No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • CCI Magazine
    • Writing for CCI
    • Career Connection
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Library
    • Download Whitepapers & Reports
    • Download eBooks
    • New: Living Your Best Compliance Life by Mary Shirley
    • New: Ethics and Compliance for Humans by Adam Balfour
    • 2021: Raise Your Game, Not Your Voice by Lentini-Walker & Tschida
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
    • Great Women in Compliance
    • Unless: The Podcast (Hemma Lomax)
  • Research
  • Webinars
  • Events
  • Subscribe
Jump to a Section
  • At the Office
    • Ethics
    • HR Compliance
    • Leadership & Career
    • Well-Being at Work
  • Compliance & Risk
    • Compliance
    • FCPA
    • Fraud
    • Risk
  • Finserv & Audit
    • Financial Services
    • Internal Audit
  • Governance
    • ESG
    • Getting Governance Right
  • Infosec
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
  • Opinion
    • Adam Balfour
    • Jim DeLoach
    • Mary Shirley
    • Yan Tougas
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

Wetlands Jurisdictional Determinations are Now Immediately Appealable to Federal Courts

by Peter McGrath
July 8, 2016
in Compliance
Businesses can now appeal unfavorable EPA-related determinations by the Corps of Engineers

This piece is a follow-up from Peter McGrath to his article “Supreme Court Considers Whether Wetlands Jurisdictional Determinations are Immediately Appealable.”

In a unanimous decision in May[1], the United States Supreme Court ruled that a jurisdictional determination by the United States Army Corps of Engineers stating that particular property contains “waters of the United States” is a final agency action judicially reviewable under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. That Act allows a party aggrieved by certain types of federal agency actions to ask a Federal court to review the action.  Courts have previously not reviewed jurisdictional determinations.

The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant into the waters of the United States without a proper permit.[2]  All of those terms – “discharge,” “pollutant” and “waters of the United States” – are broadly, but perhaps unclearly, defined.  A landowner who owns property which contain waters of the United States must obtain a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers before filling the wetlands or any portion of them.  Filling wetlands, or otherwise discharging pollutants into the waters of the United States without a permit can result in substantial civil and even criminal penalties.[3]  It can be extremely difficult to determine whether any particular piece of property is or includes “waters of the United States.[4]”  Because of that difficulty, the Corps allows property owners to request a “jurisdictional determination” specifying whether their property contains waters of the United States.[5]  A jurisdictional determination may be either preliminary, stating that waters of the United States may be present, or approved, definitively stating the presence or absence of such waters.[6]  An approved jurisdictional determination is valid for five years and is binding on the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency.

If the Corps issues an approved jurisdictional determination, the affected property owner may find that the owner’s ability to use or develop the property may be significantly impaired or even eliminated.  What to do, then, if the Corps issues an approved jurisdictional determination with which the property owner disagrees?  The Corps does provide an administrative process for appealing jurisdictional determination, but property owners often find that process unsatisfactory. The appeals board is also a Corps body, so property owners may feel that the appeals board is not necessarily independent.

In the United States Army Corps of Engineers vs. Hawkes Co., Inc. case, property owners engaged in mining peat in Minnesota sought a permit from the Corps to discharge fill material into wetlands on property they owned and hoped to mine.  The property owners received and approved jurisdictional determination from the Corps stating affirmatively that the property contained waters of the United States, because its wetlands had a “significant nexus” to the Red River of the North, located some 120 miles away.  The property owners disagreed with the jurisdictional determination.  After exhausting administrative remedies by unsuccessfully appealing the determination through the Corps process, the property owners sought review of the jurisdictional determination in Federal Court under the Administrative Procedure Act, but their complaint was initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  The District Court held that the jurisdictional determination was not an action a federal court could review under the Administrative Procedure Act.  The property owners appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  The Court of Appeals reversed that decision, directing the District Court to review the determination.  The Corps then appealed that reversal to the Supreme Court.

The position of the Corps had been that it took no agency action reviewable in court until it issued or denied a permit.  The Supreme Court in Hawkes disagreed.  The Supreme Court held that in general, two conditions must be satisfied for an agency action to be final.  First, the action must mark the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process and second, the action must be one by which rights or obligations have been determined from which legal consequences will flow.[7]  The Corps believed that landowners had two alternatives after receiving a jurisdictional determination with which they would disagree.  The landowner may proceed without a permit and argue in an enforcement action that a permit was not required, or they may complete the permit process and then seek judicial review which, the Corps believed, is what the Clean Water Act favors.  The Supreme Court held that neither alternative adequately protects the rights of the property owner.  The parties need not await enforcement proceedings before challenging final agency action where such proceedings carry the risk of serious criminal and civil penalties.  Further, the Court found that the permitting process is not only costly and lengthy, but also irrelevant to the finality of the jurisdictional determination and suitability for judicial review.

Although it is too early to develop much meaningful data about how often property owners will look to courts to review adverse jurisdictional limitations, we can assume requests for review will happen with some regularity in the future.  Judicial decisions in those cases may provide some meaningful definition to the confusing questions about which properties are waters of the United States.

[1] United State Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., __ U.S. __ (2016)

[2] 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(7), (12).

[3] Id., §§ 1319(c), (d).

[4] Hawkes, p. 2

[5] 33 CFR 331.2.

[6] Id.

[7] See, Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154.


Previous Post

New Book Reveals Path to Ethical High Road for 21st Century Companies

Next Post

FCPA Compliance Strategies for Extortion in Latin America

Peter McGrath

Peter McGrath

September 17 - Peter McGrath headshotA frequent lecturer and author on diverse environmental issues, Peter McGrath, a member at Moore & Van Allen, brings to his wide-ranging clients extensive counseling and litigation experience with environmental issues arising in business and real estate transactions.

Related Posts

low battery on iphone warning

Ethics Fatigue: The Burnout That’s Putting Your Organization at Risk

by Nick Gallo
June 20, 2025

The psychology behind why ethics professionals are exhausted and what companies risk when they let it go unchecked

news roundup new

Few Business Leaders Feel Fully Prepared for Challenges of 2025

by Staff and Wire Reports
June 20, 2025

Data center operators not using full slate of available sustainability tactics; companies continue to use AI without policies

SmartSearch Daon Partnership

SmartSearch Partners With Daon for Enhanced ID Verification

by Corporate Compliance Insights
June 19, 2025

UK digital compliance provider SmartSearch has partnered with digital identity company Daon to integrate AI-powered biometric identity technology into its...

Ondato Media Screening Launch

Ondato Launches AI-Powered Adverse Media Screening for AML Compliance

by Corporate Compliance Insights
June 19, 2025

Global online ID verification provider Ondato has released an AI-powered adverse media screening feature that automatically scans online sources for...

Next Post
Strategies to mitigate extortion risk in Latin America

FCPA Compliance Strategies for Extortion in Latin America

No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy | AI Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Research
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2025 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • CCI Magazine
    • Writing for CCI
    • Career Connection
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Library
    • Download Whitepapers & Reports
    • Download eBooks
    • New: Living Your Best Compliance Life by Mary Shirley
    • New: Ethics and Compliance for Humans by Adam Balfour
    • 2021: Raise Your Game, Not Your Voice by Lentini-Walker & Tschida
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
    • Great Women in Compliance
    • Unless: The Podcast (Hemma Lomax)
  • Research
  • Webinars
  • Events
  • Subscribe

© 2025 Corporate Compliance Insights