Office of Water permitting regulations
⚖️ I. OVERVIEW OF OFFICE OF WATER PERMITTING REGULATIONS
1. Legal Foundation
Primary Law: Clean Water Act (CWA) – 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.
Primary Programs:
NPDES Permitting – Section 402: Permits for discharging pollutants into “waters of the United States.”
Dredge and Fill Permitting – Section 404: Regulates discharges of dredged or fill material.
Water Quality Standards – Section 303.
Stormwater Permits – Industrial and municipal (MS4) discharges.
Agency Oversight:
EPA Office of Water sets standards and issues permits (or delegates to states).
Some states have authorized programs; others rely on direct EPA oversight.
2. Key Terms
Point source: Any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance (e.g., pipe, ditch).
Pollutant: Broadly defined, includes chemical waste, biological materials, heat, and more.
Waters of the United States (WOTUS): A central and often litigated term referring to the jurisdictional scope of the CWA.
Permit types:
Individual permits: Site-specific.
General permits: Cover similar discharges in a region or category (e.g., stormwater construction).
🧑⚖️ II. KEY CASES SHAPING EPA PERMITTING UNDER THE CWA
Below are detailed summaries of six landmark cases that have interpreted the EPA’s permitting authority and regulatory scope.
1. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985)
Citation: 474 U.S. 121
Facts: The Army Corps of Engineers (under Section 404) required a permit for filling wetlands adjacent to a navigable water. The landowner claimed the wetlands weren’t navigable waters.
Issue: Are wetlands adjacent to navigable waters considered “waters of the United States”?
Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the Corps’ authority, reasoning that adjacent wetlands significantly affect the integrity of navigable waters.
Impact:
Expanded EPA’s and Corps’ permitting authority.
Set precedent for including wetlands and adjacent areas under CWA jurisdiction.
2. Rapanos v. United States (2006)
Citation: 547 U.S. 715
Facts: Developers filled wetlands without a permit, arguing they were not “waters of the United States.”
Issue: What is the proper scope of "waters of the United States"?
Ruling: Split decision:
Plurality (Scalia): Only relatively permanent bodies of water and those with a continuous surface connection are covered.
Kennedy’s concurrence (controlling opinion): Introduced the “significant nexus” test—wetlands must significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters.
Impact:
Created ambiguity in WOTUS definition.
Courts and agencies have since used the Kennedy test as controlling, leading to years of litigation and changing EPA rules.
3. South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe (2004)
Citation: 541 U.S. 95
Facts: Water was pumped from a polluted canal to another water body without treatment. The EPA argued no permit was required because the water came from “navigable waters” and was going into other “navigable waters.”
Issue: Is a NPDES permit required when water is transferred between two navigable waters?
Ruling: Potentially yes—a permit may be needed if the two water bodies are "meaningfully distinct."
Impact:
Raised questions about the Water Transfer Rule.
The decision introduced the idea that unitary waters theory (treating all navigable waters as one) may not always apply.
4. Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. NRDC (2013)
Citation: 568 U.S. 78
Facts: The LA Flood Control District operated stormwater systems that discharged polluted runoff. They were sued under the CWA for violations.
Issue: Does transferring polluted water within the same water body constitute a “discharge” under the CWA?
Ruling: No. The Supreme Court held that movement of water within the same river (through concrete channels) is not a discharge requiring an NPDES permit.
Impact:
Clarified that not all water movement qualifies as a “discharge.”
Limited liability for municipal stormwater systems under certain conditions.
5. County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (2020)
Citation: 140 S. Ct. 1462
Facts: Maui County injected treated wastewater underground, which traveled through groundwater to the ocean. Environmental groups claimed it was an unpermitted discharge.
Issue: Can a discharge through groundwater require an NPDES permit?
Ruling: Yes—under certain conditions. The Court introduced the “functional equivalent of a direct discharge” test.
Key Factors:
Time and distance the pollutant travels.
Nature of the material it travels through.
Amount and manner of pollutant discharge.
Impact:
Significantly expanded EPA's permitting authority.
Created a case-by-case analysis standard.
6. Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (2000)
Citation: 528 U.S. 167
Facts: Laidlaw repeatedly violated its NPDES permit limits. An environmental group sued.
Issue: Can a citizen suit proceed if the violations have ceased by the time of litigation?
Ruling: Yes. The Court held that the possibility of continuing violations and public interest justified standing.
Impact:
Strengthened citizen enforcement under the CWA.
Set precedent on standing in environmental cases.
🔍 ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT CASES (Brief Mentions)
Sackett v. EPA (2012): Landowners can bring immediate legal challenges to EPA compliance orders under the CWA.
Sackett v. EPA (2023): Supreme Court limited the scope of WOTUS again, narrowing jurisdiction under the CWA.
National Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife (2007): Upheld that EPA could transfer permitting authority to states without violating the Endangered Species Act.
📌 SUMMARY TABLE
| Case | Key Legal Issue | Ruling | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Riverside Bayview (1985) | Wetlands jurisdiction | Wetlands adjacent to waters = WOTUS | Expanded EPA permitting |
| Rapanos (2006) | Definition of WOTUS | “Significant nexus” test (Kennedy) | Ambiguity in jurisdiction |
| Miccosukee (2004) | Transfers between waters | Permit may be needed | Limited “unitary waters” theory |
| LA Flood Control (2013) | Intra-river water transfer | Not a discharge | Narrowed stormwater liability |
| Maui (2020) | Groundwater discharges | “Functional equivalent” test | Expanded CWA scope |
| Laidlaw (2000) | Standing for citizen suits | Standing upheld | Empowered citizen enforcement |
🧾 CONCLUSION
The Office of Water permitting regulations under the CWA form the backbone of U.S. water pollution control. Through NPDES, WOTUS definitions, and judicial interpretations, the EPA's authority has been both expanded and limited by courts. Landmark cases like Rapanos, Maui, and Laidlaw define how and when permits are required, what counts as a discharge, and who can enforce violations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments