+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a...

Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a...

Date post: 08-Jun-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
16
1 Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States History and Summary EQSC January 9, 2020
Transcript
Page 1: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

1

Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States

History and Summary

EQSCJanuary 9, 2020

Page 2: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

Clean Water Act Purpose Prevent, Reduce, and Eliminate Pollution In The

Nation’s Waters

Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters

Let’s talk Cuyahoga River. . . .

2

Page 3: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

3

401TurbidityErosion

402ChemicalsPollution

404WaterwayBanks &

Bed

Page 4: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

Key City Interactions with Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS)

Construction/Maintenance/Repair Projects – in WOTUS

Pesticide Application – in/over/near WOTUS

Construction Projects - > 1 acre of ground disturbanceMaintenance Activities - > 5 acres of ground disturbance

Effluent Discharge

Waterline Flushing

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

City Industrial facilities 4

Page 5: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

Rapanos Supreme Court CaseKey Moment in WOTUS History

Rapanos v. United States (2006)Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion

1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively Permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” and “wetlands with a continuous surface connection”

2) Concurring opinion: wetlands with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters

5

Page 6: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

Current Arizona Status Quo1986 Rule + 2008 Guidance

TNWs, adjacent wetlands, relatively permanent tributaries, impoundments

With Significant Nexus*, also: Ephemeral tributaries Non-adjacent wetlands

EXEMPTIONS: waste treatment systems, prior converted cropland, swales or erosional features, non-relatively permanent ditches excavated wholly in uplands and draining only uplands

6

Page 7: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

7

So what is a WOTUS right now?Can be:Rivers/StreamsDry Washes/ArroyosPonds/Lakes*Wetlands*Constructed Canals/Laterals*

* fed by or conveys natural drainage flows

Page 8: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

8

Example

Page 9: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

9

Example

Page 10: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

Example

10

Page 11: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

2019 Proposed Draft WOTUS Rule1) Waters used for interstate or foreign commerce

2) Perennial or intermittent tributaries of #1

3) Ditches that meet the definition of tributary or #1

4) Lakes and ponds that meet #1 or provide perennial or intermittent flow to a #1 water

5) Impoundments

6) Adjacent wetlands (abut or have a direct hydrologic surface connection)

11

Page 12: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

2019 Proposed WOTUS Definition – Key Points

All ephemeral washes dropped from WOTUSWould include large features such as Skunk Creek, Cave Creek, etc.

An “ephemeral break” severs upstream jurisdiction for a perennial or intermittent tributary

Ephemeral washes would be “Point Sources” under CWA Brings in new compliance considerations and responsible party

questions

No significant nexus test Any channel or water body not defined as WOTUS is assumed to have

no physical, chemical, or biological impact on WOTUS, even if it’s connected. 12

Page 13: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

13

Page 14: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

What Came after the Proposed Rule?

• City provided a comment letter expressing concerns on proposed rule in April 2019

• EPA received over 600,000 comments on the proposed rule

• EPA rescinded the 2015 WOTUS rule effective December 2019 (never effective in Arizona)

• Final WOTUS rule expected February 2020

14

Page 15: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

EQSC Action

• No EQSC action on WOTUS needed at this time• Waiting on Final Rule for impact analysis• After assessing final impacts, may re-approach EQSC with a

support request

15

• Green Infrastructure Handbook -EQSC Support Letter Request

Page 16: Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States · Rapanos v. United States (2006) Resulted in a plurality opinion and a concurring opinion 1) Plurality opinion: “Relatively

Questions?


Recommended