WPC?  vB@AWb4EAIq-O}Ϗ_h^[@?!ݤGTكQ jOŊr g]У/yI֕}5E1wϠa+CS|0Or+S 69K`9 >&GI.Wqb̎\]5ri|10>B^D.qwp^없A9ZF2kuxъy5يMt\oZ烔A(B^opuN Gkso J:dzg]SE'c#͹B{oÝce!0Ƣkgq5"^Ȫ_[_,GQˁ,rdh~a{Mdzƨ }[\„ɱj|p1ײ\%~ML|1v' 0' 0( 0) 0p* 0R+ 04, 0- 0- 02. 0. 0:/ 0Y 0 0_c0 0 0 01 0N3 B*T5 D/~5 D+5 05 D/7 0 8 068 09 0:: 0^S: 0<: 1e:U6R;U>;U*;;;; 1u; 72e<<HP LaserJet 2100 PCL6,,,,,,,,0<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularX($USUS.,5_5Z ^5:i+003|xU(#$  0  (v:2x$ !USUS.,    =XXdd=    0  <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@   x$USUS.,  ==XXdd=    1    _Theregulationstatesthat"watersoftheUnitedStates"  include"[w]etlandsadjacenttowaters(otherthanwatersthatare  themselveswetlands)identifiedinparagraphs(s)(1)(6)ofthis \ section."40_C.F.R._Ԁ230.3(s)(7).(9 Z(Times New Roman TABLE A  x$USUS.,  ==XXdd=    *    _ԀOftheDistrictofNewHampshire,sittingbydesignation.L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -<4 9Z+ Courier New - -       d(.3$ !USUS.,  *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKi<6X9`(Courier NewKSj\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Ki<6X9`(Courier NewKSj\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Ki<6X9`(Courier NewKSj\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7^(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?k%2A`Arial?  Sj\  `&Times New RomanS7_(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d])1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7a(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?k%2A`Arial?  Sj\  `&Times New RomanS7_(X75+ ` hp x 5  ])2dxd0KS.SampleKi<6X9`(Courier NewKSj\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKi<6X9`(Courier NewKSj\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  689:;<=> 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)oi) DeatonsDeatonAdkinsBeaverdamWicomicoGENELDAVANER LLPDiClericoSmeltzerDurkeeDeBartolo t]hesubpartsit]hese CWAH.R.Repw]aterhydrologicS.RepU.S.CodeAdmin.News w]eSWANCCnonnavigablet]ributariesw]etlandsWeweanticBowles Auer hydrologicallya]lthoughp]rotectionU.S.C.C.A.N.Johnsonsdefinitional !USUS.,  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT* !qXX #OY %7,     (q  UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals](  FortheFirstCircuit#,] #,, X=X,  A') ` dE< ` A     No.051444 u  @@#UNITEDSTATES, ! q @@<< Plaintiff,Appellee,    @@tt)v. y  @@0 0 CHARLESJOHNSON,GENELDAJOHNSON, %u  FRANCISVANERJOHNSON,andJOHNSONCRANBERRIES,LLP K  @@Defendants,Appellants.  A') ` dE<R` A S @@ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS ^ @@[Hon.EdwardF.Harrington,SeniorU.S.DistrictJudge]   A') ` dE<e` A f @@'Before K @@@ @ TorruellaandLipez,CircuitJudges, !q andDiClerico,  #  *      ׀DistrictJudge. G A') ` dE<` A       MalcolmReedHopper,withwhomGregoryT.Broderickwason " briefforappellants. ^ #   JohnL.Smeltzer,withwhomKellyA.Johnson,ActingAssistant 4!$ AttorneyGeneralandEllenDurkee,Attorney,DepartmentofJustice  "Z% Environment&NaturalResourcesDivision,wereonbrieffor "0& appellee. #' *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  b% )b%   SI%!*  @39020 @SOctober31,2006 &!,  RHCr'"-"  @39020  @ R(%!.  (* ! OY  8X Xdd8*,X` XX* `   *J&1  `  ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge. Followingthepanel'sdecisionin  thiscase,seeUnitedStatesv.Johnson,437F.3d157(1st.Cir. x 2006),appellantsmovedforrehearingenbanc,notingtheSupreme $t Court'sgrantofcertiorariinUnitedStatesv.Rapanos,376F.3d   629(6thCir.2004).Weheldtheirpetitioninabeyancependinga |  decisioninthatcase.FollowingthedecisioninRapanosv.United ( x  States,547U.S.___,126S.Ct.2208(2006),appellants $  supplementedtheirpreviouspetition.Theyrequestthatwegrant   rehearingenbanctoresolvetheconflictbetweenthepanel ,|  decisionandRapanos,or,alternately,thatwevacatethedecision ( withprejudiceonthegroundthattheevidenceintherecord  supportsajudgmentintheirfavor.Thegovernmentfileda 0 responserequestingthatwevacateourpreviousdecisionandremand , tothedistrictcourt.Aftercarefulconsideration,wevacateand  remandforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwithRapanos,as 4 describedbelow. 0   I.ThePanelDecision  8!" ~ ` ThiscasebeganwhentheUnitedStatesfiledacivil #P$ actionallegingthatdefendants(nowappellants),agroupof $& cranberryfarmersinCarver,Massachusetts,haddischarged X&!( pollutantsintofederallyregulatedwaterswithoutapermitin (T#* violationof301and502oftheCleanWaterAct("CWA"),33 )%, U.S.C.1311,1352.Inresponse,appellantscontendedthatthe \+&. UnitedStateslackedjurisdictionoverthethreepropertiesin  question:(1)theCrossStreetsite;(2)theFosdickStreetsite; \ and(3)theForest/FullerStreetsite(collectively,the"target X sites").    ` Inseparaterulingsonliabilityandremedy,thedistrict `  courtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthegovernment.The  \  districtcourtdeniedappellants'motionforreconsideration,   statingthat"thereisasufficientbasisfortheUnitedStatesto d  exercisejurisdictionbecausetheundisputedevidenceshowsthat `  thethreewetlandsarehydrologicallyconnectedtothenavigable   WeweanticRiverbynonnavigabletributaries." h  ` Inanappealtothiscourt,appellantschallengedthe d districtcourt'sjudgmentthatthejurisdictionoftheCWAextends  tothetargetsites.First,theyassertedthattheirpropertyis l notcoveredbytheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency("EPA") h regulationpromulgatedtocarryouttheCWA.Inthealternative,  appellantsarguedthat,iftheirpropertyiscoveredbythe p  regulation,eithertheregulationexceedstheauthoritygrantedby !l" theCWA,ortheCWAexceedsCongress'sauthorityundertheCommerce "$ Clause. t$&  ` Weaffirmedthetrialcourt'sjudgmentinadivided  &p!( decision,withtwomembersofthepanelconcurringinthejudgment '#* fordifferentreasons,andonememberdissenting.Onememberof x)$, themajorityconcludedthatthehydrologicalconnectionbetweenthe $+t&. targetsitesandtheWeweanticRiverestablishesa"significant  nexus"betweenthesitesandtheriver,sufficienttoestablish \ jurisdictionundertheCWAwithoutcreatingconstitutionalissues X undertheCommerceClause.Fortwoofthetargetsites,inthe   viewofthisjudge,thehydrologicalconnectiondependedon `  diffusionofwaterthroughwetlands.See437F.3dat162.#X=XXX=#X=XXX=  \   ` Theothermemberofthemajorityreadtherecord   differentlytoconcludethatthehydrologicalconnectionwasa d  systemoftributaries,someofwhichhappenedtoflowthrough `  wetlandsorotherbogs.Seeid.at182.Theconcurringpanelist   thusconcludedthatitwasunnecessarytodecidewhetherthe h diffusionofwaterthroughwetlandswasasufficienthydrological d connectiontosupporta"significantnexus."Id.   ` ThedissentconcludedthattheUnitedStates"maynot l constitutionallyregulatewetlandsthatareneitherthemselves h navigablenortrulyadjacenttonavigablewaters."Id.at187  (internalquotationsandcitationomitted).Moreover,evenifthe p  EPA'sassertionofjurisdictionwasconstitutional,thedissent !l" wouldhaveheldthatthegovernment'sattempttoassert "$ jurisdictionoverappellants'wetlandsisinconsistentwithitsown t$& regulationsbecausethesystemoftributarieslinkingthetarget  &p!( sitestotheWeweanticincludesotherwetlands.Becausethe '#*  regulationsexplicitlyexcludewetlandsadjacenttowatersthatare x)$, themselveswetlands,thedissentarguedthatthegovernmentlacked  jurisdictionunderitsownregulations.Id.at187.  #  1       \    II.ResponsetothePanelDecision    8% ` Asnoted,appellantsfiledapetitionforrehearingen |  bancpursuanttoRule35oftheFederalRulesofAppellate ( x  Procedure,arguingthatthecaseshouldbereheardfollowingthe $  SupremeCourt'sthenpendingdecisioninRapanos.Weordered   appellants'petitionheldinabeyancependingtheSupremeCourt's ,|  decisioninRapanos.Wefurtherstatedthatappellantscouldfile ( asupplementalpetitionforrehearingenbancwithinfourteendays  afterthedecisioninRapanoswasissued,andthegovernmentcould 0 thenrespond. ,    III.Rapanosv.UnitedStates  4 p( ` ThedecisioninRapanosv.UnitedStates,547U.S.___, L 126S.Ct.2208(2006),resolvedtwoconsolidatedcasesfromthe   SixthCircuit.Inonecase,theUnitedStatesbroughtan T!" enforcementactionallegingthatpropertyownersandtheir #P$ affiliatedbusinessesdepositedfillmaterialsintowetlands $& withoutapermit,inviolationoftheCWA.Id.at2219.Inthe X&!( other,propertyownersweredeniedapermittodepositfill  materialinawetlandapproximatelyonemilefromalakeand,after \ exhaustingtheiradministrativeappeals,theyfiledsuit.Id. X  ` Inbothcases,thedistrictcourtfoundthattherewas   federalregulatoryjurisdictionoverthesitesinquestion,andthe `  SixthCircuitaffirmed.TheSupremeCourtthenconsolidatedthe  \  casesandgrantedcertioraritodecidewhetherthesewetlands   constitute"watersoftheUnitedStates"undertheCWA,and,ifso, d  whethertheCWAisconstitutional.Seeid.at2220. `   ` TheCourtissuedasplitdecisionconstruingthephrase   "watersoftheUnitedStates"asusedintheCWA.Theplurality h concludedthatthephrase"watersoftheUnitedStates"includes d only"relativelypermanent,standingorcontinuouslyflowingbodies  ofwater'forminggeographicfeatures'thataredescribedin l ordinaryparlanceas'streams[,]...oceans,rivers,[and] h lakes.'"Id.at2225.Thus,forpurposesofdeterminingfederal  regulatoryjurisdiction,"onlythosewetlandswithacontinuous p  surfaceconnectiontobodiesthatare'watersoftheUnitedStates' (!x" intheirownright,sothatthereisnocleardemarcationbetween "$$ 'waters'andwetlands,are'adjacentto'suchwatersandcoveredby $& theAct."Id.at2226(emphasisinoriginal).Theplurality ,&|!( vacatedthedecisionoftheSixthCircuitinbothcasesand,noting '(#* "thepaucityoftherecord,"remandedforfurtherproceedings.Id. )$, at2235. 0+&.  ` JusticeKennedyconcurredinthejudgment,butrejected  theplurality'srationale.Instead,heconcludedthatjurisdiction \ extendstowetlandsthat"possessa'significantnexus'towaters X thatareorwerenavigableinfactorthatcouldreasonablybeso   made."Id.at2236.JusticeKennedyfurtherfoundthatwetlands `  "possesstherequisitenexus"if"eitheraloneorincombination  \  withsimilarlysituatedlandsintheregion,[they]significantly   affectthechemical,physical,andbiologicalintegrityofother d  coveredwatersmorereadilyunderstoodas'navigable.'"Id.at `  2248.Wherethewetlandsinquestionare"adjacenttonavigable   infactwaters,[thegovernment]mayrelyonadjacencytoestablish h itsjurisdiction."Id.at2249.Wherethewetlandsareadjacent d tononnavigabletributaries,"[a]bsentmorespecificregulations& X Ԁ  ...'X7[thegovernment]mustestablishasignificantnexusona l casebycasebasis."Id.at2249. h  ` JusticeStevensauthoredadissentjoinedbythreeother  Justices.Intheviewofthedissenters,totheextentthatthe p  CWAincludesa"significantnexus"requirement,thisrequirement !l" "iscategoricallysatisfiedastowetlandsadjacenttonavigable "$ watersortheirtributaries."Id.at226364.Thedissent t$& concludedbynotingspecificallythat"allfourJusticeswhohave  &p!( joinedthisopinionwouldupholdtheCorps'jurisdiction...in '#* allothercasesinwhicheithertheplurality'sorJustice x)$, Kennedy'stestissatisfied...."Id.at2265. $+t&. Ї   IV.SubsequentMotions   : ` FollowingtheSupremeCourt'sdecisioninRapanos, x appellantsfiledasupplementalpetitionforrehearingenbanc $t challengingtheviewinoneofthepanelopinionsthata   hydrologicalconnectionconstitutesajurisdictionallysufficient |  "significantnexus."Appellantscontendthatrehearingis ( x  necessarytoresolvethetensionbetweenthepanelopinionand $  Rapanos.Theyarguethatundereitherthepluralityopinionor   JusticeKennedy'sconcurrence,ahydrologicalconnectionis ,|  insufficienttoestablishjurisdiction,althoughtheyalsoargue ( strenuouslythattheplurality'stestaloneshouldapply.  Alternatively,appellantscontendthattheevidenceintherecord 0 issufficienttosupportafindingintheirfavorunderthe , standardsinRapanos,andurgethatwevacatethedecisionand  directthedistrictcourttoenterjudgmentforthem. 4  ` TheUnitedStatesopposesthepetitionforenbancreview 0 andurgesusinsteadtovacatethepanel'sdecisionandremandthe   casetothedistrictcourt.Thegovernmentarguesthatadditional 8!" factfindingisnecessarybeforethelegalprinciplesarticulatedin "4$ Rapanoscanbeappliedinthiscase.Moreover,thegovernment $& assertsthatonremanditshouldbeallowedtoestablishCWA <&!( jurisdictionundereithertheRapanosplurality'stestorJustice '8#* Kennedy'stest. )$,  @+&.   V.RemandtotheDistrictCourt   VB ` Weagreewiththegovernmentthatremandtothedistrict x courtforapplicationoftheRapanosstandardsisappropriate.The $t partiespresentedtheircasesinthedistrictcourtwithoutany   awarenessofthestandardsthatnowapply.Theyshouldnowhavean |  opportunitytodeveloptheirpositionsinthedistrictcourtwith ( x  anawarenessofthesestandards.However,thequestionofwhat $  legalstandardtoapplyisoneofsomecomplexity,andothercourts   havetakenvaryingapproachestotheissue.Weconcludethatthe ,|  UnitedStatesmayassertjurisdictionoverthetargetsitesifit ( meetseitherJusticeKennedy'slegalstandardorthatofthe  plurality.#X=XXX=H#X=XXX=ԀWeexplain#X=XXX=