547 U.S. 715 (2006), 04-1034, Rapanos v. United States

Docket NºNos. 04-1034, 04-1384.
Citation547 U.S. 715, 126 S.Ct. 2208, 165 L.Ed.2d 159
Party NameJohn A. RAPANOS, et ux., et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES. June Carabell et al., Petitioners, v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al.
Case DateJune 19, 2006
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 715

547 U.S. 715 (2006)

126 S.Ct. 2208, 165 L.Ed.2d 159

John A. RAPANOS, et ux., et al., Petitioners,

v.

UNITED STATES.

June Carabell et al., Petitioners,

v.

United States Army Corps of Engineers et al.

Nos. 04-1034, 04-1384.

United States Supreme Court

June 19, 2006 [* ]

Argued Feb. 21, 2006.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

[126 S.Ct. 2211] SYLLABUS[*]

As relevant here, the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act) makes it unlawful to discharge dredged or fill material into "navigable waters" without a permit, 33 U.S.C. §§1311(a), 1342(a), and defines "navigable waters" as "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas," §1362(7). The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which issues permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters, interprets "the waters of the United States" expansively to include not only traditional navigable waters, 33 CFR §328.3(a)(1), but also other defined waters, §328.3(a)(2), (3); "[t]ributaries" of such waters, §328.3(a)(5); and wetlands "adjacent" to such waters and tributaries, §328.3(a)(7). "[A]djacent" wetlands include those "bordering, contiguous [to], or neighboring" waters of the United States even when they are "separated from [such] waters . . . by man-made dikes . . . and the like." §328.3(c).

These cases involve four Michigan wetlands lying near ditches or man-made drains that eventually empty into traditional navigable waters. In No. 04-1034, the United States brought civil enforcement proceedings against the Rapanos petitioners, who had backfilled three of the areas without a permit. The District Court found federal jurisdiction over the wetlands because they were adjacent to "waters of the United States" and held petitioners liable for CWA violations. Affirming, the Sixth Circuit found federal jurisdiction based on the sites' hydrologic connections to the nearby ditches or drains, or to more remote navigable waters. In No. 04-1384, the Carabell petitioners were denied a permit to deposit fill in a wetland that was separated from a drainage ditch by an impermeable berm. The Carabells sued, but the District Court found federal jurisdiction over the site. Affirming, the Sixth Circuit held that the wetland was adjacent to navigable waters.

Held:

The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded.

[126 S.Ct. 2212] No. 04-1034, 376 F.3d 629, and No. 04-1384, 391 F.3d 704, vacated and remanded.

Justice SCALIA, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice THOMAS, and Justice ALITO, concluded:

Page 716

1. 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," Webster's New International Dictionary 2882 (2d ed.), and does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. The Corps' expansive interpretation of that phrase is thus not "based on a permissible construction of the statute." Chevron U.S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694. Pp. 730-739.

(a) While the meaning of "navigable waters" in the CWA is broader than the traditional definition found in The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 19 L.Ed. 999, see Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159, 167, 121 S.Ct. 675, 148 L.Ed.2d 576 (SWANCC); United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 133, 106 S.Ct. 455, 88 L.Ed.2d 419, the CWA authorizes federal jurisdiction only over "waters." The use of the definite article "the" and the plural number "waters" show plainly that §1362(7) does not refer to water in general, but more narrowly to water "[a]s found in streams," "oceans, rivers, [and] lakes," Webster's New International Dictionary 2882 (2d ed.). Those terms all connote relatively permanent bodies of water, as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows. Pp. 730-734.

(b) The Act's use of the traditional phrase "navigable waters" further confirms that the CWA confers jurisdiction only over relatively permanent bodies of water. Traditionally, such "waters" included only discrete bodies of water, and the term still carries some of its original substance, SWANCC, supra, at 172, 121 S.Ct. 675. This Court's subsequent interpretation of "the waters of the United States" in the CWA likewise confirms this limitation. See, e.g., Riverside Bayview, supra, at 131, 106 S.Ct. 455. and the CWA itself categorizes the channels and conduits that typically carry intermittent flows of water separately from "navigable waters," including them in the definition of " 'point sources,' " 33 U.S.C. §1362(14). Moreover, only the foregoing definition of "waters" is consistent with CWA's stated policy "to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States . . . to plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources ...." §1251(b). In addition, "the waters of the United States" hardly qualifies as the clear and manifest statement from Congress needed to authorize intrusion into such an area of traditional state authority as land-use regulation; and to authorize federal action that stretches the limits of Congress's commerce power. See SWANCC, supra, at 173, 121 S.Ct. 675. Pp. 734-739.

