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. Ct. 1291 (2000) ......................... 15 First Iowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. FPC, 328 U.S. 152 (1946) ........................... 11 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U.S. 362 (1912) ................................... 11 Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981) ........ 8 Jones v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 1904 (2000) .... 1, 17, 19 Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907) ............. 4, 5 Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council, 148 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1081 (1999) ................ 10 Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968) ............ 7, 10 Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey, 474 U.S. 494 (1986) ........................... 11 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) ........... 2, 4 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ......... 5 North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300 (1983) ... 2, 4 North Shore Boom Co. v. Nicomen Boom Co., 212 U.S. 406 (1909) ........................... 11 NRDC v. Callaway, 392 F. Supp. 685 (D.D.C. 1975) .... 18 Perry v. Haines, 191 U.S. 17 (1903) ................. 11 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) .......... 12 Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988) ........................... 16 SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, 375 U.S. 180 (1963) ........................... 12 Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322 (1991) .... 10 TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) ................... 20 United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) .......... 17 United States v. Five Gambling Devices, 346 U.S. 441 (1953) ............................ 1 United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) ....... passim United States v. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000) .. passim United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985) ........................... 11 United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass’n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944) ........................... 10 United States v. Underwood, 344 F. Supp. 486 (M.D. Fla. 1971) .............................. 13 Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9 (1971) ............. 13 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) .......... 7, 8, 9 Constitution, Statutes, and Regulations: U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8 ........................ passim 15 U.S.C. § 2605 ................................ 19 16 U.S.C. § 797 ................................. 10 16 U.S.C. § 817 ................................. 10 33 U.S.C. § 1251 ............................. 11, 18 33 U.S.C. § 1253 ................................. 4 33 U.S.C. § 1344 ............................ passim 33 U.S.C. § 1362 ............................ passim 42 U.S.C. § 6903 ................................ 19 42 U.S.C. § 6945 ................................ 19 River and Harbors Act, § 10, 30 Stat. 1121 (1899) ...... 11 415 ILCS 5/12 .................................. 19 415 ILCS 25/1 .................................. 19 33 C.F.R. § 320.4 ................................ 18 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page 40 Fed. Reg. 31,319 (July 25, 1975) ................. 16 40 Fed. Reg. 41,292 (Sept. 5, 1975) ................. 14 42 Fed. Reg. 37,122 (July 19, 1977) ................. 16 51 Fed. Reg. 41,206 (Nov. 13, 1986) ................ 6, 7 58 Fed. Reg. 45, 008 (Aug. 25, 1993) ................. 8 Miscellaneous: Adler, The Green Aspects of Printz: The Revival of Federalism and its Implications for Environmental Law, 6 GEO. MASON L. REV. 573 (1998) ............ 3 Ass’n of State Wetland Mgrs., State Wetland Regulation: Status of Programs and Emerging Trends (1995) ................................. 3 S. DEGLER, FEDERAL POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS (1971) ............................. 13 EPA, GUIDANCE FOR CORPS AND EPA FIELD OFFICES REGARDING CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404 JURISDICTION OVER ISOLATED WATERS IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES V. JAMES J. WILSON (May 29, 1998) ..................................... 6 M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 (1966) ..................... 5 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Grunwald, An Agency of Unchecked Clout, WASH. POST A1 (Sept. 10, 2000) .................. 3 Grunwald, Reluctant Regulator on Alaska’s North Slope, WASH. POST A1 (Sept. 13, 2000) ........ 3 Grunwald, Working to Please Hill Commanders, WASH. POST A1 (Sept. 11, 2000) .................. 3 H.R. 3199, 95th Cong. § 16 (1977) ............ 14, 15, 16 H.R. 11896, 92d Cong. § 502 (1972) ................. 12 H.R. REP. NO. 93-1396 (1974) ...................... 13 Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Committee Print compiled for the Committee on Environment and Public Works by the Library of Congress), Ser. No. 95-14 (1978) ......... 12, 14, 15 Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Committee Print compiled for the Committee on Public Works by the Library of Congress), Ser. No. 93-1 (1973) ... 12, 13 Nelson & Pushaw, Rethinking the Commerce Clause, 85 IOWA L. REV. 1 (2000) ........................ 5 Oversight Hearings on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act before Senate Comm. on Env’tl Pollution of Comm. on Env’t and Publ. Works, 99th Cong. (1985) .................... 16, 17 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page J. RAKOVE, ORIGINAL MEANINGS: POLITICS AND IDEAS IN THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION (1996) ....................................... 5 Revesz, Rehabilitating Interstate Competition: Rethinking the “Race-to-the-Bottom” Rationale for Federal Environmental Regulation, 67 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1210 (1992) .................... 3 S. 2770, 92d Cong. § 502 (1972) .................... 12 L. TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 2000) .................................. 4 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTION OVER ISOLATED WATERS (1987) ... 6 123 Cong. Rec. (1977) ............................ 14 By claiming to have jurisdiction over isolated, mainly seasonal ponds on SWANCC’s land because migratory birds use them, the Corps obliterates the distinction between what is national and what is local. If federal authority reaches all water and wetlands used by Canada geese, mallard ducks, and other migratory birds (AR 15578), there is nothing to prevent the federal government from regulating every tree in which migratory birds roost and every lawn on which they feed. If migratory bird use supplies a sufficient connection to interstate commerce because duck hunters and bird watchers travel and spend money, then as amici California et al. concede (at 1), the federal government may regulate the eating of hamburgers because that adversely affects rainforests. On the Corps’ theory of the commerce power, no non-commercial activity is beyond federal authority, for nothing is so far removed from interstate commerce that it cannot be linked to it in some fashion. Pet. Br. 43-44 & n.18. Its approach leaves the commerce power “without effective bounds” that are “essential to the mainte- nance of our constitutional system” of enumerated federal powers. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. at 1748; Lopez, 514 U.S. at 555. Whether or not it is unconstitutional for an agency to seize on non-commercial migratory bird use as an excuse for impos- ing federal regulation under the Commerce Clause, at minimum it gives rise to “grave and doubtful constitutional questions.” Jones, 120 S. Ct. at 1911. The Clean Water Act provides for jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” defined as “waters of the United States.” Nothing in that language, other provisions of the CWA, or legislative history shows a “clea[r] indication” or “unmistakable intention” to reach isolated ponds that are neither navigable nor connected to navigable waters, just because they are used by migratory birds. DeBartolo, 485 U.S. at 575; Five Gambling Devices, 346 U.S. at 450; see infra, pages 10-19. Migratory birds are among the beneficiaries