Source: http://landandwaterusa.blogspot.com/2016/02/epa-army-corps-trick-or-truth.html
Timestamp: 2018-01-21 04:14:51
Document Index: 764914372

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1344', '§ 1288', '§ 1313', '§ 1313', '§ 1329', '§ 1341', '§ 1311', '§ 301', '§ 1342', '§ 402', '§ 1344', '§ 404', '§ 323', '§ 232']

Land and Water USA: EPA Army Corps Trick or Truth?
Trick or Truth? What EPA and the Corps of Engineers Are Not
Saying About Their “Waters of the U.S.” Proposal
Provided by the American Farm Bureau Federation October 30, 2014
Last month, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued some “Questions and Answers” about their proposed rule defining “navigable waters” or “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. But the agencies’ Q&A doesn’t give straight, reliable answers to the questions posed. Instead, it omits or even misstates key information about the proposed rule and its true impacts on farmers and ranchers, builders, local governments, and countless others.
The purpose of this document is to provide the real “answers”—the truth that the public deserves about the proposed rule. We don’t mention each and every inaccuracy in the Q&A. But we do provide detailed answers to some of the most important questions, with citations to the proposed rule and other resources. If you’re not sure who’s telling the truth, please read the fine print (79 Fed. Reg. 22,188-274 (Apr. 21, 2014)). Then tell EPA and the Corps to Ditch the Rule.
Is the proposal an expansion of jurisdiction?
Agencies say: No. From the Clean Water Act’s enactment, its scope of jurisdiction, included any waterbody that had a connection with interstate commerce. The Supreme Court narrowed jurisdiction by focusing on a more technical and scientific understanding of water features and their connections to downstream traditional navigable waters. This new focus narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act but placed certain waters in a gray area, where case-specific determinations were required. This gray area creates uncertainty, litigation risk for some land owners, and inconsistent application of the CWA. The proposed rule clearly applies the “significant nexus” test as contemplated by Justice Kennedy. It also reduces litigation risk by reducing the amount of waters in this gray area.
Yes, the proposal would dramatically increase the number of so-called “waters” (which don’t really look like water) that are subject to CWA jurisdiction. That’s why the agencies so desperately want this rule! (Agencies don’t fight so hard to achieve “clarity.”)
The Clean Water Act has never been as broad as what the agencies now propose. It’s true that the agencies’ own historical regulations were very broad (any connection with interstate commerce). But those rules were also illegal. The Supreme Court found (twice, in 2001 and 2006) that those rules went far beyond what Congress ever intended.[1] The nation’s highest court—which has the job of interpreting federal laws—found that Congress always intended to focus on “navigable waters” plus waters that have a substantial connection to those waters, like wetlands adjacent to navigable waters.
Because of these Court decisions, today the Corps and EPA cannot assert jurisdiction over nonnavigable waters unless they find that a particular feature has a “significant nexus” to actual navigable waters.[2] The agencies’ current guidance says that requires consideration of the volume, duration, and frequency of flow in the non-navigable water, as well as proximity to downstream navigable waters.[3] As a result, today very few so-called “ephemeral streams” (that flow only when it rains), ditches, or isolated wetlands (not adjacent to navigable waters) have ever been subjected to Clean Water Act jurisdiction.[4]
The proposed rule would get rid of the need for case-by-case determinations—and dramatically expand Clean Water Act jurisdiction—by making a categorical finding that certain types of features have a “significant nexus.”[5] The categories of regulated features are very broad. For example, they would cover “ephemeral streams” even if they are rarely wet, so long as water sometimes flows there that ultimately reaches navigable waters (even miles away). (See below in the section about “tributaries”.) They would also cover even the smallest “wetland” or other water (pond) so long as it is located in a floodplain (without saying how big a flood) or in a “riparian area.”
If a water on my property is jurisdictional, does that mean the federal government controls my use of the water?
