Facts:
John Rapanos (petitioner) filled multiple wetlands on his Michigan property with sand and dirt, carrying out plans to develop a shopping center. Despite warnings from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (and subsequent cease-and-desist orders from the EPA) that these wetlands were protected under the Clean Water Act, Rapanos continued his project, resulting in civil and criminal penalties. These wetlands were considered adjacent to a navigable waterway, which makes them covered by the CWA, (a regulation issued by the Army Corps of Engineers). In response to the suits filed against him by the government, Rapanos argued before the District Court that the wetlands on his property are not included under the jurisdiction of the CWA. Rapanos insisted that these wetlands were not considered WOTUS because they were not …show more content…
This opinion discussed the idea that occasional or inconsistent water connections between wetlands and navigable waterways are not stipulated by the “continuous surface connection” regulation in the Clean Water Act. Basically, just because a wetland is somehow connected to a navigable waterway does not make it included in WOTUS.
• Concurring Opinion (Kennedy): In this opinion, “continuous surface connection” is not the standard that makes a wetland covered by the Clean Water Act. Justice Kennedy asserted that the standard of wetlands under the CWA to be considered WOTUS is that the wetland is adjacent to a navigable waterway and has a “significant nexus” to this waterway. This opinion relies on further evidence that the wetlands on Rapanos’ property do/do not have a “significant
John Rapanos (petitioner) filled multiple wetlands on his Michigan property with sand and dirt, carrying out plans to develop a shopping center. Despite warnings from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (and subsequent cease-and-desist orders from the EPA) that these wetlands were protected under the Clean Water Act, Rapanos continued his project, resulting in civil and criminal penalties. These wetlands were considered adjacent to a navigable waterway, which makes them covered by the CWA, (a regulation issued by the Army Corps of Engineers). In response to the suits filed against him by the government, Rapanos argued before the District Court that the wetlands on his property are not included under the jurisdiction of the CWA. Rapanos insisted that these wetlands were not considered WOTUS because they were not …show more content…
This opinion discussed the idea that occasional or inconsistent water connections between wetlands and navigable waterways are not stipulated by the “continuous surface connection” regulation in the Clean Water Act. Basically, just because a wetland is somehow connected to a navigable waterway does not make it included in WOTUS.
• Concurring Opinion (Kennedy): In this opinion, “continuous surface connection” is not the standard that makes a wetland covered by the Clean Water Act. Justice Kennedy asserted that the standard of wetlands under the CWA to be considered WOTUS is that the wetland is adjacent to a navigable waterway and has a “significant nexus” to this waterway. This opinion relies on further evidence that the wetlands on Rapanos’ property do/do not have a “significant