Does a wetland adjacent to an artificial channel 11 miles upstream of a navigable river fall under Clean Water Act jurisdiction? United States v. Rapanos, 339 F. 3d 447 (6th Cir. 2003). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reinstated the convictions of landowner John Rapanos for unlawfully filling wetlands. Following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of North Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, the landowner claimed that his filling did not trigger Clean Water Act jurisdiction because the wetlands, connected to a navigable river at least eleven miles downstream by an artificial channel and a non-navigable creek, did not meet the definition of “waters of the United States.” The Court of Appeals read the SWANCC case as narrowly striking down CWA jurisdiction based solely on a wetland’s use by migratory birds. It ruled that under settled case law, because the wetlands in question were adjacent to the channel and the channel was hydrologically connected to the navigable river, there was “an ample nexus to establish jurisdiction.”
|
||
 |
||