Riverside Bayview Homes Case Summary
Facts:
A developer called Riverside Bayview Homes (respondent) owned 80 acres of land in Michigan, and intended to dredge and fill wetlands that existed on its property, in order to build homes. Under the provisions of the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers (petitioner on behalf of the U.S.) felt that RBH should not be permitted to do so and filed suit in Federal District Court, seeking an immediate injunction in order to prevent the continuation of this project. The COE felt that the land owned by RBH was subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act because of its adjacency to navigable water, and therefore (under section 404(a) of the CWA) required a permit in order to be dredged and filled. Under the Clean Water Act, a freshwater …show more content…
The COE was not overstepping in its requirement of a permit because of its authority under the CWA. The wetland’s inclusion under the jurisdiction of the CWA was protected because of its adjacency to a navigable body of water, and the broad definition of “navigable” under the CWA. The Court ruled that the injunction and permit requirement did not constitute a taking, because of the respondent’s lack of compliance to apply for one. Also, the denial of a permit would not reduce the economic viability of RBH’s 80 acres by 100%. The court relied on scientific deference, because if this wetland could have a significant effect on the adjacent body of navigable water explicitly protected by the CWA, then it is subject to CWA jurisdiction.
Comments:
Seeing as though the later case, Rapanos v. United States (2006), provided a much clearer definition of navigable waters, this case seems like it is reaching in its interpretation of its connection between the wetland on the property, and its significance to the adjacent body of water. The “adjacent body of water” argument seems like a stretch because of its sole reliance on scientific deference. It puts landowners in an difficult position because it is impossible to prove that a wetland would never have a significant effect on an adjacent body of
A developer called Riverside Bayview Homes (respondent) owned 80 acres of land in Michigan, and intended to dredge and fill wetlands that existed on its property, in order to build homes. Under the provisions of the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers (petitioner on behalf of the U.S.) felt that RBH should not be permitted to do so and filed suit in Federal District Court, seeking an immediate injunction in order to prevent the continuation of this project. The COE felt that the land owned by RBH was subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act because of its adjacency to navigable water, and therefore (under section 404(a) of the CWA) required a permit in order to be dredged and filled. Under the Clean Water Act, a freshwater …show more content…
The COE was not overstepping in its requirement of a permit because of its authority under the CWA. The wetland’s inclusion under the jurisdiction of the CWA was protected because of its adjacency to a navigable body of water, and the broad definition of “navigable” under the CWA. The Court ruled that the injunction and permit requirement did not constitute a taking, because of the respondent’s lack of compliance to apply for one. Also, the denial of a permit would not reduce the economic viability of RBH’s 80 acres by 100%. The court relied on scientific deference, because if this wetland could have a significant effect on the adjacent body of navigable water explicitly protected by the CWA, then it is subject to CWA jurisdiction.
Comments:
Seeing as though the later case, Rapanos v. United States (2006), provided a much clearer definition of navigable waters, this case seems like it is reaching in its interpretation of its connection between the wetland on the property, and its significance to the adjacent body of water. The “adjacent body of water” argument seems like a stretch because of its sole reliance on scientific deference. It puts landowners in an difficult position because it is impossible to prove that a wetland would never have a significant effect on an adjacent body of