Source: https://cslaterlaw.com/2016/05/05/the-brownfield-cleanup-program-an-update-on-wnys-most-potent-deal-driving-tool/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:09:37+00:00

Document:
If you are buying undeveloped land for home or castle, plant or mall, or on a mountain or plain, and you plan on building on it, you have to worry about or at least consider how your plans may be impacted by the presence of federal and/or state jurisdictional wetlands. You know this – wetlands can be a roadblock or expensive hurdle to overcome in developing property, no more so than in hydric-soil-rich Western New York. If someone opposes your project, do you know the first stop sign they grab? Wetlands. If your opposition wants concessions on development, do you know what they point to? Wetlands. On this, I can guarantee you little in the wetlands permit process, but I can guarantee you that if wetlands are present within your project area, in small or large measure, the presence of those wetlands will absolutely impact the scope and nature of your project and will cost you time and money, in small or large measure. Once you accept this truth and give up railing against the gods about unfair it is for someone to tell you what you can do with your property, the better you can strategically plan to reduce these impacts to your project.
This purpose of this article is to outline the basis elements of the federal and state programs regulating wetlands, the regulatory framework governing the issuance of wetlands permits, and the new and various recent changes in case law, policies, rules and programs that will affect getting wetlands permits in the future. The article briefly discusses tricks and predictions.
In 2001, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on the limits of U.S. jurisdiction (for the Army Corps of Engineers) under the Clean Water Act §404(a) over freshwater wetlands. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U. S. ACOE, 531 U.S. 159, 121 S.Ct. 675 (2001).
In SWANCC, the Supreme Court noted that CWA §404(a) authorized the United States to regulate the discharge of any material within “navigable waters”, but interpreted the “navigable waters” jurisdiction to be limited to waters actually navigable, wetlands that actually abutted navigable waterways, or wetland areas where there was a significant nexus between wetlands and the navigable waterways. The Supreme Court seemingly eliminated the “hydrological connection” test, replacing it with the “significant nexus” test, that is, CWA jurisdiction would only apply to areas where there is a “significant nexus” between the wetlands and the “navigable waters.” Non-navigable, isolated, intrastate waters, therefore, were found to be outside of the Corps jurisdiction.
Draft wetlands regulatory language defining “waters of the United States” was drawn up in November of 2003 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, although without any input from the EPA. The draft language defines “waters of the United States” as territorial seas, traditional navigable waters, tributaries to navigable waters, and wetlands adjacent to those waters. Tributaries not addressed in the existing regulation would be defined as “waters that are part of the system of surface waters and that contribute regular and recurring flow to traditional navigable waters of the United States” and also added perennial streams, intermittent streams, and tributary connections to the definition.
After 2004, the ACOE expressly stated that the holding in SWANCC did not change or alter their jurisdictional analysis at all. It appears as though, however, that the Corps is diligently pursuing aggressive policy and guidance initiatives which would limit the intention of the decision in SWANCC and allow the Corps to exercise jurisdiction over remote, attenuated areas (or marginal wetland areas like kettle bogs, puddled areas, etc.).
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear three key cases involving CWA jurisdiction over wetlands: Rapanos v. U.S. (criminal conviction for filling in wetlands for development), Carabell v. ACOE (ACOE alleges that condo development could pollute Lake St. Clair, that connects Lake Huron and Lake Erie), and S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (challenging denial of a permit to construct a hydroelectric dam for paper mill utility service).
The decisions in those three cases were expected to clarify the “distance” of the “significant nexus” test. The decisions probably make things more confusing.
On June 19, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled both the Carabell and Rapanos decisions in Rapanos v. U.S., No. 04-1034.
The facts of the cases on appeal would seem to have primed the pump for a global resolution of federal wetlands jurisdiction. In Carabell, the plaintiffs were denied a permit to deposit fill material in a wetland located on triangular parcel about 1 mile from Lake St. Claire. A man-made drainage ditch ran along one side of the wetland separated from it by an impermeable man-made berm. The ditch emptied into another ditch that eventually connected to a creek that emptied into the lake. In Rapanos, the wetland area was connected to a man-made ditch which drained into a creek that emptied to a river that emptied into Lake Huron. Primed? Yes. Fired? No. Alas, the opportunity for a global statement on the reach of wetlands jurisdiction under the CWA was squandered and portends greater confusion (and legal fees) for regulated parties.
The Rapanos decision was a split decision and, thus, the confusion. Five justices (Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas) agreed that the 6th Circuit decision in favor of the Corps expansive view of it wetland jurisdiction should be vacated and remanded. Justice Scalia wrote for majority, but Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, wrote a concurring opinion disagreeing with Scalia’s rationale and, thus, the confusion.
