Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 38
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS’
`ASSOCIATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
`PROTECTION AGENCY; et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 38
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ............................................................................1
`I.
`Introduction .......................................................................................................................1
`II.
`Legal Background: Decades of Dubious EPA and Army Regulation
`
`of Non-Navigable Features Under the Clean Water Act .................................................3
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................9
`I.
`Cattle Growers Has Standing Because the Intermittent Tributary
`
`and Non-Abutting Adjacent Wetland Provisions Require Them
`
`to Get the Army’s Permission to Work Their Own Land .................................................9
`II.
`The Court Should Preliminarily Enjoin the Intermittent
`
`Tributary and Non-Abutting Wetland Provisions ...........................................................11
`A. Cattle Growers Will Prevail on the Merits .....................................................................12
`
`1. The Judgment Against the Government in Rapanos
`
` Controls in This Case Under Issue Preclusion ..........................................................12
`
`2. The Scope of the Preliminary Injunction Depends on
`
` Which Rapanos Opinion Is the Holding ...................................................................14
`
`
`a. The Supreme Court Has Established That the
`
`
`
`Plurality Is the Holding of Rapanos....................................................................14
`
`
`b. Under Marks v. United States, the Plurality
`
`
`
`Is the Holding of Rapanos ..................................................................................17
`
`
`
`(1) The Plurality Opinion Is the Holding of Rapanos,
`
`
`
`
`so the Injunction Should Extend to All Intermittent
`
`
`
`
`Streams and Non-Abutting Wetlands ........................................................22
`
`
`
`(2)
`If Justice Kennedy’s Concurrence Is the Holding, Then
`
`
`
`
`the Injunction Should Extend to All Intermittent Tributaries
`
`
`
`
`and Non-Abutting Wetlands Except Those Shown to Have
`
`
`
`
`a Significant Nexus ....................................................................................22
`
`
`
`(3)
`If Marks Cannot Be Applied, Then the Injunction
`
`
`
`
`Should Extend to All Non-Navigable Tributaries
`
`
`
`
`and Adjacent Wetlands ..............................................................................23
`B. Ranchers Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent an Injunction,
`
`Because Their Injury Is Constitutional, and Because They
`
`Cannot Feasibly Obtain Army Permits on the Necessary
`
`Timetable and Cannot Recover the Costs of Obtaining Them .......................................24
`C. The Balance of Equities and the Public Interest
`
`Both Favor an Injunction ................................................................................................28
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 38
`
`III. No Bond Is Necessary In This Case ..................................................................................29
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................30
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (2014) .......................................................................... 16
`Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. 254 (2015) ........................................ 16
`Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) ......................................................................................... 12
`Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. Metro. Water Dist. of S. California,
`159 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................. 10-11
`Atl. Coast Demolition & Recycling, Inc. v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Atl. Cty.,
`893 F. Supp. 301 (D.N.J. 1995) ................................................................................................ 24
`Canal Authority of State of Florida v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974) .......................... 25
`Citicorp Services, Inc. v. Gillespie, 712 F. Supp. 749 (N.D. Cal. 1989) ...................................... 24
`Cont’l Oil Co. v. Frontier Refining Co., 338 F.2d 780 (10th Cir. 1964) ...................................... 29
`County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020) ............................ 14-15
`Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................... 12
`Exxon Shipping v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) ............................................................................ 16
`Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 24
`Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (1985) .............................................. 25
`Georgia v. Pruitt, 326 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (S.D. Ga. 2018) ...................................................... 26, 29
`Georgia v. Wheeler, 418 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Ga. 2019) .......................................................... 6
`Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) ....................................................................................... 17
`Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987) ..................... 3
`Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) .................................................................................. 15
`Hawkes Co., Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers,
`782 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................ 3, 11
`Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) .................................. 9-10
`In re EPA, 803 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................... 28
`Kansas Health Care Ass’n, Inc. v. Kansas Dep’t of Social and Rehabilitation Services,
`31 F.3d 1536 (10th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................. 28
`King v. Palmer, 950 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 17
`Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) ....................................................................................... 16
`Large v. Fremont Cty., Wyo., 670 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2012) ............................................... 17, 23
`Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) .......................................................................... 17-18
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 38
`
`Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966) ......................................................................... 18
`Michigan v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 667 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2011) ................... 25
`N. Mariana Islands v. United States, 686 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2009)....................................... 29
`National Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 138 S. Ct. 617 (2018) .................................. 16
`Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Burwell,
`100 F. Supp. 3d 1122 (D.N.M. 2015) ....................................................................................... 29
`NCAA v. Califano, 622 F.2d 1382 (10th Cir. 1980) ..................................................................... 10
