On Tuesday December 11, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency released the long awaited (promised by President Trump) proposed rule that would reduce the types of areas covered by the wetlands programs under the federal Clean Water Act.

( Pre-publication version of the Federal Register notice, the supporting analyses and fact sheets are available at: https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule)

The proposed rule from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reduces the types of waterways that are covered as compared to the 2015 Obama era rule that was the subject of controversy because of the scope of the reach of jurisdiction. The more restrictive interpretation included in the proposed rule is based on a 2006 opinion by Supreme Court Justice Scalia, in Rapanos v. United States 547 U.S. 715 (2006). who opined that the federal Clean Water Act only applied to relatively permanent waters; while the other areas, should be regulated by states.

Of particular interest is the section that discussed crop land:

 Prior converted cropland.

  • This longstanding exclusion for certain agricultural areas would be continued under the proposal, and the agencies are clarifying that this exclusion would cease to apply when cropland is abandoned (i.e., not used for, or in support of, agricultural purposes in the preceding five years) and has reverted to wetlands.

The proposed rule creates six exclusive categories of areas that fall under federal jurisdiction. This text if from the EPA Fact Sheet:

Traditional navigable waters (TNWs)

  • Under the proposal, traditional navigable waters would be largerivers and lakes, tidal waters, and the territorial seas—such asthe Atlantic Ocean, the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes, and tidally influenced waterbodies, including wetlands, along coastlines—used in interstate or foreign commerce.

Tributaries

  • In the agencies’ proposal, tributaries would be rivers and streams that flow to traditional navigable waters—such as Rock Creek,which feeds to the Potomac River in Washington, D.C.
  • Under the proposal, these naturally occurring surface water channels must flow more often than just when it rains—that is,tributaries as proposed must be perennial or intermittent.Ephemeral features would not be tributaries under the proposal.
  • Tributaries can connect to traditional navigable waters directly,through other “waters of the United States,” or through other non-jurisdictional surface waters so long as those waters convey perennial or intermittent flow downstream.

Certain ditches

  • A ditch under the proposed rule would be an “artificial channel used to convey water.”
  • Under the proposal, ditches would be jurisdictional where they are traditional navigable waters, such as the Erie Canal, or subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
  • Ditches may also be jurisdictional where they satisfy conditions of the tributary definition as proposed and either 1) we reconstructed in a tributary or 2) were built in adjacent wetlands.

Certain lakes and ponds

  • Lakes and ponds would be jurisdictional where they are traditional navigable waters, such as the Great Salt Lake in Utah or Lake Champlain along the Vermont-New York border.
  • Lakes and ponds would be jurisdictional where they contribute perennial or intermittent flow to a traditional navigable water either directly, through other “waters of the United States,” or through other non-jurisdictional surface waters so long as those waters convey perennial or intermittent flow downstream, such as Lake Pepin in Minnesota or Lake Travis in Texas.
  • Lakes and ponds would be jurisdictional where they are flooded by a “water of the United States” in a typical year, such as many oxbow lakes.

Impoundments

  • Under the proposal, impoundments of “waters of the United States” would be jurisdictional.

Adjacent wetlands

  • Under the proposal, wetlands that physically touch other jurisdictional waters would be “adjacent wetlands,” such honorific Marsh in Wisconsin.
  • Wetlands with a surface water connection in a typical year that results from 1) inundation from a “water of the United States” to the wetland or 2) perennial or intermittent flow between the wetland and a “water of the United States”would be “adjacent.”
  • Wetlands that are near a jurisdictional water but don’t physically touch that water because they are separated, for example by a berm, levee, or upland, would be adjacent only where they have a surface water connection describe din the previous bullet through or over the barrier, including wetlands flooded by jurisdictional waters in a typical year.

The proposal also clearly outlines what would not be “waters of the United States,” including:

  • Waters that would not be included in the proposed categories of“waters of the United States” listed above—this would provide clarity that if a water or feature is not identified as jurisdictional in the proposal, it would not be a jurisdictional water under the Clean WaterAct.
  • Ephemeral features that contain water only during or in response to rainfall.
  • Groundwater.
  • Ditches that do not meet the proposed conditions necessary to be considered jurisdictional, including most farm and roadside ditches.
  • Prior converted cropland.
    • This longstanding exclusion for certain agricultural areas would be continued under the proposal, and the agencies are clarifying that this exclusion would cease to apply when cropland is abandoned (i.e., not used for, or in support of, agricultural purposes in the preceding five years) and has reverted to wetlands.
  • Storm water control features excavated or constructed in upland to convey, treat, infiltrate, or store storm water run-off.
  • Wastewater recycling structures such as detention, retention and infiltration basins and ponds, and groundwater recharge basins would be excluded where they are constructed in upland.
  • Waste treatment systems.
    • Waste treatment systems have been excluded from the definition of “waters of the United States” since 1979 and would continue to be excluded under this proposal; however, waste treatment systems are being defined for the first time in this proposed rule.
    • A waste treatment system would include all components, including lagoon sand treatment ponds (such as settling or cooling ponds), designed to convey or retain, concentrate, settle, reduce, or remove pollutants, either actively or passively, from wastewater or stormwater prior to discharge(or eliminating any such discharge).

Craig A. Tristao is a Partner in the litigation and transactions departments of the firm’s Fresno office. He provides representation to clients in litigation matters involving agricultural law, environmental law, construction law, land use and natural resource law, water law, probate and estates, and eminent domain matters that involve the California High Speed Rail Authority. Craig also assists clients with regulatory compliance issues concerning the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Porter-Cologne Act, and the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition to litigation, Craig also represents clients before the Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the State Water Resources Control Board, air districts, and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB). He has also been named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” for 2015-2018 (2.5% of lawyers practicing under 10 years). You can contact Craig at (559) 248-4820 or ctristao@ch-law.com.