United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.

Summary

The Sixth Circuit reviewed an enforcement action concerning whether property in Michigan qualified as regulated wetlands under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Corps of Engineers regulations. The court held that the property did not meet the amended wetlands definition because the evidence did not show sufficiently frequent flooding causing the aquatic vegetation, and it vacated the injunction. The court also vacated as moot a declaratory judgment concerning the Corps' permit-processing regulation.

Holdings

1. Under the revised wetlands definition, both sufficiently frequent and prolonged present inundation or saturation and aquatic vegetation supported by that inundation or saturation are required. The Riverside property did not qualify because the record did not establish that it was presently flooded with sufficient frequency and duration or that flooding caused its wetland-type vegetation.
2. The permanent injunction prohibiting Riverside from placing fill on the property was not justified under the revised wetlands regulation and was vacated.
3. The challenge to the Corps regulation postponing permit processing was moot because the court's wetlands ruling eliminated any present adverse effect on Riverside and the regulation had been amended. The district court's declaratory judgment was vacated and the claim was dismissed.
4. The revised wetlands definition was construed narrowly to cover lands such as marshes, swamps, and bogs frequently flooded by waters subject to Corps jurisdiction, but not inland low-lying property that only sometimes becomes saturated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Riverside property satisfied the Corps of Engineers' revised regulatory definition of wetlands under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
2. Whether the revised wetlands definition required present inundation or saturation sufficiently frequent and prolonged to support aquatic vegetation, with the vegetation caused by that inundation or saturation.
3. Whether the district court's permanent injunction prohibiting filling on the property could continue under the revised regulation.
4. Whether the declaratory judgment challenging the Corps regulation postponing permit processing became moot after the court determined that the Corps had no jurisdiction over Riverside's property and the regulation was amended.

Disposition

other