Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Protection of wetlands and small streams is a major focus of the Clean Water Rule. The Clean Water Rule is a 2015 regulation published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to clarify water resource management in the United States under a provision of the Clean Water Act of 1972. [1]
On January 9, 2001, the US Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers threw out the "Migratory Bird Rule," [3] A case that pitted a consortium of towns around Chicago, Illinois over isolated wetlands, inhabited or visited by over 100 migratory bird species, against the US Army Corps of Engineers.
While the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues the permit, responsibility for enforcement is shared between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA. [ 17 ] [ 18 ] However, the scope of what constitutes a wetland and thus what falls under CWA command and control regulation has changed over time.
The Court held that the use of the Corps of Engineers of the long-controversial "migratory bird rule," adopted by the Corps and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to interpret the reach of its Section 404 authority over discharges into "isolated waters" (including isolated wetlands), exceeded the authority that was granted by that section.
No wetlands excluded, in which wetlands were not omitted from federal protections for being too dry: Between 8 and 19% of NC wetlands lose protection, ranging from 285,200 to 676,7000 acres.
US Army Corps of Engineers. This ruling struck down the Corps' ability to prevent the construction of a disposal site for non-hazardous waste in Illinois based on power derived from the commerce clause. [51] The Corps cited the Migratory Bird Rule when they initially denied the section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act. The migratory bird ...
Under federal law, anyone wanting to develop in wetlands needs a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a process that businesses have complained is cumbersome.
The new wetlands bill that would further strip protections is being presented as a compromise between the state and builders. Regulators disagree. ‘IDEM saying it’s a good bill is a lie ...