There Is More To The Clean Water Act Than Waters Of The United States

When Congress enacted the contemporary form of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972, it used the same statutory formula to trigger both of the Act's two permit programs. That decision was never completely comfortable, and over time it has become clear that, although the two permit programs serve the same regulatory goal of improving water quality, they otherwise resonate in two very different complexes of legal values. The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has found the Section 404 complex particularly troublesome, holding that a broad definition of “waters of the United States” in this program threatens to infringe both states' Tenth Amendment prerogatives and landowners' private property rights. Moreover, this narrowing of jurisdictional “waters of the United States” is likely to continue into the 2022-2023 Supreme Court term through the case of Sackett v. EPA.The intense legal and political focus on “waters of the United States” since at least the Court's 2006 decision in Rapanos v. United States has obscured the fact that Clean Water Act jurisdiction depends on five elements, not just that one, that must be evaluated together. Moreover, the Supreme Court's approach to Section 402 jurisdiction in its 2020 decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take a more holistic approach to their next round of Clean Water Act jurisdictional regulations. This more holistic approach offers two immediate benefits: a highlighting of the many existing exemptions from Section 404 and a simplification of jurisdictional analyses. However, in the wake of the anticipated outcome of Sackett v. EPA, the holistic approach can also keep Section 402 jurisdiction relatively broad.