WHERE'S WALDO?1 FINDING FEDERAL WETLANDS AFTER THE

16 Pages·2006·2.85 MB·English

Reprinted from Zoning and Planning Law Report, Volume 29, No. 8, with permission of Thomson West. For more information
about this publication, please visit www.west.thomson.com.
Vol. 29, No. 8 September 2006
WHERE’S WALDO?1 FINDING FEDERAL WETLANDS
AFTER THE RAPANOS DECISION
Michael S. Klein, Michael W. Klemens, and Dwight H. Merriam*
Editor’s note: We are especially pleased to have this trio of highly-regarded co-authors address the Rapanos decision. Mi-
chael Klein was trained as a soil scientist and a biologist and is a Professional Wetland Scientist. His practice is largely fo-
cused on wetlands delineation and ecological assessment. Dr. Michael Klemens, Senior Conservation Scientist at the Wildlife
Conservation Society, and co-author of the remarkable Nature in Fragments: The Legacy of Sprawl (2005), is a preeminent
herpetologist who has virtually established the national standards for the protection of vernal pools (see, Calhoun and Kl-
emens, Best Development Practices: Conserving Pool-Breeding Amphibians in Residential and Commercial Developments
in the Northeastern United States (2002)). Dwight Merriam is a frequent author of articles for this publication and widely
recognized as one of the country’s leading land-use lawyers. His most recent book, co-edited with Mary Massaron Ross, is
Eminent Domain Use and Abuse: Kelo in Context (2006), published by the American Bar Association. Messrs. Klein, Kl-
emens, and Merriam are good friends who have worked together on many projects for private property owners, governments,
and environmental advocacy groups. They bring to the subject a balanced and synoptic view of how to implement the Rapanos
decision, to the extent anyone can at this point, in the context of existing federal law and wetland science.
On June 19th in the Rapanos v. U.S. decision,2 the should affirm the decisions of the Sixth Circuit. In the
U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further middle stood Justice Kennedy, who took the position
proceedings two Sixth Circuit opinions holding that that Corps jurisdiction over the wetlands required a
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had jurisdiction
significant nexus between the wetlands and tradi-
over wetlands adjacent to a tributary of traditional
tional navigable water, a test requiring a case-by-case
navigable waters. There was no majority on the Court.
analysis of whether the wetlands significantly affect
Four justices, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, held
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
that there had to be a relatively continuous permanent
traditional navigable water. He concurred in remand-
surface flow and connection to traditional navigable
waters for the Corps to have jurisdiction. These four ing because the lower courts had not applied the sig-
wanted to vacate the lower court decisions. Four dis- nificant nexus test. Thereby the Scalia Four became
senters, led by Justice Stevens, believed the Court the plurality and the cases were remanded.
This publication was created to provide you with accurate and authoritative information concerning the subject matter covered; however, this publication was not necessarily
prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is
not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
40392965
Introduction The Evolving Tension
Stakeholders on all sides awaited the Rapanos decision with The origins of this line-drawing problem are found in
great expectations. Dozens of amicus briefs were filed. The the CWA which makes it unlawful to discharge dredged
Rapanos case and its companion, Carabell, provided the or fill material into “navigable waters” without a permit,
Court with an opportunity to assess the reach of the Clean 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1311(a), 1342(a), and defines “navigable
Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.A. § 1251 et seq., and to rec- waters” as the “waters of the United States, including the
territorial seas,” 33 U.S.C.A. § 1362(7). Congress enacted
oncile the tension that had developed as a result of two prior
the CWA to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
decisions and the long-running debate over where to draw
and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C.A.
the line between federal jurisdiction of wetlands and the
§ 1251, et seq. Remarkably, the CWA when enacted in 1972
unregulated areas, probably most accurately referred to as
did not state expressly that it regulated wetlands.
“terrestrial portions of the landscape.” The term “uplands,”
Complicating the line-drawing problem has been the
commonly used by lay people to identify the unregulated
non-traditional definition of navigability first used by the
areas, has become synonymous with non-wetlands, but it
EPA, which did not require navigability in fact, and the
actually is a term referring to landscape position. The op-
subsequent change in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
posite of uplands would be bottomlands or lowlands. There
(Corps) regulations in 1977 extending jurisdiction to all
are upland wetlands, so it is best to avoid the term “upland”
wetlands that are adjacent to navigable waters as traditional-
in describing the unregulated area.
ly defined, all tributaries of traditional navigable waters, and
This article is about where we are, how we got here, all interstate waters and their tributaries, navigable in fact or
what is likely to happen next, and how we can as a practi- not. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway,
cal matter do business during the next several months and 392 F. Supp. 685 (D.D.C. 1975); 33 C.F.R. § 328.4. That is,
perhaps years which are certain to be an uncertain time there need not even be enough water to float a canoe for the
in terms of providing any definitive guidance on how the water to be jurisdictional or to be the basis for jurisdiction
elusive line should be drawn.3 over adjacent wetlands.
