While the Court’s decision answers an important jurisdictional question, it is unlikely to stem the tide of litigation involving the controversial Clean Water Rule. The Department of Environmental Protection (EPA) recently announced it has added an effective date of January 31, 2020, to the rule. The agency is also crafting its own WOTUS rule, which may also be controversial.
History of the Clean Water Rule
The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of any pollutants into “navigable waters” without first obtaining a permit. The CWA defines the term “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.”
In 2015, the Obama Administration promulgated the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” (WOTUS Rule or Clean Water Rule) to further define the “waters of the United States.” The rule adopted the approach of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Rapanos v. United States, defining the scope of jurisdictional waters as whether a water or wetland possesses a “‘significant nexus’ to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.”
The broad standard set forth in the WOTUS Rule was immediately subject to litigation. In total, 31 states, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and several other interested parties challenged the scope and legal authority of the WOTUS Rule. As a result, the previous definition of “waters of the United States” is currently still in force. In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a stay halting the enforcement of the WOTUS Rule.
As detailed in greater deal in a prior article, the Trump Administration is also seeking to rescind and replace the WOTUS Rule. Last June, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers proposed a new rule to rescind the definition of “waters of the United States” in the Code of Federal Regulations and recodify the pre-WOTUS Rule regulations and guidance. According to the agencies, the next step is to adopt a new rule that will define the “waters of the United States” to align with Justice Scalia’s perspective as set forth in Rapanos.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding the proper venue for challenging the Clean Water Rule. There are two potential avenues for judicial review of EPA actions. Parties may generally file challenges to final EPA actions in federal district courts. However, the CWA lists seven categories of EPA actions that must be challenged in the federal courts of appeals, including, as relevant to the WOTUS litigation, EPA actions “approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345,” 33 U.SC. §1369(b)(1)(E), and EPA actions “issuing or denying any permit under section 1342,” 33 U.S.C. §1369(b)(1)(F).
Relying on the text of the CWA, the justices concluded that challenges to the WOTUS Rule must be filed in federal district courts because they do not fall under subparagraph (E) nor subparagraph (F) of §1369(b)(1). With regard to subpart E, the Supreme Court held that the WOTUS Rule is not an “effluent limitation” because it does not impose restrictions on quantities, rates, and concentrations of pollutants discharged into navigable waters. Rather, it merely defines a statutory term. The Court further held that the WOTUS Rule does not fit within subparagraph (E)’s “other limitation” language.
As for subpart F, the Court concluded that the provision does not cover the WOTUS Rule because it neither issues nor denies National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued under §1342. While the government argued that the Clean Water Rule was “functionally similar” to issuance or denial of a permit because “it establishes the jurisdictional bounds of EPA’s permitting authority,” the Court rejected the argument. According to the justices, the argument was “completely unmoored from the statutory text.”
Implication for Future Legal Challenges
The Supreme Court’s decision effectively invalidated the injunction issued by the Sixth Circuit because it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The ruling would have also cleared the way for the WOTUS Rule to take effect. However, the EPA announced on January 31, 2018, that it has officially set the effective date of WOTUS rule for 2020. Given that it is actively working on a new rule, the move essentially ensures that the Obama era Clean Water Rule never takes effect.
“Today, EPA is taking action to reduce confusion and provide certainty to America’s farmers and ranchers,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement. “The 2015 WOTUS rule developed by the Obama administration will not be applicable for the next two years while we work through the process of providing long-term regulatory certainty across all 50 states about what waters are subject to federal regulation.” Pruitt has publicly stated that he expects the replacement rule to be unveiled this spring and take effect by the end of 2018.
While the EPA’s announcement may end challenges to the 2015 WOTUS Rule, any standard adopted by the Trump Administration will also certainly face lawsuits from environmental groups. Those lawsuits must be filed in the federal district courts and are likely to result in divergent rulings. In the end, the Supreme Court may have the final word.
