United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · Property

PropertyClean Water ActArmy Corps of EngineersSection 404navigable waterswaters of the United Statesadjacent wetlandsfill material

Facts

Riverside Bayview Homes owned 80 acres of low-lying, marshy land near Lake St. Clair in Michigan. In 1976 it began placing fill on the property in preparation for a housing development without obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. The district court found the property had vegetation requiring saturated soil conditions, that the saturation came from ground water, and that the wetland extended beyond the property boundary to Black Creek, a navigable waterway. The Corps treated the property as an adjacent wetland within its regulations defining "waters of the United States."

Issue

Whether the Clean Water Act and the Corps' regulations authorize the Corps to require a permit before discharging fill material into wetlands adjacent to navigable waters and their tributaries, even when those wetlands are not regularly flooded by the adjacent water. Also, whether the regulation should be narrowly construed to avoid an alleged Fifth Amendment taking problem.

Rule

The Corps may require a § 404 permit for discharge of fill material into wetlands adjacent to waters otherwise within its jurisdiction when its regulation reasonably defines such adjacent wetlands as "waters of the United States." The wetlands regulation does not require frequent flooding by adjacent navigable waters; saturation by surface or ground water sufficient to support wetland vegetation is enough. A possible takings issue does not justify narrowing the regulation where compensation is available under the Tucker Act.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Kim owns a low-lying parcel outside Toledo, Ohio, where she begins dumping fill to prepare for townhomes. The land directly borders a marsh that continues to the edge of a navigable river, and the parcel itself is saturated by ground water long enough each year to support cattails and other vegetation adapted to saturated soils, though the river rarely floods onto Nora's lot.

Under the majority's reasoning, is Nora most likely required to obtain a § 404 permit before placing fill on the parcel?

Explanation. The majority held that the regulation covers land inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support wetland vegetation, and it rejected any requirement of frequent flooding by the adjacent navigable water. If the parcel is part of a wetland adjacent to a navigable waterway, a permit is required before discharging fill. (Derived from United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (n.d.).)