On January 23, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released their new regulatory definition of “the waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) clarifying the geographic scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
Continue Reading Agencies Release Final Rule Clarifying Federal Jurisdiction Under the Clean Water Act

On August 22, EPA issued a proposed rule seeking to increase predictability for applicants by clarifying the Clean Water Act section 401 state water quality certification process.
Continue Reading EPA Proposes to Increase Predictability and Timeliness of Water Quality Certification Process

Over the past several decades, significant tension has developed between the federal role in overseeing and authorizing certain types of energy infrastructure projects and states’ roles in regulating water quality under the cooperative federalism structure of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act). This tension has played itself out in various contexts, but the

On Wednesday, April 10, President Trump signed an Executive Order seeking to expedite the permitting process for energy infrastructure projects by reforming the Clean Water Act section 401 water quality certification process.
Continue Reading Executive Order Seeks to Reform Water Quality Certification Process

“According to FERC, it is now commonplace for states to use Section 401 to hold federal licensing hostage.”

These are the words the DC Circuit used in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 14-1271, p. 10 (D.C. Cir., Jan. 25, 2019), to describe the state of play on § 401 certifications affecting hydroelectric facility licensing or re-licensing applications. CWA § 401(a)(1) requires, as a prerequisite for federal permits for activities that may result in a discharge into the navigable waters, that affected states certify that any such discharge will comply with applicable, enumerated provisions of the Clean Water Act. But, if a state fails or refuses to act on a request for certification within “a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request,” the statute deems the certification requirements waived.
Continue Reading Act or Waive: DC Circuit Construes CWA § 401’s One-Year Deadline for State Action Applications

On Friday, a court ruling provided some clarity regarding the Clean Water Act (CWA) § 401 water quality certification process. As forecasted in our November 1, 2018 blog post (below), the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has ruled that a state waives its CWA § 401 authority when, pursuant to a written agreement, an applicant repeatedly withdraws and resubmits its request for water quality certification in order to restart the one-year waiver clock. Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, No. 14-1271 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2019). According to the Court’s opinion, this sort of arrangement serves to circumvent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) “congressionally granted authority over the licensing, conditioning, and developing of [the] project,” and “if allowed, the withdrawal-and-resubmission scheme could be used to indefinitely delay federal licensing proceedings and undermine FERC’s jurisdiction to regulate such matters.”
Continue Reading UPDATE: During Oral Argument, DC Circuit Suggests Waiver Period for State Water Quality Certification May Be Less Than One Year

Last week, EPA and the Corps issued a long-awaited proposal to redefine the “waters of the US” (WOTUS) subject to federal regulation and permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act. The reach of the CWA is notoriously unclear, but knowing which areas on your property are jurisdictional and will require permits is critical to project planning and timelines. If finalized, the proposed rule would replace the Obama administration’s contentious 2015 WOTUS Rule and eliminate the regulatory patchwork that currently exists as the 2015 WOTUS Rule is being implemented in only certain parts of the country.
Continue Reading EPA and Corps Release Long-Awaited Proposal to Redefine WOTUS

In recent litigation involving the development of interstate natural gas pipelines, one of the key issues has been whether the state has waived its authority under Clean Water Act section 401 by exceeding the one-year time period. In a separate case involving a series of hydroelectric facilities, the waiver period was again directly at issue. On October 1, at oral argument before the D.C. Circuit, the parties addressed whether California and Oregon had waived their water quality certification authority by having the applicant withdraw and resubmit its request for certification over a number of years. Notably, the judges seemed to agree that FERC could make a waiver determination before the end of the one-year time limit and that withdrawing and resubmitting an application may not always restart the clock.
Continue Reading During Oral Argument, D.C. Circuit Suggests Waiver Period for State Water Quality Certification May Be Less Than One Year

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued two decisions concerning the relationship between the Natural Gas Act (NGA) exclusive jurisdiction provision at 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1) and the administrative review process for state-issued environmental permits for interstate natural gas pipeline projects. These decisions are briefly described as follows:

  • In Delaware Riverkeeper et al. v. Sec PA Dept. Env. Protection, et al. (Sept. 4, 2018), the court held that only “final” state agency actions are reviewable under the NGA’s exclusive jurisdiction provision. The court determined, however, that the state-issued water quality certification at issue was reviewable “final” action even though it was subject to further administrative review because, under the relevant state law, the certification had legal effect as issued and was the final action of the agency that issued it.
  • In Township of Bordentown, New Jersey et al. v. FERC et al. (Sept. 5, 2018), the court held that state administrative review of environmental permits issued for natural gas pipeline projects is not preempted by the NGA’s exclusive review provision, as the NGA only eliminates state court review of interstate pipeline-related state agency orders.

Continue Reading Third Circuit Decisions “Clarify” the Extent of Federal Appellate Court Jurisdiction Over Appeals of Pipeline Permits That Are Subject to State Administrative Review