Waters of the U S rule litigation
Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule Litigation
Overview
The Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule defines the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), which regulates discharges of pollutants into navigable waters. Determining which waters fall under federal jurisdiction is critical for environmental regulation, land development, and agriculture.
The definition has been contentious because it affects the extent of federal regulatory authority over wetlands, streams, and other water bodies. The rule has evolved through administrative revisions and extensive litigation, reflecting tensions between environmental protection and property rights.
Key Case Laws on WOTUS Litigation
1. Rapanos v. United States (2006)
Facts: John Rapanos filled wetlands without a permit, claiming they were not "waters of the United States" and thus not subject to the Clean Water Act.
Issue: What constitutes "waters of the United States" under the CWA?
Decision: The Supreme Court issued a fractured decision with no majority opinion but established two main tests:
Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion: Only relatively permanent, continuous bodies of water and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to such waters fall under federal jurisdiction.
Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion: Waters fall under jurisdiction if they have a "significant nexus" to navigable waters.
Impact: Created uncertainty and confusion, leading to varied interpretations by lower courts and regulatory agencies.
2. Clean Water Rule (2015) and Subsequent Litigation
Facts: The Obama administration issued a new WOTUS rule expanding federal protection to smaller streams and wetlands with significant nexus to navigable waters.
Issue: Whether the expanded definition exceeded federal authority and infringed on states’ rights and property owners’ rights.
Litigation: Numerous lawsuits challenged the rule across many states, leading to stays and injunctions.
Impact: Courts split over the validity of the rule, with some blocking enforcement in certain states, highlighting ongoing legal battles over regulatory scope.
3. North Dakota v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2016)
Facts: North Dakota and other states challenged the 2015 Clean Water Rule.
Issue: Whether the EPA had overstepped its statutory authority.
Decision: The U.S. District Court issued a nationwide stay on the rule’s implementation pending further judicial review.
Impact: This case exemplified the judiciary’s willingness to halt regulatory expansions perceived as exceeding congressional intent.
4. County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (2020)
Facts: County of Maui discharged treated wastewater into injection wells that eventually reached navigable waters.
Issue: Whether such indirect discharges require a permit under the Clean Water Act.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that a permit is required when there is a “functional equivalent” of a direct discharge into navigable waters.
Impact: Clarified and somewhat expanded regulatory reach, affecting the interpretation of WOTUS in indirect discharge cases.
5. Sackett v. EPA (2023)
Facts: Homeowners the Sacketts received EPA compliance orders alleging their property contained wetlands subject to WOTUS protections without a permit.
Issue: Whether EPA compliance orders are subject to immediate judicial review.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that such orders are final agency actions subject to judicial review.
Impact: Strengthened property owners’ ability to challenge EPA jurisdiction claims earlier in the enforcement process, affecting enforcement dynamics under WOTUS.
Summary of WOTUS Litigation Themes
Uncertainty Over Jurisdiction: Supreme Court decisions like Rapanos created competing tests that agencies and courts continue to grapple with.
Expansion vs. Limitation: Regulatory efforts like the 2015 Clean Water Rule sought to broaden federal jurisdiction, sparking resistance and legal challenges from states and landowners.
Judicial Checks: Courts have intervened by issuing stays, clarifying legal standards, and defining when agency actions are reviewable.
Balancing Interests: Litigation reflects the ongoing tension between protecting water resources and respecting states’ rights and private property interests.
RELATED Blog
0 comments