Solid Waste Agency Of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps Of Engineers

531 U.S. 159 (2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into 'navigable waters.' Section 404(a) grants D authority to issue permits 'for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites.' The term 'navigable waters' is defined under the Act as 'the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.' D has issued regulations defining the term 'waters of the United States' to include 'waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce . . . .' D created the Migratory Bird Rule which includes habitats used by birds protected by treaties, by other migratory birds which cross state lines, used by endangered species or to irrigate crops in interstate commerce. P is a consortium of cities and villages that united in an effort to locate and develop a disposal site for baled nonhazardous solid waste. They found an old mining site with its remnant excavation trenches evolving into a scattering of permanent and seasonal ponds of varying size. P decided to purchase the site for disposal and the development plan called for the filling of some of the permanent and seasonal ponds. P contacted D to determine if a permit was required under § 404(a). D concluded that it had no jurisdiction over the site because it contained no 'wetlands,' or areas which support 'vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.' D was informed that a number of migratory bird species had been observed at the site, and D asserted jurisdiction under the Migratory Bird Rule. D determined that the site did qualify as 'waters of the United States' in that the water areas are used as habitat by migratory birds which cross state lines.' P got all state and local approvals, but D refused to issue a § 404(a) permit. P filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act. The District Court granted summary judgment to D. The Court of Appeals held that Congress has the authority to regulate such waters based upon 'the cumulative impact doctrine, under which a single activity that itself has no discernible effect on interstate commerce may still be regulated if the aggregate effect of that class of activity has a substantial impact on interstate commerce.' The aggregate effect of the 'destruction of the natural habitat of migratory birds' on interstate commerce, the court held, was substantial because millions of Americans cross state lines and spend over a billion dollars to hunt and observe migratory birds. It held that the CWA reaches as many waters as the Commerce Clause allows and, the Rule was a reasonable interpretation of the Act. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.