`New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) .......................................................................... 25
`North Dakota v. EPA, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (D.N.D. 2015).......................................................... 6
`Park Lake Resources Ltd. Liability v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 378 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2004) ...... 12
`Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979)........................................................... 13
`PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (2012) ................................................................. 16
`R.I.L-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164 (D.D.C. 2015) ........................................................... 28-29
`Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006)............................. 2-5, 12-13, 15-16, 18-22, 24, 26
`Rappa v. New Castle Cty., 18 F.3d 1043 (3d Cir. 1994) .............................................................. 17
`Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 29
`Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S. 120 (2012) ............................................................................................ 16
`Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers,
`531 U.S. 159 (2001) .................................................................................................................... 4
`Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381 (1940) .................................................... 13
`Texas Food Indus. Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 842 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Tex. 1993) ....... 29
`Texas v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 3:15-CV-00162,
`2018 WL 4518230 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2018) ......................................................................... 29
`United States Army Corps of Engr’s v. Hawkes Co., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016) ................ 11, 16
`United States v. Bailey, 571 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2009) .................................................................. 23
`United States v. Carrizales-Toledo, 454 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2006) ..................................... 17, 23
`United States v. Donovan, 661 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2011) ............................................................... 23
`United States v. Johnson, 467 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2006) ................................................................. 23
`United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984) ...................................................................... 13-14
`United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985) ....................................... 3-4
`United States. v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) ................................................................ 25
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 38
`
`Utahns for Better Transp. v. United States Dep’t of Transp.,
`295 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................ 10
`Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ....................................................................................... 12, 28
`Statutes
`33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq.............................................................................................................. 1, 3
`33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) ........................................................................................................................ 3
`33 U.S.C. § 1362(7) ........................................................................................................................ 3
`33 U.S.C. § 1362(8) ........................................................................................................................ 3
`33 U.S.C. § 1362(12) ...................................................................................................................... 3
`Regulations*
`33 C.F.R. § 320.1(a)(6) ................................................................................................................. 27
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3 (2016) ................................................................................................................ 6
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(1)-(7) (2014) .................................................................................................. 4
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(2) ................................................................................................................... 7
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(3) ................................................................................................................. 22
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(4) ....................................................................................................... 8, 13, 22
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(5) (1987) ..................................................................................................... 12
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(7), (c) (1987) ............................................................................................... 13
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c) (2014) ............................................................................................................ 4
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(1) ............................................................................................................. 8, 13
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(1)(i) ............................................................................................................... 8
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(1)(ii) ........................................................................................... 1-2, 8, 12, 22
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(1)(iii) .......................................................................................... 1-2, 8, 12, 22
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(1)(iv) .......................................................................................... 1-2, 8, 12, 22
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(1), (2), (5) (2016) .......................................................................................... 6
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(3) (2016) ....................................................................................................... 6
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(5) ................................................................................................................... 7
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(8) ................................................................................................................... 7
`33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(12) ................................................................................................. 1-2, 7-8, 22
`______________________
`* Codes of Federal Regulations without a date are the version adopted in 85 Fed. Reg. 22,250,
`effective June 22, 2020.
