BORDEN RANCH PARTNERSHIP V. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
261 F.3d 810 (2001)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Ranch (P) appealed the final order in favor of Army (D) for D's
repeated violations of the Clean Water Act.
FACTS: Tsakopoulos (P), purchased Borden Ranch which had been used primarily as rangeland
for cattle grazing. The ranch contains significant hydrological features including vernal
pools, swales, and intermittent drainages. Vernal pools are pools that form during the rainy
season, but are often dry in the summer. Swales are sloped wetlands that allow for the
movement of aquatic plant and animal life, and that filter water flows and minimize erosion.
Intermittent drainages are streams that transport water during and after rains. All of these
hydrological features depend upon a dense layer of soil, called a 'restrictive layer' or
'clay pan, 'which prevents surface water from penetrating deeply into the soil. P intended
to convert the land into vineyards and orchards and subdivide it into smaller parcels for
sale. Vineyards and orchards require deep root systems, much deeper than the restrictive
layer in the relevant portions of the Ranch permitted. P would have to destroy the
restrictive layer of soil by 'deep ripping.' A ripper gouges through the restrictive layer,
disgorging soil that is then dragged behind the ripper. Under the Clean Water Act, an
individual seeking to fill protected wetlands must first obtain a permit from D. P and D
have disagreed about D's authority to regulate deep ripping in wetlands. P started without a
permit and D granted him a retrospective permit in the spring of 1994, when P agreed to
various mitigation requirements. D informed P that he could deep rip in uplands and that he
could drive over swales with the deep ripper in its uppermost position, but that he could
not conduct any deep ripping activity in vernal pools. Upon inspection, D issues a cease and
desist order when it discovered that wetlands had been ripped. D entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent with P that was intended to resolve his alleged Clean Water
Act violations. P set aside a 1368-acre pre-serve and agreed to refrain from further
violations. In March of 1997 D concluded that P had continued to deep rip wetlands without
permission. The EPA then issued an Administrative Order to P. P sued challenging the
authority of D to regulate deep ripping. The district court ruled that D has jurisdiction
over deep ripping in jurisdictional waters. However, the court found disputed facts with
respect to whether such deep ripping had actually occurred. At trial, the court determined
that P had repeatedly violated the Clean Water Act. P appealed. P contends that deep ripping
cannot constitute the 'addition' of a 'pollutant 'into wetlands, because it simply churns up
soil that is already there, placing it back basically where it came from.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment