Source: https://www.stoel.com/controversial-new-clean-water-rule-unlikely-to-significantly-change-regulatory-status-quo
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 09:11:40
Document Index: 167647470

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1311', '§ 1362', '§ 1362', '§ 1342', '§ 209', '§ 122', '§ 328', '§ 328', '§ 122']

Controversial New Clean Water Rule Unlikely to Significantly Change Regulatory Status Quo | Stoel Rives LLP
all “other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, ‘wetlands,’ sloughs, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce”;
Fourth, the new rule retains the current rule’s exclusions from WOTUS for wastewater treatment systems and “prior converted cropland” and adds the following exclusions (which, again, largely reflect existing, informal exclusions):
If you have any questions about this rule or the content of this alert, please contact a key contributor.
[1] The rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, and it is not effective until 60 days after publication. The pre-publication version of the rule is available on EPA’s website: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/rule_preamble_web_version.pdf.
[2] Obama Announces New Rule Limiting Water Pollution, The New York Times (May 27, 2015).
[5] E.g., H.R. 1732, 114th Congress, available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1732/text.
[6] See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342, 1344, 1362(12). More specifically, the CWA prohibits the “discharge of a pollutant” without a permit from EPA, the Corps, or a state or tribal agency to whom the permit program has been delegated. The CWA defines “discharge of a pollutant” as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source” (as well as “any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft”). Id., § 1362(12). Because the CWA defines (1) “pollutant” to include fill material and almost any type of waste or wastewater, including stormwater, and (2) “point source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, . . . container, . . . concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel,” see 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6), (14), the addition of almost anything to “navigable waters” from a specific source (or to the contiguous zone or ocean from any source other than a vessel) requires a permit unless the CWA provides an exemption. There are, however, several such exemptions, particularly for agricultural and silvicultural activities. See, e.g., 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(l), (p), 1344(f).
[8] See 38 Fed. Reg. 13528, 13529 (May 22, 1973).
[9] See 39 Fed. Reg. 12115, 12119 (Apr. 3, 1974); 33 C.F.R. § 209.260 (1973).
[10] Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway, 392 F. Supp. 685, 686 (D.D.C. 1975). The legislative history of the CWA includes a statement that Congress intended the term WOTUS to “be given the broadest possible constitutional interpretation.” S. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1236 at 144 (1972).
[11] Compare 45 Fed. Reg. 33290, 33298, 33424 (May 19, 1980) (EPA’s definition of WOTUS), 51 Fed. Reg. 41206, 41216-17, 41232, 41250-51 (Nov. 13, 1986) (the Corps’ definition of WOTUS), with 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 (2014) (EPA’s definition of WOTUS until the new rule takes effect), 33 C.F.R. § 328.3 (2014) (the Corps’ definition of WOTUS until the new rule takes effect).
[12] See 33 C.F.R. § 328.3 (2014); 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 (2014).
[13] See, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (growing marijuana for personal use affects interstate commerce); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (farmer’s growing of wheat for his own consumption affects interstate commerce); but cf. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (guns in schools do not affect interstate commerce and prohibiting them exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause power).
[14] Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006); Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001).
[15] Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 742, 757.
[16] Id. at 780.
[17] Id. at 810 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
[18] See, e.g., Northern Calif. River Watch v. Healdsburg, 496 F.3d 993, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2007).
[19] See Precon Development Corp. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 13-2499 (4th Cir., Mar. 10, 2015).
[20] See, e.g., Precon Development Corp. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 13-2499 (4th Cir., Mar. 10, 2015).
[21] Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 781 (Kennedy, J., concurring).