navigable waters clean water act

• Supreme Court Requires 'Significant Nexus' to Navigable Waters for Jurisdiction under Clean Water Act s.404.

On June 19, 2006, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Rapanos v. United States, (No. 04-1034), a case that federal regulators, states, prope...

• Mondaq Business Briefing
• Nbr. 2006, January 2006

• Capital Briefs

In a muddled 5-to-4 decision on federal regulation of private wetlands, the Supreme Court last week suggested the Army Corps of Engineers had vastly exceeded the authority granted in the Clean Water Act to protect "navigable waters." Several guests at the "President's Dinner," a massive June 19 GOP fundraising event in Washington, D.C., described the sound of silence that met President Bush when he described his vision for an illegal alien amnesty.

• Human Events
• August 10, 2009

• Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. (2006)

...As relevant here, the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act) makes it unlawful to dischaarge dredged or fill material into "navigable waters" without a permit, 33 U. S. C. §§1311(a),...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Federal Wetland Jurisdiction and the Power to Regulate Commerce: Searching for the Nexus in Gerke Excavating

Courts reviewing the constitutionality of federal wetland regulation have an elephant in the living room. In United States v. Gerke Excavating Inc case, the Seventh Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) as applied to intrastate wetlands with a very tenuous connection to any navigable interstate waters. This Note argues that in upholding the Clean Water Act, the court in Gerke arrived at the correct holding, albeit with an inadequate analysis. A thorough examination of Commerce Clause jurisprudence reveals that because wetlands are an indispensable part of the larger scheme of regulating navigable waters, and because the CWA regulates a class of activities within Congress' reach under its channels-of-commerce power, federal regulation of intrastate wet...

• Brigham Young University Law Review
• Vol. 2006 Nbr. 1, January 2006

• Corps Makes Permit Determination, Record of Decision On Cape Wind Wind Energy Facility Proposal in Nantucket Sound

CONCORD, Mass., Jan. 6, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- After reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision on the Cape Wind, LLC wind energy facility proposal to construct 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, Mass., that was compiled by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District has made its determination under Section 10/Section 404 jurisdiction to issue a Corps permit for the proposal. The application for the Cape Wind wind energy facility federal permit was filed with the Corps of Engineers in compliance with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which provides for federal regulation of any work in, or affecting navigable waters of the United States; and with Section 40...

• U.S. Newswire
• January 06, 2011

• 9 CFR 590.160 - Refusal, suspension, or withdrawal of service.

... may result in any discharge into the navigable waters in the United States is required by subsecttion 401(a)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1341) of the Clean Water Act as amended (86 Stat. 816, 91 Stat. 1566;...

• Code of Federal Regulations - Title 9: Animals and Animal Products

• Upcoming Supreme Court Cases Threaten Scope of Clean Water Act, Groups Say

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by a coalition of conservation groups regarding upcoming Supreme Court cases that threaten the scope of the Clean Water Act: On Feb. 21, the Supreme Court will hear two cases that could undermine federal protection of the vast majority of our nation's streams, wetlands, ponds and other waters. The petitioners in these cases maintain that the 1972 Clean Water Act protects only "traditional navigable" waters (those suitable for use by commercial vessels) and those wetlands and streams that are directly adjacent to those waterways. This radical position -- which the Bush administration's Justice Department is opposing -- contradicts how the act has been applied for more than 30 years.

• U.S. Newswire
• February 09, 2006

• U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Granted: October 24, 2005

CLEAN WATER ACT Does the Clean Water Act require that wetlands be directly adjacent to navigable waters for federal jurisdiction to exist?

• Lawyers USA
• October 24, 2005

• U.S. Supreme Court to Answer Question of When Are Wetlands Covered by Clean Water Act?

Does the Clean Water Act require that wetlands be directly adjacent to navigable waters for federal jurisdiction to exist? The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer this question.

• Lawyers USA
• October 24, 2005

• Muddy Waters ; Roberts Court Fails to Clarify Wetlands Regs

The question of what is and isn't a "navigable water" of the United States wasn't settled by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. What a court majority did decide, however, in a pair of cases with significant implications for the regulatory reach of federal agencies (Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), is that they aren't whatever the Environmental Protection Agency or Army Corps of Engineers say they are. Not everything that gets wet is a wetland, the court ruled, and not every wetland is an extension of the navigable waters of the U.S., for purposes of enforcing the Clean Water Act of 1972. This amounts to a slap on the hand to two federal agencies that have used an incredibly elastic and expansive definition of "wetland" and "navigable water" to claim...

• Gazette, The; Colorado Springs, Colo.
• June 22, 2006