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 38
`
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) ..................................................................................................................... 29
`Other Authorities
`11A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (3d ed. 2013) ........................................ 24
`51 Fed. Reg. 41,206 (Nov. 13, 1986)................................................................................... 4, 12-13
`80 Fed. Reg. 37,054 (June 29, 2015) .............................................................................................. 6
`84 Fed. Reg. 56,626 (Oct. 22, 2019) ............................................................................................... 7
`85 Fed. Reg. 22,250 (Apr. 21, 2020) ........................................................................... 1, 7-9, 13, 27
`Mandelker, Daniel R., Practicable Alternatives for Wetlands Development Under
`the Clean Water Act, 48 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10894 (Oct. 2018) ........................... 3
`Webster’s Second............................................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 38
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`Plaintiff New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association (Cattle Growers)1 moves under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 65 for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants Environmental Protection Agency
`
`(EPA) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Army) from enforcing the two words “or
`
`intermittent” in 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(12), and subsections 328.3(c)(1)(ii)-(iv), in the Navigable
`
`Waters Protection Rule published by EPA and the Army at 85 Fed. Reg. 22,250, 22,338-39
`
`(Apr. 21, 2020).2, 3
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`This case is about the meaning of the term “navigable waters” in the Clean Water Act,
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq. “Navigable waters” are where Congress authorized the EPA and the
`
`Army to regulate discharges of pollutants under that Act. Conversely, EPA and the Army lack
`
`authority to regulate discharges to features that are not “navigable waters.”
`
`The issue in this motion is whether intermittent tributaries and non-navigable wetlands that
`
`don’t abut navigable rivers or lakes are “navigable waters” under the Act. Cattle Growers’
`
`members own farms and ranches in New Mexico containing many such features. EPA and the
`
`Army claim authority under 33 C.F.R. §§ 328.3(c)(12) and (c)(1)(ii)-(iv) to regulate them;
`
`
`1 “Cattle Growers” refers to Plaintiff and/or its members, as appropriate to the context.
`2 References to 33 C.F.R. § 328.3 and its subdivisions are, unless indicated otherwise, to the
`version published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2020, at 85 Fed. Reg. at 22,338-39, and the
`identical provisions at 40 C.F.R. § 120.2, published the same date at 85 Fed. Reg. at 22,340-41.
`40 C.F.R. 120.2(3)(xii) corresponds to 28 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(12), and 40 C.F.R. § 120.2(3)(i)(B)-
`(D) corresponds to 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(1)(ii)-(iv). Plaintiff asks that the Court preliminarily
`enjoin these identical provisions in the Army and EPA’s regulations.
`3 This motion does not ask the Court to enjoin the Navigable Waters Protection Rule more
`generally, or to prevent any other provision of it from otherwise going into effect on its effective
`date of June 22, 2020. 85 Fed. Reg. at 22,250.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 38
`
`Ranchers contend that they are not “navigable waters.”
`
`Ranchers filed the First Supplemental Complaint on April 27, 2020, raising various claims
`
`against the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. Dkt No. 26. In this motion, Ranchers seek a
`
`preliminary injunction against the regulation of intermittent tributaries in § 328.3(c)(12)
`
`(Intermittent Tributary Provision), and of non-abutting wetlands in § 328.3(c)(1)(ii)-(iv) (Non-
`
`abutting Wetland Provision).
`
`Ranchers will prevail on the merits, because the Supreme Court has already ruled in
`
`Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), that substantially similar provisions in prior
`
`regulations exceed the scope of the Clean Water Act.
`
`Ranchers will suffer irreparable harm if EPA and the Army are allowed to regulate their
`
`private property under the Intermittent Tributary and Non-abutting Wetland Provisions. The
`
`Provisions will require Ranchers to spend months to years, and tens to hundreds of thousands of
`
`dollars, to obtain Army permits to farm and otherwise use their own land. The time required to
`
`obtain permits would prevent Ranchers from working their own land despite the need for fast
`
`action caused by weather and other unpredictable circumstances, as well as seasonal work that
`
`would be delayed for months or years awaiting permitting. Even if obtained at this cost in time
`
`and money, the resulting permits would limit the use of their property. These harms are imminent
`
`because they will apply to ongoing farming and ranching operations when the Provisions take
`
`effect on June 22, 2020, and because farming and ranching involve unpredictable weather events
`
`and other requirements.
