# Amicus Curiae Brief — Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0351%3A24 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2001 - **Citation:** 531 U.S. 159 ## Text SO NE ES ES EO EEL FF OT RE OOS a CY | gc 27 290 No. 99-1178 INTHE : | OS lle OE ee ee eee Quaseme Comt of te Cds Wied SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit BRIEF FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER BILL PRYOR JEFFREY S. SUTTON Attorney General of (Ce:.nsel of Record) Alabama JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE ALICE ANN BYRNE 1900 Huntington Center Assistant Attorney General 41 South High Street State House Columbus, Ohio 43215 11 South Union Street (614) 469-3855 Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-7300 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....ccccccsccccveseces ii STATEMENT OF AMICUS INTEREST ............. l SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................4.. 3 GREED ccc ecawntebucunncccbsnssbacsineee 5 I. The Clean Water Act Does Not Give The Corps Authority To Regulate Isolated, Intrastate Waters Merely Because They Provide A Potential Or Actual Habitat For Migratory Birds. ................... 6 Il. The Regulation Exceeds Congress’s Commerce REID. don cesukesscnsscecne ensesacenes 9 EMME. 0.0 sds vvnessdevebectesstavbecaces 15 li TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i Page Cases Alden v. Maine,527 U.S. 706 (1999) ooocccccccccccccecccceeeeeeeeeees 2 Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979) cocccccccccccccceeeseeeeeeeeeees 5 Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) ooccccccccccccceeeeeseeeeees 13 Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) .o..ccccccccceseeseceeenees 7 City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) ...cccccccceeeeees 2 Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) .......... 13 FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (1982) .......ccccccceceeees 13 Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824) ........ 10, 11 Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) .occcccccccceceeeeeeees 2 Jones v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 1904 (2000) .............. 7,8 Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) .......ccccccee 10 Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391 (1979) .o...cccccccccececeeees 13 Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968), over ‘d on other grounds, National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), over’d Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. ITT ieee inlentanminmmenmessnmnenmsnenes 11 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) ........ccccccceecceeeees 5 NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., Leo 10 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ......... 2,11 North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300 (1983) ........ 5 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) ....0ccccc00 11 Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 88 U.S. 456 (1874) .............0. 6 Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) .o.ccccccccccseceeeseeeeeeeeeeees 2 The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. S557 (1870) ....cccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeees 6 United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., SATII scents ppmnseamnncepatnensnenennepemnmness 6 United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971) occcccccccccceeeeeeees 8 United States v. Lopez, PPG PERI coccccecccsosoccnosersnesssssces 2,9, 10, 11, 13 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont'd) Page United States v. Morrison, I A 2, 11, 12, 13 United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) ............... 11 Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9 (1971) .o.ccccccccccccccececeeeees 6 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) cocccccccccccccccceccceeeeeees 13 Statutes GE eee Re s NI a 3,6 TE aS 3,7 STATEMENT OF AMICUS INTEREST The State of Alabama, it should come as no surprise, takes seriously its obligation to ensure that the wildlife and wetlands its residents enjoy today remain preserved, if not indeed improved, for future generations. The people of the State demand no less. The residents of other States share this view, as the actions of their State and local governments well attest. The States have been anything but idle in acting as responsible guardians over these essential environmental matters. See Appendix. Whether securing the interests of future bird watchers, future hunters, or myriad interest groups in between, the States have been diligent in protecting both interstate and intrastate wildlife and the diverse habitats they need to survive. Why, then, does Alabama support a challenge to the migratory bird rule, whose only offense is one of jurisdiction and not of substance? In the State’s view, it is precisely such well-meaning measures that nsk destroying an even-greater heritage that today’s government leaders have a duty to preserve and pass on—the unique benefits of divided and dispersed government. A national power to regulate in this area is not only a power to preempt but also a power to confuse. Once obtained, federal jurisdiction over these matters would authorize a federal agency to preempt all manner of local measures, thereby destroying the creative and sometimes competitive efforts of States to develop more progressive initiatives, while at the same time authorizing even the most well-intentioned federal agency to sow confusion in the people over who has plenary accountability regarding these local land-use matters. One need not be a student of, or participant in, government for long to recognize the risks of clouding responsibility over a public policy issue. Irresponsible officials like nothing more than a lack of accountability for their actions; and responsible officials have no use for policy 2 initiatives that they cannot control and ultimately assume well- deserved credit for developing. It is not lost on the State that judicially enforcing these requirements of American federalism comes with a short-term cost. Congressional efforts to protect religious liberties, City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), to regulate guns in the vicinity of schools, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), to regulate the disposal of nuclear waste, New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), to provide money- damages relief for overtime work, Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), and to provide civil remedies for victims of gender violence, United States v. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000), all have been reined in by the constitutionally-required balance between the dual sovereigns and the enduring check of judicial review. Yet, it is worth emphasizing, not one public-policy vacuum has emerged in any of these areas in the aftermath of these decisions. Nor does any such problem loom on the horizon. All that has become clear is that the States and their local governments retain primary initial authority over these areas, a development that ensures local accountability and what comes with it—the best long-term prospects for responsible government. Neither does a single one of these decisions permanently remove the federal backstop. Whether under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Commerce Clause, the National Government remains available for matters that are truly national in scope at the outset or that become so if and when the States reveal an inability to handle them. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991). The libertarian objective of the Framers after all was to “split —— 3 the atom of sovereignty,” Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 504 n.17 (1999) (quoting U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 838 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring)), not to multiply it. While it is assuredly difficult to uphold this fe“cralist abstraction—even when it is the Framers’ abstraction—in the face of concrete laws to remove guns from schools, to remedy gender violence or to protect migratory birds, it is doubtful whether any other branch of government is equipped to do so. For the purpose of advancing these views and of developing them further, the State of Alabama respectfully submits this amicus curiae brief for the Court’s consideration. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1. In promulgating the migratory bird rule, the Army Corps of Engineers assumed a power that Congress did not delegate to it. When it passed the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (the Clean Water Act), Congress gave the Corps authority to regulate just “navigable” “waters of the United States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1344, 1362(7). Settled interpretations of “navigable waters,” statutory context, and vital presumptions against legislatively altering the Federal-State balance all confirm that the Corps’ regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act extends to waters that are in actuality navigable, that would be navigable with modest effort, or that are close to or support such waters. The migratory bird rule, as applied to remote, man-made ponds ranging from a few inches to a few feet deep, vastly exceeds this delegation of authority. In deciding that it could enforce its permitting requirement for discharges into any body of water that is or could become a habitat for migratory birds, the Corps took on a range of authority that it is doubtful any prior agency has tried to shoulder before. As most homeowners know, migratory birds may land just about anywhere and for any reason. Under the Corps’ rule, it follows, all one needs is a backyard depression or the smallest of ponds to attract such birds in spring or fall, through no 4 particular effort by the homeowner, and potentially to violate a criminal law the next time grass clippings or leaves are inadvertently dumped there. An attempt to delegate such sweeping authority must be clearly stated. It was not, and the rule accordingly exceeds the Corps’ authority. 2. In the event Congress did in fact to delegate this astonishing authority to the Corps, the National Legislature overstepped its commerce power in doing so. An effort to regulate every isolated, temporary collection of water in the country has far too distant a connection to national commerce to be treated as a permissible regulation of intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Every measure of constitutional excess appears in full force here. No congressional findings, as an initial matter, support the claim that the activity substantially affects interstate commerce. From all that appears in the legislative record, Congress never discussed or seemed to have any sense that it was asserting this unique authority. Nor may after-the-fact justifications for this assumption of power (i.e., bird watchers and hunters travel in and support interstate commerce) correct this deficiency. They are precisely the kinds of attenuated connections to national commerce that the Court has rejected in the past because they have no limiting principle and would convert the Federal Government from one of limited to one of uncontained powers. The interstate justifications for asserting power (bird watching and hunting) also are non-economic in nature—a type of justification that the Court has never accepted in this area before. The law, moreover, does not contain a limiting interstate-jurisdictional element. And, as with Lopez and Morrison, the law attempts to regulate an area traditionally covered by the States general police powers. In the last analysis, while Congress may well possess power to regulate many of the activities it attempted to regulate here, it failed to employ constitutionally acceptable means in this instance. 5 ARGUMENT At the outset, it may be useful to clarify the parameters of dispute. Neither Alabama as amicus curiae nor petitioner argues that the Constitution’s limited and enumerated powers disable Congress from regulating wetlands in general or migratory birds in particular. On the contrary, the National Legislature has broad powers at its disposal to do so; they simply were not permissibly invoked in this instance. Congress may, for example, use its carrot-and-stick Spending Clause powers to regulate migratory birds and wetlands. See North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300, 309 (1983) (“The protection of migratory birds has long been recognized as ‘a national interest of very nearly the first magnitude.’”’) (quoting Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 435 (1920)). It may use its uniquely wide-ranging Treaty Clause powers, which have in fact been properly invoked to regulate migratory birds. See Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. at 430-31, 435. And, most customarily, it may use its broad Commerce Clause powers to regulate waters that in fact flow interstate or are reasonably connected to such waters, or likewise may do so with regard to commercial transactions involving animals. See Andrus v. Allard, 444 US. 51, 63 n.19 (1979) (the “assumption that the national commerce power does not reach migratory wildlife is clearly flawed”). Not one of these legitimate powers, however, was legitimately invoked here. And, for that reason, the migratory- bird rule must be invalidated—either because it exceeds the regulatory authority properly delegated to the Army Corps of Engineers or because as applied it exceeds Congress’s authority. In either event, neither the most ardent bird-watcher nor the most aggressive hunter need be alarmed. Not only have the States understandably shown the utmost solicitude in protecting these interests, see Appendix, but Congress continues to have broad means at its disposal to reach these important ends. 6 I. The Clean Water Act Does Not Give The Corps Authority To Regulate Isolated, Intrastate Waters Merely Because They Provide A Potential Or Actual Habitat For Migratory Birds. A careful review of the terms of the Clean Water Act together with its legislative record confirm what a brief glance at the two suggest: Congress did not engage in the debate that the Court is officiating now. At no point did the National Legislature offer any meaningful indication that the Act would delegate such free-ranging authority to the Corps, and at no point did Congress consider the constitutional implications of permitting an agency to regulate every remote intrastate body of water where birds do or may alight. Consider initially the text of the Clean Water Act. It just gives the Corps jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” 33 U.S.C. § 1344, a grant of authority that hardly suggests a desire to regulate the shallowest and most temporary of intrastate ponds. Lewis would never have directed Clark to meet him at the first “navigable water,” then looked for him at every passing pond. The phrase of course suggests just the opposite, as case after case construing “navigable waters” has indicated in a series of decisions announced by this Court before Congress enacted the Clean Water Act. See, e.g., Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9, 11 (1971); Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 88 U.S. 456, 470 (1874); The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. 557, 563 (1870) (“navigable waters” refers to waters that “are navigable in fact” and that are “susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce’’); see also United States v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, 407 (1940) (indicating that phrase covers not only waters that are navigable in fact but also that could reasonably be made navigable through improvements). When “judicial interpretations have settled the meaning of an existing statutory provision,” it has long been clear, “repetition of the same language in a new statute indicates, as a general matter, 7 the intent to incorporate its administrative and judicial interpretations as well.” Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 645 (1998). This time-tested principle of interpretation cannot co- exist with the Corps’ utterly-novel and exceedingly-expansive construction. Neither does the Act’s definition of the phrase “navigable waters” fairly advance the Federal Government’s position. It says that the phrase covers the “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). The definitional phrase ultimately suggests three readings of “navigable waters,” only one of which makes interpretive sense. One, the phrase could cover any “water” in the country at all, from Lake Erie to a backyard bird bath. Two, the phrase could mean whatever the Constitution permits, which is to say it reaches the full extent of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers—a line that does not pick up dead-on-arrival hypotheticals, just whatever else the Court (as opposed to Congress) decides. Three, the phrase could cover waters of the United States that are navigable in fact, that could be navigable with reasonable modification or that are reasonably connected to such waters. The first possibility is undoubtedly an untenable one. It would read the most conspicuous jurisdictional term in the statute—"’navigable”—out of the provision entirely, and would certainly raise grave and doubtful questions concerning the constitutionality of this essential piece of national legislation. See Jones v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 1904, 1911 (2000). The second possibility—jurisdiction extends to