Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
SWANCC obtained the needed local and state permits, but the Corps, on the basis of the ponds and their use by migratory birds, asserted jurisdiction under section 404 and denied a permit. Section 404 requires permits for discharges to dispose of dredged and fill material into the nation's navigable waters, such as when a landowner undertakes ...
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.
Section 404 requires that a discharger of dredged or fill material obtain a permit, unless the activity is eligible for an exemption. [69] Essentially, all discharges affecting the bottom elevation of a jurisdictional water body require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
The Corps cited the Migratory Bird Rule when they initially denied the section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act. The migratory bird rule was meant to protect habitats used by migratory birds, which included the abandoned mining site that SWANCC had proposed to construct the waste disposal site.
require permits for all development in Zone A; determine whether proposed developments will be reasonably safe from flooding; determine that all necessary permits have been received from Federal and State government agencies, including section 404 permits of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
1972 - Clean Water Act extends Corps regulatory authority (Section 404 Permits) to all waters of the United States. [9] October 1, 1980 - The portion of the Tulsa District lying within the state of Arkansas is transferred to the Little Rock District.
In the late 1980s, Rapanos prepared 22 acres (8.9 ha) of land for the development of a mall by pulling trees and filling the hole with sand. 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]
304 S.C. 376, 404 S.E.2d 895 (1991); cert. granted, 502 U.S. 966 (1991). Subsequent: On remand at the South Carolina Supreme Court, 309 S.C. 424, 424 S.E.2d 484 (1992). Holding; A regulation that deprives an owner of all economically beneficial uses of land constitutes a taking unless the proscribed use interests were not part of the title to ...