Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
After passage of the CWA in 1972, a controversy arose as to the application of section 404 to agriculture and certain other activities. The Act was interpreted by some to place restrictions on virtually all placement of dredged materials in wetlands and other waters of the United States, raising concern that the federal government was about to ...
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), was a decision by the US Supreme Court that interpreted a provision of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 [1] of the Act requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into "navigable waters," which is defined by the Act as ...
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.
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.
The 1977 CWA used the term in describing the areawide waste treatment planning program [2] and in procedures for controlling toxic pollutants associated with industrial discharges. [3] The "Section 404" program, which covers dredge and fill permits, refers to BMPs in one of the enforcement exemptions. [4]
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.
In the United States, federal agencies (under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)), as well as many state and local governments, require compensatory mitigation (described as biodiversity offsetting in other countries) for the disturbance or destruction of wetland, stream, or endangered species habitat. [14]
(CWA, section 404). [ 1 ] The definition of WOTUS was challenged in court several times, especially regarding the integration of isolated wetlands, but until the years 2000, the U.S. Federal Court stood by the initial definition saying that floodplain wetlands are bound to the streams they are adjacent to. [ 1 ]