BEM 0331 Unit IV Case Study

John Rapanos was charged in federal court with violating the Clean Water Act (CWA) after backfilling approximately fifty-four acres of land he owned in Michigan without first obtaining a permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Rapanos v. United States, quimbee.com, n.d.). In 1988 John Rapanos asked the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to inspect a 230 acre Salzburg site that he wanted to use to build a shopping center. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources inspector informed John Rapanos that the land probably included wetlands that were “waters of the United States” and the inspector sent John Rapanos an application for a permit. After the inspection John Rapanos hired Dr. Frederick Goff, a wetland consultant. Dr. Goff determined that the land did contain many acres of wetlands. John Rapanos threatened to destroy Dr. Goff if he did not destroy the wetland report and refused to pay Goff. John Rapanos hired construction companies to do $350,000 worth of work clearing, filling low spots, draining subsurface water of the land without applying for a permit. John Rapanos then prevented Michigan Department Natural Resources inspectors from visiting the site, ignored a Michigan Department Natural Resources cease-and-desist letter, and refused to obey an administrative compliance order issued by the EPA. The matter was referred to the Department of Justice. The District Court found that John Rapanos unlawfully filled 22 acres of wetlands. Rapanos and his wife engaged in similar behavior at the Hines Road and Pine River sites. They hired construction companies to perform extensive clearing and filling activities on these sites, as well. They continued these activities even after receiving EPA administrative compliance orders directing them to cease the work immediately (Rapanos v. United States, law.cornell,edu, n.d.).

The case was held on February 21st, 2006, but a decision was not made until June 19th, 2006. The case brought about because construction work performed was determined to that the wetlands that John Rapanos owned was considered “waters of the United States.” Regulations interpret that “waters of the United States” to cover all traditionally navigable waters; tributaries of these waters; and wetlands adjacent to traditionally navigable waters or the tributaries (Rapanos v. United States, law.cornell,edu, n.d.). The Clean Water Act authorizes the United States Army Corps of Engineers to require landowners to obtain permits from the Corps before discharging fill material into wetlands adjacent to navigable bodies of water and their tributaries (Rapanos v. United States, law.cornell,edu, n.d.). The Corps concluded that wetlands such as the three that John Rapanos owned play important roles in maintain the quality of their adjacent waters (Rapanos v. United States, law.cornell,edu, n.d.).

The Rapanos decision made by the Supreme Court addressed the proper extent of wetlands jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (Rapanos v. United States, scholarship.law.berkeley.edu, n.d.). John Rapanos paid an almost $1,000,000 settlement to the EPA, but admitted no wrongdoing. I believe that if John Rapanos had performed the process required by the United States Corps of Engineers of acquiring a permit prior to starting work, he would have not had to go to court. Once he refused to stop work and apply to get a permit, he then made the people who worked for the Corps angry and they decided to take the case to court. The Rapanos v. United States case brought about confusion on interpretation of the Clean Water Act. Chief Justice Roberts said “It is unfortunate that no opinion commands a majority of the Court on precisely how to read Congress’ limits on the reach of the Clean Water Act. This is not only an unfortunate ruling because the Court missed an opportunity to clarify the Clean Water Act, it is also unfortunate because the confusing plurality opinion the Court issued is likely to cause uncertainty in future litigation over the Clean Water Act in the lower federal courts. Interested parties on both sides of the environmental debate will now be forced to further litigate the federal government’s reach under the Clean Water Act in order to get solid answers. This is disconcerting for those on both sides of the environmental debate because until the court takes up the issue again, confusion and inconsistency will likely result. The Rapanos opinion has left developers, environmental lawyer and the Army Corps or Engineers scratching their heads” (Rapanos v. United states: “Water of the United States” under the clean water act, nationalaglawcenter.org, n.d.)

Place an Order

Plagiarism Free!

Scroll to Top