Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
One likely result is that case-by-case evaluations will then be required to determine if regulatory jurisdiction exists, the length of time to obtain section 404 permits will be longer than in the past. If federal jurisdiction is diminished, the responsibility to protect affected wetlands falls on states and local governments.
Under Section 404 of the CWA, a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers is required to conduct certain activities that may impact wetlands. The developer must submit a Public Notice to their respective district of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requesting to carry out a project and associated ecological impacts on a wetland.
One of the major responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers is administering the wetlands permitting program under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. (also known as "The Clean Water Act"). This Act authorized the Secretary of the Army to issue permits for the discharge of dredged and fill material.
The geographic extent of waters of the United States subject to section 404 permits fall under a broader definition and include tributaries to navigable waters and adjacent wetlands. The engineers must first determine if the waters at the project site are jurisdictional and subject to the requirements of the section 404 permitting program.
The Clinton Administration’s commitment was to increase the fairness and flexibility as well as speed of permit issuances over dredged or fill materials into waters as a part of the implementation of the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. It also aimed to resolve the differences in the delineation of wetlands area.
Mountaintop removal mining requires a section 404 permit when soil and rock from the mining operation is placed in streams and wetlands (commonly called a "valley fill"). Pollutant discharges from valley fills to streams also requires an NPDES permit.
Case history; Prior: 729 F.2d 391 (6th Cir. 1984); cert. granted, 469 U.S. 1206 (1985).: Holding; The District Court's findings are not clearly erroneous, and plainly bring respondent's property within the category of wetlands, as the language, policies, and history of the Clean Water Act compel a finding that the Corps has acted reasonably in interpreting the Act to require permits for the ...
Rapanos did not file for a permit when he pulled the trees, but the government claimed that his land was a wetland because it was adjacent to a drainage ditch. [2] Rapanos argued that the land was not a wetland and that he was not breaking the law. He claimed that his land was up to 20 miles (32 km) from any navigable waterways. [3]