Source: http://acoel.org/2011/05/default.aspx
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:08:59+00:00

Document:
Observance of International Migratory Bird Day on May 14 marks a good time to examine the latest efforts to define the limits of Clean Water Act jurisdiction over wetlands and other waters. Recall that in the SWANCC case in 2001, the Supreme Court held that the presence of migratory birds did not serve as a sufficient basis for applying Clean Water Act protections to isolated, intrastate wetlands. Since SWANCC, courts and agencies have struggled to define the limits of federal jurisdiction.
On May 2, 2011, EPA and the Army Corps published draft guidance (“Guidance”) in the Federal Register. This Guidance may be a trial balloon that will inform a final guidance document and ultimately duly adopted regulations. Whether there will be challenges to the substantive provisions of the Guidance or the procedure of issuing guidance in advance of formal rulemaking remains to be seen.
Initially, the Guidance is solidly grounded in the language of the Act and the Supreme Court’s 1985 ruling in Riverside Bayview Homes. The Act, the Guidance notes, is applicable to navigable waters which are defined as waters of the United States and the territorial seas. Traditional navigable waters are susceptible to use in commerce and form the core of jurisdictional waters. Navigable waters are not, however, limited to waters that are navigable in fact. The Guidance reflects Riverside Bayview Homes’ holding that wetlands abutting traditional waters are also subject to regulation under the Act.
How far the Act’s jurisdiction extends beyond abutting wetlands remains highly controversial. The Guidance eschews any attempt to define jurisdictional boundaries through a single science-based theory. Instead, the Guidance looks to the Supreme Court’s 2006 splintered decision in Rapanos and adopts alternative standards based on the plurality opinion’s “continuous surface connection” test and Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion’s “significant nexus” test. If either test is satisfied, jurisdiction attaches.
In keeping with the Rapanos plurality, the Guidance includes as “waters of the United States” those wetlands, non-navigable tributaries and other waters which have a continuous surface connection to jurisdictional waters at least on a seasonal basis. In this respect, the Guidance requires an evaluation of the length and timing of seasonable flow in the watershed or other “eco-region” in question. The Guidance appears to justify use of this test on the ground that its results would be upheld by a majority of the Justices on the Court, albeit for varying reasons.
The Guidance also asserts jurisdiction based on Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Rapanos. Justice Kennedy concluded that the Act regulates waters with a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters. A nexus exists if the waters either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region significantly affect the chemical, physical or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters.
There is much to be said in favor of the significant nexus test. It focuses on the goals of the Act to restore and maintain water quality and allows scientific judgments to inform the Act’s reach. Wetlands and other waters that themselves are not navigable may provide ecological services that benefit navigable or interstate waters. For example, ponds or other features may retain stormwater and thereby protect traditional navigable waters from flooding or pollution. Viewing all such wetlands or other features within a watershed in a comprehensive manner is consistent with modern water management and protective of water resources.
Nevertheless, applying the test leaves much room to debate the significance of the connection between the wetlands, non-navigable tributaries or other waters to be evaluated and the nearest navigable water in specific instances. Despite the Guidance’s goal of clarity, distinguishing a significant reduction of stormwater runoff or pollutant discharge from an insignificant reduction is necessarily subject to considerable uncertainty.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Guidance is its suggestion that where a significant nexus with a wetland exists, all other wetlands within the same watershed may be deemed similarly situated and thereby covered by the Act. Likewise jurisdiction over a single non-navigable tributary may lead to jurisdiction over all non-navigable tributaries in the watershed. This potential blanket classification if applied to waters that do not provide a meaningful contribution to water quality goals is expansive and may leave very few waters unregulated. The implementing agencies are likely to be judicially challenged if they rely on jurisdiction over one wetland or tributary as the basis for asserting jurisdiction over a different wetland or tributary in the same watershed. Given the past willingness of courts to enter the fray even where the Corps has gone through a full rulemaking process, the agencies are not likely to have the final word.
Yet another state is embarking on the long and arduous road towards assuming regulatory control of the Clean Water Act § 404 wetlands protection program from the US Army Corps of Engineers. As part of newly-elected Republican Governor Paul Page’s overall regulatory reform initiative, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection is planning to seek authority (pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §§ 1344(g) and (h)) to implement the dredge and fill program in lieu of the Army Corps. In the 34 years since the mechanism for states to assume the so-called “404 program” of federal wetlands permitting was created in 1977, many other states have considered it, but only two, Michigan and New Jersey, have completed the process.
EPA Involvement: EPA regulations still require EPA review of permits issued by a state even under an assumed program when those permits involve, among other things, potential impacts to ESA threatened or endangered species, NHPA protected properties, waters of another state, and discharges to “critical areas” (e.g., state/federal parks, wilderness areas, refuges, etc.).
Federal Agency Authorization Disputes: At least until recently, there was uncertainty as to whether an ESA §7 consultation requirement (with USFWS and NMFS) had to be met before EPA could grant approval of a state’s application to assume the 404 program. A December 27, 2010 letter from EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water indicates that EPA has won that tug of war -- no ESA §7 consultation is required.
Also impacting states’ decisions regarding assumption of the 404 program is the continuing uncertainty surrounding the scope of the Corps’ jurisdiction following the Supreme Court’s decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos. EPA and the Corps have attempted to address this issue in various guidance documents. See e.g., “Joint Memorandum” (January 15, 2003)(68 Fed. Reg. 1991) and “Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States” (12/2/08).
An April 2011 joint Corps/EPA proposed superseding guidance, notes that “Corps Districts will utilize this guidance to implement Clean Water Act section 404, 33 U.S.C. 1344.” While there is no mention in the guidance of its applicability to state-assumed programs, it is likely that EPA (and the Corps) will require that such guidance, once finalized, be adhered to in any EPA-approved state assumption of the CWA 404 program. Given recent reports that the April 2011 proposed guidance will dramatically expand the scope of federal jurisdiction over wetlands and waterbodies, states will undoubtedly continue to struggle to identify the benefits in assuming the CWA 404 program.
Anyone with substantial experience representing clients before regulatory agencies has likely encountered the frustrating situation where a staff person holds your client to a standard not found either in statute or regulation, but rather in “unwritten policy” of the agency. For most clients, additional review of such actions by agency staff is either not worth the time and money, or are subsumed in a variety of other issues.
Recently, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court had the opportunity to review the legality of certain actions of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection that were based not in Maine law or regulation, but rather upon “unwritten agency customs and practices”. Despite the Court’s normal deference to a state agency’s interpretation of a statute, in the case of Tenants Harbor General Store, LLC v. Department of Environmental Protection,2011 ME 6, 10 A. 3d 722, the court reversed a lower court judgment for the DEP, and ruled in favor of a small business owner.
The case involved the question of whether the installation of new underground gasoline storage tanks at a convenience store must be undertaken pursuant to new regulations that impose additional restrictions on placement in relation to proximity to public and private water supplies, or whether the tanks would be “grandfathered” and thus not subject to the new regulations. When Tenants Harbor General Store, LLC, which purchased the convenience store with gasoline pumps in question in 2007, removed the old tanks in 2008 and sought to install new tanks in the same location, the DEP refused to treat the proposed installation of new tanks as “replacement of an existing facility”; staff instead insisted that this was a new installation subject to new restrictions. The LLC sought judicial review, and the DEP won the first round in Superior Court.
Interestingly, the Department argued in court that “the LLC could have also have learned of the Department’s practice of requiring of written notice by seeking advice from an attorney”; this proposition was rejected by the Supreme Court, which stated that “neither an applicant nor an advocate would have a basis in law to determine that notice was required. Statutes and regulations, not unwritten agency customs and practices, must inform registrants and their attorneys of what is required to register a facility.” (emphasis in original). Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the Department’s position “was contrary to the statutory and regulatory law”and, therefore, the Court vacated the lower court’s judgment, and remanded with instructions that the Department accept the LLC’s registration of the tanks to replace the grandfathered tanks.
