Source: http://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/three-key-reforms-federal-water-policy
Timestamp: 2017-09-21 05:15:15
Document Index: 16937682

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1362', '§323', '§ 1344', '§ 1344', '§ 1344', '§ 1344', '§ 1344']

Three Key Reforms for Federal Water Policy | The Heritage Foundation
November 23, 2016 5 min read Download Report
[1] The Clean Water Act (CWA) expressly says that states are supposed to play the leading role in protecting water: “It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources.” Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 107–303, 107th Cong., November 27, 2002, Sec. 101(b).
[2] U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 124 (June 29, 2015), http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/epa-hq-ow-2011-0880-20862.pdf (accessed November 16, 2016).
[3] See 33 U.S. Code § 1362(7), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1362 (accessed November 16, 2016).
[4] In his concurrence in Sackett v. EPA, Justice Alito noted, “Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act.” See Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf (accessed November 16, 2016).
[5] For more discussion on the details of the rule see U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” and Daren Bakst, Farms and Free Enterprise: A Blueprint for Agricultural Policy (Washington:The Heritage Foundation, 2016) http://thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/Farms_and_Free_Enterprise.pdf.
[6] Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. Code 159 (2001), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1178.ZO.html (accessed November 16, 2016), and Rapanos v. U.S., 547 U.S. Code 715 (2006), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1034.ZS.html (accessed November 16, 2016).
[7] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Clean Water Rule Litigation Statement,” https://www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/clean-water-rule-litigation-statement (accessed November 16, 2016).
[8] Discharge of dredged material refers to material excavated or dredged from waters of the U.S. and discharge of fill material refers to “material placed in waters such that dry land replaces water—or a portion thereof—or the water’s bottom elevation changes.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Compliance, “Managing Your Environmental Responsibilities: A Planning Guide for Construction and Development,” April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/constructmyer/ (accessed November 16, 2016). See also the EPA regulations at 33 U.S. Code §323.2, http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/323.2 (accessed November 16, 2016). The regulations provide more specific definitions of dredged material, fill material, and discharge of dredged or fill material. The precise definitions of terms such as “fill material” are a matter of controversy. See Claudia Copeland, “Controversies Over Redefining ‘Fill Material’ Under the Clean Water Act,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 21, 2013, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31411.pdf (accessed November 16, 2016).
[9] Robert Gordon and Diane Katz, “Environmental Policy Guide: 167 Recommendations for Environmental Policy Reform,” The Heritage Foundation, p. 8, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/03/environmental-policy-guide.
[10] Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA, 714 F.3d 608, (D.C. Cir. 2013), https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DBEEA1719A916CDC85257B56005246C4/$file/12-5150-1432105.pdf (accessed November 16, 2016).
[12] For more information on the impact of this retroactive veto, see, for example, “AGC Testifies at Hearing on EPA’s Expanded Clean Water Act Permit Veto Authority,” The Associated General Contractors of America, July 19, 2014, https://www.agc.org/news/2014/07/19/agc-testifies-hearing-epa%E2%80%99s-expanded-clean-water-act-permit-veto-authority (accessed November 16, 2016).
[13] See 33 U.S. Code § 1344 (c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1344 (accessed November 16, 2016), and “Clean Water Act Section 404(c) ‘Veto Authority,’” https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/404c.pdf (accessed November 16, 2016).
[14] See 33 U.S. Code § 1344(f)(1)(A), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1344 (accessed November 16, 2016). The “normal farming exemption” covers both normal silviculture and ranching activities as well. The language exempts “the discharge of dredged and fill material from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water conservation practices.” There is an exception to the normal farming exception called the recapture provision 33 U.S. Code § 1344 (f)(2), which is discussed in the text of the paper.
[15] It would likely be proper statutory interpretation to clarify that normal farming activities are those that are specifically listed in 33 U.S. Code § 1344 (f)(1)(A) or activities that are similar in nature.
[16] This narrow and improper interpretation of “normal” can be seen in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Consolidated Permit Regulations: RCRA Hazardous Waste; SDWA Underground Injection Control; CAA Prevention of Significant Deterioration; CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; and Section 404 Dredge of Fill Programs,” Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 116 (June 14, 1979), p. 34263, and through the current regulations that maintain the “ongoing” requirement, 33 C.F.R. 323.4(a)(1)(ii), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/323.4 (accessed November 16, 2016). This narrow interpretation can also be seen in the courts as early as in Avoyelles Sportsmen’s League v. Alexander, 473 F. Supp. 525 (1979).
[17] See, for example, letter from Craig Hill, President, Iowa Farm Bureau, to Ken Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. EPA Office of Water, September 29, 2014, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-7633 (accessed November 16, 2016); American Farm Bureau Federation, “Clarifying EPA’s Muddy Waters,” http://www.fb.org /newsroom/nr/nr2014/07-16-14/Clarifying_EPAs_Muddy_Water.pdf (accessed November 16, 2016); and Ellen Steen, testimony before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, Agriculture Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, “Regarding: The Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Proposed Rule and Its Impact on Rural America,” Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation, March 3, 2015, http://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/steen_testimony.pdf (accessed November 16, 2016). An operation that has not been ongoing will need a permit, but once it is “established,” a permit may no longer be required. See, for example, Steen, “Regarding: The Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” footnote 8.
[19] “From Preventing Pollution of Navigable and Interstate Waters to Regulating Farm Fields, Puddles and Dry Land: A Senate Report on the Expansion of Jurisdiction Claimed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Majority Staff, September 20, 2016, http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7b469fe4-62c3-4ea9-9ce2-bedbf5179372/wotus-committee-report-final1.pdf (accessed November 16, 2016).
[20] 33 U.S. Code § 1344 (f)(2), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1344 (accessed November 16, 2016).
[21] See Steen, “Regarding: The Definition of ‘Waters of the United States.’”
[23] For some good examples of the narrow interpretation, see “From Preventing Pollution of Navigable and Interstate Waters to Regulating Farm Fields, Puddles and Dry Land: A Senate Report on the Expansion of Jurisdiction Claimed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Majority Staff, September 20, 2016, http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7b469fe4-62c3-4ea9-9ce2-bedbf5179372/wotus-committee-report-final1.pdf (accessed November 16, 2016); Tony Francois, “US Senator Grassley Speaks on PLF Client John Duarte’s Fight with Federal Wetland Enforcers,” Pacific Legal Foundation Liberty Blog, February 26, 2016, http://blog.pacificlegal.org/us-senator-grassley-speaks-on-plf-client-john-duartes-fight-with-federal-wetland-enforcers/ (accessed November 16, 2016); and hearings, Erosion of Exemptions and Expansion of Federal Control–Implementation of the Definition of Waters of the United States, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, May 24, 2016, http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/5/erosion-of-exemptions-and-expansion-of-federal-control-implementation-of-the-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states (accessed November 16, 2016).