Opinion ID: 423927
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Regulations and the Clean Water Act.

Text: 72 Having determined that the federal defendants' interpretation is consistent with the Corps' wetlands definition, we must consider whether the definition is consistent with the statute and the Constitution. Again in reviewing the statutory question, we must keep in mind the principle that an agency's interpretation of the statute that it administers is to be accorded significant deference. Ford Motor, supra; Quarles, supra. We conclude that the federal defendants' interpretation of this complex statute is sufficiently reasonable to preclude us from substituting our judgment for the agencies'. See DuPont, supra, 430 U.S. at 134, 97 S.Ct. at 978; Natural Resources Defense Council, supra, 421 U.S. at 87, 95 S.Ct. at 1485. 73 As the district court recognized, Congress had lofty goals in enacting the CWA: The objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (1976). Congress expressly stated its intent that the term 'navigable waters' be given the broadest possible constitutional interpretation.... 1 Legislative History, at 178 (Senate consideration of the Conference Report on S. 2770, Oct. 4, 1972); see also 1 Legislative History, at 250-51 (House Consideration of same, Oct. 4, 1972). 30 The report of the Senate Committee on Public Works submitted with S. 2770 explained the need for a broad definition of navigable waters in order to control the discharge of pollution at its source: 74 The control strategy of the Act extends to navigable waters. The definition of this term means the navigable waters of the United States, portions thereof, and includes the territorial seas and the Great Lakes. Through narrow interpretation of the definition of interstate waters the implementation [of the] 1965 Act was severely limited. Water moves in hydrological cycles and it is essential that discharge of pollutants be controlled at the source. Therefore, reference to the control requirements must be made to the navigable waters, portions thereof, and their tributaries. 75 2 Legislative History, at 1495 (emphasis added); see also Leslie Salt Co. v. Froehlke, 578 F.2d 742 (9th Cir.1978). 76 Attempts by the House to limit the statute's reach to waters that were in fact navigable were rejected in 1977. See 3 Legislative History, at 281 (H.Conf.Rep. No. 830). 31 When Congress rejected the attempts to limit the Corps' jurisdiction in 1977, it was well aware of the extension of that jurisdiction beyond the traditional definition of navigable waters, as well as the Corps' proposed revision of its wetlands definition. 32 See 4 Legislative History, at 920-22 (statement of Sen. Baker during Senate debate over Bentsen amendment, August 4, 1977); 3 Legislative History, at 347-48 (statement of Rep. Roberts, member of Conference Committee, during House debate, December 15, 1977). In fact, Congress repeatedly recognized the importance of protecting wetlands if the nation was to realize the statutory goal of restoring the chemical and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Senator Muskie, one of the primary sponsors of the CWA, explained: 77 There has been considerable discussion of the provisions of section 404 of the act, much of which has been related to the suspicions and fears with respect to that section, and little of which has been related to substantive solutions to real problems while providing an adequate regulatory effort to assure some degree of wetlands protection. There is no question that the systematic destruction of the Nation's wetlands is causing serious, permanent ecological damage. The wetlands and bays, estuaries and deltas are the Nation's most biologically active areas. They represent a principal source of food supply. They are the spawning grounds for much of the fish and shellfish which populate the oceans, and they are passages for numerous upland game fish. They also provide nesting areas for a myriad of species of birds and wildlife. 78 The unregulated destruction of these areas is a matter which needs to be corrected and which implementation of section 404 has attempted to achieve. 79 4 Legislative History, at 869 (remarks of Sen. Muskie during Senate debate on S. 1952, Aug. 4, 1977). 80 While there were statements during the 1972 deliberations to the effect that the CWA was not intended to extend beyond currently navigable waters, 1 Legislative History, at 178, 250 (statements of Sen. Muskie and Rep. Dingell), those statements were rendered virtually meaningless by Congress' refusal to restrict the definition in 1977. The EPA and the Corps expanded the wetlands definition in order to control the discharge of pollutants at the source. We cannot say that the EPA's application of the definition to areas, like the Lake Long Tract, which experience significant flooding during a substantial portion of the year and serve as major overflow or backwater areas for the nation's rivers, or its conclusion that the discharge of pollution into such areas would have a significant effect on the nation's waters, was an unreasonable application of the statute. The EPA's decision is therefore entitled to our respect. 81