United States v. Riverside Bayview
Encyclopedia
United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 U.S. 121
(1985) was a United States Supreme Court
case challenging the scope of federal regulatory powers over waterways as pertaining to the definition of "waters of the United States" as written in the Clean Water Act
of 1972. The Court ruled unanimously that the government does have the power to control intrastate wetlands as waters of the United States. This ruling was effectively revised with the 2006 Rapanos v. United States
decision, in which the Court adopted a very narrow interpretation of "navigable waters."
on its property near the shores of Lake St. Clair, Michigan
. The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) filed a lawsuit
in Federal District Court
to prevent Riverside Bayview from filling its property without dredge and fill exception from the Corps' as required under Clean Water Act §404.
The Eastern Michigan District Court
held that the property was freshwater wetlands under the Corps' regulatory definition, which reads "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions," and as such is subject to the Corps' permit authority because the lands were characterized by those conditions, and the property was adjacent to a body of navigable water. The Court of Appeals
reversed, arguing that the Corps overstepped the definition of "waters of the United States," and took the view that the Corps' authority under the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations must be narrowly construed to avoid a taking without just compensation
in violation of the Fifth Amendment
, and therefore Riverside Bayview was free to fill its property without obtaining a permit.
Byron White
ruled that neither the imposition of the permit requirement itself nor the denial of a permit would constitute taking, and that other legislation such as the Tucker Act
exist to provide compensation for takings that may result. The District Court, they ruled, did not err in their finding that the property falls within the Corps' regulatory definition of wetlands. Justice White added that the language, policies, and history of the Clean Water Act compel a holding that the Corps acted reasonably in their interpretation of their authorities over discharge material in wetlands.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1985) was a United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
case challenging the scope of federal regulatory powers over waterways as pertaining to the definition of "waters of the United States" as written in the Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Commonly abbreviated as the CWA, the act established the goals of eliminating releases of high amounts of toxic substances into water, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and ensuring that...
of 1972. The Court ruled unanimously that the government does have the power to control intrastate wetlands as waters of the United States. This ruling was effectively revised with the 2006 Rapanos v. United States
Rapanos v. United States
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 , was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice, Samuel...
decision, in which the Court adopted a very narrow interpretation of "navigable waters."
Prior history
The case involves developer Riverside Bayview Homes Inc., which began placing fill materialsFill dirt
Fill dirt is earthy material which is used to fill in a depression or hole in the ground or create mounds or otherwise artificially change the grade or elevation of real property....
on its property near the shores of Lake St. Clair, Michigan
Michigan
Michigan is a U.S. state located in the Great Lakes Region of the United States of America. The name Michigan is the French form of the Ojibwa word mishigamaa, meaning "large water" or "large lake"....
. The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) filed a lawsuit
Lawsuit
A lawsuit or "suit in law" is a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions, demands a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint...
in Federal District Court
United States district court
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States...
to prevent Riverside Bayview from filling its property without dredge and fill exception from the Corps' as required under Clean Water Act §404.
The Eastern Michigan District Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is the Federal district court with jurisdiction over of the eastern portion of the state of Michigan. The Court is based in Detroit, with courthouses also located in Ann Arbor, Bay City, Flint, and Port Huron...
held that the property was freshwater wetlands under the Corps' regulatory definition, which reads "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions," and as such is subject to the Corps' permit authority because the lands were characterized by those conditions, and the property was adjacent to a body of navigable water. The Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Kentucky* Western District of Kentucky...
reversed, arguing that the Corps overstepped the definition of "waters of the United States," and took the view that the Corps' authority under the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations must be narrowly construed to avoid a taking without just compensation
Just compensation
Just Compensation is required to be paid by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when private property is taken for public use...
in violation of the Fifth Amendment
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...
, and therefore Riverside Bayview was free to fill its property without obtaining a permit.
Holding
Writing his opinion for a unanimous majority, JusticeAssociate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are the members of the Supreme Court of the United States other than the Chief Justice of the United States...
Byron White
Byron White
Byron Raymond "Whizzer" White won fame both as a football halfback and as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Appointed to the court by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, he served until his retirement in 1993...
ruled that neither the imposition of the permit requirement itself nor the denial of a permit would constitute taking, and that other legislation such as the Tucker Act
Tucker Act
Through the Tucker Act , the United States government has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to certain lawsuits....
exist to provide compensation for takings that may result. The District Court, they ruled, did not err in their finding that the property falls within the Corps' regulatory definition of wetlands. Justice White added that the language, policies, and history of the Clean Water Act compel a holding that the Corps acted reasonably in their interpretation of their authorities over discharge material in wetlands.