Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court potentially dealt a severe blow to wetlands protection under the Clean Water Act with its 2006 plurality decision in Rapanos v. United States. As administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the jurisdictional extent of the Clean Water Act's wetlands protection provisions is now less clear. Congress ambiguously described the reach of the Clean Water Act as extending to all "waters of the United States." Rather than deferring to the Army Corps' interpretation of that phrase, as is appropriate under the Chevron doctrine, the Rapanos plurality chose to overlook the words' ambiguity and impose impractical permanency and surface connection requirements for wetlands to warrant protection under the Clean Water Act. Such requirements do not align with the scientific realities of wetlands and the water cycle in general.
This Casenote explains the wetlands protection process and summarizes previous U.S. Supreme Court precedent on the extent of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. This Casenote also provides details on the factual and procedural history of the Rapanos dispute. Finally, this Casenote analyzes the plurality's decision in Rapanos and considers the ramifications that decision could have for future wetlands protection.
Recommended Citation
John S. Persell,
Murky Wetlands Protection Following Rapanos v. United States,547U.S.715(2006),
32
S. Ill. U. L.J.
749
(2008).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol32/iss3/16