whatever the Court permits—suffers from some of these problems, and more. It, too, removes “navigable” from the interpretive question. That not only violates the above interpretive principles but conventions of everyday speech as well. A definition clarifies or limits a phrase; it does not dramatically expand the phrase. This interpretation also destroys any presumption of constitutionality. No branch of government 8 deserves respect over an inquiry—here the reach of Commerce Clause authority—that it consciously refused to make in the first instance. This interpretation also violates the cardinal rule that “unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance.” United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349 (1971). The Federal Government seeks here exactly the opposite presumption: When Congress is silent about the jurisdictional reach of a statute over local matters, or at most speaks inscrutably about it, the legislature wishes the Court to assume that everything Congress may do, it in fact did. And this interpretation fails to respect Congress’s very own proclamation in the statute. “It is the policy,” the statute says, “of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and nghts of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution [and] to plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b). That leaves the third and most straightforward interpretation. Consistent with prior constructions of the relevant terms and consistent with the above interpretive rules, the Corps’ jurisdiction remains linked to waters that are “navigable” and are “of the United States,” which includes waters that are navigable in fact, that may be navigable with reasonable effort or that are reasonably connected to either of the two. This respects all of the words in the statute, comports with each of the above rules of interpretation, and avoids a serious constitutional question. See Jones, 120 S. Ct. at 1911. Nor does Chevron deference apply here. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The statutory ambiguity that triggers administrative deference comes at the end, not the beginning, of the statutory inquiry—which is to say, after the application of the above rules of statutory construction. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n.9. Applied here, those rules eliminate the discretion-giving ambiguity that lends Chevron force. More 9 than that, Chevron cannot tenably be applied in this sensitive area of Federal-State authority. It is one thing to assume that the States protect their interests in the Halls of Congress when this Natfonal body legislates explicitly, see Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (1985); it is quite another to maintain this assumption when Congress legislates beneath the radar of reasonable scrutiny, leaving it to the whim of an executive branch agency to seize authority when and where it wishes. Administrative deference in this area would give Chevron deference a bad name. This rule should not be upheld. II. The Regulation Exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause Powers. The initial statutory inquiry not only avoids a serious constitutional question but also fatal one. While the Court has taken many interpretive turns in ascertaining the amount of intrastate commercial activity that will suffice to permit congressional lawmaking in this area, it has never construed the Commerce Clause to include a general police power over local crimes, local torts, local family law or local zoning and land-use matters. The Court should not do so here. The Court has construed the Commerce Clause to permit regulation of three types of commercial activity: (1) the use of the channels of interstate commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of, or persons or things in, interstate commerce; and (3) other activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 557-59 (1995). It appears to be common ground that the bird rule is not covered by the first two safe harbors. As to the last inquiry, the Court has considered at least five factors in assessing whether regulated conduct substantially affects interstate commerce. Not one of them, however, is satisfied in this instance. 10 First, whether in upholding federal legislation or in invalidating it, the Court has long stood by the rudimentary principle that Congress’s commerce powers are not unlimited. As a matter of first principles, the Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers, all of which—the commerce clause included—are “subject to outer limits.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 557. An unwavering line of precedents confirms the Court’s steadfast adherence to this modest but foundational principle: * “Tt is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which ts carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States... . Comprehensive as the word “among” is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. ... The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated; and that something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 194-95 (1824). * The clause does not “obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.” NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 37 (1937). * “The question is necessarily one of degree,” and the clause applies to those intrastate activities that “have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions.” /d. at 37-38. * “The activities that are beyond the reach of Congress are ‘those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the ee eS - 1] general powers of the government.’”” Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 302 (1964) (quoting Gibbons, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 195). * “(T]he power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits” which “the Court has ample power” to enforce. Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 196 (1968), over'd on other grounds, National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), over’d Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (1985). * “No one disputes the proposition that the Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 155 (1992) (quotation omitted). * “To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retaincd by the States.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 567. * “(T]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State government are numerous and indefinite.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 552 (quoting The Federalist Papers No. 45 (J. Madison)). * The Constitution preserves the basic “distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.” United States v. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. at 1754. Accordingly, the Federal Government may not justify an exercise of its commerce powers on a “rationale[ ]” that “would ... authorize a general federal police power.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 564. As with other constitutional claims, a law cannot be justified by a governmental “interest” “[t}hat is precisely what” the constitutional provision at issue “forbids.” R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 396 (1992). See 12 United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968) (asserted “governmental interest [must be] unrelated to the suppression of free expression”). The migratory bird rule plainly does not comport with this first prerequisite for sustaining an exercise of Congress’s commerce powers. The rule has no limiting principle, and as the facts of this case suggest it permits the Corps to regulate classically local matters, even residential property, virtually whenever it pleases. Any distinction between matters that are truly national and those that are truly local evaporates under this novel assertion of authority. See Morrison, supra. Second, consistent with the economic-sounding terms of the Commerce Clause, the Court has only sustained federal regulation of intrastate activities in the setting of commercial activities. As Morrison confirmed just last Term: “{T]hus far in our Nation’s history our cases have upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature.” Morrison, 120 S. Ct. at 1751. This, too, is an unyielding shortcoming of the migratory bird rule. Regulating any collection of water that is or may become a habitat for migratory birds—for the purpose of allowing bird watchers and hunters to pursue their hobbies no less—simply does not amount to commerce in any traditional sense of the word. The Court has never crossed this line before. No reasoned explanation has been offered for doing so here. Third, the Court has asked whether the regulated activity concerns an area in which the States have traditionally exercised plenary authority under their general police powers. Land use and zoning