“Where’s Waldo?” is the best way to describe the Already, from this brief description, it is apparent that
current search for federal wetlands. Martin Handford, a there is room for much debate. What is a tributary? What
British illustrator, created the character distinguished by is navigable? What is adjacent? Is subsurface flow a direct
a red and white striped shirt, glasses, walking stick and connection? The CWA gives a general definition of jurisdic-
tion, and the EPA and Corps interpret that definition through
bobble hat. Waldo, or Wally as he is sometimes known, is
regulation and their decision-making process. The EPA and
always somewhere in a large illustration among hundreds
the Corps have construed the CWA expansively.
of other characters, often with objects he frequently loses.
Children — and the adults who are fortunate enough to be Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions stand as bookends for
reading with them — have the task of finding Waldo and the volumes of interpretations legislative, administrative, and
judicial. The first in time is U.S. v. Riverside Bayview Homes,
his many lost items. The Rapanos decision reminds Wal-
Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 106 S. Ct. 455, 88 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1985),
do aficionados of Where’s Wally 3: The Fantastic Journey
in which the Court held in an environmentally-friendly deci-
in which there is an illustration of hundreds of Wallys, but
sion that there was jurisdiction under federal law over those
only one real one, with a shoe missing no less.
wetlands “adjacent” to traditional navigable waters.
The Riverside Bayview Homes case arose out of a Sixth
Editorial Director
Circuit holding that wetlands not actually flooded by the
William D. Bremer, Esq.
navigable-in-fact Lake St. Clair less than a mile away were
Contributing Editors
not subject to regulation. The Supreme Court thought other-
Patricia E. Salkin, Esq.
wise and reversed the Sixth Circuit, holding that there was
Lora Lucero, Esq.
federal jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands, even wetlands
Electronic Composition
not immediately alongside navigable waters. Specialty Composition/Rochester Desktop Publishing
The Court was mindful of the problems involved in
Zoning and Planning Law Report (USPS# pending) is issued
determining adjacency: “the transition from water to solid
monthly, except in August, 11 times per year; published and copy-
ground is not necessarily or even typically an abrupt one. righted by Thomson/West, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526,
Rather between open waters and dry land may lie shallows, St. Paul, MN 55164-0526. Application to mail at Periodical rate is
marshes, mud flats, swamps, bogs — in short, a huge array pending at St. Paul, MN.
of areas that are not wholly aquatic but nevertheless fall POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Zoning and Planning
short of being dry land. Where on this continuum to find the Law Report, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul MN
55164-0526.
limit of ‘waters’ is far from obvious.” 106 S. Ct. at 462.
Importantly, the Court recognized that adjacent wet- © 2006 Thomson/West
ISSN 0161-8113
lands may be “integral parts of the aquatic environment”
Editorial Offices: 50 Broad Street East, Rochester, NY 14694
even where the water in them does not come from the
Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone]
WHERE’S WALDO? Copyright © 2006 by Martin Handford. Re- adjacent jurisdictional waters. 106 S. Ct. at 463. The Customer Service: 610 Opperman Drive, Eagan, MN 55123
produced by permission of the publisher, Candlewick Press, Inc., Court essentially recognized a functional, ecological Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Cambridge, MA. definition of federal wetlands.
2 3
The problems inherent in defining wetlands themselves Just a year after Riverside Bayview Homes, the Corps
and more particularly in applying the adjacency rule were found itself having to determine whether it had jurisdiction
apparent to the Court. One of the effects of the adjacency over wetlands whose only linkage to “waters of the United
rule is that small or seasonal wetlands and perhaps even ter- States” was a consequence of migratory birds potentially
restrial portions of the landscape might be swept up by the using those waters. The Corps defined “navigable waters,”
rule and subjected to jurisdiction.
to include “wetlands… which are or could be used by inter-
Of course, it may well be that not every adjacent state or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.”
wetland is of great importance to the environment of 33 C.F.R. § 328 (a)(3)(1). This refinement of the definition,
adjoining bodies of water. But the existence of such commonly known as the Migratory Bird Rule, was called
cases does not seriously undermine the Corps’ deci- pejoratively the Reasonable Duck Rule by some because of
sion to define all adjacent wetlands as “waters.” If it is the “are or could be used” language — if a reasonable duck
reasonable for the Corps to conclude that in the major-
flying over (interstate traveler, right?) an isolated wetland
ity of cases, adjacent wetlands have significant effects
could use it, it was subject to federal jurisdiction, whether or
on water quality and the aquatic ecosystem, its defini-
not the duck chose to make a rest stop there. One wonders
tion can stand. That the definition may include some
about the ducks in Tony Soprano’s pool during the fall mi-
wetlands that are not significantly intertwined with
gration and the potential for federal jurisdiction.4
the ecosystem of adjacent waterways is of little mo-
The Migratory Bird Rule became the Maypole around
ment, for where it appears that a wetland covered by
the Corps’ definition is in fact lacking in importance which property rights advocates and environmentalists
to the aquatic environment – or where its importance danced, while body checking each other in much litiga-
is outweighed by other values – the Corps may always tion, lobbying, and attempts at administrative rulemaking.
allow development of the wetland for other uses sim- Whether small pockets of isolated wetlands should ever
ply by issuing a permit. (106 S. Ct. at 463, n. 9.) be regulated under federal law at all became the galvaniz-
ing issue for the debate about the Corps’ expansive defini-
Fact is, scientifically, terrestrial portions of the landscape
tion of waters of the United States under the CWA.
may be essential to ecological sustainability of wetland bi-
ota and ecosystems, as illustrated in this diagram showing The development community and the property rights
how a reptile traverses and uses wetland and nonwetland movement found the right case in Solid Waste Agency of
areas as part of its annual migratory cycle. Turtles and their Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
friends, such as salamanders, don’t always observe legis- 531 U.S. 159, 121 S. Ct. 675, 148 L. Ed. 2d 576 (2001)
lated jurisdictional boundaries.
