The following information comes from a September 2006 Properties Magazine article written by Leslie G. Wolfe, an attorney with Walter & Haverfield, LLP.

In June, 2006 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on the definition of a wetland that may hold at bay relaxed regulations on filling them for development.

The Court reversed a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held in the Rapanos and Carabell v U.S. cases that wetlands were covered under the Clean Water Act because they were ‘adjacent’ to ‘tributaries’ of navigable waters.

But, the High Court split on what the correct standard should be.

Four justices argued for a stricter interpretation of ‘waters of the United States,’ which would include only relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water such as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes, but not ordinarily dry channels through which water flows only periodically.

Many expect the Army Corp. of Engineers, which oversees wetlands, to revise its standards to reflect this stricter interpretation. However, developers in Ohio may not benefit from this anticipated easing of federal jurisdiction over wetlands. Unless new legislation changes it, Ohio law currently requires developers to obtain a permit before filling in certain isolated, wholly intrastate wetlands.

Read the article summarizing the U.S. Supreme Court wetlands case and the impact for Ohio developers here.