|
|
|
|
|
|
by 015UUZn8aEvW
1095 days ago
|
|
|
In my job, I’ve gotten some pretty detailed experience with this part of the Clean Water Act. Not mentioned in this article is the fact that the “substantial nexus” standard just rejected by the Supreme Court was ridiculously vague, and the process by which landowners could determine whether there existed a “substantial nexus” between wet-ish areas on their property and navigable waterways was ridiculously slow and uncertain. (But with potentially huge civil and even criminal penalties to those who guessed wrong.) The process, in recent years: first you hire an specialized wetlands consulting firm whom you pay many thousands of dollars to compile a document that argues, in highly technical language, that no substantial nexus exists. You submit this “Request for Jurisdictional Determination”, which may run more than 100 pages long, to the Army Corps of Engineers. They respond whenever they get around to it. Maybe six months later you get an answer. More often than not, they claim jurisdiction, and then you have to file for an Army Corps dredge/fill permit that might take another six months to be issued. Note that complaining about this painful process doesn’t imply a belief that waterways shouldn’t be protected. There are other land use restrictions (think: local zoning restrictions or FEMA flood plain building code restrictions) that are often very stringent, but at least their application is CLEAR. In most cases, a property owner or prospective buyer can determine the property’s zoning and flood plain status in five minutes by examining the relevant maps online. No such clarity has existed regarding the location of Waters of the United States under the CWA. Hopefully this ruling will lead to a more clear-cut situation. |
|
|