Rapanos v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
547 U.S. 715 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For the Army Corps of Engineers to assert jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries under the Clean Water Act, the wetlands must possess a 'significant nexus' to waters that are navigable in fact. A significant nexus exists if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of traditional navigable waters.

Facts:

John Rapanos owned three parcels of land in Michigan, which contained wetlands.
Without a permit, Rapanos backfilled acres of these wetlands to prepare the land for development.
These wetlands were connected to traditional navigable waters, located 11 to 20 miles away, via a series of man-made drains and natural creeks.
The flow in these drains and creeks was not necessarily continuous.
In a separate case, the Carabells owned a parcel containing a wetland.
This wetland was separated from a man-made drainage ditch by a four-foot-wide earthen berm.
The ditch eventually emptied into Auvase Creek, which in turn flows into Lake St. Clair, a traditional navigable water.

Procedural Posture:

The United States brought a civil enforcement action against John Rapanos in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for filling wetlands without a permit.
The District Court found it had jurisdiction over the wetlands and held Rapanos liable.
Rapanos, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's finding of jurisdiction based on the existence of a hydrological connection.
Separately, the Carabells were denied a permit to fill a wetland and, as plaintiffs, sued the Army Corps of Engineers in the U.S. District Court, challenging its jurisdiction.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the Corps, finding jurisdiction existed.
The Carabells, as appellants, appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the finding of jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to Rapanos and the Carabells and consolidated the cases.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over 'the waters of the United States' extend to wetlands that are not adjacent to a traditional navigable water, but are near ditches or man-made drains that eventually empty into navigable-in-fact waterways?

Opinions:

Plurality - Justice Scalia

No, jurisdiction does not extend to these wetlands. The phrase 'the waters of the United States' includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water 'forming geographic features' that are described in ordinary parlance as 'streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.' It does not cover channels with merely intermittent or ephemeral flow. Furthermore, a wetland is only covered by the Act if it has a continuous surface connection with a body of water that is a 'water of the United States' in its own right, making it difficult to determine where the 'water' ends and the 'wetland' begins.

Concurring - Justice Kennedy

The cases should be remanded for further proceedings. The Clean Water Act's jurisdiction is not limited to the plurality's restrictive test, but it also requires more than the dissent's broad deference to the agency. The controlling standard for jurisdiction over wetlands is the 'significant nexus' test from SWANCC. Wetlands fall under CWA jurisdiction if they, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as 'navigable.' This standard must be applied on a case-by-case basis to determine if the wetlands at issue have the requisite nexus to traditional navigable waters.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes, jurisdiction extends to these wetlands. The Court should defer to the Army Corps of Engineers' reasonable interpretation of the statute, which has been in place for decades and in which Congress has acquiesced. The Court's unanimous decision in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. controls, and it established that the Corps' decision to regulate wetlands adjacent to tributaries of navigable waters is a permissible construction of the Act. The plurality's new tests are judicially invented and inconsistent with the Act's text, purpose, and history, while Justice Kennedy's test creates an unworkable, case-by-case standard that undermines the Act's comprehensive goals.

Analysis:

This fractured decision created significant legal uncertainty regarding the scope of the Clean Water Act. Under the Marks rule, Justice Kennedy's 'significant nexus' test is considered the controlling legal standard because it represents the narrowest grounds for the judgment to vacate and remand. This test requires a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis of a wetland's ecological connection to navigable waters, moving away from the Corps' broader categorical assertions of jurisdiction based on mere adjacency to any tributary. The decision significantly impacts developers, landowners, and environmental regulators by requiring more specific proof of a wetland's functional importance to downstream waters before federal jurisdiction can be established.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Rapanos v. United States (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature