
Daniel T. McKillop
Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comPartner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comCongress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act or CWA) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” To accomplish this goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of any pollutants into “navigable waters” without first obtaining a permit. The CWA defines the term “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.”
In 2015, the Obama Administration promulgated the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (June 29, 2015) (WOTUS Rule) to further define which rivers, streams, lakes and marshes fell under the definition of “waters of the United States.” The rule adopted the approach of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Justice Kennedy concluded that the appropriate test for the scope of jurisdictional waters is whether a water or wetland possesses a “‘significant nexus’ to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made,” a broadly encompassing standard that significantly expanded the scope and reach of the CWA.
The WOTUS Rule was immediately challenged. In total, 31 states, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and several other interested parties sought judicial review in multiple actions in Federal district courts and Circuit Courts of Appeal, raising concerns about the scope and legal authority of the WOTUS Rule. As a result, the previous definition of “waters of the United States” is currently still in force. Late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a stay halting the enforcement of the WOTUS Rule. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to determine whether the federal appeals court had jurisdiction over the dispute next term.
Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” As the title implies, the Executive Order stated that “it is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of Congress and the States under the Constitution.”
In his Executive Order, President Trump directed the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers to consider interpreting the term “navigable waters” in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos. In the Supreme Court’s split decision, Justice Scalia maintained that “the phrase ‘the waters of the United States’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” This is a narrow jurisdictional interpretation, and would likely exclude most headwater systems and wetlands areas.
On June 27, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers acted on President Trump’s directions by proposing a new rule to rescind the definition of “waters of the United States” in the Code of Federal Regulations and recodify the pre-WOTUS Rule regulations and guidance in order to “provide continuity and certainty for regulated entities, the States, agency staff, and the public.” In a second step, the agencies will conduct another notice and rulemaking process to substantively re-evaluate the definition of “waters of the United States.” This effort will begin with the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rule-making on December 2017, which will likely propose a new definition of “waters of the United States” that largely tracks Justice Scalia’s opinion in Rapanos. After public comment, a formal draft of the new rule will be issued and a final rule will likely be adopted in 2018.
The EPA’s and Army Corps of Engineers’ action has had no effect on the WOTUS Rule for the time being because the Sixth Circuit decision has stayed its enforcement pending a legal challenge. However, the redefinition of “waters of the United States” to align with Justice Scalia’s perspective as set forth in Rapanos may have a profound effect with respect to numerous legal issues related to the CWA, including permitting, regulatory compliance and potential liability matters. Members of the regulated community should, therefore, stay informed regarding WOTUS Rule developments and participate in the notice and comment process that will be conducted later this year.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Daniel McKillop, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Corporate transactions can have significant implications for a corporation and its stakeholders. For deals to be successful, companies must act strategically to maximize value and minimize risk. It is also important to fully understand the legal and financial ramifications of corporate transactions, both in the near and long term. Understanding Corporate Transactions The term “corporate […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Ongoing economic uncertainty is forcing many companies to make tough decisions, which includes lowering staff levels. The legal landscape on both the state and federal level also continues to evolve, especially with significant changes to the priorities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) under the Trump Administration. Terminating an employee is one of the […]
Author: Angela A. Turiano
While filing annual reports may seem like a nuisance, failing to do so can have significant ramifications. These include fines, reputational harm, and interruption of your business operations. In basic terms, “admin dissolution for annual report” means that a company is dissolved by the government. This happens because it failed to submit its annual report […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Antitrust laws are designed to ensure that businesses compete fairly. There are three federal antitrust laws that businesses must navigate. These include the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Act. States also have their own antitrust regimes. These may vary from federal regulations. Understanding antitrust litigation helps businesses navigate these complex […]
Author: Robert E. Levy
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!