Topic: Ability of Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers to regulate isolated wetlands used by migratory birds

On 9 January 2001, in a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the "migratory bird rule" used by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to claim jurisdication over isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. In the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Supreme Court overruled two federal circuit court decisions that had upheld the EPA/Corps rule.

The Clean Water Act applies to navigable bodies of water or to isolated wetlands whose "use, degradation, or destruction could affect interstate commerce." The Corps claimed that migratory birds, which use these isolated wetlands, affect interstate commerce because people spend more than a billion dollars on hunting, trapping, and observing migratory birds. Again, two lower courts had upheld that view.

In this case, a waste management district wanted to use an abandoned gravel pit as a landfill site. The Corps denied the permit, based on the "migratory bird rule."  The Solid Waste Agency, backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Homebuilders, alleged that the Corps' interpretation of the rule pertaining to interstate commerce (particularly, the "migratory bird rule") is not consistent with Congressional intent and that even if it is, then Congress exceeded its Constitutional authority under the interstate commerce clause to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing the majority opinion,  called the ponds a ``far cry'' from the kind of large or navigable bodies of water that Congress intended to protect. Likewise, a 1986 refinement of the environmental law that deals specifically with the needs of migratory birds does not give the federal government control over the ponds, he added. ``Permitting the (government) to claim federal jurisdiction over ponds and mudflats,'' such as those in the Illinois case, ``would also result in a significant impingement of the states' traditional and primary power over land and water use,'' Rehnquist wrote. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor joined the majority opinion. Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens dissented.
 

Return to Expert Help Page

Return to BIRDNET Home Page