Environment News Service (ENS)
ENS logo
Rapanos Will Pay for Clean Water Act Violations
DETROIT, Michigan, December 30, 2008 (ENS) - In long-running case that affects the scope of federal jurisdiction over wetlands and other waters, developer John Rapanos and related defendants agreed Monday to resolve violations of the Clean Water Act at three sites in Midland and Bay counties, Michigan.

Rapanos has agreed to pay a $150,000 civil penalty and will spend an estimated $750,000 to mitigate for 54 acres of wetlands that were filled without authorization under the Clean Water Act, according to a joint statement by the Justice Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

While Rapanos did not admit doing anything wrong, he has agreed to preserve an additional 134 acres of wetlands that were unaffected by the unauthorized activity. Under the agreement, the preservation of these areas will be enforced through a conservation easement held by the state of Michigan.

"After litigating this case for a number of years, we are pleased to reach a settlement that so strongly benefits the environment and serves the public interest," said Ronald Tenpas, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division.

"This longstanding case demonstrates that EPA continues to vigorously pursue violations of the Clean Water Act that adversely affect wetlands," said EPA Regional Administrator Lynn Buhl.

"The settlement will benefit the environment in Bay County by preserving a substantial amount of wetlands that play a vital role in water quality, flood control and fisheries," she said.

In the late 1980s, Rapanos filled 54 acres of wetland that he owned with sand in preparation for the construction of a mall and residences without filing for a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He dug an extensive network of ditches to dry out the sites, which resulted in excavated dirt being sidecast into wetlands.

A Michigan wetland, not the Rapanos property (Photo by Dawn Ulmer)

Rapanos argued that the land was not a wetland and that he was not breaking the law, but his own consultant and state employees disagreed.

The original enforcement action was filed against Rapanos in 1994. Rapanos was convicted of two felonies for filling wetlands in violation of law in 1995. The conviction was overturned and restored several times but, in the end, he was forced to serve three years of probation and pay $5,000 in fines.

Eventually, Rapanos appealed the civil case against him, which included millions of dollars of fines, to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Rapanos challenged the EPA's findings that the filled wetlands were under federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

The case turned on the legality of the federal regulations that define waters of the United States. The focus was on regulation of wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters and regulation of wetlands separated from such tributaries by a berm.

Rapanos' land is 20 miles from the nearest navigable waterway, a Lake Huron tributary river. However, the term "navigable waterway" has been broadly interpreted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to include areas connected to or linked to waters via tributaries or other similar means.

The 2006 Supreme Court litigation determined that Rapanos did fill wetlands under federal jurisdiction. But the Supreme Court sent the case back to the federal district court in Detroit, saying regulators might have exceeded their authority in preventing Rapanos and another landowner from developing their properties.

That ruling eventually led to Monday's settlement.

But the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision left the law on federal jurisdiction over waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands unclear.

The plurality opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, interpreted "waters" under the Clean Water Act to be limited to "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.'"

This definition does not include channels through which water flows intermittently, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall.

Regarding "adjacent" wetlands, the plurality argued that "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 'waters' and wetlands 'adjacent to' such waters, are covered by the Clean Water Act."

Chief Justice Roberts, in a concurring opinion, suggested that lower courts and regulated entities would have to "feel their way on a case-by-case basis."

Justice John Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in the case, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. The dissenting justices argued that the Supreme Court had previously upheld the regulation of wetlands adjacent to tributaries of navigable waters and that the court should defer to the agencies' regulation of wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries.

The Supreme Court's deciding vote was cast by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in a separate opinion steered a middle course between the opposing sides. Kennedy found that water draining from the Rapanos property does, in fact, flow into a stream and then into a navigable lake 20 miles away. But Kennedy said that just because water drains into a distant navigable lake is not in itself enough to trigger the wetlands protections under the Clean Water Act.

Exactly what would be sufficient remained unclear in his opinion.