laws, it is clear, properly have long been a local, not a national, lawmaking prerogative. Much as the laws at issue in Morrison and Lopez covered areas traditionally regulated at the local level—schools, crime and family law—so too the Corps seeks to assert jurisdiction 13 over an area that is uniquely a matter of local oversight. The “regulation of land use,” the Court has repeated, “is perhaps the quintessential state activity,” FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 767 (1982), is “traditionally a function performed by local governments,” Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 402 (1979), and is “peculiarly within the province of state and local legislative authorities,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 n.18 (1975). See also Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954); Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). This factor also favors striking the rule. Fourth, the Court has inquired whether the law contains a jurisdictional element, which cabins its reach to conduct that has “an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce.” Morrison, 120 S. Ct. at 1750-51; Lopez, 514 U.S. at 562. Neither the Clean Water Act nor the migratory bird rule has any such limitation. Fifth, while the Court has not ceded to Congress the ultimate authority to determine the reach of its commerce powers, the Court always asks whether congressional findings support the government’s claim that the regulated conduct has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 562. No such findings, however, appear here. As in Lopez, the legislative record clangs with silence regarding the constitutional justification for passing this all-encompassing law. Nowhere in the text of the Clean Water Act or the legislative record is there the slightest indication that Congress contemplated the possibility of regulating any and all bodies of water, no matter how remote or attenuated the connection to navigable waters, that are or may become migratory-bird habitats. Every factor the Court has considered before in gauging the validity of an exercise of commerce power counsels against upholding the migratory bird rule. It has no limiting principle. It is based on an ostensible interstate connection that is non- 14 commercial and non-economic. It concerns an eminently local activity—land use and zoning. It does not contain a confining jurisdictional element. And it contains not a single congressional factfinding that would reasonably support this assertion of authority. In these respects, the rule is more far- reaching than the laws invalidated in Lopez and Morrison. It deserves a similar fate. Nor, we respectfully submit, would a decision to invalidate the migratory bird rule dishonor the inter-branch imperative that the Court accord a respectful presumption of constitutionality to the actions of the political branches—here to the views of Congress and the Army Corps of Engineers. That presumption of constitutionality, it bears emphasis, runs in two directions on occasions like this one. In controversies over the constitutional lines of authority between one politically-accountable branch and another, the Court customarily engages in zero-sum decisionmaking. One side’s loss invariably becomes the other’s gain. Take, for example, a horizontal separation-of-powers dispute between Congress and the President. Both deserve deference in obeying their oaths to follow the Constitution, and neither has a greater claim to the benefit of constitutional doubt than the other. The same is true of vertical separation-of-powers disputes. When the national government and local governments square off over the reach of their respective powers, Congress’s aggrandizement of power customarily leads to a diminution of local power. And the opposite, of course, is true. One simply cannot give Congress the presumption of interpreting the Constitution correctly without slighting the States’ capacity to do the same. It is, in short, no more aggressive to deny Congress’s assertion of authority than it is an act of judicial restraint to respect a State’s traditional constitutional prerogative in that same area. 15 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the court of appeals should be reversed. Respectfully submitted, BILL PRYOR JEFFREY S. SUTTON Attorney General of (Counsel of Record) Alabama JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE ALICE ANN BYRNE 1900 Huntington Center Assistant Attorney General 41 South High Street State House Columbus, Ohio 43215 11 South Union Street (614) 469-3855 Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-7300 July 27, 2000 APPENDIX la ALABAMA ALASKA WETLANDS Code of Alabama: ALASKA STAT.: STATUTES § 9-7-10 (1977) § 41.21.522 (Michie (Definitions) 1998) (Acquisitions) § 9-9-5 (1977) § 16.20.034 (Michie (Establishment of 1998) (Wetlands game district) refuge) § 41-10-235 (1991) § 41.17.950 (Michie (Commemorative Supp. 1999) markers and plaques) (Definitions) Constitutional § 41.21.518 (Michie Amendments: 1998) (Establishment Ala. Const. Amend. No. 543 (1993) of wetlands management area) § 41.21.520 ( Michie 1998) (Incompatible uses) 2a ALABAMA ALASKA MIGRATORY Code of Alabama: ALASKA STAT.: BIRD STATUTES § 9-11-244 (1997) § 16.20.039 (Michie (Taking of protected 1998) (Migratory birds) waterfowl refuge) § 9-11-430 (1997) (Preservation of wetlands and migratory waterfowl — definitions) § 9-11-431 (1997) (Construction of article) § 9-11-432 (Supp. 1999) (Stamp requirement for hunting migratory fowl) § 9-11-433 ( Supp. 1999) (Issuance of stamp) § 9-11-434 (1997) (Revenue used in preservation of wetlands for migratory fowl) § 9-11-435 (1997) (Requirements for approving projects outside U.S.) 3a ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA WETLAND ARK. CODE ANN.: CAL FISH & G. STATUTES CODE: § 15-20-207 (Michie 1987) (Soil & Water § 1386 (West 1998) Conservation (Riparian Habitat Commission powers and | Conservation duties) program) § 15-20-310 (Michie §§ 1410-1431 (West 1987) (Environmental 1998) (Inland Quality Act — acquisition | Wetlands of natural areas) Conservation Program Art. 1-3) § 15-20-705 (Michie 1987) (Scenic Resources | §§ 1776-1796 (West Act — duties of agencies) | 1998) (Sacramento- San Joaquin Valley § 15-20-802 (Michie Wetlands Mitigation 1987) (Soil & Water Bank Act of 1993) Conservation Commission Pooled § 2620 (West Loan Securitization Act) | 1998)(Habitat Enhancement § 15-21-501 (Michie Program) 1987) (State Land Information Board — §§ 2785-2786 (West purpose) 1998) (California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990) 4a Sa ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA § 15-22-1001 (Michie CAL GOV. CODE: 1987) — § 15-22- 1012 (Michie 1987) (Wetlands | §65081.3 (West 1997) Mitigation Bank Act ) (Transportation planning and § 15-57-409 (Michie programming) 1987) (Reclamation of land) §§ 66602.1 — 66682 (West 1997) (San §§ 26-51-1502 (Michie Franciso Bay 1987) - 26-51-1506 Wetlands) (Michie 1987) (Private Wetland & Riparian § 66907.12 (West Zone Creation & 1997)(California Incentive) Tahoe Conservancy) Acts 1993, No. 150,§ § | § 67675 (West 1997) 1-9 (Historical Notes) (Fort Ord Reuse Authority) Acts 1995, No. 1224 (Historical Notes) CAL. HARB & NAV. CODE: § 523 (West 2000 Supp.) (Removal of vessel from public waterway) § 1720 (West 2000 Supp.) (Port facility construction) ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE: § 25270.5 (West 1999) (Storage of Petroleum — Inspection schedule) § 25270.11(West 1999) (Environmental Trust Fund) § 33492.93 (West 1999) (Mare Island Redevelopment Project Area) § 44470 (West 1996) (Halogenated Refrigerants) CAL. PUB.RES.CODE: § 5096.139 (West 1984) (Nejedly-Heart State, Urban, and Coastal Park Bond Act of 1976) 6a ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA 7a § 5096.197 (West 1984) (California Parklands Act of 1980) § 5096.310 (West Supp. 2000) (Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 — Creation and use) § 5096.347 (West Supp. 2000) (Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 — Sierra Nevada-Cascade Mountain Region) § 5096.350 (West Supp. 2000.) (Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 —Wildlife Program) ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA § 5096.352 (West Supp. 2000) (Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000-Coastal Protection Program) § 5096.357 (West Supp. 2000) (Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000-Fish and Game Program) §§ 5810-5818 (West 1984) (Wetlands Protection Act) § 5850 (West Supp. 2000) (San Francisco Bikeway System) ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA §§ 5902, 5907, 5929 (West Supp. 2000) (California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act — Definitions, Expenditure of funds, Wetlands acquisition) § 6008 (West Supp. 