Editorial Director
William D. Bremer, Esq.
Contributing Editors
Patricia E. Salkin, Esq.
Lora Lucero, Esq.
Electronic Composition
Specialty Composition/Rochester Desktop Publishing
Zoning and Planning Law Report (USPS# pending) is issued
monthly, except in August, 11 times per year; published and copy-
righted by Thomson/West, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526,
St. Paul, MN 55164-0526. Application to mail at Periodical rate is
pending at St. Paul, MN.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Zoning and Planning
Law Report, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul MN
Annual use of wetlands across the landscape by 55164-0526.
spotted turtles (Clemmys guttata).
© 2006 Thomson/West
ISSN 0161-8113
Klemens, M. W., M.F. Shansky and H. J. Gruner. 2006. From Editorial Offices: 50 Broad Street East, Rochester, NY 14694
Planning to Action: Biodiversity Conservation in Connecticut Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Customer Service: 610 Opperman Drive, Eagan, MN 55123
Towns. MCA Technical Paper No. 10, Metropolitan Conservation
Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York.
2 3
(SWANCC, sounds like “swank”). Public agencies in tory technical criteria, and thus are potentially subject to
Northern Cook County decided to develop a solid waste jurisdiction, are exempt in some way.
landfill in an abandoned gravel pit. As gravel pits com-
And Along Came Rapanos and Carabell
monly are, it was dotted with several ponds created as a
result of the excavation. The Corps initially determined Two cases from the Sixth Circuit came along about the
that these were not waters of the United States because same time after the failed efforts to fashion an accept-
they had no hydrological connection with other waters. able rule. Given their facts and the holdings below, it
They were truly isolated. These were intrastate and non- seemed they might be just what the Court needed to
navigable waters. shine some light on the Waldo wetlands so that everyone
But along came that migratory duck who looked down – developers, property rights advocates, regulators, and
and reasonably decided he or she could or would use one conservationists – would be able to determine and agree
of those ponds for a brief respite. We can joke about it, on the limits of jurisdiction.
but there was a significant breeding colony of Great Blue Rapanos
Herons from the region which called these ponds home.
John and Judith Rapanos own various properties in three
When the Corps learned that, it determined that under
different Michigan Counties.5 Their holdings total 175
the Migratory Bird Rule it had jurisdiction. The Corps
acres and all are adjacent to nonnavigable tributaries.
denied the request to fill 30 acres of the isolated wetlands.
The Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County sued. Some of the properties are as far as 20 miles away from
Interestingly, the preamble to the 1987 rule making by the navigable waters. However, all three properties have
Corps specifically notes that ponds in operating gravel wetlands with direct surface water connections to vari-
pits are not subject to jurisdiction. ous tributaries.
The Seventh Circuit held that there was an impact Rapanos started work on one of the properties, clear-
on interstate commerce (interstate ducks, of course) ing and grading to get the land ready for development of
and found that the Corps had jurisdiction. The Supreme a retail center. State regulators identified wetlands on the
Court reversed, holding that the CWA did not authorize property, ordered Rapanos to do a wetlands delineation,
jurisdiction over ponds not adjacent to open water. and directed him to apply for a permit.
In distinguishing Riverside Bayview Homes, the Rapanos had a wetland scientist prepare the delinea-
Court said that there was a “significant nexus between tion. The consultant identified about 50 acres of wet-
the wetlands and ‘navigable waters’” in the earlier deci- lands, and when Rapanos saw the delineation, he fired
sion and that Riverside Bayview Homes did not address the consultant and told him to destroy the report. By
isolated wetlands. 121 S.Ct. at 680. then Rapanos had damaged or destroyed 54 acres of the
various wetlands without permits.