Following the Supreme Court's divided ruling in the Rapanos case, confusion has reigned among the agencies, the regulated community, and the courts over the definition of which waters are covered by the Clean Water Act.

Nevertheless, the consent decree to settle the Rapanos civil complaint was lodged Monday in the U.S. District Court in Detroit. It is subject to a 30-day comment period and final court approval. A copy of the proposed consent decree is available on the Justice Department website at www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

There is a parallel criminal matter that is still pending and is not affected by the settlement under this agreement.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved.

 

From Shock to Taking Stock: Celebrating 50 years of Successful Sea Turtle Conservation Give Peas a Chance – Pulses Offer Improved Sustainability in the Field and on the Plate EarthSure's "AirRay™ Auto" Applications Open for 2010 Cohort of Kinship Conservation Fellows Dr. Samuel Epstein's 20 Year Fight Against Biotech, Cancer-Causing Milk CO2 Detector Warns You When Indoor Air is Bad Safeguarding the Sun’s Energy With EarthSure's Solar Alarm System California, Midwest Would Gain Jobs from Greater Government Investment in Green Transit Buses Teanaway Solar Reserve: An Engine for Economic Growth and New Jobs Canadian Forestry Leader Urges Ambitious Global Action to End Deforestation Le Secteur Forestier Canadien Preconise Des Mesures Ambitieuses a L'Echelle Mondiale Pour Faire Cesser la Deforestation EarthSure's SolarCure Giving a Gift That Benefits the World Southwest Airlines Debuts 'Green Plane' With Environmentally Friendly Interior Materials Hormones in U.S. Beef Linked to Increased Cancer Risk Critigen Debuts; Serves as Global Catalyst to Modernize Critical Infrastructure EarthSure's "Dynamic Duo": the World's New Heroes in Renewable Energy Cancer Expert Counters Reckless Claims That Hormonal Milk Is Safe U.S. Postal Service Advances Toward Sustainable Future International Model Named Goodwill Ambassador For Wildlife Foundation Biodiesel Returns More Energy to the Earth Than Ever, Study Finds Ten Years of Green Investing and Financial Performance Obama Told Only "Robust and Effective Federal Effort" Can Ensure "Coastal Louisiana's Survival" Wi-Fi U-SNAP Module Now Available From Intwine Connect Top Green Jobs During the Recession Micronutrients, a Division of Heritage Technologies, LLC was Recently Featured on 'Green Magazine TV' on the Discovery Channel for Its Sustainability Efforts Procter & Gamble Products Featured on 'Green Magazine TV' on the Discovery Channel for Their Sustainability Efforts Unrecognized Cancer and Hormonal Risks of Avon Products United GREEN to Provide Expert Moderator for GreenEnergyTalk.org Open Forum 48 Environmental Groups Receive 2009 TogetherGreen Innovation Grants GreenEnergyTalk.org Launches Public Green Information Discussion Board Cancer: The Health Risk Behind the Cosmeceutical Mask Shark Savers Launches Worldwide "Thank You" to Palau for Protecting Sharks PayItGreen Introduces New Membership Program Second Episode of 'Green Magazine TV' to Air on the Discovery Channel in November The World Bank Group-led Initiative To Be Featured on 'Green Magazine TV' Enterprise Rose Fellowship in Community Architecture Announces New Fellows in Los Angeles and Chicago Risks & Opportunities of Climate and Environmental Change Explored by Leading International Experts & Executives in New DVD/Web Program for Businesses Association Services of Florida Commends Jessica Lindley’s Volunteer Efforts at the Miami-Dade Parks and Recreation International Coastal Cleanup World's First Green Hotels Directory Launched PR Newswire and World-Wire Join Forces to Showcase Environmentally-Focused News and Events
WW TRANSMIT
 

License ENS News
for websites and newsletters

Send a news story to ENS editors

Upload environmental news videos

Share ENS stories with the world