This decision is the first one in Maine to attack the common approach of regulators to act on unwritten agency customs and practices. The Maine Supreme Court’s decision and logic are certainly applicable to similar situations in other jurisdictions, as well as at the federal level, indeed anywhere that regulators act outside of the confines of properly written laws and regulations.
I previously posted that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers’ December 2010 draft guidance document describing how EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers intend to identify jurisdictional waters under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Rapanos and SWANCC had been leaked to the public. EPA's Draft CWA Jurisdiction Guidance Is Leaked At Last.Today, at last, EPA and the Corps have published in the Federal Register their proposed “EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Guidance Regarding Identification of Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act” (the “Proposed Guidance”). EPA and the Corps will accept public comment on the Proposed Guidance until July 1, 2011. The Agencies state that rulemaking will follow issuance of the final Guidance.
Once finalized, the Proposed Guidance will supersede EPA’s and the Corps’ “Joint Memorandum,” providing clarifying guidance on SWANCC, dated January 15, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 1991, 1995), and “Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States,” dated December 2, 2008 (the “Rapanos Guidance”). Until the Proposed Guidance is final, both the 2003 Joint Memorandum and the Rapanos Guidance remain in effect.
The Proposed Guidance is more measured in tone than the December 2010 leaked Draft. For example, the Proposed Guidance eliminates the dig at the Bush administration’s earlier Rapanos Guidance as reflecting “a policy choice to interpret Justice Kennedy’s opinion narrowly, resulting in fewer waterbodies found to be jurisdictional under the CWA than under a more faithful interpretation.” And the Proposed Guidance no longer acknowledges that it will “increase significantly” the number of waters which are subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. (Instead, the Proposed Guidance carefully explains that, “The agencies expect, based on relevant science and recent field experience, that under the understandings stated in this draft guidance, the extent of waters over which the agencies assert jurisdiction under the CWA will increase compared to the extent of waters over which jurisdiction has been asserted under existing guidance, though certainly not to the full extent that it was typically asserted prior to the Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos.”) Despite this revised language, the fact remains that the Proposed Guidance will significantly expand the scope of waters subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction for all waters subject to any of the programs authorized under the CWA.
The Agencies cannot, through guidance, change the scope and meaning of the Clean Water Act or the statute’s implementing regulations. If the Administration seeks statutory changes to the Clean Water Act, a proposal must be submitted to Congress for legislative action. If the Administration seeks to make regulatory changes, a notice and comment rulemaking is required.
After receiving and taking account of public comments on this document, EPA and the Corps expect to finalize it and to undertake rulemaking consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. This process is expected to start with a proposed rule, to clarify further via regulation the extent of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, consistent with the Court’s decisions. EPA and the Corps decided to begin this process with draft, nonbinding guidance in order to clarify their existing understandings while also considering and receiving the benefit of public comments.
The agencies expect to further clarify the scope of waters subject to CWA jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over (a)(3) waters after SWANCC and Rapanos, as part of a notice and comment rulemaking.
As part of this rulemaking process, the Agencies will consider how a significant nexus analysis should be conducted for non-physically proximate other waters. The only other issue that the Guidance specifically says will be addressed in the upcoming rulemaking is whether the existence of an ordinary high-water mark alone is sufficient to establish a significant nexus to downstream traditional navigable or interstate waters, without requiring a site-specific analysis.
Given the substantial increase in waters that will become subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction under the Proposed Guidance, and the resultant impact upon numerous stakeholders, it seems that substantive parts of the Proposed Guidance that will dictate whether or not a water is jurisdictional under the CWA should be subject to APA notice and comment rulemaking. While this appears to be EPA’s and the Corps’ intent, the specific highlighting of certain issues in the Proposed Guidance that will be subject to rulemaking, with silence on other equally controversial issues, leaves open the question of how much of the Proposed Guidance ultimately will be covered by a proposed rule. In any event, interested persons can take advantage of the sixty-day public comment period to help clarify EPA’s and the Corps’ understanding.

References: § 404
 §7
 §7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.