`
`The balance of equities and the public interest both favor an injunction. No bond is
`
`necessary for the Court to grant the requested injunction. For ease of administration, the Court
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 38
`
`should enjoin the Provisions throughout New Mexico, rather than only as to Ranchers.
`
`II.
`
`
`Legal Background: Decades of Dubious EPA and Army Regulation
`of Non-Navigable Features Under the Clean Water Act
`
`The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq., regulates discharges of “pollutants” from
`
`“point sources” to “navigable waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), § 1362(12). The Act defines
`
`“navigable waters” as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1362(7). The Act defines “the territorial seas” but does not otherwise define “waters of the
`
`United States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(8). Nonexempt discharges require a permit from either the EPA
`
`or the Army. Dredge and fill permits from the Army average more than two years, and $250,000
`
`in consulting costs, to obtain. See Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 721; see also Hawkes Co., Inc. v. United
`
`States Army Corps of Engineers, 782 F.3d 994, 1001 (8th Cir. 2015). Once obtained, dredge and
`
`fill permits substantially limit how property encumbered by “navigable waters” can be used by its
`
`owner. See generally Daniel R. Mandelker, Practicable Alternatives for Wetlands Development
`
`Under the Clean Water Act, 48 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10894 (Oct. 2018).
`
`A person engaged in unpermitted, nonexempt discharges or permit violations faces citizen
`
`suits, administrative cease-and-desist and compliance orders, administrative penalties, civil actions for
`
`monetary civil penalties and injunctive relief, and criminal prosecution. See generally, Gwaltney of
`
`Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49, 52-53 (1987). These severe burdens
`
`make it critically important that the regulated public know what is meant by “navigable waters.”
`
`Starting in the 1970s the Army adopted increasingly broad regulations defining “navigable
`
`waters.” See generally United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 123-24
`
`(1985). In Riverside Bayview Homes the Supreme Court held that the Army reasonably interpreted
`
`“navigable waters” to include a non-navigable wetland abutting a navigable-in-fact creek. Id. at
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 38
`
`135. Riverside Bayview Homes did not address whether “navigable waters” include wetlands that
`
`don’t abut navigable-in-fact waters. Id. at 124 n.2; id. at 131 n.8.
`
`In 1986 the Army adopted an updated definition that stretched the term “navigable waters”
`
`to include interstate waters, intrastate waters with various relationships to interstate or foreign
`
`commerce, all non-navigable tributaries of such waters, and all non-navigable wetlands adjacent to
`
`(broadly defined as bordering, contiguous, or neighboring) such tributaries and other waters. See 33
`
`C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(1)-(7), and § 328.3(c) (2014) (1986 Regulations). The Army interpreted the 1986
`
`Regulations to include isolated waters used by migratory birds (the Migratory Bird Rule) and all
`
`water used to irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce. Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 725 (citing 51 Fed.
`
`Reg. 41,206, 41,217 (Nov. 13, 1986)).
`
`The Supreme Court issued two adverse decisions against the 1986 Regulations. In Solid
`
`Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159
`
`(2001) (SWANCC), the Court invalidated the Migratory Bird Rule as beyond the scope of
`
`“navigable waters” under the Act. 531 U.S. at 172. SWANCC narrowed Riverside Bayview Homes
`
`by emphasizing that the word “navigable” in the text of the Act demonstrates that Congress was
`
`focused on its “traditional jurisdiction over waters that were . . . navigable in fact.” Id.
