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 ...
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.
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 ...
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.
Determining which wetlands are regulated under section 404 of the Clean Water Act [6] or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act is termed "jurisdictional determination". Determining the boundary of wetland, whether jurisdictional under sections 404 or 10, or not jurisdictional but still meeting the technical definition of a wetland, that is ...
The 1977 amendments included a set of six section 404 exemptions. For example, totally new activities such as construction of farm roads, Sec. 1344(f)(1)(E), construction of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, and minor agricultural drainage, Sec. 1344(f)(1)(A), all are exempted by Statute.
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]
The United States District Court for the District of Alaska found that the USACE was correct in its application of section 404 of the act, because the permit was for "fill material", and therefore not covered under or in violation of sections 301(e) and 306(e). [3]