project
    JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS LOCATIONS REPORT ORACLE D.TECH PROJECT Redwood City, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: BKF Engineers 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 Prepared by: WRA, Inc. 2169-G Francisco Blvd East San Rafael, CA 94901 415-454-8868 Contact: Mike Josselyn [email protected] Sean Avent [email protected] Date: September 2015 This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Regulatory Background ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Clean Water Act Section 404 .................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 .......................................................... 2 1.1.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. ... 2 1.1.4 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ............................. 2 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Location ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Soils ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Ducks Stop Here? the Environmental Challenge to Federalism
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 2006 The Ducks Stop Here? The Environmental Challenge to Federalism Jonathan H. Adler Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Business Organizations Law Commons Repository Citation Adler, Jonathan H., "The Ducks Stop Here? The Environmental Challenge to Federalism" (2006). Faculty Publications. 281. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/281 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. The Supreme Court Economic Review Volume 9 The Ducks Stop Here? The Environmental Challenge to Federalism Jonathan H. Adler ©2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Reprinted for private circulation. The Ducks Stop Here? The Environmental Challenge to Federalism Jonathan H. In Solid Waste Association of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("SWANCC"L the Supre1ne Court considered whether federal regulatory authority reaches iso­ lated wetlands and ponds due to the potential presence of mi- gratory birds. In such an expansive view federal authority, the Court majority underlined its devotion to fed­ eralism, despite the dissent's c01nplaint that the decision would frustrate environmental protection. This paper argues that SWANNC is not an to en- vironnwntal protection. There is little reason to that interstate competition amongst states will produce a "race to the bottom" in environmental regulation today, if it ever did.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Environmental Law
    RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW I. CLEAN WATER ACT AND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ................................................................................................... 597 Stewart v. Potts, 126 F. Supp. 2d (S.D. Tex. 2000) ........................ 597 II. CLEAN AIR ACT AND THE DELEGATION DOCTRINE ......................... 601 Whitman v. American Trucking Co., 121 S. Ct. 903 (2001) .......... 601 III. COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT .............................................. 604 Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority v. American Premier Underwriters, Inc., 240 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................... 604 IV. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ....................................... 607 Cantrell v. City of Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2001) ....... 607 V. A RCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT ............................ 611 United States v. Lynch, 233 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) ................... 611 VI. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ............................................................. 613 Greenpeace v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 198 F.R.D. 540 (W.D. Wash. 2000) ............................................... 613 VII. CLEAN WATER ACT: SECTION 404 JURISDICTION AND THE MIGRATORY BIRD RULE ................................................................... 616 Solid Waste Agency v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 121 S. Ct. 675 (2001) ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States ______
    No. 99-1178 In the Supreme Court of the United States __________ SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ET AL., Respondents. __________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit __________ REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER __________ TIMOTHY S. BISHOP SHARON SWINGLE Mayer, Brown & Platt Counsel of Record 1909 K Street, N.W. KASPAR J. STOFFELMAYR Washington, D.C. 20006 Mayer, Brown & Platt (202) 263-3000 190 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 782-0600 GEORGE J. MANNINA, JR. O’Connor & Hannan, L.L.P. 1666 K Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 887-1400 Counsel for Petitioner 1 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................ ii ARGUMENT .................................... 1 CONCLUSION ................................. 20 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases: Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51(1979) .................. 4 Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995) ......... 10 Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983) ...................................... 15 Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) .......................... 6, 7 Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936) ....... 4, 5 Central Bank v. First Interstate Bank, 511 U.S. 164 (1994) ........................... 16 Consumer Prods. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102 (1980) ........... 13 Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (1913) ........ 11 Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988) ............................ 1 FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 120 S.