`
`Then in a fractured opinion in Rapanos, the Supreme Court invalidated the tributary and
`
`adjacent wetlands subsections of the 1986 Regulations as exceeding the scope of the statutory term
`
`“navigable waters.” The issue in Rapanos was whether “navigable waters” include non-navigable
`
`tributaries to navigable-in-fact waterways, and wetlands that do not physically abut navigable-in-
`
`fact waterways. 547 U.S. at 728, id. at 759 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Court remanded the
`
`case because these two provisions of the 1986 Regulations, on which the lower court relied,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 38
`
`invalidly claimed authority over all such tributaries and wetlands. Id. at 757.
`
`The four-Justice Rapanos plurality determined that the language, structure, and purpose of
`
`the Clean Water Act all limit federal authority over non-navigable tributaries to “relatively
`
`permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” commonly recognized as “streams,
`
`. . . oceans, rivers, and lakes[.]” Id. at 739 (brackets omitted) (quoting Webster’s Second 2882). In
`
`its analysis the plurality repeatedly emphasized that intermittent (i.e., flowing more often than
`
`ephemerally but not continuously) drainages are not regulated by the Act, even mocking the
`
`notion. Id. at 733.
`
`The plurality also limited regulation of non-navigable wetlands to only those that
`
`physically abut relatively permanent and continuously flowing waters, such that they have an
`
`immediate surface water connection which
`
`renders
`
`the wetland and water body
`
`“indistinguishable.” Id. at 755.
`
`Justice Kennedy joined the plurality in the judgment that the tributary and adjacent wetland
`
`subsections of the 1986 Definition were overbroad. But he proposed a broader interpretation of
`
`“navigable waters” than the plurality: the “significant nexus” test. Id. at 759 (Kennedy, J.,
`
`concurring). Under this view, the government can regulate a non-abutting wetland if it significantly
`
`affects the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of a navigable-in-fact waterway. Id. at 779
`
`(Kennedy, J., concurring). Justice Kennedy wrote that wetlands could be analyzed under this
`
`standard either standing alone or in combination with features similarly situated within an
`
`otherwise undefined “region.” Id. at 780 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
`
`In 2015, after several years of effort to address the Supreme Court’s decisions in SWANCC
`
`and Rapanos, EPA and the Army adopted new regulations (the 2015 Regulations) redefining
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 38
`
`“navigable waters.” 33 C.F.R. § 328.3 (2016); 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054 (June 29, 2015).
`
`The 2015 Regulations defined “tributary” as having a bed and bank and an ordinary high-
`
`water mark, and contributing flow to (1) navigable-in-fact waters, plus all waters which are, were,
`
`or reasonably could be used more generally in interstate commerce, (2) all interstate waters,
`
`including interstate wetlands, and (3) the territorial seas. 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(3) (2016). The 2015
`
`Regulations also established several criteria for regulation of “adjacent waters” based on Justice
`
`Kennedy’s significant nexus analysis in Rapanos, see 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(1), (2), (5) (2016).
`
`Several lawsuits challenged the 2015 Regulations. On August 27, 2015, the District Court
`
`for the District of North Dakota preliminarily enjoined the 2015 Definition prior to its effective
`
`date in New Mexico and several other states. North Dakota v. EPA, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1047, 1060
`
`(D.N.D. 2015).4 On August 21, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
`
`ruled on summary judgment that the 2015 Regulations violated the Clean Water Act. Georgia v.
`
`Wheeler, 418 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Ga. 2019). That court permanently enjoined and remanded
`
`the 2015 Regulations without vacatur. Id. at 1382-83.
