Source: https://phillipslytle.com/publications/client-alert/environment-client-update-february-2020/
Timestamp: 2020-02-26 07:20:20
Document Index: 18047456

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1311', '§ 1362', '§ 328', '§ 328', '§ 328', '§ 328', '§ 328', '§ 328', '§ 328']

Environment Client Update – February 2020
For questions regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, or any other environmental matters, please contact any of the attorneys on our Environmental Practice Team or the Phillips Lytle attorney with whom you have a relationship.
See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) (prohibiting the discharge of pollutants); id. § 1362(12) (limiting prohibited discharges to those in “navigable waters”).
Congressional Research Service, Evolution of the Meaning of “Waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act 12 (Mar. 2019), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44585.pdf.
Id. at 739 (finding WOTUS to include only relatively permanent bodies of water); id. at 742 (finding only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to WOTUS could be classified as adjacent).
Id. at 779-780.
In re U.S. EPA & Dep’t of Def. Final Rule, 803 F.3d 804, 809 (6th Cir. 2015).
Exec. Order No. 13778, 82 Fed. Reg. 12,497 (Feb. 28, 2017).
82 Fed. Reg. 34,899 (July 27, 2017).
See S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. Pruitt, 318 F. Supp. 3d 959 (D.S.C. 2018) (issuing a nationwide injunction of the rule that pushed back the effective date of the Clean Water Rule).
84 Fed. Reg. 56,626 (Dec. 23, 2019) (discussing the 22 states in which the Clean Water Rule went into effect); see also Texas v. EPA, No. 3:15-CV-00162, 2018 WL 4518230, at * 1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2018) (enjoining the Clean Water Rule in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas); Georgia v. Pruitt, 326 F. Supp. 3d 1356, 1370 (S.D. Ga. 2018) (enjoining the Clean Water Rule in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin); North Dakota v. EPA, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1047, 1060 (N.D. 2015) (enjoining the Clean Water Rule in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming).
84 Fed. Reg. 56,626 (Dec. 23, 2019).
EPA, The Navigable Waters Protection Rule (Step Two)—Revise, https://www.epa.gov/nwpr/navigable-waters-protection-rule-step-two-revise (last accessed Feb. 4, 2020).
See Pre-Publication Notice of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule § 328.3(a), at p. 323 (Jan. 23, 2020), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-01/documents/navigable_waters_protection_rule_prepbulication.pdf.
Id. § 328.3(b), at p. 323-24.
Id. § 328.3(c)(1), at p. 325.
Id. § 328.3(c)(3), at p. 325.
Id. § 328.3(c)(5), at p. 326.
Id. § 328.3(c)(8), at p. 327.
Id. § 328.3(c)(13), at p. 328.
80 Fed. Reg. 37,033, 37,059 (June 29, 2015).
See, e.g., Complaint, Murray v. U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency (Dec. 2019), No. 1:19-CV-01498 (challenge to repeal brought by two landowners with streams no longer protected after repeal of the Clean Water Rule); Complain, New York et al. v. U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency (Dec. 2019), No. 1:19-cv-11673 (challenge to the repeal of the Clean Water Rule by a coalition of states, including New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington).
80 Fed. Reg. 37053, 37058 (June 29, 2015).