Small Victory for Counties as Supreme Court Rules Against Army Corps in Water Case
-
BlogOn May 31, 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States Army Corp of Engineers v. Hawkes that an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) stating that a property contains “waters of the United States (WOTUS)” amounts to final agency action and may be immediately reviewed in court.Small Victory for Counties as Supreme Court Rules Against Army Corps in Water Case
-
Blog
Small Victory for Counties as Supreme Court Rules Against Army Corps in Water Case
On May 31, 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States Army Corp of Engineers v. Hawkes that an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) stating that a property contains “waters of the United States (WOTUS)” amounts to final agency action and may be immediately reviewed in court. The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC), of which NACo is a member, filed an amicus brief arguing in support of this result, which allows counties and other property owners to challenge an unfavorable JD before having to go through a costly permitting process in order to proceed with a project. The amicus brief was also filed on behalf of the Council of State Governments (CSG), National League of Cities (CSG), United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA).
The Supreme Court ruled that, because a JD from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) impacts the “rights and obligations” of property owners and local regulators and carries with it legal consequences, and because a JD marks the consummation of the Corps’ decision-making process as to whether a property contains WOTUS, it is considered a final agency action eligible for judicial review.
The SLLC’s amicus brief argued that states and local governments would be negatively affected as landowners and as partners with the business community if immediate judicial review of JDs were not possible. Under the CWA, property owners are required to obtain a permit from the Corps before discharging dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). Because it is not always easy to determine whether particular waters are WOTUS and subject to the CWA, the Corp offers JDs to property owners seeking clarification before starting the permitting process.
Without this ruling, counties that disagreed with a JD related to a particular project would only have two options: either the county would have to go through the 404 permit process or proceed with the project and risk facing civil penalties under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Both options would potentially increase project costs and hinder economic development and capital infrastructure planning.
In the Hawkes case, the Hawkes Company wanted to mine peat from its wetland property in Minnesota. The Corps issued a JD that the property contained WOTUS because its wetlands had a “significant nexus” to a river located about 120 miles away. As a result, the Hawkes Company would have had to obtain a costly and time-consuming permit to start mining unless the JD could be overturned by a court review. The Hawkes Company sought judicial review. The Corps had countered that judicial review was not available because a JD only amounted to advice to provide additional understanding of the application of the law rather than final agency action. The Court disagreed, noting in its decision that the Corps itself describes such determinations as a final agency action in their general regulatory policies (33 CFR 320.1).
NACo applauds the Court’s decision and will continue to monitor any other developments related to “waters of the United States.”
Resources:
- To read the SLLC’s Amicus Brief on behalf of Hawkes Co., Inc., click here.
Contact: Julie Ufner at jufner@naco.org or 202.942.4269 or Mike Belarmino at mbelarmino@naco.org or 202.942.4254.
On May 31, 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States Army Corp of Engineers v.2016-06-15Blog2017-02-17
On May 31, 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States Army Corp of Engineers v. Hawkes that an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) stating that a property contains “waters of the United States (WOTUS)” amounts to final agency action and may be immediately reviewed in court. The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC), of which NACo is a member, filed an amicus brief arguing in support of this result, which allows counties and other property owners to challenge an unfavorable JD before having to go through a costly permitting process in order to proceed with a project. The amicus brief was also filed on behalf of the Council of State Governments (CSG), National League of Cities (CSG), United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA).
The Supreme Court ruled that, because a JD from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) impacts the “rights and obligations” of property owners and local regulators and carries with it legal consequences, and because a JD marks the consummation of the Corps’ decision-making process as to whether a property contains WOTUS, it is considered a final agency action eligible for judicial review.
The SLLC’s amicus brief argued that states and local governments would be negatively affected as landowners and as partners with the business community if immediate judicial review of JDs were not possible. Under the CWA, property owners are required to obtain a permit from the Corps before discharging dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). Because it is not always easy to determine whether particular waters are WOTUS and subject to the CWA, the Corp offers JDs to property owners seeking clarification before starting the permitting process.
Without this ruling, counties that disagreed with a JD related to a particular project would only have two options: either the county would have to go through the 404 permit process or proceed with the project and risk facing civil penalties under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Both options would potentially increase project costs and hinder economic development and capital infrastructure planning.
In the Hawkes case, the Hawkes Company wanted to mine peat from its wetland property in Minnesota. The Corps issued a JD that the property contained WOTUS because its wetlands had a “significant nexus” to a river located about 120 miles away. As a result, the Hawkes Company would have had to obtain a costly and time-consuming permit to start mining unless the JD could be overturned by a court review. The Hawkes Company sought judicial review. The Corps had countered that judicial review was not available because a JD only amounted to advice to provide additional understanding of the application of the law rather than final agency action. The Court disagreed, noting in its decision that the Corps itself describes such determinations as a final agency action in their general regulatory policies (33 CFR 320.1).