2000) (Restriction on sale of right to use state-owned lands in Humbolt Bay) § 6890 (West Supp. 2000) (Permits and leases on state lands other than tide and submerged lands) § 8601 (West Supp. 2000) (Kapiloff Land Bank Act - Definitions) § 8602 (West Supp. 2000) (Kapiloff Land Bank Act — Legislative findings and declarations) CALIFORNIA § 8613 (West Supp. 2000) (Kapiloff Land Bank Act — Wetlands acquisition) § 21080.23 (West Supp. 2000) (Environmental Quality — Pipeline project) § 26403 (West 1996) (Energy and Resources Fund — Programs eligible for funding) §§ 29002 — 29501 (West 1996) (Suisun Marsh Preservation Chapters 1,2, and 5)* § 30116 - 30607.1(West 1996) (California Coastal Act) * This statute contains information on both “Wetlands and Migratory Waterfowl” 10a CALIFORNIA lla § 31006 (West Supp. 2000) (State Coastal Conservancy — Coastal zone) § 31162 (West 1996) (San Francisco Bay §31354 (West 1996) (State Coastal Conservancy- Establishment) § 32023 (West 1996) (California Urban § 35031 (West Supp. 2000) (Coasial County and City Offshore Energy Assistance) CALIFORNIA CAL. WATER CODE: § 1707 (West Supp. 2000) (Urban Water § 12565 (West Supp. 2000) (Colorado River Management Program) §12929.26 (West 1992) (Environmental Water Act of 1989 — Purposes eligible for funding) § 13142.5 (West Supp. 2000) (State Policy for Water Quality —_ a ~ ~ Coastal , 12a ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA 13a § 13576 (West Supp. 2000) (Water Recycling Act of 1991) §§ 14906-14907 (West Drainage Relief Act) §§ 78500.4, 78684 (West Supp. 2000) (Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act — Objectives and Definitions) §§ 79080 — 79104.104 (West Supp. 2000) (Watershed Protection Program) CAL. WATER CODE APP: § 43-26-1 (West Supp. 2000) (San Bernardino County Flood Centrol Act) ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA § 48-12 (West Supp. 2000) (Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act) § 49-3.5 — § 49-36.5 (West Supp. 2000) (San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act) § 136-61 (West Supp. 2000) (Antelope Valley Storm Water Conservation and Flood Control District) MIGRATORY BIRD STATUTES ARK. CODE ANN.: § 5-73-130 (Michie 1987) (Unlawful for guide of persons hunting migratory birds to carry a gun) § 15-41-105 (Michie 1987) (Programs for migratory waterfowl) CAL FISH & GAME CODE: § 307 (West 1998) Bag and possession limits) §§ 355-357 (West 1998) (Regulations pertaining to migratory birds) 14a 15a ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA § 15-42-104 (Michie § 375 (West § 29760 (West Supp. 1987) (Hunting and 1998)(Compact 2000) (Delta fishing license fees) between AZ and CA Protection Act of 1992 for hunting rights) ~ Long term resource § 22-7-206 (Michie management plan) 1987) (Waterfowl and §2050 (West wildlife refuges) 1998) Endangered Species General Acts 1943, No. 146 § 20 | Provisions) (Game and fish refuges) §§ 3700-3706 (West 1998) (Migratory Bird Statute) §§ 29002 — 29501 (West 1996) (Suisun Marsh Preservation Chapters 1,2, and 5)* § 29705 (West 1996) (Delta Protection Act of 1992 — Wildlife habitats) * This statute contains information on both “Wetlands and Migratory Waterfowl” l6a 17a COLORADO CONNECTICUT COLORADO CONNECTICUT WETLANDS STATUTES CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN.: § 7-131a (1999) (Conservation commissions) § 8-3c (Supp. 2000) (Zoning, housing, economic development — special permits ) § 8-26 (Supp. 2000) (Zoning, housing, economic development — approval of subdivision involving wetlands) § 22a-27k (1995) (Long Island Sound accornt) §§ 22a-28, “9S) - 22a-45c (Sup. 2000) (Wetlands and watercourses) §§ 22a-91 (1995) - 22a-1 13a (1995) (Environmental protection — coastal management) § 22a-1130 (1995) (Environmental management) §§ 22a-349a (1995) - 22a-361 (1995) (Environmental § 22a-363b (Supp. 2000) (Activities eligible for certificate of permission) § 22a-378a (1995) (Environmental 19a 18a COLORADO CONNECTICUT §§ 22a-403 (Supp. 2000) - 22a-—411( 1995)(Environmental protection —- Dams and reservoirs — permits) § 22a — 477 (Supp. 2000) (Clean Water Fund) § 23-65k (1990) (Municipal regulation of forest practices) § 25-68d (1990) (Certification of activity affecting the floodplain) § 25-102ww (1990) (Applications affecting Shepaug and Bantam River) § 25-102xx (1990) (Model river protection ordinance) §§ 25-204 (1990) - 25-206 (1990) (River corridor protection plan) COLORADO CONNECTICUT §§ 25-234 (1990) - 25-236 (1990) (Multiple use rivers — management plan) § 26-17a (1990) (Acquisition and preservation of tidal wetlands) MIGRATORY BIRD STATUTES COLO. REV. STAT.: § 33-1-115 (West 1998) (Migratory birds) CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN.: § 26-27c (1990) (Reproduction of migratory bird stamp) § 26-48a (1990) (Management of migratory game birds) § 26-91 (1990) (Taking of migratory game birds) 20a 2la DELAWARE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELAWARE DISTRIc f OF COLUMBIA WETLANDS STATUTES DEL. CODE ANN. tit.: 7 § 4001 (1991) (Erosion and Sedimentation Control — legislative findings) 7 § 6036 (1991) (Environmental control — projects of state significance) 7 § 6601 (1991) - tit. 7 § 6620 (1991) (Wetlands Act) 7 § 7004 (Supp. 1998) (Coastal Zone Act — uses allowed by permit) 9 § 2656 (Supp. 1998) (Quality of Life Act — elemeais of plan) 9 § 4956 (Supp. 1998) (Quality of Life Act — elements of plan) 9 § 6956 (Supp. 1998) (Quality of Life Act — elements of plan) MIGRATORY BIRD STATUTES DEL. CODE ANN. tit.: 7 § 707 (Supp. 1998) (Hunting or shooting from a motor vehicle) 7 § 717 (Supp. 1998) (Frightening or harassing migratory birds) D.C. CODE ANN.: § 22 — 1628 (1996) (Game and fish Laws) 22a 23a FLORIDA GEORGIA FLORIDA GEORGIA WETLANDS FLA. STAT. ANN.: GA. CODE ANN.: STATUTES §163.3177 (West 2000) | §12-2-8 (1996) (Land development) (Protection of natural resources) § 163.3178 ( West 2000) ( Land development — §12-5-30 (1996) coastal management) (Control of water pollution & surface- §187.201 (West 2000) water use) (Planning & development — state comprehensive plan including preservation of wetlands) §253.36 (West 1999) (Title to reclaimed wetlands) §258.501 (West 1999) (Myakka river Wild & Scenic Designation Preservation Act) §338.250 (West Supp. 2000) (Central Florida Beltway mitigation) §12-5-472 (1996) (Water supply) §369.255 (West 2000) (Aquatic plant control) §369.305 (West 2000) (Wekiva River Protection) §369.307 (West 2000) (Wekiva River Protection) §373.4145 (West 2000) §373.421 (West 2000) (Management and storage of surface waters) §373.4211 (West 2000) (Management and storaye of surface waters) §375.031 (West 2000) 24a FLORIDA GEORGIA §376.121 (West 2000) (Pollutant Discharge Prevention & Removal) §380.0552 (West 2000) (Environmental land and water management) §380.061 (West 2000) (Florida Quality Developments Program) §403.061 (West 1998) (Pollution Control) §403.927 (West 1998) (Use of water in farming and forestry activities) §403.9328 (West 1998) (Alteranon & timming of mangroves) §403.9332 (West 1998) (Mitigation and enforcement) 25a FLORIDA GEORGIA MIGRATORY FLA. STAT. ANN.: GA. CODE ANN.: BIRD . STATUTES §372.5712 (West 2000) | §27-1-6(1997) (Game (Waterfowl permit and Fish — powers and revenues) duties of department) §372.5714 (West 2000) | §27-2-20 (Supp. 1999) (Creation of waterfowl (Federal Migratory advisory Council) Bird conservation stamp) 26a 27a _ HAWAII IDAHO WETLANDS HAW. REV. STAT. IDAHO CODE: STATUTES ANN.: §39-7407 (1998) § 174C-3 (Michie 1993) | (Idaho Solid Waste (Water and land Facilities Act — site development — certification) definitions) §342E-1 (Michie 1993) (Nonpoint source pollution management & control — definitions) MIGRATORY IDAHO CODE: BIRD STATUTES §36-105 (Supp. 1999) (Fish & Game Commission orders) §36-201 (1994) (Classification of wildlife) ILLINOIS INDIANA WETLANDS 20 ILL.COMP. STAT. | IND. CODE ANN.: STATUTES ANN. 830/1-2 (West 1993) - 830/3-6 §14-12-2-1 (West (West 1993) 1998) (Indiana (Interagency Wetland Heritage Trust Policy Act) Program — purpose) 30 ILL. COMP. STAT. | §14-12-2-4 (West ANN. 150/3 (West 1998) (Indiana 1993) (Natural Heritage | Heritage Trust Fund Act — purpose) Program — “project” . defined) 70 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 1832/20 (West §14-26-2-16 (West Supp. 2000) (Mid- 1998) (Lake America Intermodal preservation — Authority Port District applicability to water Act) supply reservoirs) 210 ILL. COMP. STAT. | §14-30-2-22 (West ANN. 95/2 (West 1993) | 1998) (Maumee River (Campground Licensing | Basin Commission — & Recreational Act) powers pertaining to property) 505 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 35/1-3 (West 1993) (Illinois Conservation Enhancement Act) 28a ILLINOIS 520 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 25/10 (West Supp. 2000) (Habitat Endowment Act) 