Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Also, the Clean Water Act has introduced the terms "traditional navigable waters," and "waters of the United States" to define the scope of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Here, "Waters of the United States" include not only navigable waters, but also tributaries of navigable waters and nearby wetlands with "a significant nexus ...
The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law regulating water pollution in the United States. The language of the Clean Water Act describes itself as pertaining to "Waters of the United States". The act defines these waters as "navigable waterways", which connects the act to constitutional authority to regulate
Note that the "Navigable Waters of the United States" listed in 33 CFR 329 are different than those listed as "Waters of the United States" in 33 CFR 328, which is the Clean Water Rule. However, all Navigable Waters, plus those considered navigable-in-fact are included in the general "Waters" definition. [1] Map of the all-water route from the ...
Total length of waterways per country in kilometers. This is a list of waterways, defined as navigable rivers, canals, estuaries, lakes, or firths.In practice, and depending on the language, the term "waterway" covers maritime or inland transport routes, as suggested by "way".
The agencies considered the CWA to cover bodies of water with a "significant nexus" with traditional navigable waters, according with Justice Kennedy's definition. In 2023, the Supreme Court rejected the "significant nexus" test in Sackett v. EPA and established the current definition.
A waterway is any navigable body of water. Broad distinctions are useful to avoid ambiguity, and disambiguation will be of varying importance depending on the nuance of the equivalent word in other ways. A first distinction is necessary between maritime shipping routes and waterways used by inland water craft.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), also known as Sackett II (to distinguish it from the 2012 case), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that only wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a "continuous surface connection" to "traditional interstate navigable waters" are covered by the Clean Water Act.
For example, the concept of traditionally-navigable waters is an elastic one, covering all waters that are now navigable, were once navigable, or could reasonably be made navigable in the future. [24] Another example is the "adjacent wetlands" jurisdiction upheld in Riverside Bayview.