NACo applauds the Court’s decision and will continue to monitor any other developments related to “waters of the United States.”
Resources:
- To read the SLLC’s Amicus Brief on behalf of Hawkes Co., Inc., click here.
Contact: Julie Ufner at jufner@naco.org or 202.942.4269 or Mike Belarmino at mbelarmino@naco.org or 202.942.4254.

-
Policy Brief
Rewrite of the "Waters of the U.S." Rule
Advocate for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to rewrite the “Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS)” rule in a way that appreciates counties’ role as owners and operators of key public safety and water infrastructure and as an intergovernmental partner in implementing federal regulations under the Clean Water Act. -
Policy Brief
Urge Congress and EPA to Consult with Counties on any Future Regulations on PFAS
Advocate for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies to study the health and environmental impacts of PFAS compounds and to work closely with state and local governments throughout the rule-making process. -
County News
Urban county leaders stress ARPA flexibility during Hill visit
Urban county leaders demonstrated how the American Rescue Plan Act's flexibility offers counties a transformational opportunity to improve and deliver services to residents and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. -
Press Release
Metropolitan County Leaders Invest American Rescue Plan Resources in Pandemic Response, Mental Health, Homelessness
Elected leaders from major urban counties with over 4.2 million residents this week outlined how they are deploying resources from the American Rescue Plan to respond to urgent community needs. -
Blog
Five Actions Counties Must take to Address Zoning Reform
One of the fastest emerging trends among community planners is zoning reform. This has been a topic that has been gathering momentum for the last 3-5 years, and there have been three primary federal funding vehicles that have been proposed to fund this initiative. -
Video
Capitol Hill Briefing: Leveraging ARPA Funding to Respond to the Pandemic and Address the Nation’s Mental Health and Homelessness Crises
Leaders of NACo's Large Urban County Caucus host a Capitol Hill briefing to describe how counties are investing in pandemic recovery, including efforts to address the nation’s growing behavioral health and homelessness crises.
-
Reports & Toolkits
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Resource Hub
Explore NACo's resource hub for the ARPA State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund.Reports & Toolkitsdocument010512:15 pmReports & Toolkits<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%" summary="call-out transparent">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> -
Basic page
Environment, Energy & Land Use Steering Committee
Responsible for all matters pertaining to air, water, energy, and land use, including water resources/management, stormwater, pesticides, air quality standards, solid, hazardous, and nuclear waste handling, transport, and disposal, national energy policy, renewable/alternative energy, alternative fuel vehicles, energy facility siting, electricity utility restructuring, pipeline safety, oil spills, superfund/brownfields, eminent domain, land use, coastal management, oceans, parks and recreation.pagepagepage<p>Responsible for all matters pertaining to air, water, energy, and land use, including water resources/management, stormwater, pesticides, air quality standards, solid, hazardous, and nuclear waste handling, transport, and disposal,
-
Basic page
Finance, Pensions & Intergovernmental Affairs Steering Committee
All matters pertaining to the financial resources of counties, fiscal management, federal assistance, municipal borrowing, county revenues, federal budget, federal tax reform, elections and Native American issues. Policy Platform & Resolutions 2021-2022 2022 NACo Legislative Prioritiespagepagepage<p>All matters pertaining to the financial resources of counties, fiscal management, federal assistance, municipal borrowing, county revenues, federal budget, federal tax reform, elections and Native American issues.</p>
-
Reports & Toolkits
Implementing Infrastructure Investments at the County Level: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (P.L. 117-58)
On November 15, 2021, President Biden enacted the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), formally known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), into law. This page and its contents are supplemental to NACo's comprehensive legislative analysis of the BIL for counties.Reports & Toolkitsdocument030310:00 amReports & Toolkits<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%" summary="call-out transparent jump">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
Contact
-
Senior Policy Advisor, Government Finance Officers Association
Related Posts
-
County NewsUrban county leaders stress ARPA flexibility during Hill visitJun. 27, 2022
-
BlogFive Actions Counties Must take to Address Zoning ReformJun. 24, 2022
-
Blog2022 #NACoAnn Spotlight: The Natural and Built EnvironmentJun. 21, 2022
Related Resources
-
Policy BriefRewrite of the "Waters of the U.S." RuleJun. 29, 2022
-
Policy BriefUrge Congress and EPA to Consult with Counties on any Future Regulations on PFASJun. 29, 2022
-
Press ReleaseMetropolitan County Leaders Invest American Rescue Plan Resources in Pandemic Response, Mental Health, HomelessnessJun. 24, 2022
More From
-
Updated NACo Analysis: Overview of U.S. Treasury's Final Rule for ARPA Fiscal Recovery Fund
Explore NACo's updated analysis for Treasury's Final Rule for the ARPA Fiscal Recovery Fund. The updated analysis examines revenue loss allocations, clarifies eligible and ineligible uses and reporting requirements.
Learn More