Agencies say: No. CWA permitting only applies where someone proposes to dump waste or other pollutants into the nation’s streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands. These are waters where communities get their drinking water, where families swim and boat, and where fish are caught for recreation and for sale to markets and restaurants. If you’re not polluting these water bodies, you don’t need any sort of permit. Also, normal farming practices that involve dredged or fill material, regardless of jurisdiction, do not need a permit, since the law permanently excludes those practices.
Yes! If a feature on your property is jurisdictional (remember, it may not even look like “water” most of the time), you will be generally prohibited from doing anything that causes “pollutants” (including dirt, dust, “biological materials” or chemicals) to fall or be placed into that feature from any “conveyance” (which could be a nozzle, shovel, plow or most anything else). The Clean Water Act protects “waters of the United States” by completely prohibiting the “discharge of any pollutant” into those features, except where the discharge is authorized under a permit or under another provision of the statute.[6] Activities don’t have to look like “dumping waste” to be prohibited, and they don’t have to result in any actual environmental harm—they just have to cause some amount (even a very small amount) of “pollutant” to fall or be placed into a jurisdictional “water.”[7] Also, the ban on discharges continues year round, even if the protected feature only contains water for a few days or in certain seasons.
There is no “right” to a Clean Water Act permit, even if your livelihood depends on doing something that may cause “pollutant” (like fertilizer, dirt, or herbicide) to fall into jurisdictional features.[8] The Corps or EPA can take years to issue a permit, or they can decide not to issue one at all. Just the process of applying for a permit can be very burdensome, costing tens of thousands of dollars in consultant and legal fees.[9]
It is true that moving dirt in a jurisdictional feature is sometimes exempt from section 404
(“dredged or fill material”) permitting, if it is part of “normal” farming or ranching activities.[10]
But the agencies’ Q&A fails to mention that they have severely limited what they consider “normal.” For example, activities are only “normal” (according to the agencies) if they are part of an “established (i.e. on-going)” farming or ranching operation at that location, not a new operation.[11] Because that agency interpretation came out in 1977, the agencies have taken the position that new operations require a section 404 permit unless they have been “ongoing” since 1977.[12] In private meetings, EPA officials have admitted that farming that has not been ongoing since 1977 (e.g. plowing across a jurisdictional ephemeral drain) would require a section 404 permit—but “only for the first year” (after that, it would be an “established” operation).[13]
Another limit on the “normal” farming exemption is the so-called “recapture” provision. Under this provision, a permit is required if “normal” farming or ranching activity is intended to bring a jurisdictional feature into a new use, “where the flow or circulation of [the jurisdictional water] may be impaired or the reach of such waters be reduced.” 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f)(2) (CWA
§[14] 404(f)(2)). Because the proposed rule would assert jurisdiction over very small “waters” it may not take much to “impair” the flow or reach of those features. In fact, the proposed rule suggests that a farmer would be in violation of the law if farming across an ephemeral drain caused the “bed and bank” of that feature to disappear (e.g. smoothing out a natural channel in the land).14 Likewise, impounding a jurisdictional ephemeral drain or small wetland (to build a farm pond, for example) would be “recaptured” and would not be exempt.
Third, the normal farming exemption only applies to dredge and fill activities authorized under section 404, such as plowing and moving dirt. It does not apply to “discharges” of other materials, like fertilizer or pesticides that may fall into farmed ephemeral drains or wetlands or nearby ditches. If any amount of these materials is applied into, or falls into, jurisdictional features as part of ordinary farming activity, the farmer will be in violation of the Clean Water Act unless he or she has obtained a Clean Water Act section 402 discharge permit.[15] Again, this is true even if the feature is not carrying water at the time fertilizer or pesticide is being applied.
