The State of Play
Looking at how the Clean Water Rule will be Reworked
By Lynn L. Bergeson
Waters of the United States has been a “fluid” concept for years. It defines the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the United States under the Clean Water Act (CWA). President Trump’s Feb. 28, 2017, Executive Order (EO) directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to rescind and replace the Clean Water Rule (CWR) is the latest development to resolve the question of which surface waters and wetlands may be federally regulated and subjected to CWA permitting. Many U.S. businesses objected to the rule, so this is one action that is less controversial than others the Trump Administration has taken. This article discusses its significance.
In the decade since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in 2006 in Rapanos v. United States, EPA and the Corps have made three attempts to interpret Rapanos and “clarify” the definition of waters of the United States, often referred to as “WOTUS.” Trump’s EO includes specific instruction to EPA and the Corps to consider interpreting “navigable waters” in a manner consistent with the late Justice Scalia’s opinion authored on behalf of the plurality in Rapanos.
Issued in final in June 2015, the CWR was immediately met with legal challenges brought by environmental groups, industry, agriculture stakeholders and 31 states. State and industry opponents argue that the rulemaking process violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), fails to follow Rapanos, and disregards the CWA’s cooperative federalism principles. Since October 2015, implementation of the CWR has been halted nationwide pending the outcome of the litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit recently suspended the merits proceedings due to the Supreme Court’s decision to review its ruling on the threshold issue of which venue is appropriate. CWA Section 509(b) sets forth seven categories of agency actions for which jurisdiction to review the action resides with the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. The parties to the CWR litigation disagree as to whether the rule fits under any of the seven categories, and the Supreme Court has agreed to review the Sixth Circuit’s ruling that it has jurisdiction under Section 509(b) to review the final rule.
On March 6, 2017, EPA and the Corps published a formal notice of intent to review and rescind or revise the CWA in the Federal Register. It is unclear if EPA and the Corps will combine the rescission and proposal of a revised rule in the same rulemaking, or separate these actions into separate rulemakings. As the next steps take shape, EPA and the Corps are likely to rework the more controversial CWR concepts, including the rule’s definitions for adjacency and tributary, exclusions for ditches, and inclusion of streams with intermittent and ephemeral flow. The rule revision is also likely to address a key question in the WOTUS debate: what role, if any, should the “significant nexus” test from Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Rapanos serve in defining jurisdictional waters? Kennedy cites examples of hydrological and ecological functions that alone or in combination could establish a “significant nexus” with other jurisdictional waters, including sediment trapping and nutrient cycling, and the contribution of flow to downstream waters. In contrast, Justice Scalia interpreted adjacency to require a physical, surface water connection between the wetland at issue and a navigable water.
At this time, there is no clear consensus on how EPA and the Corps should best resolve the ambiguities of the WOTUS definition. There is some confusion as to whether the EO calls for strictly favoring Scalia’s reading of WOTUS and disregarding Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test entirely. Some legal practitioners see the EO instruction as merely signaling a shift toward Scalia’s narrower construction. There is arguably some merit in Kennedy’s argument that Scalia’s surface connection and continuous flow requirements would still leave room for a remote wetland or water to be considered jurisdictional regardless of its influence on the water quality of jurisdictional waters downstream. One approach that some CWR opponents favor is a two-step, hybrid of the Scalia and Kennedy tests that would first identify waters with surface water connections and relatively permanent, continuous flow, and then perform a “significant nexus” analysis. The case-by-case nature of the “significant nexus” test does not solve the issue of regulatory certainty, and also can slow down the permitting process (particularly for wetlands), as it may require verification in the field and technical expertise. One thing is certain, the concept will continue to be discussed, argued, and debated for the foreseeable future.
The timeline for the revised rulemaking is uncertain, but it will likely be at least early 2018 before EPA and the Corps would issue a final revised rule, which is certain to be judicially challenged. Industry and agricultural stakeholders should review and submit comments on the future proposal, which may be published as early as summer 2017. The pending Supreme Court review and decision on the appropriate venue for such a challenge could expedite the litigation of the future rule. Barring any interim guidance, EPA and the Corps are continuing to follow concepts in the 2008 guidance document interpreting Rapanos that also incorporates Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test. Although the agencies are expected to curtail enforcement of all environmental statutes, environmental groups are expected to push back with increased litigation to enforce the CWA under the citizen suit provisions.
The outcome of the forthcoming rulemaking will outline which waters are subjected to the CWA’s discharge (Section 402) and wetland dredge-and-fill (Section 404) permitting schemes. Forty-six states currently have delegated authority to administer the 402 program, and the majority defines “waters of the state” more broadly than WOTUS, and regulate beyond the federal requirements. Only two states (New Jersey and Michigan) currently administer the Section 404 programs in their states. Unlike state laws, the CWA attaches a citizen suit provision that empowers third-party advocates to seek judicial enforcement of CWA requirements where they find federal and state enforcement lacking. A future revision to WOTUS is unlikely to bring sweeping changes for the regulated community in the wet states of the northeast and southeastern United States, but has much greater implications for the states in the arid west, which are dominated by ephemeral and intermittent streams.
For domestic manufacturing entities of all sizes, the outcome of this debate will have significant implications for discharge, development and related industrial operations. For agricultural lands throughout the United States, the perceived expansion of the scope of WOTUS under the CWR has created uncertainty around the regulation of ditches and wetlands. Currently, pesticide applications into, over or near WOTUS are regulated under the Section 402 program.
Stakeholders will need to stay tuned to this seemingly endless debate, and watch for both regulatory initiatives and court decisions to resolve the issue. It seems clear that ultimate resolution remains a far off goal.
Lynn L. Bergeson is Managing Partner of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®), a Washington, D.C. law firm focusing on conventional, nanoscale, and biobased industrial, agricultural, and specialty chemical product regulation and approval matters, environmental health and safety law, chemical product litigation, and associated business counseling and litigation issues. She is President of The Acta Group, with offices in Washington, D.C., Manchester, UK, and Beijing, China, and President of B&C® Consortia Management, L.L.C. (BCCM), with offices in Washington, D.C.