2. A wetland may not be considered "adjacent to" remote "waters of the United States" based on a mere hydrologic connection. Riverside

Page 717

Bayview rested on an inherent ambiguity in defining where the "water" ends and its abutting ("adjacent") wetlands begin, permitting the Corps to rely on ecological considerations only to resolve that ambiguity in favor of treating all abutting wetlands as waters. Isolated ponds are not "waters of the United [126 S.Ct. 2213] States" in their own right, see SWANCC, supra, at 167, 171, 121 S.Ct. 675, and present no boundary-drawing problem justifying the invocation of such ecological factors. Thus, only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are "waters of the United States" in their own right, so that there is no clear demarcation between the two, are "adjacent" to such waters and covered by the Act. Establishing coverage of the Rapanos and Carabell sites requires finding that the adjacent channel contains a relatively permanent "wate[r] of the United States," and that each wetland has a continuous surface connection to that water, making it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins. Pp. 739-742.

3. Because the Sixth Circuit applied an incorrect standard to determine whether the wetlands at issue are covered "waters," and because of the paucity of the record, the cases are remanded for further proceedings. P. 757.

Justice KENNEDY concluded that the Sixth Circuit correctly recognized that a water or wetland constitutes "navigable waters" under the Act if it possesses a "significant nexus" to waters that are navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159, 167, 172, 121 S.Ct. 675, 148 L.Ed.2d 576 (SWANCC), but did not consider all the factors necessary to determine that the lands in question had, or did not have, the requisite nexus. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 106 S.Ct. 455, 88 L.Ed.2d 419, and SWANCC establish the framework for the inquiry here. The nexus required must be assessed in terms of the Act's goals and purposes. Congress enacted the law to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters," 33 U.S.C. §1251(a), and it pursued that objective by restricting dumping and filling in "waters of the United States," §§1311(a), 1362(12). The rationale for the Act's wetlands regulation, as the Corps has recognized, is that wetlands can perform critical functions related to the integrity of other waters--such as pollutant trapping, flood control, and runoff storage. 33 C. F. R. §320.4(b)(2). Accordingly, wetlands possess the requisite nexus, and thus come within the statutory phrase "navigable waters," if the wetlands, alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters understood as navigable in the traditional sense. When, in contrast, their effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the term

Page 718

"navigable waters." Because the Corps' theory of jurisdiction in these cases--adjacency to tributaries, however remote and insubstantial--goes beyond the Riverside Bayview holding, its assertion of jurisdiction cannot rest on that case. The breadth of the Corps' existing standard for tributaries--which seems to leave room for regulating drains, ditches, and streams remote from any navigable-in-fact water and carrying only minor water-volumes toward it--precludes that standard's adoption as the determinative measure of whether adjacent wetlands are likely to play an important role in the integrity of an aquatic system comprising navigable waters as traditionally understood. Absent more specific regulations, the Corps must establish a significant nexus on a case-by-case basis when seeking to regulate wetlands based on adjacency to nonnavigable tributaries, in order to avoid unreasonable applications of the Act. In the instant cases the record contains evidence pointing to a possible significant nexus, but neither the agency [126 S.Ct. 2214] nor the reviewing courts considered the issue in these terms. Thus, the cases should be remanded for further proceedings. Pp...