Finally, the agencies’ Q&A fails to mention their new “interpretive rule” that says the “normal” farming exemption applies only to practices that comply with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) technical standards.[16] So, if you want to build a fence across a jurisdictional ephemeral drain, ditch or wetland, and if you’ve had “ongoing” farming or ranching there since 1977, and if you comply with NRCS technical standards for fence building, your fence-building may be exempt from section 404 permitting. That’s not quite as broad an exemption as the agencies seem to want the public to believe.
[1] See U.S. v. Cumberland Farms of Connecticut, Inc., 647 F. Supp. 1166 (D. Mass. 1986), affirmed 826 F.2d 1151 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061 (1988).
[1] See Letter from Craig Hill, President, Iowa Farm Bureau, to Ken Kopocis, Deputy Assistant
Administrator, U.S. EPA Office of Water (Sept. 29, 2014) (http://www.regulations.gov/ #!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-7633).
[1] Fed. Reg. at 22,204.
[1] See National Cotton Council v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009); Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005).
[1] See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army Interpretive Rule Regarding the Applicability of Clean Water Act Section 404(f)(1)(A) (March 25, 2014).
This proposed rule includes seasonal and rain dependent streams when they meet the definition of a tributary. Would the water that flows on my land only after a rainstorm now become jurisdictional?
Agencies say: Rainwater that flows on top of the land, sometimes referred to as sheetflow, or through an erosion feature is not jurisdictional under the CWA. The proposed rule would only cover features that have a bed and bank and ordinary high water mark. These features take years to develop. An erosion feature is not jurisdictional because it does not have these characteristics.
Thus, the proposed rule specifically excludes erosional features, such as gullies.
Again, the answer is “Yes!” Water that flows on land only after a rainstorm absolutely will be regulated under the proposed rule. Here’s how:
The rule would define “tributaries” to include landscape features where rainwater channels, as long as the flowing water leaves a mark on the land, and so long as some water from the feature sometimes makes its way to a navigable water (no matter how far away).17 The agencies use the words “bed” and “bank” and “ordinary high water mark,” which sound like parts of a river or stream. In reality, though, the agencies’ explanation makes clear that those words just mean some kind of channel (land with higher elevation on each side of land with a lower elevation) plus any physical marks left by flowing water.18
Below is a photo of one feature in Tennessee where the Corps of Engineers actually found a bed, bank and ordinary high water mark. The agencies see features like this as “waters” (“ephemeral streams” or “tributaries”) even though they are dry except when it rains. When water flows in these features, the agencies don’t see that as water flowing across the land, they see it as water flowing in streams. That’s why EPA and the Corps say (with a straight face) that they are not proposing to regulate “rainwater that flows on top of the land.” But to most people, this is land.
17 79 Fed. Reg. at 22,202 (the water may contribute flow directly or may contribute flow to another water or waters which eventually flow into [downstream navigable waters]).
18 The agencies explain: “A tributary is a longitudinal surface feature that results from directional surface water movement and sediment dynamics demonstrated by the presence of bed and banks, bottom and lateral boundaries, or other indicators of [ordinary high water mark]…. in some regions of the country where there is a very low gradient, the banks of a tributary may be very low or may even disappear at times.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 22,202. Translation: the proposed rule will regulate activities on land where water channels and flows when it rains, so long as the flowing water leaves a mark on the land. The “channel” may be so subtle that you can’t really see it.
When the agencies say they are not planning to regulate “sheet flow,” that just means they will not regulate water that flows with no channel—where water flows evenly dispersed across the land surface.[17] When they say they are not planning to regulate “erosional features,” the agencies seem to mean that they will not regulate places where the soil has eroded but there is no bed, bank and ordinary high water mark. Given how easy it is to find a bed, bank and ordinary high water mark (see above), many areas where soil has eroded will be viewed as “ephemeral tributaries” and not as “erosional features.” Even the agencies seem to recognize that it can be very difficult to tell the difference between the two.[18]
Would the proposed rule protect, as tributaries, all “channels” regardless of how often they flow or how much water they carry?