525 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 33/5 (West Supp. 2000) (Illinois Open Land Trust Act) 525 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 33/10 (West Supp. 2000) (Illinois Open Land Act — definitions) 525 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 35/14 (Natural Areas Acquisition Fund) MIGRATORY BIRD STATUTES 5 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 580/ 1 (West 1993) (Consent for acquisition of land) 30 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 105/5.151. (West 1993) (State Migratory Waterfowl Stamp Fund) IND. CODE ANN. : §14-8-2-162 (West 1998) (Natural & cultural resources — definitions) §14-22-6-2 (West 1998) (Regulation of migratory birds) 29a ILLINOIS INDIANA 315 ILL. COMP. STAT. | §14-22-6-3 (West ANN. 5/1-230(West | 1998) (Migratory birds 1993) (Wildlife & Fish | — permit or license Fund) required) 520 ILL. COMP. STAT. | §14-22-7-1 (West ANN. 5/1.3 (West 1993) | 1998) (Migratory (Authority to regulate waterfowl defined) the taking of wildlife) 520 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/1.28 (West 1993) (Migratory Waterfowl Stamp Fund) $20 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/1.29 (West 1993) (Migratory Waterfowl Stamp Fund) 520 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/2.4 (West 1993) (Birds of prey) 520 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/2.18-1 (West 1993) (Migratory Game Birds) §§ 14-22-7-2 (West 1998) - 14-22-7-5 (West 1998) (Migratory waterfowl stamp) §14-22-33-1 (West 1998) (Migratory birds — efiect of federal laws) 30a ILLINOIS INDIANA 520 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/2.19 (West 1993) (Migratory waterfowl — protective regulations) 520 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/2.33 (West 1993) (Game protective regulations) 520 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/3.. - 5/3.2 (West Supp. 2000) (Licenses and Permits required for the taking of migratory waterfowl) 520 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/3.6 (West 1993) - 5/3.8 (West Supp. 2000) (Migratory waterfowl] hunting area permuts) 3la IOWA KANSAS WETLANDS IOWA CODE ANN.: KAN. STAT. ANN.: STATUTES §§ 314.23 - 314.24 §32-807 (1993) (Dept. (West 1997) of Wildlife & Parks — (Environmental organization & protection of wetlands powers) during highway construction or §32-839 (1998) (Steve maintenance) Lloyd Wetlands designation) §352.1 (West 1994) (County Land §32-846 (1998) Preservation & Use (Approval of Commissions — purpose) | agreement & lease for Milford lake wetlands) §352.4 (West 1994) (County Land Preservation & Use Commissions — county inventories) §352.5 (West 1994) (County Land preservation and use plan) 32a IOWA KANSAS §455A.15 (West 1997) (Dept. of Natural Resources Resource Enhancement & Protection — legislative findings) §455B.448 (West 1997) (Solid waste disposal! ) §456B.1 (West 1997) (Definitions — wetlands) §456B.11 (West 1997) (Agriculture drainage wells —wetlands— conservation easements) §456B.12 (West 1997) (Inventory of protected wetlands) §456B.13 (West Supp. 2000) (Protection of wetlands) §456B.14 (West 1997) (Civil penalty for violating wetland protection statutes) 33a IOWA KANSAS MIGRATORY IOWA CODE ANN.: KAN. STAT. ANN.: BIRD STATUTES §481A.48 (West 1999) §32-939 (1993) (Restrictions on hunting | (Migratory waterfowl or killing game birds and | habitat stamp) animals) §32-989 (1993) §481B.1 (West 1999) (Service charge for (Endangered plants & migratory waterfowl wildlife — definitions) habitat stamp) §484A.1 (West 1999) §32-993 (1993) (Migratory game bird— | (Migratory waterfowl definition) propagation & protection fund) §484A.2 (West 1999) (Migratory game bird §32-1008 (1993) fee) (Migratory birds — defined) §484A.4 (West 1999) (Use of revenue from migratory game bird fees) §484A.5 (West 1999) (Migratory waterfow] _ project approval requirement) 34a IOWA KANSAS §484A.6 (West 1999) (Penalty for violating migratory waterfowl provisions) §484B.4 (West Supp. 2000) (Hunting preserves) 35a KENTUCKY LOUISIANA WETLANDS KY. REV. STAT. ANN.: | LA. CONST. Art. 7, § STATUTES 10.2 (Supp. 2000) § 146.550 (Banks- (Wetlands Baldwin 1996) Conservation & (Wetlands — definition) Restoration Fund) § 146.555 (Banks- LA. REV. STAT. Baldwin 1996) (Natural | ANN.: Resources & Environmental § 30.25 (West Supp. Protection Cabinet 2000) (Closure of Heritage Land production pits in the Conservation — wetlands) legislative finding) § 30:907 (West Supp. § 146.565 (Banks- 2000) (Surface Mining Baldwin 1996) & Reclamation Act) (Acquisition of natural areas & wetlands) § 30:2073 (West 2000) (Louisiana Water § 224.60-137 (Banks- Control Law — Baldwin Supp. 1998 ) Definitions) (Underground storage facilities) § 30:2074 (West 2000) (Secretary of environmental quality — powers & duties) 36a KENTUCKY LOUISIANA 37a § 34:3103 (West Supp. 2000) (Offshore Terminal Authority — jurisdiction) § 34:3473 (West Supp. 2000) (Millennium Port Authority — juriedicticn) § 38:18 (West 1989) (Dept. of Public Works — conference with wildlife & fisheries commission) §§ 49:213.1 (West Supp. 2000) - 49:213.22 (West Supp. KENTUCKY LOUISIANA §§ 49:214.1 (West Supp. 2000) - 49:214.6 (West Supp. 2000) (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation & Restoration Program) §§ 49:214.21 (West Supp. 2000) - 49:214.42 (West Supp. 2000) ( Louisiana Coastal Management Program) § 56:266 (West Supp. 2000) (Louisiana Fur & Alligator Public Education & Marketing Fund) §§ 56:281 (West Supp. 2000 - 56:284 (West Supp. 2000) (Nutra control cost- sharing) § 56:579.1 (West Supp. 2000) (Permitting of mariculture in the coastal zone) 38a KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MIGRATORY KY. REV. STAT. ANN.: | LA. REV. STAT. BIRD ANN.: STATUTES § 146.560 (Banks- Baldwin 1996) § 47:305.43 (West (Kentucky Heritage Supp. 2000) Land Conservation Fund | (Exemptions on taxes Board) for nonprofit organizations § 150.330 (Banks- dedicated to the Baldwin 1996) conservation of (Migratory birds; migratory waterfowl) waterfowl) § 56:8 (West Supp. § 150.340 (Banks- 2000) (Wildlife & Baldwin 1996) (Limit on | Fisheries Commission possession — migratory — Definitions) birds) § 56:10 (West Supp. § 150.600 (Banks- 2000) (Wildlife & Baldwin 1996) (Taking | Fisheries Commission of waterfowl — permits & | — annual report to fees) governor) § 150.603 (Banks- § 6:118 (West Supp. Baldwin 1996) 2000) (Migratory (Waterfowl or migratory | game bird violations) game bird permit required) §§ 56:150 (West Supp. 2000) - 56:156 (West Supp. 2000) (Louisiana Duck Stamp Program) 39a MAINE MARYLAND WETLANDS ME. REV. STAT. ANN. | MD. CODE ANN., STATUTES tit.: | (Environment): 12 § 685-B (West Supp. | §§ 5-901 (1996) - 5- 1999) (Maine Land Use | 908 (1996) (Nontidal Regulation Commission) | Wetlands) 12§ 4751 - 12§4758 | §§ 5-909 (Supp. 1999) (West 1994) (Wetlands — | - 5-910 (Supp. 1999) zoning) (Nontidal Wetlands) 12 § 6022 (Marine § 5-911 (1996) Resources — Dept. (Nontidal wetlands) Administration — commissioner’ s §§ 16-101 - 16-503 appointment, duties & (1996) (Wetlands & powers) Riparian Rights) 12 § 8876-A (West §§ 16-104, 16-202, 16- Supp. 1999) (Forest 205, 16-307 (Supp. Resource Assessment 1999) (Wetlands & Program) Riparian Rights) 30-A § 4312 (West MD. CODE ANN., 1996) (Growth {Natural Resources}: Management Program) § 3-306 (Supp. 1999) 38 § 419-B (West Supp. | (Power Plant Research 1999) (Pollution control) | Program) 40a 4la MAINE MARYLAND 38 § 435 (West Supp. § 5-1217 ( 1997) 1999) (Mandatory (Acceptance of gifts of Shoreland Zoning) land or wetlands) 38 § 436-A (West Supp. | §§ 5-1502(1997)_ - 1999) (Mandatory 5-1504 (1997) Shoreland Zoning) (Heritage Conservation Fund) 38 § 439-A (West Supp. 1999) (Mandatory § 8-404 (1990) (Scenic Shoreland Zoning) & Wild Rivers Review Board & Related 38 § 480-A (West 1989) | Program) - 38 § 480-Z (West Supp. 1999) §§ 8-1201 (1990) - (Environmenta! 8-1210 (1990) Protection Boar — (Nontidal Wetlands — Protection of Natural legislative findings, Resources) goal of statewide program established, 38 § 636 (West Supp. etc.) 1999) (Permits for hydropower projects) | §§ 8-1807 (Supp. 1999) - 8-1808.7 38 § 840 (West Supp. (Supp. 1999) 1999) (Dam registration | (Chesapeake bay & abandonment) Critical Area Protection Program) 38 § 951 (West Supp. 1999) - 38 § 963 (West 1989) (Saco River Corndor) MAINE MARYLAND 38 § 1901 (West 1989) (Coastal Barrier Resources System — findings & declaration of policy) 38 § 2001 (West Supp. 1999) (Coastal & lake watershed districts — histri horized) 38 § 2007 (West Supp. 1999) (Coastal & lake watershed districts — powers) MIGRATORY BIRD STATUTES ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit.: 12 § 753 (West 1994) (State consent to the U.S. tsi ta forests) . 