To continue reading

Request your trial
363 practice notes
  • Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 22, 2014
    • 22 Diciembre 2014
    ...(Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001)) and Rapanos (Rapanos v. United States , 547 U.S. 715 (2006)), the scope of waters of the US protected under all CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act ha......
  • The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States”
    • United States
    • Army, Corps Of Engineers Department
    • Invalid date
    ...cases and dozens of courts have attempted to discern the intent of Congress when crafting the phrase. See, e.g., Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 739 (2006) (Scalia, J., plurality) (briefly summarizing case history). The federal courts have established different analytical frameworks......
  • Definition of “Waters of the United States”-Recodification of Preexisting Rule
    • United States
    • Federal Register July 12, 2018
    • 12 Julio 2018
    ...interpretation of Justice Kennedy's ``significant nexus'' standard articulated in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) (``Rapanos'') as to be inconsistent with important aspects of that opinion and to cover waters outside the scope of the Act, even tho......
  • Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 21, 2014
    • 21 Abril 2014
    ...of any pollutant directly to navigable waters from any point source,' but rather the `addition of any pollutant to navigable waters.' '' 547 U.S. at 743. Clean Water Act section 311(b)(1) provides: ``It is the policy of the United States that there should be no discharges of oil or hazard......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
238 firm's commentaries
  • The End of the "Functional Interdependence" Test?
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • 13 Agosto 2012
    ...contiguous or adjacent properties.”35 25 Summit at *7. 26 Id. at *10. 27 Id. at *7. 28 Id. 29 Id. at *8. 30 192 U.S. 524 (1904). 31 547 U.S. 715 (2006). 32 Summit at *9. 33 Id. at *11. 34 Id. at *11-15. 35 Id. at *16. 5 The End of the “Functional Interdependence” Test? 6 Conclusion The Sixt......
  • US Environmental Laws Increasingly Lead to Litigation Concerning the Siting and Construction of New Infrastructure Projects
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 24 Febrero 2010
    ...F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 2003). 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g). See SWANCC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001); Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1). 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(1). Id. at (c)(1)(A), (B). 40 C.F.R. § 93.102 (b)(1). 40 C.F.R. § 93.116. 40 C.F.R. § 93.153. Au......
  • U.S. Supreme Court To Review Two Controversial Decisions On Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 10 Julio 2012
    ...the CWA. We will continue to monitor these cases and provide updates as new information becomes available. Footnotes 1 531 U.S. 159. 2 547 U.S. 715. 3 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011), cert.granted, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. June 25, 2012) (No. 11-347). >4 673 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2011), cert.gran......
  • Controversial New Clean Water Rule Unlikely to Significantly Change Regulatory Status Quo
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • 29 Mayo 2015
    ...schools do not affect interstate commerce and prohibiting them exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause power). [14] Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006); Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 [15] Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 742, 757.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
108 books & journal articles
  • Environmental crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 48 Nbr. 2, March 2011
    • 22 Marzo 2011
    ...water at issue to any waterway, natural or man-made, that eventually flows into a navigable water. See, e.g., Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 739-42 (2006) (holding that "only those wetlands with continuous surface connection to bodies that are 'waters of the United States' in their......
  • Tort experiments in the laboratories of democracy.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 50 Nbr. 5, April 2009
    • 1 Abril 2009
    ...States, while frequently disregarding the States' views as to what federalism is all about."). (219.) See, e.g., Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 738-39 (2006) (discussing the outer limits of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate intrastate wetlands pursuant to t......
  • Common Law and Federalism in the Age of the Regulatory State
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review Nbr. 92-2, February 2007
    • 1 Febrero 2007
    ...boundaries and Congress intended to extend jurisdiction to those boundaries in the Clean Water Act). [194] Rapanos v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006). [195] Id. at 2219. [196] Id. at 2212. But see id. at 2249 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (proposing an alternate interpretation of "navigab......
  • The Enacted Purposes Canon
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review Nbr. 105-1, November 2019
    • 1 Noviembre 2019
    ...bodies, ha[s] often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people”). 108. See, e.g., Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 737 (2006) (Scalia, J., announcing the judgment and authoring an opinion joined by Roberts, C.J., Thomas, and Alito, JJ.) (holding that only a n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 provisions
  • Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 22, 2014
    • 22 Diciembre 2014
    ...(Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001)) and Rapanos (Rapanos v. United States , 547 U.S. 715 (2006)), the scope of waters of the US protected under all CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act ha......
  • Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 21, 2014
    • 21 Abril 2014
    ...of any pollutant directly to navigable waters from any point source,' but rather the `addition of any pollutant to navigable waters.' '' 547 U.S. at 743. Clean Water Act section 311(b)(1) provides: ``It is the policy of the United States that there should be no discharges of oil or hazard......
  • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-Final Regulations To Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Amend Requirements at Phase I Facilities
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 15, 2014
    • 15 Agosto 2014
    ...in 2008 regarding the term waters of the United States in light of both the SWANCC and subsequent Rapanos case (Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006)). The EPA published a proposed revision to the definition of ``Waters of the United States'' under the Clean Water Act on April 21, 2......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2008
    • 1 Diciembre 2008
    ...for WOTUS. See Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC); Rapanos v. U.S., 547 U.S. 715 (2006). The commenter concluded that ``OSM should not anchor its regulatory program on such an unstable foundation,'' a sentiment shared by oth......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT