Opinion ID: 756994
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: 30 We conclude as a matter of law that the Corps lacked authority under section 404 of the CWA to require RII to obtain a permit from the Corps before constructing the solid waste landfill. 31 First, the municipal solid waste that would be disposed of in the proposed landfill does not fall within the definition of either dredged material or fill material. The solid waste is not dredged material because it is not material that is excavated or dredged from waters of the United States. See 33 C.F.R. § 323.2(c). The solid waste is not fill material because it is not material used for the primary purpose of replacing an aquatic area with dry land or of changing the bottom elevation of a waterbody. See 33 C.F.R. § 323.2(e). In fact, solid waste falls directly within one of the exceptions listed in the definition of fill material: The term does not include any pollutant discharged into the water primarily to dispose of waste, as that activity is regulated under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Id. In explaining this exception, the Corps stated: 32 During the two years of experience with the Section 404 program, several industrial and municipal discharges of solid waste materials have been brought to our attention which technically fit within our definition of fill material but which were intended to be regulated under the NPDES program. These include the disposal of waste materials such as sludge, garbage, trash, and debris in water. In some cases involving the disposal of these types of material in water, the final result may be a landfill even though the primary purpose of the discharge is waste disposal. 33 The Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency feel that the initial decision relating to this type of discharge should be through the NPDES program. We have, therefore, modified our definition of fill material to exclude those pollutants that are discharged into water primarily to dispose of waste. 34 42 Fed.Reg. 37,122 (1977). 35 Moreover, the layers of gravel and low-permeability soil, as well as the synthetic liner that would underlie the solid waste in RII's proposed landfill, do not constitute fill material because their primary purpose is not to replace an aquatic area with dry land or to change the bottom elevation of a waterbody, see 33 C.F.R. § 323.2(e), but rather to serve as a leak detection and collection system. 36 Second, the siting, design and construction of a solid waste landfill on a wetlands area is specifically regulated under the RCRA by the EPA and states with solid waste permit programs approved by the EPA. The Corps' interpretation of its jurisdiction under section 404 of the CWA is unreasonable because it creates a situation in which the Corps on the one hand, and an RCRA-approved state regulatory program on the other, would make the same wetlands-impact determinations, using the same criteria, with potentially inconsistent results. This regulatory overlap is inconsistent with the Corps' own regulations, which provide that [t]he Corps believes that state and federal regulatory programs should complement rather than duplicate one another. 33 C.F.R. § 320.1(a)(5). 37 The Corps expressed its concern with such overlapping regulations in a March 19, 1984 letter from William R. Gianelli, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, to William Ruckelshaus, the Administrator of the EPA: 38 This follows up on discussions our agencies have had over the years about the proper way to regulate garbage disposal and other waste disposal in waters of the United States. 39 .... 40 EPA has many solid waste responsibilities under its RCRA programs and has developed expertise in that area. Army has very limited expertise. Hence, we would have to establish duplicative expertise which may well result in policies and technical decisions which differ from those of EPA. It would not be in the best interests of Government for EPA to work with the States under RCRA under one policy and Army to operate a 404 permit program for garbage disposal on a different basis. It is logical to identify regulations of garbage disposal with EPA's current and historic mission. It strains reason to have the Army Corps of Engineers, with its primary military and navigation missions, to lead this garbage disposal regulation. 41 This letter was ultimately followed by a 1986 Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and the Corps regarding which agency would have interim jurisdiction over the disposal of solid waste until the EPA promulgated final rules to implement the RCRA. The Memorandum of Agreement provides that when the EPA promulgates its final rules, which it did on October 9, 1991, the responsibility for the program becomes the sole purview of the EPA and the affected states. See 51 Fed.Reg. 8871 (1986). 42 As one might surmise from the foregoing discussion, section 404 of the CWA and the applicable provisions of the RCRA can be harmonized to give effect to each while preserving their sense and purpose. Watt, 451 U.S. at 267, 101 S.Ct. 1673. Accordingly, we hold that when a proposed project affecting a wetlands area is a solid waste landfill, the EPA (or the approved state program), rather than the Corps, will have permit authority under the RCRA. If the project that will affect a wetlands area is not a solid waste landfill and the project involves the discharge of dredged or fill material, the Corps will have permit authority under section 404 of the CWA. See Trident Seafoods Corp., 92 F.3d at 862 (stating that statutes should be harmonized if possible). This harmonization is consistent with the sense of the CWA that discharges of solid waste materials are beyond the scope of section 404, see 42 Fed.Reg. 37,122 (1977), and avoids unnecessary duplication of federal and state efforts in the area of wetlands protection.