Given that the redefinition of “waters of the United States” may have a profound effect with respect to numerous legal issues related to the CWA, including permitting, regulatory compliance and potential liability matters, we encourage members of the regulated community to stay informed regarding WOTUS Rule developments.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
SCOTUS Decision Leads EPA to Delay Clean Water Rule
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
The U.S. Supreme Court Recently Ruled That Challenges to the Clean Water Rule Must Be Filed in Federal District Courts
While the Court’s decision answers an important jurisdictional question, it is unlikely to stem the tide of litigation involving the controversial Clean Water Rule. The Department of Environmental Protection (EPA) recently announced it has added an effective date of January 31, 2020, to the rule. The agency is also crafting its own WOTUS rule, which may also be controversial.
History of the Clean Water Rule
The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of any pollutants into “navigable waters” without first obtaining a permit. The CWA defines the term “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.”
In 2015, the Obama Administration promulgated the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” (WOTUS Rule or Clean Water Rule) to further define the “waters of the United States.” The rule adopted the approach of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Rapanos v. United States, defining the scope of jurisdictional waters as whether a water or wetland possesses a “‘significant nexus’ to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.”
The broad standard set forth in the WOTUS Rule was immediately subject to litigation. In total, 31 states, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and several other interested parties challenged the scope and legal authority of the WOTUS Rule. As a result, the previous definition of “waters of the United States” is currently still in force. In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a stay halting the enforcement of the WOTUS Rule.
As detailed in greater deal in a prior article, the Trump Administration is also seeking to rescind and replace the WOTUS Rule. Last June, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers proposed a new rule to rescind the definition of “waters of the United States” in the Code of Federal Regulations and recodify the pre-WOTUS Rule regulations and guidance. According to the agencies, the next step is to adopt a new rule that will define the “waters of the United States” to align with Justice Scalia’s perspective as set forth in Rapanos.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding the proper venue for challenging the Clean Water Rule. There are two potential avenues for judicial review of EPA actions. Parties may generally file challenges to final EPA actions in federal district courts. However, the CWA lists seven categories of EPA actions that must be challenged in the federal courts of appeals, including, as relevant to the WOTUS litigation, EPA actions “approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345,” 33 U.SC. §1369(b)(1)(E), and EPA actions “issuing or denying any permit under section 1342,” 33 U.S.C. §1369(b)(1)(F).
Relying on the text of the CWA, the justices concluded that challenges to the WOTUS Rule must be filed in federal district courts because they do not fall under subparagraph (E) nor subparagraph (F) of §1369(b)(1). With regard to subpart E, the Supreme Court held that the WOTUS Rule is not an “effluent limitation” because it does not impose restrictions on quantities, rates, and concentrations of pollutants discharged into navigable waters. Rather, it merely defines a statutory term. The Court further held that the WOTUS Rule does not fit within subparagraph (E)’s “other limitation” language.
As for subpart F, the Court concluded that the provision does not cover the WOTUS Rule because it neither issues nor denies National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued under §1342. While the government argued that the Clean Water Rule was “functionally similar” to issuance or denial of a permit because “it establishes the jurisdictional bounds of EPA’s permitting authority,” the Court rejected the argument. According to the justices, the argument was “completely unmoored from the statutory text.”
Implication for Future Legal Challenges
The Supreme Court’s decision effectively invalidated the injunction issued by the Sixth Circuit because it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The ruling would have also cleared the way for the WOTUS Rule to take effect. However, the EPA announced on January 31, 2018, that it has officially set the effective date of WOTUS rule for 2020. Given that it is actively working on a new rule, the move essentially ensures that the Obama era Clean Water Rule never takes effect.
“Today, EPA is taking action to reduce confusion and provide certainty to America’s farmers and ranchers,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement. “The 2015 WOTUS rule developed by the Obama administration will not be applicable for the next two years while we work through the process of providing long-term regulatory certainty across all 50 states about what waters are subject to federal regulation.” Pruitt has publicly stated that he expects the replacement rule to be unveiled this spring and take effect by the end of 2018.
While the EPA’s announcement may end challenges to the 2015 WOTUS Rule, any standard adopted by the Trump Administration will also certainly face lawsuits from environmental groups. Those lawsuits must be filed in the federal district courts and are likely to result in divergent rulings. In the end, the Supreme Court may have the final word.
Given that the redefinition of “waters of the United States” may have a profound effect with respect to numerous legal issues related to the CWA, including permitting, regulatory compliance and potential liability matters, we encourage members of the regulated community to stay informed regarding WOTUS Rule developments.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
