Search
  • Mark Ryan

A Funky New Ninth Circuit WOTUS Decision Plus One Other

I am not a criminal law expert, but the Lucero case below looks to be a potential game changer for some cases. The old five part-part test for CWA cases ((1) discharge (2) by a person (3) of a pollutant (4) from a pt source (5) to WOTUS) seems to have picked up a sixth element, (6) "to water." Do plaintiffs now need to show that "water" was present even if the water body is jurisdictional? If so, will discharges to dry ditches and ephemeral or intermittent streams without a permit now be OK? Or will courts in civil cases read the 502(6) reference "to water" the same as "WOTUS?" It's not clear, but I suspect this will ultimately be limited to criminal mens rea, and not be held to apply to civil CWA cases. But expect defendants to raise it.


The Acquest Transit case is a never-ending saga. I've lost count of how many court opinions that litigation has spawned. Whatever the ruling in the upcoming September trial, it will be appealed. The next generation of lawyers will be working that case.


United States v. Lucero, ___ F.3d ___, 2021 WL 821948 (9th Cir. 2021) (reversing district court criminal conviction for knowingly discharging fill material into wetland, held that the phrase “discharged into water” in the definition of “pollutant” is the mens rea element of a CWA criminal conviction and the reference to “waters of the United States” is the jurisdictional element; held that the government needed to prove that defendant knew he was discharging “a substance ‘into water.’”; jury instructions were faulty because they did not require a finding that defendant “had to know that the pollutant was discharged ‘into water.’”; rejected arguments that the terms, “water of the United State,” “wetlands” and “tributary” are unconstitutionally vague; the changes in the 2020 WOTUS rule apply prospectively, and do not help defendant where violations occurred in 2014; NOTE dissent)

United States v. Acquest Transit LLC, 2021 WL 809984 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) (on motion to dismiss in wetlands enforcement case, held that EPA could rely on WOTUS rule in effect in 2007 when the alleged violations occurred and those rules allowed ditches to be used to create connection to WOTUS; 2020 WOTUS rule is prospective only; the case will be bifurcate into liability and penalty phases)

United States v Lucero
.doc
Download DOC • 1.96MB


If you would like to receive email notifications of new blogposts, go to the signup button above, leave your email, and you'll be alerted to updates.

64 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

New 2020 WOTUS Rule Challenge Filed

Two New Mexico tribes filed a new challenge to the 2020 WOTUS rule in the D. of New Mexico on March 29. This complaint sets itself apart from many of the others in that it asserts a failure to abide b

The CWA Blog is Retiring in June

Thirty-three years of practicing law is enough, and I'm retiring this year. Unfortunately, that also means the end of the CWA Blog. I've decided, after careful consideration, to send the Blog off into

Sackett Update

You will recall that the latest chapter of the long Sackett saga is that EPA filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot given that the old WOTUS rule, which is the basis of the Sackett challenge, is

© 2016 by Ryan & Kuehler PLLC.

  • Facebook Basic Black
  • LinkedIn Basic Black
  • Twitter Basic Black