Developers and the property rights movement were
delighted with SWANCC. It seemed like a good basis John Rapanos was criminally prosecuted, found
to drive the Corps to higher ground. However, a half- guilty and lost his appeals. Eventually he paid a fine of
dozen of the Circuit Courts chose to interpret SWANCC $185,000, received three years’ probation, and was re-
narrowly, holding that the decision only invalidated the quired to perform 200 hours of community service. The
Migratory Bird Rule and that isolated wetlands with no judge who sentenced him was sympathetic: “We have a
adjacency or any other type of connection to navigable very disagreeable person who insists on his Constitu-
waters were not jurisdictional. That did little to reduce tional rights. This is the kind of person the Constitution
the reach of the Corps’ jurisdiction. Only the Fifth Cir- was passed to protect.” It was the “sand man” case to
cuit was willing to find more in SWANCC, interpreting this judge because all he saw Rapanos doing was mov-
the decision to limit jurisdiction to wetlands adjacent to ing sand on his property: “I’m finding that the average
open bodies of navigable water and navigable-in-fact United States citizen is incredulous that it can be a crime
waters. In re Needham, 354 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 2003). for which the government insists on prison for a person
to move sand from one end of his property to another
Attempts by the Corps and EPA at rulemaking af-
end of his property.”6
ter SWANCC failed and were abandoned. The standoff
between the property rights movement and the environ- There was also a civil prosecution, which is what
mentalists – the irresistible force and the immovable eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The fed-
object – continued. Drawing the line between jurisdic- eral trial court found for the United States, holding that
tional wetlands and non-jurisdictional wetlands stood the government had established that the three criteria
unresolved. Uplands (oops – “terrestrial portions of the for federal wetlands – periodic inundation or saturation,
landscape”) or non-wetlands are never jurisdictional. hydrophytic plants, and poorly drained soils – were met
The issue was and is whether areas that meet the manda- for the areas disturbed.
4 5
The Sixth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling, The Supreme Court Decision
opining that CWA jurisdiction required a significant
The plurality
nexus between the wetlands and navigable waters and
that such nexus was satisfied by the presence of a hydro- The plurality opinion (the first “4” of the 4-1-4 deci-
logical connection. “Waters sharing a hydrological con- sion), authored by Justice Scalia (joined by the Chief
nection are interconnected, sharing a symbiotic relation- Justice, and Justices Thomas and Alito), ruled that the
phrase “navigable waters” gives the Corps and EPA
ship.” U.S. v. Rapanos, 376 F.3d 629, 59 Fed. R. Serv. 3d
jurisdiction over only “‘relatively permanent, standing
341, 2004 FED App. 0239P (6th Cir. 2004).
or flowing bodies of water,’ [which might include] ‘sea-
Carabell
sonal’ rivers that carry water continuously except during
June and Keith Carabell are the owners of a parcel of ‘dry months’ but not intermittent or ephemeral streams.”
about 20 acres in Chesterfield Township, Michigan. Of 126 S.Ct. at 2242 (Justice Kennedy’s summation of the
plurality conclusion).
those 20 acres, about 16 are wetlands, most of it forested
and formerly part of Lake St. Clair. It is a mile, more or The plurality fashioned a two-part test for estab-
less, from the present lakeshore. lishing jurisdiction: the adjacent channel contains a
relatively permanent body of water connected to tradi-
Some years ago a ditch was dug along one side of
tional interstate navigable waters; and the wetland has a
the property and the soil from that ditch dumped next
continuous surface connection with that water, making
to it creating a berm, a raised bank. The soils that were
it difficult to determine where the “water” ends and the
excavated and are now in the berm contain clay which
“wetland” begins.
effectively barricades surface water in the forested area
and keeps it from draining to the ditch. Any water in the The dissent
forested wetlands stays there, generally does not flow
Four justices dissented (the end “4” in the 4-1-4). In an
on the surface into the ditch, and does not make its way
opinion authored by Justice Stevens (joined by Justices
into Lake St. Clair. It is absorbed in the soil of the wet-
Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer), the dissenters were of
lands. There is no surface hydrological connection. But,
the view that the Court’s earlier unanimous ruling in
yes, the ditch is connected – it goes to the Sutherland-
Riverside Bayview Homes squarely controlled these
Oeming Drain, which discharges into the Auvase Creek,
two cases and that the Court should uphold all of the
which flows on into Lake St. Clair within the drainage
existing federal protections for tributaries and wetlands.
system of the Great Lakes.
The dissenters disagreed with the plurality opinion that
The Carabells sought to build a 130-unit attached res-
“adjacent to” means there must be a “continuous surface
idential project. When they received a negative response
connection to” other water in order for the wetland to
from the Michigan Department of Environmental Qual-
fall under the Corps’ jurisdiction. The dissenters would
ity, they reduced the project to 112 units with 12.2 acres
have affirmed the unanimous decisions from the Sixth
of wetlands fill, along with mitigation to restore the rest
Circuit.
of the wetlands, 3.74 acres.
The swing vote
The state expressed its intent to grant the permit hav-
ing found that the Carabells’ wetlands were isolated and The swing vote by Justice Kennedy, in an opinion at
therefore not jurisdictional. The EPA objected to the times resonant with the dissent, ultimately sided with
state’s determination. The Corps denied the § 404 per- the Scalia Four in vacating the decisions from the Sixth
mit because, among other reasons, the forested wetlands Circuit and remanding the cases back for review. Justice
provided valuable seasonal habitat for aquatic organ- Kennedy would join neither the plurality nor the dissent
isms and year-round habitat for terrestrial organisms. because neither would require a “significant nexus”
The Corps and EPA believed that if the wetlands were between the wetlands and the navigable waters, which
destroyed, it could result in an increased risk of erosion he felt was important. Justice Kennedy found virtually
and degradation of water quality in the drain, creek, and nothing meritorious in Justice Scalia’s substantive posi-
ultimately Lake St. Clair. Keith Carabell was furious. tion. Kennedy would not buy into the plurality’s two-
He felt that the federal government taking jurisdiction part test and could not accept that the SWANCC decision
over this forested wetland was the equivalent of “Cuba supported the requirement for a continuous surface-wa-
or Russia or some other despotic government deciding ter connection.