Scalia’s opinion was the developer’s dream. He referred to the dictionary in finding that “navigable waters” meant 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.” Scalia found that the phrase did not include “channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall.” Applying this definition to “ephemeral streams”, “wet meadows”, storm sewers, and “directional sheet flow during storm events,” drain tiles, man-made drainage ditches, and “dry arroyos in the middle of the desert”, stretches the term “waters of the United States”, Scalia says, “beyond parody”. Amen.
Scalia had no problem juxtaposing the “significant nexus” test found in SWANCC and Riverside Bayview cases with his decision in Rapanos. Both of those cases, he found, referenced the close connection (“significant nexus”) between waters and wetlands. He found, however, that this close connection can only be found for “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own right, so that there is no clear demarcation between “waters” and wetlands”, for only those wetlands can truly be “adjacent to” “navigable waters” that are covered by the Clean Water Act.
In order to establish CWA jurisdiction over wetlands, then, Scalia found two mandatory requirements: the channel adjacent to the wetland must contain a “water of the United States” (i.e., a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters) and the wetland must have “a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the “water” ends and the “wetland” begins.” Amen again.
Justice Kennedy, on the other hand, applied SWANCC and Riverside Bayview criteria strictly and found that any “reasonable inference of ecologic interconnection” between wetland and navigable water is sufficient to support Corps jurisdiction. He found that a “significant nexus” to navigable water is driven by the facts of each case, but can be established through chemical, physical or biological means. “Mere hydrologic connection” or “mere adjaceny” to navigable water, Kennedy stated, is not the only criteria. Finding an insufficient record before him to make the “significant nexus” determination, Kennedy votes to vacate and remand.
The NYS Assembly recently passed a bill which would allow DEC to “fill the gap” in federal jurisdiction coverage potentially created by SWANCC decision by increasing DEC’s to include any wetlands >1 acre (DEC’s jurisdiction is now limited to wetlands greater than 12.4 acres). S. 2081(Marcellino)/A. 2048(DiNapoli) passed in the Assembly 111 to 27 and now has considerable energy with Governor Spitzer’s election.
State NYSDEC policy changes are, by history and practice, more subtle, ephemeral and less codified. Along with the proposed statutory jurisdictional changes in NYSDEC wetland authority mentioned above, there have been significant changes in how NYSDEC manages wetlands and projects.
• Mitigation Ratios are up.
• Mitigation for buffer impacts is required.
• Resistance to in-lieu of compensation.
• Aggressive, unsolicited field investigations in areas deemed to have development pressure.
• Working with area environmental groups (Sierra Club, etc.).
• Applying both plant and Corps 3-legged delineation.
• Building design and application deliverables.
Local municipal and/or County support means more to the Federal and State government than you think. This type of support makes a compelling public needs argument and works in other ways.
When you think of picking up a phone to request your State of Federal elected official for support for a project or to get involved with the agency to “hurry things up”, think again. It’s not that you shouldn’t do it, it’s that you need to be careful, in fact, judicious about it. Think of this tool like a buggy whip – it may get the horse moving or it may get the horse mad, but in either case, you probably have an annoyed horse that you may someday see again. I have used it effectively in certain cases, but in a very deferential manner – I advise all of what we are doing – but the use and timing of political support is as important as having it. So be careful, assess personalities, evaluate the best timing, and discuss with regulatory staff in advance if you can.
I have also said this too before. The only way to truly manage your science at all is to do it before the project is public, before agency review. Once the project and your project science become public, the consultant’s ability to argue away the science will be fenced in. So, if you haven’t done your homework, aren’t prepared to show you homework, and don’t understand where you want to end up, you will get an F on your application.
Yes, I know, I have already discussed this, but it is important enough to mention twice.
• Get a wetlands specialist now and front load your wetlands analysis and alternatives.
• Sit down with your project engineer now. Spin your project around, think like a regulator, and try to make the project happen without impacting wetlands. Show your homework!
• Get a real estate agent now. Make sure your paper trail on practicable alternatives is complete.
A valuable tool for controlling drainage. CWA, 33 U.S.C. §1344(f)(1).
Remember– it will go away. Act now.
Believe it or not – this can still be used on occasion. Always think about it in the beginning. 33 CFR §330.3 and ECL §24-1305.
• Delineate early/front-load the wetlands issues.
• Know and manage the science now.
• Fighting the Technical Battle and Managing the Delineation Report.
• Know your mitigation numbers.
• Know and manage your jurisdiction issues.
• The importance of pre-application meetings.

References: §404
 v. 
 §404
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1344
 §330
 §24