Clean Water Act Case Study

In 2006, Rapanos petitioners were brought forth to the United States Supreme Court for violating the Clean Water Act. Rapanos backfilled three wetlands he owned without a permit. Environmental law became extremely important in this case because due to common law, there were a couple of different interpretations of this situation. Army Corps of Engineers and Riverside Bayview Homes were two different cases that held different precedents regarding what was considered the waters of the United States, which in turn, caused conflict among the Supreme Justices. Along with common law, property rights and nuisances came into question because environmental law has to protect human health and environmental quality and these three aspects are imperative …show more content…
Under the Army Corps of Engineers, Rapanos would have violated the Clean Water Act. However, the Supreme Court was split in their decision whether to convict Raponos or not. Some Supreme Court Justices including The Chief Justice believed that the term “navigable waters” referred to relatively permanent waters. Their support for this claim was the case of United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes because the result of that case was an ambiguous definition of where waters start and end. A wetland, however, can be periodically dry, therefore, according to these Justices, Rapanos did not infringe on the Clean Water Act. In contrast, some Justices viewed this case otherwise and thought that Rapanos did indeed violate the Clean Water …show more content…
Wetlands do play a key part in upholding this integrity, but unfortunately, many people do not realize it. Wetlands regulate water quality in rivers, prevent flooding and storm damage, and store carbon. Because of this, it is imperative to preserve our wetlands because they play a vital role in sustainability. The Justices that were against Rapanos were trying to preserve natures integrity and used Army Corps of Engineers definition of “navigable waters” and deemed the wetland a part of United States waters to back up their claim. Property rights become an issue in this case because Rapanos did own the piece of land that he filled with sand. According to property rights, every person has a right to own land and use it how they please. If property rights were the only issues at hand, then Rapanos would be fine. But, the government has a duty under the Clean Water Act to protect “navigable waters.” This issue trumps property rights because the government is responsible to protect the environment for the public’s