what’s going to happen with private property.”7 The Unlike the plurality, Justice Kennedy believed the
Federal trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the Corps’ definition of adjacency was reasonable. Yet,
Corps’ jurisdiction. contrary to the dissent, Justice Kennedy would not have
4 5
the Court defer to the Corps’ interpretation of the CWA that people depend on for drinking water and more, with-
permitting federal regulation of all wetlands alongside a out protecting the waters that flow into them.”9
ditch or drain, however remote and insubstantial, which The Pacific Legal Foundation issued this release:
eventually flow into traditional navigable waters. Justice “We’re pleased that the Court has rejected the lower
Kennedy would remand for consideration of whether the courts’ rulings. The Court is clearly troubled by the fed-
Rapanos’ and Carabells’ wetlands possess a significant eral government’s view that it can regulate every pond,
nexus with navigable waters. In his view, the wetlands puddle, and ditch in our country. We are encouraged by
in both cases could be subject to the Corps’ jurisdiction. this decision and believe it represents a good first step
Justice Kennedy’s nexus test will probably be in play in toward common sense regulation.”10
how the lower courts interpret the Clean Water Act in the
M. Reed Hopper of the Pacific Legal Foundation who
future because his test has at least the implicit support of
argued for Rapanos, acknowledged that at best his side
the four dissenting Justices.
got maybe half a loaf: “Everyone is disappointed that
The rueful Chief Justice the court did not command a clear majority on defining
the extent” of the Corps’s jurisdiction.11
The Chief Justice freely expressed his disappointment
“Unless this uncertainty is properly corrected, the
that the Court could not reach a consensus or a bright
impact on our nation’s waters will be devastating,” of-
line rule: “It is unfortunate that no opinion commands
fered Jim Murphy, wetlands counsel for the National
a majority of the court. … What is unusual in this in-
Wildlife Federation.12
stance, perhaps, is how readily the situation could have
The National Association of Homebuilders, siding
been avoided.” 126 S.Ct. at 2236. Perhaps he was refer-
with the property owners, said the decision was a “step
ring to Kennedy holding out and becoming the swing
forward” in the efforts to curb the expansive view of
vote or thinking the administration should have promul-
jurisdiction. “There must be limits to how far the fed-
gated regulations after SWANCC.8
eral government can reach upstream,” said NAHB CEO
Other pointed views from the Court Jerry Howard.13
“Rather than refining its view of its authority in light Timothy Searchinger, a senior attorney with Environ-
of our decision in SWANCC, and providing guidance mental Defense, is quoted after the decision: “Justice
meriting deference under our generous standards, the Kennedy agrees that wetlands in the Upper Midwest
Corps chose to adhere to its essentially boundless view can protect against vast water quality problems in the
of the scope of its power. The upshot today is another de- Gulf of Mexico. What his opinion seeks is that the U.S.
feat for the agency.” John G. Roberts Jr., Chief Justice, Army Corps of Engineers set forth that proof. The proof
in his concurring opinion, 126 S.Ct. at 2236. is there, and when it is presented, I am confident that the
reach of the Clean Water Act will change very little.”14
“Lower courts and regulated entities will now have
to feel their way on a case-by-case basis.” Chief Justice Malcolm Stewart, who as Assistant Solicitor General
John G. Roberts Jr., 126 S.Ct. at 2236. wrote the briefs for the government in Rapanos and Cara-
bell, said the day after the decision: “It is more advanta-
Justice Breyer, with whom the Chief Justice agrees,
geous to do rulemaking now after the Supreme Court has
tasked the Corps to “…write new regulations, and
issued more nuanced guidance on the subject.”15
speedily so….” 126 S.Ct. at 2266.
In the view of Robert Perciasepe, Chief Operating
The Immediate Aftermath
Officer, National Audubon Society, “the U.S. Supreme
The 4-1-4 decision left all sides, were they honest with Court has created chaos for protection of over 50% of
themselves, quite unsatisfied. That didn’t stop declara- the nation’s waters today.”16
tions of victory, however, and didn’t restrain anyone ac- “Justice Kennedy’s opinion imposes a new admin-
cessible to reporters from talking. Here’s a sampling of istrative burden that potentially creates a major, real-
what was said: world hurdle for federal regulators seeking to protect
Rebecca R. Wodder, president of American Rivers, wetlands. Fortunately, nothing in the ruling prevents
urged Congress to take action: “The Supreme Court Congress from re-affirming its intent to fully protect
leaves protection of clean water law in this country in a wetlands and other waters under the Act,” was the view
horrible muddle with this decision. While Justice Ken- of Leslie Carothers, President of the Environmental Law
nedy’s opinion keeps us from going over the precipice, Institute.17
dangling on the edge of every last wetlands case isn’t a Richard Lazarus, a Georgetown University law pro-
long-term solution. Congress must step in and confirm, fessor said simply: “It’s really a bizarre situation.”18 He
once and for all, that you can’t protect the rivers and lakes also said he believes: “The practical effect is that some
6 7
bright-line rules that have been applied for decades The Tests Set Forth in the Decision
haven’t been thrown out … but have had a significant
Three tests are evident.
cloud set over them by Justice Kennedy.”19
Dissent
Keith Carabell, age 79, observed: “I’m not sure I’ll
live to see the end of this.”20 The dissenting opinion offered the expansive view that
“My hope is that the Army Corps of Engineers will jurisdiction encompasses wetlands adjacent to “all iden-
tifiable tributaries that ultimately drain into large bod-
see the light and be less aggressive in interpreting the
ies of water,” including excavated drainage ditches and
Clean Water Act,” said Kent Jeffreys, ICSC’s Legisla-
temporary impoundments. The dissent probably has no
tive Counsel. “If the Corps does go this route it’s good
impact, at least not with wetlands. What happens to the
news for ICSC members because it will streamline their
4-1-4 split in other cases is another question. The dis-
process and save money and time.”21
sent may pull Kennedy back into the fold. In terms of
“There is a developing consensus that things are
defining wetlands, in the context of this decision, they
probably more confusing now than before the opinion
are simply the losers.
was issued,” was the assessment of Stephen R. Brown of
Plurality
Missoula Montana, chair of the Water Quality and Wet-
lands Committee of the ABA Section of Environment, The plurality opinion is that the federal government has
Energy and Resources.22 jurisdiction over land adjacent to a “relatively perma-
Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer Jon nent body of water” which has a “continuous surface
Devine said: “The court’s decision today muddies the connection with that water, making it difficult to deter-
water for applying the law.”23 He called for Congress “to mine where the water ends and the wetland begins.”
reaffirm that the 34-year-old statute [the CWA] protects Kennedy swing vote
all of the nation’s waters, because all of those waters are
Justice Kennedy’s middle ground created the plu-
connected.”24
rality when he concurred with the four other Justices
Doug Kendall, executive director of the Community
joining with Justice Scalia, but Kennedy would limit
Rights Counsel sees the glass more than half full: “Five
jurisdiction to “permanent bodies of water” and juris-
justices of the Supreme Court wrote or joined opinions
diction over remote tributaries only where they have a
that support broad protection for rivers, streams, and “significant nexus” to navigable water.
wetlands under the Clean Water Act.”25
Delineation of Wetlands after Rapanos
“We appreciate the court’s guidance on the scope of
Current rules
our authority,” said David Hewitt, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers spokesperson, with apparent sincerity.26 There are currently regulations for delineating wet-
The EPA officially said after the Rapanos decision lands. An overview will put the issues of post-Rapanos
that it will “continue to use our clean water regulatory delineation in perspective.
tools to provide effective and predictable protection for The present system used by the Corps is defined in
the nation’s rivers, streams and wetlands.”27 Ducks Un- the regulations promulgated by the Corps under the
limited and other fishing and hunting organizations will CWA and in its 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual.30
be pushing the administration and Congress to set stan- The regulations define “wetlands” as “areas that are
dards to protect the natural resources they use. inundated or saturated with a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances
Michael Ford, a Phoenix environmental attorney, is of
do support, vegetation typically adapted to saturated soil
the view that “Figuring out this opinion means you have to
conditions.” In simple words, wetlands are wet enough
look at jurisprudence on how to interpret a plurality deci-
to support wetland vegetation. Not the most clear-cut
sion. Then there’s ‘significant nexus,’ which sounds like
definition, to be sure – and not consistent with some
something out of First Amendment law. It’s going to be a
early state efforts to regulate wetlands. Connecticut, for
nightmare. This is just a turn in a long and winding road.”28
example, has regulated tidal wetlands since 1969 and
A New York Times editorial volunteered that “Con- inland wetlands since 1972. Tidal wetlands are defined
gress, though, should clear up any confusion by passing by a three-part test, requiring an elevation low enough
the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act. By doing so, to be inundated by astronomical high tides, the presence
it will reiterate that it wants extremely broad protection of wetland vegetation, and an existing or former con-
for the nation’s waterways, and that it, not the judiciary, nection to tidal waters. Inland wetlands are defined by
should decide which ones are protected.”29 soil type. The issue of federal jurisdiction was further
6 7
complicated by the fact that EPA and the USDA Soil At present, anyone wanting to determine if certain
Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Con- property is regulated by the Corps as a wetland can re-
servation Service) had their own wetlands definitions quest a determination from the Corps. However, this is a
which they used for other purposes. time-consuming process exacerbated by staff shortages,
the vast geographic reach of some Corps’ offices, and
One interesting question, for which we have no an-
typical institutional inertia. Consulting wetland scien-
swer, is whether states will step in to expand their juris-
tists have stepped into this breach and there is a thriving
diction where it is perceived that Rapanos contracted it
industry encompassing field delineation and even delin-
at the federal level.
eator training. A wetland delineation submitted to the
Recognizing the tautology inherent in the regulatory Corps must include supporting documentation prepared
definition, the Corps in 1987 promulgated their “Wet- by the delineator showing which field indicators were
lands Delineation Manual.” This manual articulated the present; various districts require different levels of data
working definition and the procedures that the Corps collection and analysis.