    [Show full text]
  • POTENTIAL IMPACT of UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ on ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
    THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ ON ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION LORI J. WARNER* United States v. Lopez, which held a statute unconstitutional for exceeding Congress's commerce power, raises complex issues regarding federalism and the nature and scope of federal authority under the Commerce Clause. The decision is significant in relation to environmental regulation because many environmental protection statutes were passed pursuant to the commerce power and may now be susceptible to challenge. This Article assesses the vulnerability of certain provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act in light of the Lopez decision. In particular, the Article explores whether the destruction of isolated wetlands and the degradation of endangered species' habitat are economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. While plausible arguments may be made to the contrary, this author ultimately concludes that the analyzed provisions satisfy Lopez, and are thus capable of withstanding constitutional challenge. INTRODUcTION Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Because courts have defined the commerce power quite broadly since the 1930s, Congress has enjoyed some sixty years of essentially plenary legislative power. So long as Congress could show that the reguilated activity affects" * Environmental attorney with Porter & Hedges, L.L.P. in Houston, Texas. B.S., University of Illinois (1982); J.D. cum laude, South Texas College of Law (1993); L.L.M., University of Houston (1996). Law clerk to the Honorable Vanessa D. Gilmore, Southern District of Texas; briefing attorney to the Honorable Susan Larsen, Eighth Court of Appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • The US Supreme Court Limits Federal
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 2-2002 The .SU . Supreme Court Limits Federal Regulation of Wetlands: Implications of the SWANCC Decision California Research Bureau Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation California Research Bureau, "The .SU . Supreme Court Limits Federal Regulation of Wetlands: Implications of the SWANCC Decision" (2002). California Agencies. Paper 305. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/305 This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The U.S. Supreme Court Limits Federal Regulation of Wetlands: Implications of the SWANCC Decision STATE DEPOSITORY CALIFORNIA LAW LIBRARY By Jennifer Ruffolo STATE LIBRARY F OUNDED 1850 AUG 1 S 2007 California Research Bureau GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY 900 N Street, Suite 300 Prepared at the request of P.O. Box 942837 Senator Sheila Kuehl Sacramento, CA 94237 -O!lU1 (916) 653-7843 phone Chair, Senate Natural Resources (916) 654-5829 fax and Wildlife Committee FEBRUARY 2002 NON-CIRCULATING CRB 02-003 KFC e 22 .L960 C W4B F () R I A R E s A R H B R E A U 2002 The U.S. Supreme Court Limits Federal Regulation of Wetlands: Implications of the SWANCC Decision By Jennifer Ruffolo Prepared at the request of Senator Sheila Kuehl Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee FROM ISBN l-58703-150-7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court Invalidates the Migratory Bird Rule
    Missouri Law Review Volume 66 Issue 4 Fall 2001 Article 6 Fall 2001 Running Aground on the (Shoal) Waters of the United States: The Supreme Court Invalidates the Migratory Bird Rule William F. Northrip Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William F. Northrip, Running Aground on the (Shoal) Waters of the United States: The Supreme Court Invalidates the Migratory Bird Rule, 66 MO. L. REV. (2001) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol66/iss4/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Northrip: Northrip: Running Aground on the (Shoal) Waters of the United States: Running Aground on the (Shoal) "Waters of the United States": The Supreme Court Invalidates the Migratory Bird Rule Solid Waste Agency ofNorthern Cook County v. UnitedStates Army Corps ofEngineers1 I. INTRODUCTION For the better part of the last fifty years, the Commerce Clause2 provided a safe harbor for congressional legislation. Finding a connection between a regulated activity and interstate commerce meant smooth sailing through the federal courts. Moreover, failure to find such a connection was not fatal, as the courts often provided one. Congress took advantage ofthese fair seas and passed a host of legislation regulating commercial, social, and criminal activities? Among these statutes was the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972," popularlyknown as the Clean Water Act ("CWA").
    [Show full text]
  • Governing the Gradient: Clarity and Discretion at the Water's Edge
    Volume 62 Issue 1 Article 3 5-13-2017 Governing the Gradient: Clarity and Discretion at the Water's Edge Jamison E. Colburn Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation Jamison E. Colburn, Governing the Gradient: Clarity and Discretion at the Water's Edge, 62 Vill. L. Rev. 81 (2017). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol62/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Colburn: Governing the Gradient: Clarity and Discretion at the Water's Edg 2017] GOVERNING THE GRADIENT: CLARITY AND DISCRETION AT THE WATER’S EDGE JAMISON E. COLBURN* INTRODUCTION HE Clean Water Act (CWA) aims to restore and protect the “integ- Trity” of something without clear boundaries: the Nation’s waters.1 Yet this uncertainty in the Act’s aims stems not just from the typical sources of legislative ambiguity,2 but decades of disparate interpretations, as well.3 Of the statute’s many puzzles, none has proven more vexing than its geo- graphic scope: the “waters of the United States.” As with so many other critical legal boundaries like sexuality,4 privacy,5 disability,6 or maturity,7 it turns out that “waters” comprises a gradient.8 Congress, however, has re- fused to account for this brute fact.
    [Show full text]
  • View Full Case
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER; CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE THE REFUGE; MICHAEL R. LOZEAU, No. 04-17554 Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. v. CV-96-02161-SI CARGILL SALT DIVISION; CARGILL INC., Defendants-Appellants. SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER; CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE THE REFUGE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 05-15051 and D.C. No. MICHAEL R. LOZEAU, CV-96-02161-SI Plaintiff, OPINION v. CARGILL SALT DIVISION; CARGILL INC., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 27, 2006—San Francisco, California 2665 2666 SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER v. CARGILL SALT DIVISION Filed March 8, 2007 Before: William C. Canby, Jr., Michael Daly Hawkins, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Canby 2668 SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER v. CARGILL SALT DIVISION COUNSEL John F. Barg, Barg, Coffin, Lewis & Trapp, LLP, San Fran- cisco, California, for the defendants-appellants-cross- appellees. Daniel Purcell, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, San Francisco, Cali- fornia, for the plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants. Gregory T. Broderick, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California; Scott M. DuBoff, Wright & Talisman, PC, Wash- ington, D.C.; Virginia S. Albrecht, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Washington, D.C.; James Murphy, National Wildlife Federa- tion, Montpelier, Vermont; Katherine J. Barton, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for the amici curiae. SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER v. CARGILL SALT DIVISION 2669 OPINION CANBY, Circuit Judge: San Francisco Baykeeper and Citizens Committee to Com- plete the Refuge (collectively “Baykeeper”) filed this citizen suit under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]