`
`On October 22, 2019, partially in response to the decision in Georgia v. Wheeler, EPA and
`
`
`4 In early 2019, the New Mexico state agencies who were party plaintiffs to that case moved to
`withdraw as plaintiffs. New Mexico State Engineer’s Motion to Withdraw as a Plaintiff, North
`Dakota v. EPA, (No. 3:15-cv-00059-PDW-ARS), Dkt. No. 265. At the same time, the
`Arizona/New Mexico Coalition of Counties for Sustainable Economic Growth (AZ/NM Coalition)
`moved to intervene to take the place of the New Mexico state agencies in the litigation. The District
`of North Dakota granted the AZ/NM Coalition intervention, Order Granting Coalition of
`Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth’s Motion to Intervene, North Dakota
`v. EPA, (No. 3:15-cv-00059-PDW-ARS), Dkt. No. 279, allowed the New Mexico state agencies
`to withdraw as plaintiffs, and left the injunction in place as to the AZ/NM Coalition, Order
`Dismissing State of Colorado, New Mexico State Engineer, and New Mexico Environmental
`Department as Plaintiffs, North Dakota v. EPA, (No. 3:15-cv-00059-PDW-ARS), Dkt. No. 280. A
`motion for clarification of the scope of the injunction against the 2015 Regulation in New Mexico
`is pending.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 38
`
`the Army published a regulation (the Repeal and Recodify Rule) that (1) repeals the 2015
`
`Regulations, and (2) readopts the 1986 Regulations. 84 Fed. Reg. 56,626 (Oct. 22, 2019).5
`
`On April 21, 2020, EPA and the Army published yet another regulation in the Federal
`
`Register called the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (“Navigable Waters Protection Rule” or
`
`“2020 Regulations”). 85 Fed. Reg. 22,250 (Apr. 21, 2020). The Navigable Waters Protection Rule
`
`regulates:
`
`• Tributaries, 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(2), which are rivers, streams, or similarly
`
`naturally occurring (whether or not altered or relocated) surface water channels
`
`(including ditches that relocate or are constructed in them, or that drain adjacent
`
`wetlands) that, in a typical year, contribute intermittent or perennial surface water
`
`flow to other regulated waters, 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(12). Perennial “means surface
`
`water flowing continuously year-round.” 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(8). Intermittent
`
`“means surface water flowing continuously during certain times of the year and
`
`more than in direct response to precipitation.” 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(5). 85 Fed. Reg.
`
`at 22,338-39. The intermittent non-navigable tributaries regulated by Section
`
`328.3(a)(2) can be both negligible in volume and very limited in duration. The
`
`definition concededly includes the “merest trickle” because it has no lower bound
`
`for the volume of flow necessary to be a tributary. 85 Fed. Reg. at 22,291. The Rule
`
`also has no minimum duration of flow for a tributary to be regulated, other than that
`
`it flow more than in direct response to precipitation. Id. at 22,292.
`
`
`5 The original complaint in this lawsuit challenged the “Recodify” portion of the Repeal and
`Recodify Rule, but not the “Repeal” portion that rescinded the 2015 Regulations.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00988-RB-SCY Document 30 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 38
`
`• Adjacent wetlands, 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(4), which are wetlands that abut, 33 C.F.R.
`
`§ 328.3(c)(1)(i), or are flooded by, 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(1)(ii), other regulated non-
`
`wetland waters, or are physically separated from them only by natural, 33 C.F.R.
`
`§ 328.3(c)(1)(iii), or permeable artificial, 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)(1)(iv), barriers. 85
`
`Fed. Reg. at 22,338.
`
`Cattle Growers ask this Court to preliminarily enjoin the following provisions of the
`
`definitions of regulated tributaries and adjacent wetlands in the Navigable Waters Protection Rule,
`
`as indicated by bold type and strike through in the text of these provisions below:
`
`§ 328.3(c)(1): The term adjacent wetlands means wetlands that: (i) Abut, meaning to touch
`
`at least at one point or side of, a water identified in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
`
`section; (ii) [a]re inundated by flooding from a water identified in paragraph (a)(1),
`
`(2), or (3) of this section in a typical year; (iii) [a]re physically separated from a water
`
`identified in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section only by a natural berm, bank,
`
`dune, or simila