## Facts

- Trade associations representing mining, construction, and development interests challenged an EPA–Army Corps regulation known as the “Tulloch Rule.”
- The Clean Water Act (CWA) § 404 authorizes the Corps to issue permits for the “discharge of dredged or fill material” into “waters of the United States.”
- The Tulloch Rule defined “discharge of dredged material” to include “any addition, including any redeposit,” of dredged material and treated “incidental fallback” from mechanized excavation and land-clearing as a regulated discharge requiring a § 404 permit.
- “Incidental fallback” referred to soil or sediment unavoidably dropped or scattered during excavation, including material that falls back to essentially the same place from which it was removed.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing the agencies exceeded their statutory authority.
- The case was resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment by plaintiffs, the federal defendants, and environmental-organization intervenors.

## Issues

1. Whether EPA and the Corps exceeded CWA § 404 authority by treating “incidental fallback” from dredging or land-clearing as a “discharge of dredged material.”
2. Whether defining “discharge” to include mere “redeposit” of excavated material that returns essentially to its original location conflicts with the statutory requirement of an “addition” to navigable waters.
3. Whether deference to the agencies’ interpretation was available where the statute’s “addition” limitation was deemed clear.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs and denied summary judgment for defendants and defendant-intervenors.
- The court held that regulating incidental fallback as a § 404 discharge exceeded the agencies’ statutory authority.
- The court declared the Tulloch Rule invalid, set it aside, and barred its further application or enforcement by EPA and the Corps.
- The court later denied a motion to alter or amend the judgment, reaffirming the invalidation of the rule.

## Legal Principles

- CWA permitting for “discharge of a pollutant” requires an “addition” of a pollutant to navigable waters from a point source; mere movement of existing material within the same waterbody is not an “addition.”
- “Incidental fallback” of material that falls back to essentially the same place during excavation cannot reasonably be treated as a “discharge” under § 404.
- An agency may not use regulatory definitions to expand § 404 to regulate excavation or land-clearing activities themselves absent a statutorily cognizable “addition” to waters.
- Deference to an agency interpretation does not apply where Congress has spoken clearly; courts must give effect to the unambiguous statutory limit.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the Tulloch Rule because treating incidental fallback from mechanized excavation as a § 404 “discharge” conflicted with the Clean Water Act’s requirement that regulated discharges involve an “addition” of material to waters, and the agencies could not extend permitting authority beyond that statutory boundary.


Am. Mining Cong. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 951 F. Supp. 267 (D.D.C. 1997)