United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.
474 U.S. 121 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Clean Water Act authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to require permits for the discharge of fill material into wetlands that are adjacent to 'waters of the United States,' even if the wetlands are not subject to frequent flooding by the adjacent navigable waterways.
Facts:
- Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (Riverside) owns 80 acres of low-lying, marshy land near the shores of Lake St. Clair in Michigan.
- The land is characterized by saturated soil conditions and vegetation adapted for life in such soil, meeting the regulatory definition of a 'freshwater wetland'.
- The source of the saturation is groundwater, not frequent flooding from the adjacent navigable waters.
- The wetland on Riverside's property is adjacent to Black Creek, a navigable waterway.
- In 1976, Riverside began placing fill materials onto its property to prepare for the construction of a housing development.
Procedural Posture:
- The Army Corps of Engineers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking to enjoin Riverside Bayview Homes from filling its property without a permit.
- The District Court, as the trial court, held that the property was a wetland and issued an injunction preventing Riverside from filling the land without a permit.
- Riverside Bayview Homes, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's decision, construing the regulation narrowly to exclude wetlands not subject to frequent flooding by adjacent navigable waters.
- The United States, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit's decision.
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, together with regulations from the Army Corps of Engineers, authorize the Corps to require a landowner to obtain a permit before discharging fill material into wetlands adjacent to navigable bodies of water?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. The Clean Water Act authorizes the Corps of Engineers to require a permit for filling wetlands adjacent to navigable waters. The Corps' regulation defining 'waters of the United States' to include such wetlands is a reasonable interpretation of the statute and is entitled to deference. The language of the regulation clearly includes areas saturated by groundwater, not just those inundated by adjacent water bodies. Congress's broad goal in the Clean Water Act was to protect the integrity of the nation's aquatic ecosystems, and the Corps reasonably concluded that adjacent wetlands play a crucial role in that system by filtering water and preventing flooding, thus making them 'inseparably bound up' with the 'waters of the United States.' Furthermore, Congress considered and rejected attempts to narrow the Corps' jurisdiction in 1977, indicating acquiescence to the agency's broad interpretation.
Analysis:
This unanimous decision significantly broadened the regulatory reach of the Clean Water Act by affirming the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over adjacent wetlands. By deferring to the agency's ecological judgment about the interconnectedness of wetlands and navigable waters, the Court established that a direct or frequent flooding connection is not necessary for jurisdiction. This 'hydrological connection' concept became a cornerstone of wetlands regulation for decades, expanding federal environmental protection beyond traditionally navigable waters. The decision also clarified that requiring a permit is not, by itself, a Fifth Amendment 'taking' of property, reinforcing the government's power to implement land-use regulations without automatically triggering a right to compensation.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.