{"id":25675,"date":"2016-06-03T16:08:33","date_gmt":"2016-06-03T21:08:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=25675"},"modified":"2016-06-03T16:08:33","modified_gmt":"2016-06-03T21:08:33","slug":"justice-kennedy-criticizes-notoriously-unclear-and-ominous-scope-of-the-clean-water-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2016\/06\/justice-kennedy-criticizes-notoriously-unclear-and-ominous-scope-of-the-clean-water-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Justice Kennedy Criticizes \u201cNotoriously Unclear\u201d and \u201cOminous\u201d Scope of the Clean Water Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Clean Water Act requires regulatory agencies to make difficult choices about exactly where \u201cwater ends and land begins.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0 Whether a particular property contains \u201cwaters of the United States,\u201d the touchstone for federal jurisdiction under the Act,[2]<\/a> is not easy to determine, especially when the question involves not traditionally navigable waters but wetlands.\u00a0 \"public<\/a>The Environmental Protection Agency defines<\/a> \u201cwetlands\u201d as areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs that are periodically inundated with water.\u00a0 Severe consequences flow from unpermitted actions that impact \u201cwaters of the United States.\u201d \u00a0The Act imposes criminal liability and civil penalties to the tune of $37,500 per day of violation.[3]<\/a>\u00a0 Upon request, the Army Corps of Engineers will issue jurisdictional determinations (\u201cJDs\u201d) specifying whether a particular property contains jurisdictional waters.\u00a0 In recent years, the Supreme Court has wrestled with various aspects of wetlands issues again<\/a> and again<\/a> and again<\/a> and again<\/a>.\u00a0 The most recent such case, United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.<\/em>, No. 15-290, raised the question of whether Corps JDs constitute \u201cfinal agency action\u201d that is immediately appealable in federal court under the Bennett v. Spear <\/em>analysis rooted in the Administrative Procedure Act.<\/p>\n

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that JDs constitute final agency action and are immediately appealable.\u00a0 The Court quickly rejected the Corps\u2019 two arguments to the contrary: first, the rather unreasonable suggestion that affected citizens could simply proceed without a permit, risking an enforcement action during which one could argue that no permit was required; and second, that upon receiving a \u201cpositive\u201d JD, affected citizens could apply for a permit and seek judicial review of the JD upon the conclusion of the lengthy permitting process (the property owners in Hawkes<\/em> estimated that it would cost well over $100,000 to \u201cearn\u201d the appeal right under that scenario).<\/p>\n

Despite its importance, the decision is not particularly surprising given the tenor of the oral argument as well as the Court\u2019s recent decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency<\/a><\/em>, 566 U.S. — (2012) that an EPA compliance order is immediately appealable to federal court when it was based on the factual assumption that a parcel contained wetlands.\u00a0 Perhaps for that reason, it\u2019s not the majority opinion that has everyone<\/a> talking<\/a>; instead, Justice Kennedy stole the show with a three-paragraph concurrence.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy wrote that an immediate appeal right was especially important given that the reach of the Act is \u201cnotoriously unclear\u201d and subjects landowners to \u201ccrushing\u201d consequences, \u201ceven for inadvertent violations.\u201d\u00a0 Justice Kennedy described the Act\u2019s reach as \u201cominous,\u201d and wrote that it \u201ccontinues to raise troubling questions regarding the Government\u2019s power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the Nation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Hawkes <\/em>concurrence is a striking contrast to Justice Kennedy\u2019s opinion in Rapanos v. United States<\/a><\/em>,[4]<\/a> another wetlands case.\u00a0 In Rapanos,<\/em> Kennedy conducted a fairly searching analysis of \u201cthe Act\u2019s text, structure, and purpose,\u201d and formulated a relatively broad test under which federal jurisdiction exists over any wetland or other water with a \u201csignificant nexus\u201d to navigable waters.\u00a0 He wrote that \u201cthe significant-nexus test itself prevents problematic applications of the statute,\u201d and recognized that \u201c[i]mportant public interests are served by the Clean Water Act in general and by the protection of wetlands in particular.\u201d<\/p>\n

Without question, Hawkes<\/em> was a defeat for the Administration.\u00a0 Yet the government\u2019s far greater concern is likely that Justice Kennedy\u2019s position in Hawkes doesn\u2019t bode well for one of the Administration\u2019s signature environmental achievements, the \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d rule, now known as the \u201cClean Water Rule.\u201d<\/a> \u00a0That rule attempts to clarify the definition of \u201cwaters of the United States,\u201d and by extension the scope of the Act\u2019s coverage, to make it more predictable.\u00a0 Dozens of states and other petitioners have already challenged the rule in a variety of federal courts, many on the grounds that it unlawfully expands federal jurisdiction, with most such suits now consolidated in the Sixth Circuit<\/a>.\u00a0 Most expect that case to end up before the Supreme Court, where Justice Kennedy \u2013 who just described the Act\u2019s reach as \u201cominous,\u201d \u201cunclear,\u201d and \u201ctroubling\u201d \u2013 will hold a critical vote.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes<\/em>, 474 U.S. 121, 132 (1985).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> 33 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1311(a), 1362(7), (12).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> See <\/em>33 U.S.C. \u00a7 1319; 40 CFR \u00a7 19.4.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> 547 U.S. 715 (2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Clean Water Act requires regulatory agencies to make difficult choices about exactly where \u201cwater ends and land begins.\u201d[1]\u00a0 Whether a particular property contains \u201cwaters of the United States,\u201d the touchstone for federal jurisdiction under the Act,[2] is not easy to determine, especially when the question involves not traditionally navigable waters but wetlands.\u00a0 The Environmental […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[40,122,181],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-environmental-law","category-public","category-water-law","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/70"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25675\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}