should use in determining whether a particular site met Basically, in order for an area to be considered a wet-
that regulatory definition. land under the CWA, there must be direct or indirect evi-
dence of wetland soils, wetland vegetation and wetland
The Corps technical staff determined that the regula-
hydrology. Wetland soils are called hydric soils and the
tory definition required that a wetland show evidence of
Natural Resources Conservation Service maintains lists
wetland soils, wetland hydrology, and wetland vegeta-
of hydric soils throughout the United States. The 1987
tion, and it established “mandatory technical criteria”
Manual also includes a list of field characteristics for
for the three components. This became known as the
hydric soils, and most of these characteristics are read-
“multi-parameter test.” It should also be noted that often ily observable by a competent soil scientist in the field
one or more of the parameters can or must be inferred (or require simple field chemistry, again with observable
from the others, often due to seasonal factors. results). The identification of a hydric soil does not typi-
cally require laboratory tests or extensive data analysis.
The tautology has not been resolved. The time pres-
sure and bottom line orientation of most real estate Wetland vegetation is called hydrophytic vegeta-
deals preclude scientists from parsing the three-part tion. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published
a “National List of Plant Species that Typically Occur
test into something more scientifically valid. However,
in Wetlands.”32 Additionally, there are regional lists rec-
specific technical criteria were developed, and proce-
ognizing ecological differences among regions. In order
dures outlined, to guide a wetland scientist in making a
for a plant association to be considered hydrophytic,
determination. The Wetlands Delineation Manual even
more than 50% of the dominant species must be among
left room for professional judgment and improved sci-
the wetland indicator species. However, it is important
ence, recognizing that “problem areas” may require best
to note that so-called “facultative species,” i.e., those
professional judgment. The Corps’ internal procedures
that are equally likely to be found in a wetland or a
progressively comprehend the differences inherent in non-wetland, are considered indicator species. Thus, a
developing field criteria across a country as climatically, site with three dominant species that are wetland spe-
biologically, and geologically diverse as the United cies, four that are non-wetland, and two that are equally
States — which includes arctic and tropical climates, common in wetlands and non-wetlands would meet the
elevations ranging from 200 feet below sea level to vegetation parameter.
20,000 feet above sea level, glacial terrain, river deltas, Because hydrology is so variable seasonally, the
and volcanoes — allowing each of their regional offices hydrologic prong of the multi-parameter test often in-
considerable discretion in the precise use of the Manual volves indirect evidence. Suffice it to say that the wet-
and the mandatory technical criteria. land delineator is looking for direct or indirect evidence
of inundation of the site with surface water, or saturation
The Corps did not develop national or even regional
with ground water, for a substantial portion of the grow-
standards of education, training and experience neces-
ing season (defined variously as 7-14 days of continuous
sary to apply the criteria. In the early 1990s, the Corps
saturation or inundation). Note that there are consider-
attempted to develop a voluntary Wetland Delineator
able regional differences in interpretation of field data
Certification process.31 The Corps created a written
and application of the mandatory technical criteria
and field test and some individuals received provisional – what works in Alabama may not fly in Alaska.
certification, which was limited to the district issuing
It is also very important to be aware of the difference
the certification and adjoining districts. However, to the between a wetland and a jurisdictional wetland. Any par-
best of our knowledge, that program was abandoned. cel of land that meets the mandatory technical criteria is
Any certifications issued under that program had a “life a wetland, as defined in the 1987 Wetlands Delineation
span” of five years and have long since expired. Manual. However, not all wetlands are subject to juris-
8 9
diction under the CWA. Several types of wetlands are the authority to prevent the degradation of traditional
not jurisdictional. navigable waters. The court held that “[w]hether the wet
One large category of non-jurisdictional wetlands lands are 100 miles from a navigable waterway or 6 feet,
is called prior converted cropland — areas recognized if water from the wetlands enters a stream that flows into
by the USDA as having been so altered by agricultural the navigable waterway, the wetlands are ‘waters of the
drainage that they may be farmed and altered by farm- United States’….” U.S. v. Gerke Excavating, Inc., 412
ing operations without a Corps permit. Before you run F.3d 804, 807 (7th Cir. 2005).
out and start buying up prior converted cropland and
Assume the plurality test: “relatively permanent body
erecting condominiums, understand that at least the
of water” which has a “continuous surface connection
New England District of the Corps believes that the ju-
with that water, making it difficult to determine where
risdictional exemption ends when the farming stops and
the water ends and the wetland begins.” What does the
jurisdiction is “re-captured” when the land is proposed
wetland scientist want to determine?
to be converted to another use. The Corps has applied a
five year rule.33 Developers might think about requiring From the perspective of the wetland scientist, it is
the selling farmer to keep farming while the project gets unfortunate that there must be a surface connection as
put together and presented for approval. many wetlands are more connected subsurficially than
surficially. That view strongly suggests the wisdom of
Another non-jurisdictional category of wetland or
the significant nexus test to surmount the artifice of hav-
water is a lagoon or other body of water which is part of
ing to see the water run across the surface.
