Turn to the nation's most objective and informative daily environmental news resource to learn how the United States and key players around the world are responding to the environmental...
A U.S. Supreme Court decision giving property owners the right to sue over findings that wetlands or waters on their property may be subject to Clean Water Act protections hasn’t unleashed the flood of litigation that many expected, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA.
One reason may be that it’s still too early, as the decision was only handed down last spring. Another may be that it’s just too expensive and time consuming to undertake such a challenge.
Yet another reason may be the Trump administration’s pledge to make permitting more streamlined and less burdensome for businesses.
Neil McAliley, shareholder attorney in the Miami office of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A., said he wasn’t surprised to learn that there hasn’t been an increase in challenges to jurisdictional determinations made by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
“The decision is still fairly recent and any such challenges would be unlikely to garner widespread attention in their early stages,” McAliley said
He was referring to the high court’s decision in the case of the Hawkes Co., a peat mining company that pushed for a right to challenge a final jurisdictional finding of wetlands made by the corps. The court said a determination by the corps that a parcel of land contained wetlands or other protected waters was considered a final agency action subject to judicial review (U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co.136 S. Ct. 1807, 82 ERC 1465, 2016 BL 171974 (2016)).
The Clean Water Act doesn’t require jurisdictional determinations, but such a finding means that a landowner would have to obtain a Section 404 dredge-and-fill permit for activities that may affect any protected waters on the property, as was the case with Hawkes Co.
Peter McGrath, an attorney with the Charlotte, N.C., office of Moore Van Allen PLLC, has a more nuanced explanation for why more challenges haven’t been filed as yet.
“It will be interesting to see if the Trump administration causes the corps to become more business friendly in making its initial jurisdictional determinations, but I think if the corps acts as they have in the past, by trying to assert jurisdiction over as wide an area as possible, an uptick in litigation is practically inevitable,” McGrath said.
Nearly all attorneys interviewed by Bloomberg BNA agree they haven’t seen any uptick yet, while some say they don’t expect to see an increase any time soon.
“No, not aware of any uptick,” Cynthia Taub, a partner with Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 14.
A jurisdictional finding takes time to materialize, particularly the final approved version because it requires field visits to the property.
The length of time it takes to obtain a corps jurisdictional finding depends on the region, the complexity of the project, and whether the corps believes the finding will be challenged, according to McAliley, who said he has seen the corps take a few months to several years in issuing approved determinations in Florida.
But that is not the only countervailing factor preventing what could be an uptick in challenges, Taub said.
“One is that challenging a jurisdictional determination is still an expensive and time-consuming proposition,” Taub said.
Some applicants may find it easier to go for the permit than undertake an appeal, while others may be hesitant to sue the corps, since they may have to work with them in the future, she said.
Kirsten Nathanson, an attorney who specializes in environmental practice at Crowell & Moring LLP in Washington, D.C., agreed that it takes time for the corps to go through the process of asserting jurisdiction. But she said, “whether litigation will pick up will be dependent on how aggressively the Corps interprets the scope of its jurisdiction in this new Administration.”
A property owner may exhaust administrative remedies by going through the appeals process at the corps instead of suing in court, some attorneys say.
The purpose of an administrative appeals process is to correct errors internally before resorting to courts.
“If the appeals process works as it should, landowners may be able to avoid the cost of litigation altogether by winning their challenge on administrative appeal,” said Reed Hopper, the nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation’s principal attorney who represented the Hawkes Co. before the Supreme Court in the quest to gain the right to challenge jurisdictional determinations.
But exhausting administrative remedies before resorting to a legal challenge is not a requirement, corps spokesman Doug Garman told Bloomberg BNA in November when the agency issued its guidance in response to the Hawkes decision .
Property owners can challenge a jurisdictional finding in court without having to go through either the permit process or an administrative appeals process, Garman said at the time.
Despite this clarification from the corps, many lawyers continue to claim that the corps requires the applicants to exhaust the administrative review process because the corps did not explicitly spell out that option in its guidance.
As for administrative appeals, the corps hadn’t seen any increase, significant or otherwise, Garman told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 14.
It is immaterial whether a property owner chooses to challenge a federal finding through the corps appeals process or in courts, several attorneys said. The right to sue shouldn’t be seen as a “free ride” for dredging and filling wetlands and streams without the requisite permit, cautioned Larry Liebesman, a senior adviser to Washington D.C.-based Dawson & Associates.
In either case, the onus is on the property owner to show evidence to counter the corps claims of jurisdiction, Liebesman said.
The administrative appeals process, in fact, gives the corps more time to collect evidence to back its claim that in some cases can be detrimental to the property owner’s interests, he added.
McAliley agrees that parties that challenge a corps jurisdictional determination will not necessarily win. “The Hawkes case just allows challengers to get into court, but the court will still have to adjudicate each case on its facts,” he said.
But McAliley predicts that the types of cases that may appear before the court may not be the same as they were before the Hawkes ruling. The nature of federal wetland legal practice may change with more cases being filed by private parties, said McAliley, as he alluded to his Feb. 10 talk at the American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education seminar on Environment Law.
In the past, McAliley said, courts were asked to rule on enforcement cases the corps and the Environmental Protection Agency brought against developers and landowners that refused to obtain permits for dredging and filling wetlands, which the corps had deemed jurisdictional. Also, the corps’ claims of jurisdiction couldn’t be challenged until a permit was issued or denied, he said.
“After the Hawkes case, private parties now can decide which cases to bring to court, which means that courts may consider more circumstances where Clean Water Act jurisdiction is more marginal,” McAliley said. “Over time, one might expect there to be more decisions that a given site is not within the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction.”
For instance, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota upon remand from the Supreme Court refused in January to allow the corps a “third bite at the apple” to issue a Clean Water Act jurisdictional determination over the peat bogs that Hawkes Co. wanted to mine. The court rejected the corps initial and revised finding of jurisdiction because the agency failed to provide evidence in each instance ( Hawkes Co. Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 2017 BL 19962, D. Minn., No. 13-107, 1/24/17).
McAliley saw that ruling as an example of courts increasingly taking on the roles to find jurisdiction when the corps has fallen short.
Liebesman, Hopper and others consider the circumstances to be unique to the Hawkes remand case, and expect most jurisdictional challenges in the future to be resolved at the administrative appeals process.
What Liebesman does expect is heightened scrutiny of corps claims of jurisdiction. The federal court in Minnesota made it clear that the corps didn’t provide quantitative evidence to claims of jurisdiction in Hawkes.
McGrath also doesn’t expect courts to be substituting their own judgment for that of the corps.
“I think almost all courts will either accept the Corps’ determination, or find fault with the Corps’ determination, and order the Corps to redo the determination itself,” he said.
The corps for its part may simply limit itself to preliminary jurisdictional determinations whenever possible to avoid getting into a Hawkes-like situation where its final approved finding is rejected by the courts, according to Nathanson, of Crowell & Moring.
Taub is of the opinion that fewer cases of the Hawkes variety will make it to the courts because the corps made it clear in its November guidance that it would give less priority to stand-alone jurisdictional determinations for owners who want to find out whether they have federally protected wetlands or waters on a property.
In the instance of Hawkes, the Minnesota mining company had approached the corps to determine whether the peat wetlands on its property fell under Clean Water Act protections.
“If the Corps starts to slow down/limit stand-alone, final [jurisdictional determinations], this could limit future ‘Hawkes’ challenges,” Taub said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Amena H. Saiyid in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Pearl at firstname.lastname@example.org
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ regulatory guidance letter on jurisdictional determinations is available at http://src.bna.com/jMq
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)