12 § 7001 (West Supp. 1999) (Inland Fisheries & Wildlife — definitions) 12 § 7109 (West Supp. 1999) (Migratory waterfowl permit) MD. CODE ANN., {Natural Resources]: § 10-308.1 (Supp. 1999) (Migratory waterfowl stamp) § 10-402 (Supp. 1999) (Hunting & taking nests & eggs of wild and migratory birds) 42a MAINE MARYLAND 12 § 7407 (West 1994) (Migratory waterfowl hunting) § 10-407 (Supp. 1999) (Open season for wetland game birds, wild waterfowl, and other migratory birds regulated by federal rule) 43a MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS STATUTES MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN.: ch. 12,§ 11D (West 1996) (Creation of division of environmental protection in the dept. of the attorney general) ch. 21A, § 2 (West 1994) (Executive Office of Environmental Affairs — duties & functions) ch. 21C, § 7 (West Supp. 2000) (Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management Act) ch. 30, § 61 (West Supp. 2000) (Environmental impact of projects conducted by agencies) ch. 40, § 8C (West 1999) (Powers of cities to create conservation commissions) 44a MASSACHUSETTS 45a ch. 78A, § 3 (West 1996) (Youth Conservation & Service Corps — activities include wetlands protection) ch. 92, § 107A (West Supp. 2000) (Degradation of watershed) ch. 111, § ISOA “4% (West Supp. 2000) (Standards & criteria for siting of facilities) ch. 130, § 105 (West Supp. 2000) (Protection of coastal wetlands) ch. 131, § 40 (West Supp. 2000) (Removal, fill, dredging or altering of land bordering waters) ch. 131, § 40A (West 1991) (Protection of inland wetlands) MASSACHUSETTS ch. 164, § 69J % (West Supp. 2000) (Petitions to construct generating facilities — wetlands impact) ch. 214 § 7A (Damage to environment — remedy & procedure) MIGRATORY BIRD STATUTES 46a MICHIGAN MINNESOTA WETLAND MICH. COMP. LAWS. | 2000 Minn. Sess. Law STATUTES ANN: Serv. Ch. 382 (West) (Natural Resources — §§ 324.30104 - Wetland Regulation) 324.30323 (West 1999) (Habitat Protection, 1995 Minn Laws § Inland Waters — Wetland | 84.0895 (Supp. Protection) 2000\(Department of Natural Resources — § 324.60904 (West Protection of 1999) (Land resource threatened and inventory; format; endangered species) contents; wetland protection) 1997 Minn Laws § 97A.145 (Wetlands for wildlife) 1997 Minn Laws § 103F.601 (Waterbank Program) 1997 Minn Laws § 103A.202 (Wetland Policy) 1997 Minn. Laws § 103B.3355 (Wetland functions for determining public values) cece ee 47a MICHIGAN MINNESOTA 1997 Minn Laws §§ 103F.511, 103F. 516, 103F.535 (Reinvest in Minnesota Resources Act — Wetland Provisions) 1997 Minn. Laws §§103F.612 - 103F.616 (Wetland Preservation Areas.) 1997 Minn Laws §§ 103F.901-103F. 905 (Wetland Establishment and Restoration Program) 1997 Minn Laws §§ 103G.221 — 103G.237 (Waters of the State — Wetlands) 1999 Minn Laws § 275.295 (Taxes — Wetlands exemption) 1999 Minn Laws § 282.018 (Forfeited Land Sales Prohibited or Limited Sales — Wetlands) 48a MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MIGRATORY BIRD STATUTES MICH. COMP. LAWS. ANN: § 324.36501 (West 1999) (Endangered Species Protection — Definitions) § 324.43525 (West 1999) (Waterfowl hunting license) 49a MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI WETLANDS 2000 MISS. LAWS. Ch. | MO. ANN. STAT. STATUTES 516 (Coastal Wetland Protection Act) § 21.475 (1969) (Wetland committee MISS CODE ANN: created) §§ 49-27-13 — 49-27-67 | § 644.037 (2000) (1999) (Coastal Wetland | (Nationwide permit — Protection Act) certification without conditions of § 17-17-151 (1999) application to impacts (Hazardous Waste on wetlands) Management Facility — Application for permit) § 17-17-229 (1999) (Nonhazardous Solid Waste Planning Act of 1991) § 29-15-1 (1999) (Public Trust Tidelands) § 29-15-5 (1999) (Littoral and riparian rights) § 49-15-9 (1999) (Seafood — Riparian Rights) 50a Sla MONTANA NEBRASKA WETLANDS STATUTES MONT. CODE ANN. : § 2-15-3405 (1999) (Appointment of wetlands advisory council) NEB. REV. STAT.: § 39-1320 (1998) (State highways) 2000 Neb. Laws 957 MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI § 49-15-301 (1999) (Mississippi Commission on Marine Resources) § 57-15-5 (1999) (Marine Resources — General Policies and Functions) MIGRATORY MISS CODE ANN.: MO. ANN. STAT.: BIRDS STATUTES § 49-7-1 (1999) § 252.244 (Supp. (Hunting and Fishing — 2000) (Wild game — Definitions) preparation and service) MIGRATORY BIRD STATUTES MONT. CODE ANN.: § 87-1-305 (1999) (Fish & game refuges) NEB. REV. STAT.: § 37-229 (Supp. 1999) (Game birds — defined) § 37-233.01 (Supp. 1999) (Migratory waterfowl defined) § 37-902 (1998) (Migratory bird reservations ) 52a NEVADA WETLANDS NEV. REV. STAT-.: STATUTES § 244.382 (Supp. 1999) (Estabiushment, use & operation of wetlands mitigation bank) MIGRATORY NEV. REV. STAT.: BIRD STATUTES § 503.584 (1995) (Conservation, § 328.195 (Supp. 1999) (Conditions for state consent to federal acquisition of land for wildlife refuge) § 503.620 (1995) (Protection of birds included in Migratory Bird Treaty Act) 53a NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY WETLANDS N.H. REV. STAT. 1987 NJ. LAWS STATUTES ANN.: 2A:35A-3 (Environmental § 21-0:S-a (Supp. Rights) 1999) Wetlands Council) 1998 NJ. LAWS 4:27-12 (Aquaculture § 21-0:14 (Supp. 1999) development — (Environmental services | freshwater wetlands) — Administrative Appeals) 1998 N.J. LAWS 4:27-13 (Aquaculture § 79-A:2 (1991) development — coastal (Taxation — definitions) | wetlands) § 310-A:76 (1995) 1991 NJ. LAWS (Certified wetland 13:1D-29 scientist) (Construction permits - definitions) §§ 482-A:1 (Supp. 1999) — 482-A: 27 (Supp. 2000 supp. N_J. 1999)(Fill and Dredge in | LAWS 13:1D-101 Wetlands Act) (Permit application checklist; permit § 483:10(1992)(Rivers | defined) Corndor Management Plans) S4a 55a NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY § 483-A:7 (1992)(Lakes | 2000 supp. NJ. Management and LAWS 13:1D-120 Protection Plans) (Permit application review — Legislative § 483-B:2 findings and (1992)(Comprehensive declarations) Shoreland Protection Act) 2000 supp. N_J. LAWS 13:1D-121 § 485-A:29 (Supp. (Permit application 1999) Water Pollution review — definitions) and Waste Disposal — sewage disposal system) | 2000 supp. N_J. LAWS 13:1D-126 (Department of Environmental protection — Enforcement of certain violations — definitions) 2000 supp. N.J. LAWS 13:1D-129 (Department of Environmental protection — Enforcement of certain violations — Rules and Regulations) NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY 1991 NJ.LAWS 13:1E-57 (Solid waste management) 2000 supp. N.JI.LAWS 13:8C-24 (Garden State Preservation Trust) 1991 N.J.LAWS 13:19-19 (Coastal Protection — ication of Wetlands Act) 2000 supp. N.J. LAWS 13:9C-1 - 13-9C:4 (Wetlands Mitigation C il) 1991 NJ. LAWS 13:9A-1 — 13:9A-10 (Coastal Wetlands Protection Act) 1991 NJ.LAWS 13:9B-1 — 13:9B-30 (Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act) 56a NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY 2000 supp. N.JI.LAWS 40:55D-132 (Extension of permits — Definitions) 2000 supp. N.J.LAWS 40:55D-134 (Extension of permits — extension of project exemptions — freshwater wetlands) 1992 N.J.LAWS 58:16A-60 (Flood hazard areas, . inapplicability to lands regulated by Wetlands Act of 1970) 57a NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY § 209:8-a(1989)(Game 1997 N.J.LAWS 23:3- Birds —Exceptions) 75 — 23:3-81 (New Jersey Waterfowl § 214:1-d (Supp. Stamp Act) 1999) Licenses) 1997 N.J.LAWS 23:4- § 214:9 (Supp. 1 (Open and close 1999)(Licenses — fees) seasons) 1997 N.J.LAWS 23:4- 3 (Bag limit for migratory birds) 1997 N.J.LAWS 23:4- 18 (Hunting migratory waterfowl) MIGRATORY BIRD STATUTES N.H. REV. STAT. ANN.: § 207:1 (1989) (Fish and Game Commission — Definitions) § 209:6 (1989) Federal Duck Stamp Required) § 209:6-b (1989)(Rules Relative to Migratory Birds) 1998 N.J.LAWS 4:27- 11(Prevention of predation at aquaculture sites by endangered and nongame species) 2000 supp. N.JI.LAWS 23:3-lg (Fee for hunting migratory birds) 58a 59a NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NEW MEXICO NEW YORK WETLANDS 1978 N.M. LAWS § 75- | NY ENVIR. STATUTES 8-2 (Wetlands Area CONSERV.: Restoration) § 3-0301 (McKinney 1997) (Department of Environmental Conservation) §§ 24-0101 — 24-1305 (McKinney 1997)(Freshwater Wetlands Act) §§ 25-0101 — 25-0601 (McKinney 1997) (Tidal Wetlands Act) § 47-0107 (McKinney 1997) (County and regional environmental management councils) § 49-0205 (McKinney 1997) (State Land Acquisition) § 51-0701 (McKinney 1997) (Land Preservation and improvement project — allocation of moneys) § 51-0705 (McKinney 1997) (Land Preservation and improvement project — approval and execution of state projects) § 51-0709 (McKinney 1997) (Land Preservation and improvement project — Approval of municipal wetlands restoration projects) § 51-0711 (McKinney 1997) (Land Preservation and improvement project — Contracts for municipal wetlands restoration