Source: https://www.jbwpc.com/Articles/Environmental-Issues/ENVIRONMENTAL-REGULATIONS-AFFECTING-LAND-USE.shtml
Timestamp: 2020-07-04 12:44:27
Document Index: 403210932

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 330', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 701', '§ 505']

Interestingly enough, § 404 does not use the term wetlands; however, in what has been a continuous battle throughout the federal courts, the Corps has construed § 404 to give it jurisdiction over wetlands and other bodies of water that are not themselves navigable. The Corps originally considered its jurisdiction to regulate navigable waters restricted to waters that were actually navigable, but that changed after Natural Resources Defense Council v. Calloway, 392 F.Supp. 685 (D.D.C. 1975), where the court held that Congress had intended to extend Corps' jurisdiction "to the maximum extent permissible under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Accordingly, as used in the Water Act, the term is not limited to the traditional tests of navigability." Id. at 686.
The Supreme Court approved that expansive view of the Corps' jurisdiction in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985), where a developer challenged the permit requirement in regards to an 80-acre non-navigable marsh that was adjacent to a navigable stream. The Court discussed the fact that the boundary between water and land is not always evident or constant, and that the principal purposes of the Clean Water Act would be difficult to achieve if the wetlands that filter impurities out of water entering navigable water bodies were not subject to regulation. The Court described the § 404's use of the term navigable as "of limited import," and gave great deference to the Corps as the agency charged with implementing the Act. Id. at 133. This case is normally relied on for the proposition that the Corps has jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to navigable waters.
The most recent Supreme Court decision to address this issue is Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), commonly referred to as SWANCC. In that case, the Corps sought to exercise jurisdiction over an isolated and abandoned sand and gravel pit under the theory that it provided habitat for migratory birds. It was apparently undisputed that the water in the pit did not affect any navigable waters. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that in order to find that Congress intended § 404 to give the Corps jurisdiction over such an isolated water body, it would have to assign no meaning to the term navigable in the statute. Therefore, the Corps' jurisdiction is broad, but not so broad as to reach waters that have no affect on navigable water bodies. This case appears to stand for the proposition that the Corps may not regulate isolated wetlands.
Section 404(e) allows the Corps to issue general permits on a nationwide or regional basis when it determines that a certain type of activity will "cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effect on the environment." Pursuant to regulations codified at 33 C.F.R. §§ 330.1- 6, the Corps has issued a number of Nationwide Permits that exempt certain land disturbing activities from requiring individual § 404 permits when performed on a small scale. Nationwide permits have been issued for a variety of land disturbing activities, including residential, commercial and institutional development; agricultural activities; and even mining. Most of the Nationwide Permits only apply if less than ½ acre of wetlands will be affected. Activities resulting in a loss of 1/10 of an acre or more still require the filing of a detailed notice of intent to operate under the general permit with the Corps' District Engineer prior to the construction. Normally, activities subject to a Nationwide Permit affecting less than 1/10 of an acre will only require the filing of a report after the work is completed. There are a number of general conditions that apply to all of the Nationwide Permits; for example, permitted activities should avoid waterfowl breeding areas and shellfish beds, should not impair navigation, and must not harm endangered species. Also, the District Engineer may require mitigating actions to offset the effect of the permitted activities. Each Nationwide Permit also has conditions particular to the subject activity. The Corps has the authority to modify the Nationwide Permits for each District, and also to issue Regional Permits; for example, in Georgia a Regional Permit exists for the dredging of certain private recreation ponds less than 5 acres in size. The currently applicable Nationwide Permits can be found in the Federal Register at 67 Fed. Reg. 2020 (January 15, 2002).
There are two procedures available to persons dissatisfied by the Corps' permit decision; there is no administrative review process in § 404, so both procedures involve federal court. The applicant whose permit is denied may appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC § 701 et seq.. Normally, this involves a review of the administrative record, rather than de novo review. This process is comparable to the procedure that would be invoked in state court by an applicant who was denied a variance by a local government board of zoning appeals; the applicant will only be successful if the permit decision is found to be arbitrary and capricious. The other procedure to challenge the permit decision is provided by the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act, § 505, and would normally be invoked by persons dissatisfied with the grant of the permit. Section 505 allows citizens to bring action against the government agencies for failing to conduct non-discretionary duties, similar to a state court mandamus action. Again, the permit decision itself would only be reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act and the arbitrary and capricious standard would apply. Thus, it is essential that both the applicant and opposed citizens make their case to the Corps, and timely file their evidence so that it is included in the agency record.