Agencies say: No. The agencies proposed, consistent with the Supreme Court decisions, to protect those flowing waters that significantly affect downstream navigable waters. Simply establishing a connection does not mean that the connection creates the required significant effect. The agencies have defined tributaries based on physical indicators of flow – bed and banks and ordinary high water mark – and many “channels” will not meet this definition. The agencies are eager to review public comments on the proposed rule to ensure that the definition of tributary is clear and reflects this.
Look closely for the trick in this “question.” It’s true that the proposed rule would not regulate each and every “channel.” But it would regulate each and every “tributary” (as newly defined) regardless of how often they flow or how much water they carry. All that’s needed is enough water flow to leave a mark (see photo above), plus any amount of flow that ever reaches a navigable water (no matter how far away). Any channel like that will be automatically regulated as a “tributary.”
If you’ll pardon the bureaucratic jargon, we will quote the agencies’ explanation:
To meet this definition, a water need not contribute flow directly to [downstream navigable waters]. As the definition makes clear, the water may contribute flow directly or may contribute flow to another water or waters which eventually flow into
[downstream navigable waters]… Under the proposed definition of tributary, the upper limit of a tributary is established where the channel begins.
79 Fed. Reg. at 22,202. The agencies go on to say:
[1] See Greening EPA; Stormwater Management Best Practices (http://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/ stormwater/best_practices.htm) (discussing the benefits of eliminating curbs and gutters to increase sheet flow).
[1] See 79 Fed. Reg. at 22,219 (“agencies request comment on how they could provide greater clarity on how to distinguish between erosional features such as gullies, which are excluded from jurisdiction, and ephemeral tributaries, which are categorically jurisdictional”).
Tributaries that are small, flow infrequently, or are a substantial distance from the nearest [traditional navigable water] (e.g., headwater perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral tributaries) are essential components of the tributary network….
79 Fed. Reg. at 22,206.[19] Tricky, huh?
Do I need a CWA permit when I am applying pesticides or herbicides to any farm fields?
Agencies say: No. A permit is only needed when pesticides are applied to waters that are jurisdictional. For example, if wetlands protected under the CWA are being farmed, activities such as plowing, seeding, and harvesting do not require a CWA permit. Applying pesticides or herbicides in jurisdictional wetlands, however, would generally require a permit, and may be satisfied by a general permit. In addition, neither agricultural stormwater nor return flows from irrigation need permits.
This is an especially tricky answer, because it begins with a quick “no”, but if you keep reading, the answer is “yes”! The truth is that many farm fields include features that will be “navigable waters” under the proposed rule, such as ephemeral drainage paths (“ephemeral tributaries”) and low spots (wetlands). To the farmer, these features look like land, and they may be dry except when it rains (again, see the photo above). But under the proposed rule, many of these features will be “jurisdictional waters,” and any application of pesticide there—or even fertilizer—would require a Clean Water Act permit. That means putting any amount of pesticide (or fertilizer) onto these features—right in the middle of a farm field—without a permit would be an illegal “discharge” with penalties of up to $37,500 per violation, per day, even at times when the protected “water” contains no water.[20] It’s no wonder the agencies don’t like to say that!
The agencies say that a general permit “may” satisfy the pesticide permit requirement, and that’s technically true: A “general permit” for pesticide use may, but may not, be available, depending on the state. In many states, coverage under the pesticide general permit is limited to specific types of applications that would not include farm fields.[21] In addition, there is no general permit for fertilizer application. If no general permit is available for the farmer’s activities, he or she would have to seek an “individual” permit, which could take months or even years and many thousands of dollars in legal and consultant fees.
[1] See Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 531 U.S. 159, 172 (2001) (SWANCC) and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
[2] See Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. U.S. & Carabell v. U.S. (U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dec. 2, 2008).
