U.S. Supreme Court: United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes Inc. 474 U.S. 121 (1985)
The developer Riverside Bayview Homes was filling its property, which was located next to Lake St. Clair, Michigan, with fill material. The Army Corps of Engineers filled a lawsuit against the developer to prevent this from happening, as the Corps felt that this area qualified as a wetland and the developer would then need to obtain a permit from the Corps as required under Clean Water Act § 404. The district court held that this area was considered a wetland under the Corps’ definition. This was then reversed in the Court of Appeals, which stated that the Corps’ must avoid taking without just compensation which violates the Fifth Amendment, thus giving the developer the right to fill their property without a permit. The Supreme Court ruled with the District Court in that the developer’s property did qualify as wetlands under the Corps’ definition and that the Corps’ acted within …show more content…
This Act has played a large role in keeping the countries public waters clean and improving the water quality for the public and is one of the biggest environmental laws in the United States. However, the Clean Water Act has not been updated in 25 years, a fact that has caused the act to become somewhat outdated. The issue arises when things such as storm-water pollution and the Act’s jurisdiction comes into play.
Many wetlands area and streams are facing degradation due the fact that they are no longer protected under the Clean Water Act. The Act needs to also address water pollution such as runoff from agricultural fields and the issue of storm-water discharge. However, with congress being so divided today, any change to the Act may be hard pressed to achieve, a fact that has been stated by many in the
The developer Riverside Bayview Homes was filling its property, which was located next to Lake St. Clair, Michigan, with fill material. The Army Corps of Engineers filled a lawsuit against the developer to prevent this from happening, as the Corps felt that this area qualified as a wetland and the developer would then need to obtain a permit from the Corps as required under Clean Water Act § 404. The district court held that this area was considered a wetland under the Corps’ definition. This was then reversed in the Court of Appeals, which stated that the Corps’ must avoid taking without just compensation which violates the Fifth Amendment, thus giving the developer the right to fill their property without a permit. The Supreme Court ruled with the District Court in that the developer’s property did qualify as wetlands under the Corps’ definition and that the Corps’ acted within …show more content…
This Act has played a large role in keeping the countries public waters clean and improving the water quality for the public and is one of the biggest environmental laws in the United States. However, the Clean Water Act has not been updated in 25 years, a fact that has caused the act to become somewhat outdated. The issue arises when things such as storm-water pollution and the Act’s jurisdiction comes into play.
Many wetlands area and streams are facing degradation due the fact that they are no longer protected under the Clean Water Act. The Act needs to also address water pollution such as runoff from agricultural fields and the issue of storm-water discharge. However, with congress being so divided today, any change to the Act may be hard pressed to achieve, a fact that has been stated by many in the