an approved water treatment system. A third non-juris-
And now assume the Kennedy test: “permanent bod-
dictional type is “isolated wetlands,” those that are not
ies of water” and remote tributaries where they have a
adjacent to a water of the United States. Remember that
“significant nexus” to navigable water. What will the
adjacent is defined as including areas that are bordering,
wetland scientist be looking for?
contiguous, or neighboring. Some Corps Districts inter-
The wetland scientist will be looking for biological
pret that broadly.
and hydrological connections that will join the navigable
What happens under the Scalia Four plurality and waters of the United States sensu stricto to encompass
Kennedy tests disjunct, small, or seasonal wetlands that are clearly
connected. The nexus sought will extend from the navi-
Here is just one example of the problems inherent
gable waters to the uplands, connecting the dots if you
under either test.
will, to enable the interstitial wetlands to be recognized
On June 26, 2006, the Court granted a petition for
as not isolated, but ecologically connected, and for the
certiorari and remanded the case of Gerke Excavating in
system to include – at least for for the purpose of deter-
light of the Rapanos decision.34 Gerke arose as a civil en-
mining their impact on the jurisdictional seasonal/vernal
forcement action brought by the United States under the
pool wetlands – those uplands extending at least 750
CWA. The government alleged Gerke violated the CWA
feet from these seasonal/vernal pools. In other words, to
by discharging fill material into “the waters of the United
identify the significant nexus, the wetland scientist will
States” without a permit. The government won at trial.
look for the ecological unit, which in most cases will
The principal contested issue was whether the area into include wetlands and terrestrial portions of the land-
which the petitioner had discharged fill material was part scape. That ecological unit in turn will determine which
of “the waters of the United States” for purposes of the wetlands have a significant nexus to waters of the United
CWA. The district court considered the physical charac- States, as illustrated here for the significant nexus be-
teristics of the discharge site and found it to be a regulated tween wetlands and nearby areas.
“wetlands.” The court further held that the wetlands were
Potential Legislative and
“adjacent” as defined by the regulations to mean “border-
ing, contiguous, or neighboring,” to tributaries of tradi- Administrative Action
tional navigable waters. The wetlands “are adjacent to a
What the EPA and Corps will do remains largely uncertain.
drainage ditch running to Deer Creek, a tributary flowing
On August 1, EPA’s top water official told a Senate subcom-
into the south fork of the Lemonweir River, which is a
mittee that the EPA and Corps did not know when they
tributary of the Wisconsin River, which is navigable in
would issue any guidance on an interim basis in response to
fact and is used in interstate commerce.”
Rapanos. The official further testified that the EPA and the
In light of the hydrologic connection between the Corps had not decided whether to undertake a rule-making
wetlands and traditional navigable waters, the district process.35 At the hearing, the Department of Justice’s deputy
court agreed with the government that the petitioner’s environment chief stated that the DOJ already informed the
discharge was covered by the CWA. Sixth Circuit, which has Rapanos on remand, that it could
The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that Con- use either the Scalia Four plurality test or the Kennedy
gressional power under the Commerce Clause includes swing vote test.36 EPA General Counsel Ann Klee report-
8 9
edly stated in a speech after the decision that the precedent similar elements” from the plurality and concurring opin-
by which the Kennedy swing vote would normally establish ions. That is, the U.S. government is apparently taking the
the relevant standard with a plurality decision such as this position that neither the plurality nor the Kennedy swing
did not apply in Rapanos because of the inability to “extract vote concurring opinion controls.37
Migration Distances for Obligate Vernal Pool Amphibians: (Distances are not to scale.)
Source: Calhoun, A.J.K. and M.W. Klemens. 2002. Best development practices: Conserving pool-breeding amphibians in resi-
dential and commercial developments in the northeastern United States. MCA Technical Paper No. 5, Metropolitan Conservation
Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York.
Whether it will be Congress or the ACOE taking wetlands and intermittent streams. This ruling is
the lead is uncertain. Senator James Inhoffe (R-Okla.), particularly troubling in light of the torrential rains
chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Vermont endured this spring, which reminded us
Committee, has publicly offered to assist the executive of the critical role wetlands can play in mitigating
branch in devising new rules to define navigable waters: floods.…This decision provides a clear signal to
“the United States Supreme Court’s five-to-four split de- Congress: we must legislate to retain the intent of
cision leaves many issues to be resolved. What is clear the Clean Water Act and to provide broad protec-
from today’s decision is that the United States Supreme tion for our nation’s waters. I will be taking steps
Court continues to draw a narrow focus regarding the in the remaining days of this Congress to move S.
912, the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act,
federal reach extending into local land-use decisions and
through the Senate. This is the third Congress in
which waters truly are the ‘waters the United States.’”38
which I’ve joined Senator Feingold in introducing
Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) issued this statement the day
S. 912, and today’s Supreme Court decision reaf-
of the decision:
firms this bill’s importance.39
This split decision by the Court is an invitation
Judicial Action
for mischief by those who seek to limit the pro-
tections of the Clean Water Act. It is clear from The line up of the justices on the 4-1-4 split, however,
this decision that the Court is headed in a direc- is and will be played out in other cases. The Court has
tion that would put protections at risk for some agreed to hear Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy
10 11