U.S. courts have consistently ruled that navigable, intra-state waters are not traditional navigable waters unless they form part of a continued highway of interstate commerce. However, for purposes of its permitting duties pursuant to the CWA, the Corps has defined a broader set of traditional navigable waters that includes all navigable, intrastate waters, regardless of whether the -waters meet the continued highway requirement. In this Article, David E. Dearing examines the case law supporting the continued highway requirement, including the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Rapanos v. United States, in order to argue that the Corps has no legal basis for redefining "navigable waters " to encompass navigable, intrastate waters that do not form a continued highway of interstate or foreign commerce. He concludes that navigable, intrastate waters that terminate in a closed basin are within the exclusive domain of the individual states, and that the Corps and EPA lack authority to regulate these waters under the CWA.
展开▼
机译：美国法院一直裁定，州内可航行水域不是传统的可航行水域，除非它们构成州际贸易持续高速公路的一部分。但是，出于履行CWA的许可职责的目的，该军团定义了更广泛的传统通航水域，包括所有通航性州内水域，无论这些水域是否满足持续的高速公路要求。在本文中，David E. Dearing审查了支持持续的公路要求的判例法，包括最近的美国最高法院Rapanos诉United States案，以辩称该军团没有将“通航水域”重新定义为“包括通航的州内水域，不会形成州际或国外贸易的持续高速公路。他得出的结论是，在封闭的盆地中终止的通航性州内水域属于各个州的专有范围，而且军团和EPA缺乏根据CWA规范这些水域的权限。
展开▼
