474 U.S. 121 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985)
United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes is a foundational Supreme Court decision interpreting the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA), particularly the meaning of the term "waters of the United States." In a unanimous opinion, the Court validated the U.S.
Does the Clean Water Act permit the Army Corps of Engineers to require a § 404 permit for the discharge of fill material into wetlands that are adjacent to navigable waters, by interpreting "waters of the United States" to include such adjacent wetlands?
Under the Clean Water Act, "navigable waters" are defined as "the waters of the United States" (33 U.S.C. § 1362(7)). Where statutory language is ambiguous and the agency charged with implementation adopts a reasonable interpretation consistent with the statute's text, purposes, and legislative history, courts defer to that interpretation. The Corps' regulations defining "waters of the United States" to include wetlands adjacent to navigable waters—characterized by saturation or inundation supporting hydrophytic vegetation—are a permissible construction of the statute, and activities discharging dredged or fill material into such wetlands require a § 404 permit (33 U.S.C. § 1344; then-33 C.F.R. § 323.2).
Yes. The Clean Water Act authorizes the Corps to regulate discharges of fill into wetlands adjacent to navigable waters by requiring § 404 permits; the Corps' interpretation of "waters of the United States" to include adjacent wetlands is reasonable and entitled to deference.
Riverside Bayview is a cornerstone of wetlands regulation and administrative deference. Substantively, it validated the federal government's authority to require permits for filling wetlands adjacent to navigable waters, anchoring decades of wetlands protection under the CWA. Doctrinally, it reflects Chevron-style deference to an agency's reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory terms, particularly on technical environmental questions. The decision provided the baseline for later Supreme Court cases that refined the scope of "waters of the United States." In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) (2001), the Court curtailed federal jurisdiction over isolated, non-adjacent waters. In Rapanos v. United States (2006), a fractured Court further narrowed coverage, debating the significance of hydrological connections; and in more recent cases, including Sackett v. EPA (2023), the Court imposed additional constraints on what counts as jurisdictional wetlands. For law students, Riverside Bayview offers enduring lessons on statutory purpose, ecological reasoning, and agency deference, even as the precise boundaries of federal wetlands jurisdiction continue to evolve.