
Daniel T. McKillop
Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
Date: March 6, 2020
Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comOn January 23, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) finalized the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. The controversial rule redefines “waters of the United States” and narrows federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
“EPA and the Army are providing much needed regulatory certainty and predictability for American farmers, landowners and businesses to support the economy and accelerate critical infrastructure projects,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a press statement. “After decades of landowners relying on expensive attorneys to determine what water on their land may or may not fall under federal regulations, our new Navigable Waters Protection Rule strikes the proper balance between Washington and the states in managing land and water resources while protecting our nation’s navigable waters, and it does so within the authority Congress provided.”
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), a permit must be obtained prior to the discharge of any pollutants into “navigable waters.” The CWA defines the term “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” As discussed in greater detail in prior articles, the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) has been the subject of intense debate for the past several years.
In 2015, the Obama Administration promulgated the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” which broadly defined the scope of jurisdictional waters as whether a water or wetland possesses a “significant nexus” to waters that are or were navigable. The 2015 WOTUS Rule prompted significant litigation, which prevented it from being implemented in more than half of the country. Upon taking office, President Trump made it a priority to repeal the Obama-era rule and create a more restrictive WOTUS definition. The EPA and USACE subsequently conducted a two-step rulemaking process that rescinded the 2015 rule and proposed a new definition of WOTUS.
Under the final Navigable Waters Protection Rule, four categories of waters are federally regulated:
The final rule also details 12 categories of exclusions. The list includes ephemeral features that contain water only during or in response to rainfall; groundwater; prior converted cropland; waste treatment systems; and stormwater control features excavated or constructed in upland to convey, treat, infiltrate, or store stormwater run-off.
The EPA and USACE made several changes in response to public comments on its proposed rule. Notably, ditches and impoundments are no longer separate categories of jurisdictional waters. Under the final rule, perennial and intermittent tributaries upstream of ephemeral reaches are jurisdictional when they have a surface water connection to downstream jurisdictional water in a typical year.
The final rule expands and clarifies the factors that determine whether wetlands are considered adjacent and thereby subject to the CWA. Under the proposal, wetlands physically separated by a natural or artificial barrier from another jurisdictional water would not have been subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Many of these wetlands will be covered by the final rule.
While the Navigable Waters Protection Rule aims to provide regulatory certainty, environmental groups have already announced that they plan to challenge the rule. “So much for the ‘crystal clear’ water President Trump promised,” said Natural Resources Defense Council President and CEO Gina McCarthy, who previously served as EPA Administrator under President Obama. “This effort neglects established science and poses substantial new risks to people’s health and the environment. We will do all we can to fight this attack on clean water. We will not let it stand.”
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, 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.
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
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
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!