Opinion ID: 183646
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Judicial Construction

Text: Without any agency interpretation of areas under Federal jurisdiction to which we must defer, we proceed to interpret the term. We agree with the district court that River Watch's proposed construction of § 9(a)(2)(B) is not tenable. The potential for overbreadth posed by interpreting areas under Federal jurisdiction as including all waters of the United States is simply too large. The CWA, which defines waters of the United States, provides for far-reaching regulatory authority based on the evident breadth of congressional concern for protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. at 133, 106 S.Ct. 455. Therefore, under River Watch's proposed construction, without any discussion or explanation, the FWS would immediately gain coextensive regulatory authority with the Corps. The broad sweep of the Corps' authority to regulate was sharply debated in Rapanos, in which the Court split 4-1-4 with regard to the limits of the Corps' regulatory jurisdiction of non-adjacent wetlands on privately-owned land. The plurality opinion characterized the Corps' ability to regulate as overly expansive, noting that the Corps consciously sought to extend its authority to the farthest reaches of the commerce power. Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 738, 126 S.Ct. 2208 (citing 42 Fed.Reg. 37,122, 37,127 (1977)). Even Justice Kennedy's concurrence is based on his concern about the potential over-breadth of the Corps' regulations. Id. at 782, 126 S.Ct. 2208 (holding that the Corps has jurisdiction on the basis of adjacency to regulate wetlands adjacent to navigable-in-fact waters, but must establish a significant nexus on a case-by-case basis if the wetlands are adjacent to nonnavigable tributaries). In City of Healdsburg, 496 F.3d at 999-1000, the court found that Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Rapanos provides the controlling rule of law for our ase. We did not, however, foreclose the argument that Clean Water Act jurisdiction may also be established under the plurality's standard. Moreover, River Watch's reading could arguably be expanded to apply to private lands which are subject to any sort of federal regulatory jurisdiction by any federal statute, i.e. everywhere. Such an interpretation would make the third prong of § 9(a)(2)(B) mere surplusage. Although the first two prongs of § 9(a)(2)(B) apply to areas under Federal jurisdiction, the third prong applies to any other area. The third prong's prohibitions apply only when the person acts in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(2)(B). This prohibition makes sense only if non-criminal trespassers who damage or destroy a listed plant on private lands are generally not liable under the ESA. River Watch argues that this concern is far-fetched and that we may narrowly hold that waters of the United States are areas under Federal jurisdiction. We are not convinced that it would be prudent to create such a piecemeal expansion of the term areas under Federal jurisdiction, especially when the FWS has not yet squarely addressed the issue. While we recognize that areas under Federal jurisdiction or federal lands surely includes areas under the control of the federal government, i.e. through ownership, leasehold-estates, or conservation easements, we do not interpret areas under Federal jurisdiction to encompass wetlands that are adjacent to navigable waters and therefore subject to only the regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps. In sum, we hold that River Watch has not established that the plain language of the ESA mandates that waters of the United States are areas under Federal jurisdiction. We agree with the United States that the term is ambiguous, but we conclude that, thus far, the FWS has not promulgated regulations or offered any guidance materials specifically addressing this issue to which we must defer. We thus interpret areas under Federal jurisdiction as not including all of the waters of the United States as defined by the CWA and its regulations. Although our ruling will constitute binding law, we recognize that under Brand X, we are not the authoritative interpreter of areas under Federal jurisdiction. See 545 U.S. at 983, 125 S.Ct. 2688. The FWS might have good reason to issue regulations or guidance that more thoroughly addresses this issue at some later date, and our decision does not foreclose the possibility that the FWS might adopt some version of the statutory construction set forth by River Watch. See id. After all, the objective of the ESA, to provide a program and means to conserve endangered species and their ecosystems, 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b), is surely intertwined with that of the CWA, to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a).