[4] Because most ditches, ephemeral streams, and isolated wetlands are not jurisdictional, you can mow grass, spray for weeds, or dig a fence post in them without a Clean Water Act permit. If activity in or around those features affects the quality of downstream waters, those effects are addressed through a variety of non-regulatory programs that give the states more power to decide how to protect water quality. 33 U.S.C. § 1288 (area-wide waste treatment management), § 1313(d) (water quality standards and total maximum daily loads), § 1313(e) (continuing planning process), § 1329 (non-point source management programs), § 1341 (water quality certification) to name a few.
[5] “This will eliminate the need to make a case specific significant nexus determination for tributaries or for their adjacent waters because it has been determined that as a category, these waters have a significant nexus and thus are ‘waters of the United States.’” 79 Fed. Reg. at 22,193.
[6] See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(12) (CWA §§ 301(a), 502(12)).
[7] See Sierra Club v. Union Oil, 813 F.2d 1480, 1490-91 (9th Cir. 1987), vacated other grounds, 485 U.S. 931 (1988), judgment reinstated, 853 F.2d 667 (9th Cir.1988) (“The Clean Water Act and the regulations promulgated under it make no provision for ‘rare’ violations’”); U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 824 F. Supp. 640, 649 (E.D. Tex.1993) (“ [a] violation is a violation no matter how statistically insignificant”); Int’l Union v. Amerace Corp., Inc., 740 F. Supp. 1072, 1083 (D.N.J. 1990) ( “The Clean Water Act recognizes neither a good faith nor a de minimis defense.”)
[8] See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(a(1), 1344(a) (CWA §§ 402(a)(1), 404(a)) (agency “may” issue a permit); Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA, 714 F.3d. 608 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
[9] EPA’s own figures (adjusted for inflation) put the cost of individual section 404 permit application at $62,166, plus $16,787 per acre of impacts to “waters of the U.S.” For nationwide permits, costs are estimated at $24,004, plus $13,212 per acre of “waters of the U.S.” affected.
[10] See 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f) (CWA § 404(f)).
[11] See 33 C.F.R. § 323.4(a)(1)(ii); 40 C.F.R. § 232.3(c)(1)(ii)(A).
[12] See U.S. v. Cumberland Farms of Connecticut, Inc., 647 F. Supp. 1166 (D. Mass. 1986), affirmed 826 F.2d 1151 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061 (1988).
[13] See Letter from Craig Hill, President, Iowa Farm Bureau, to Ken Kopocis, Deputy Assistant
[14] Fed. Reg. at 22,204.
[15] See National Cotton Council v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009); Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005).
[16] See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army Interpretive Rule Regarding the Applicability of Clean Water Act Section 404(f)(1)(A) (March 25, 2014).
[17] See Greening EPA; Stormwater Management Best Practices (http://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/ stormwater/best_practices.htm) (discussing the benefits of eliminating curbs and gutters to increase sheet flow).
[18] See 79 Fed. Reg. at 22,219 (“agencies request comment on how they could provide greater clarity on how to distinguish between erosional features such as gullies, which are excluded from jurisdiction, and ephemeral tributaries, which are categorically jurisdictional”).
[19] Even Justice Kennedy criticized the agencies for their previous attempts to use “ordinary high water mark” to define “tributaries.” He commented that the term is so broad it would result in regulation of ditches and ephemeral streams that are remote from truly navigable waters and carry only minor volumes of water. Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 781 (2006) (J. Kennedy, concurring in the judgment).
[20] See Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for Discharges from the Application of Pesticides (U.S. EPA 2011) at A-8 (“Delineated Waters of the United States may or may not be wet at the time of discharge; however, discharges to such are still considered discharges to Waters of the United States.”)
[21] See Generic Permit for Pollutant Discharges to Surface Waters of the State from the Application of Pesticides (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2011) (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/ wastewater/iw/docs/62-621.300_8e.pdf).
would have to seek an “individual” permit, which could take months or even years and many thousands of dollars in legal and consultant fees.