projects) 60a NEW MEXICO NEW YORK 6la § 51-0713 (McKinney 1997) (Land Preservation and improvement project — Restriction of alienation of wetlands) § 52-0101 (McKinney 1997) (Environmental Quality Bond Act — Definitions) § 56-0101 (McKinney Supp. 2000) (Clean water/Clean air Bond Act of 1996) § 70-0107 (McKinney 1997) (Environmental Conservation Law — Uniform Procedures) § 70-0117 (McKinney 1997) (Environmental Conservation — special provisions) § 70-2303 (McKinney 1997) (Environmental Conservation Law — Violation — penalties) NEW MEXICO NEW YORK § 70-2307 (McKinney 1997) (Environmental Conservation Law — Abatement of pollution) § 71-2507 (McKinney 1997) (Pollution of Tidal Wetlands) MIGRATORY BIRD STATUTES 1978 N.M. LAWS § 17- 1-14 (General powers and duties of state game commission) NY ENVIR. CONSERV. § 11-0307 (McKinney 1997) (Migratory game birds — regulation) 62a 63a NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA § 113-270.2B (1999) (Voluntary migratory waterfowl conservation print) § 113-270.3 (1999) (Special activity licenses; big game kill reports) § 113-291.1 (1999)(Manner of taking birds) NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA WETLAND N.C CONST Art.14§5 | N.D.CENT. CODE: STATUTES (1973)(Conservation of natural resources) § 20.1-02-17.1 (Supp. 1999) (Procedures and N.C. GEN STAT.: conditions for land acquisition for wildlife §113-230 (1999) (Orders | and fish restoration) to control activities in coastal wetlands) §§ 61-32-01 — 61-32- 06 (1995) (Wetlands § 113A-113 Act) (1999) Areas of Environmental concern) | § 61-32-07 (Supp. 1999) (Wetlands Act) § 113A-120 (1999)(Grant or denial § 61-32-08 - 61-32- of permits) 10 (1995) (Wetlands Act) §§ 143-214.8 — 143- 214.13 (1999) (Wetlands Restoration Program) MIGRATORY N.C. GEN STAT.: N.D.CENT. CODE: BIRD STATUTES § 113-129 § 20.1-03-25 (1991) (1999) Wildlife (Hunting by resources — Definitions) | nonresidents) § 113-270.2 (1999) (Hunting licenses) OHIO OKLAHOMA WETLANDS OHIO REV.CODE OKLA. STAT.: STATUTES ANN.: 2 § 9-205.3 (Supp. § 1533.101 (Supp. 1999) | 2000) (Oklahoma (Reissued licenses and Concentrated Animal permit fees) Feeding Operations Act) §1533.112 (Supp. 1999) (Wetlands Habitat 27A § 3-2-108 (1997) Stamps) (Wetlands management strategy) 80 § 1 (1995)(State’s consent to acquisition of lands by the United States) MIGRATORY OHIO REV.CODE OKLA. STAT.: BIRD ANN.: STATUTES 29§ 5-406 (1991) § 1531.021 (Supp. 1991) | (Protected Game — (Sunday hunting Migratory Birds) prohibited) § 1533.101 (Supp. 1991) (Reissued licenses and permit fees) 65a OREGON PENNSYLVANIA WETLAND OR. REV. STAT.: 2000 supp. PA CODE STATUTES § 4212 (Aquacultural § 196.600 (Supp. 1990) | development — (Wetlands and rivers — wetlands) definitions ) §§ 196.605 — 196.660 (Supp. 1990) (Wetlands Mitigation Banks) §§ 196.668 — 196.687 (Supp. 1990) (Wetland conservation plans) § 197.279 (Supp. 1990) (Approved wetland conservation plans) § 215.418 (Supp. 1990) (Approval of development on wetlands) §§ 537.015 — 537.022 (1999) (Registration of water for wetland, stream or mpanan restoration or storm water management) OREGON PENNSYLVANIA MIGRATORY 1997 PA CODE § BIRD 2103 (Game or STATUTES wildlife protection) 67a RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA WETLAND R.I GEN. LAWS: S.C. CODE ANN: STATUTES §§ 2-1-18 — 2-1-24 § 47-20-10 (Supp. (1998) (Fresh Water 1999) (Confined Swine Wetlands) Feeding Operations — Definitions) § 23-27.3-600 (1997) (State building code — §§ 48-39-10 — 48-39- fresh water wetlands) 355 (Supp. 1999) (Environmental protection and conservation — Coastal tidelands and 68a RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA MIGRATORY R.1. GEN LAWS: S.C. CODE ANN: BIRD STATUTES § 20-2-34 (1998) (Fish §1-30-75 (Supp. 1999) and wildlife — licensing — | (Department of natural definitions) resources) § 20-2-35 (1998) (Fish § 50-9-510 (Supp. and wildlife — licensing — | 1999) (licenses Waterfowl stamp authorized for sale) required) § 50-9-530 (Supp. 1999) (Migratory waterfowl stamps; fees) § 50-11-20 (Supp. 1999) (Definitions; migratory waterfowl committee ) 69a SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE WETLANDS S.D CODIFIED LAWS'__| TENN.CODE ANN.: STATUTES § 1-41-3.2 (Michie Supp. | §§ 11-14-401 (1999) 2000) Office of — 11-14-407 agricultural policy (1999)(Natural Areas created) Protection Fund — wetlands) MIGRATORY S.D CODIFIED LAWS'__| TENN.CODE ANN.: BIRD STATUTES § 41-1-1(Michie Supp. § 70-5-111 (1995) 2000)(Game, fish, parks | (Federal wildlife and forestry — definitions | refuges in the state) and general provisions ) § 41-3-6 (Michie 1991)(Assent to federal acquisition of property for migratory bird conservation) 70a Tla TEXAS TEXAS WETLANDS STATUTES TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.: § 361.099 (West 1992) (Prohibition on permit for Hazardous Waste Management Unit in Wetlands) TEX NAT. RES. CODE ANN.: § 33.203 (West 2000 supp.) (Management of coastal public land — definitions) §§ 33.231 — 33.237 (West 2000 supp.) (Coastal Wetlands Acquisition Act) §§ 221.001 — 221.044 (West 2000 supp.) (Wetland mitigation) TEX PARKS & WILD. CODE §§ 14.001 — 14.002 (West 2000 supp.) (Parks and wildlife department powers and duties concerning wetlands) TEX. WATER CODE §§ 11.501 — 11-506 (West 2000) (Wetlands Act) MIGRATORY BIRD STATUTES TEX PARKS & WILD. CODE § 41.003 (West 1997) (Reciprocal License Agreements: Boider States) § 43.154 (West 1991) (Hunting and fishing licenses — permits to control wildlife protected by this code) UTAH CODE ANN.: § 23-21-6 (1998) Acquisition of lands by the United States for migratory bird refuges) 72a VERMONT VIRGINIA WETLANDS STATUTES VT STATE ANN. tit. 10 § 902 (1998) (Soil and Water Conservation, Flood Control - Definitions) § 905b (Supp. 1999) (Soil and Water Conservation, Water Resource Management — Department of Environmental Conservation — Duties; Powers) § 1272 (1998) (Water Pollution Control — Regulation of activities causing discharge or affecting significant wetlands) VT STATE ANN. tit. 24 § 4303 (Supp. 1999) (Municipal and Regional Planning and Development — General Provisions; Definitions) VA CODE ANN.: §§ 28.2-1300 — 28.2- 1320 (Michie 1997) (Wetlands Act) § 33.1-223.2:1 (Michie 1996) (Wetlands mitigation banking) § 58.1-3666 (Michie Supp. 1998) (Wetlands and riparian buffers) 73a VERMONT VIRGINIA MIGRATORY VT STATE ANN. tit. 10 | VA CODE ANN.: BIRD STATUTES § 1424a (1998)(Soil and | § 29.1-340 (Michie Water Conservation; 1997) (Hunting Flood Control — waterfowl from Outstanding resource unlicensed blinds and waters) without season license) § 4277 (1997) (Fish and Wildlife Conservation— | § 29.1-349 (Michie Migratory Waterfowl 1997) (Hunting, stamp program) erecting blind within 500 yards of licensed blind) § 29.1-350 (Michie 1997) (Exemption from application of article) 74a 75a WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WETLAND WASH. REV. CODE W.VA. CODE : STATUTES ANN.: § 22-11-3 (1998) § 90.84.005 (Supp. (Water Pollution 2000) (Findings— Control Act — purpose— intent of Definitions) wetlands mitigation statute) § 90.84.010 (Supp. 2000) (Definitions) § 90.84.020 (Supp. 2000) (Authority for regulating) § 90.84.030 (Supp. 2000) (Submission of proposed rules to legislative committees) § 90.84.040 (Supp. 2000) (Certification of banks) § 90.84.050 (Supp. 2000) (Approval of use of credits by the departments) § 90.84.060 (Supp. 2000) (Interpretation of chapter) § 90.84.070 (Supp. 2000) (Application to public and private mitigation banks) ° § 90.84.900 (Supp. 2000) (Severability) § 36.32.570 (1991) (Conservation area acquisition and maintenance) § 47.12.3330 (Supp. 2000) (Advanced environmental mitigation) § 76.09.350 (Supp. 2000) (Multispecies landscape management plans) § 79A.05.775 (Supp. 2000) (Preservation of river wetlands) 76a WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA § 90.46.010 (Supp. 2000) (Definitions) § 90.46.044 (Supp. 2000) (Standards, procedures, and guidelines for discharge to wetlands) § 90.46.090 (Supp. 2000) (Use of reclaimed water into wetlands) § 90.74.030 (Supp. 2000) (Regulatory decisions) 77a WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA MIGRATORY WASH. REV. CODE W.VA. CODE : BIRDS ANN.: STATUTES § 20-1-2 (Supp. 1999) § 77.08.045 (Supp. (Definitions) 2000) (Defines migratory waterfowl) § 20-2-63 (1996)(Migratory waterfowl stamp) § 20-2B-9 (Supp. 1999) (Conservation stamp; purposes) 78a 79a WISCONSIN WYOMING WISCONSIN WYOMING WETLAND 2000 Wisc. Legis. Serv. | Wyo. Stat. Ann.: STATUTES Act 147 (West 1999) (Wetlands Act) WISC. STAT.: § 1.13 (Supp. 2000) (Land Use and Planning activities) § 61.351 (2000) (Villages — Zoning of wetlands in shorelands) § 62.231 (2000) (Cities — Zoning of wetlands in shorelands) § 66.0295 (2000) (Comprehensive Planning) § 281.165 (Supp. 2000) (Compliance with water quality standards for wetlands) § 35-11-308 - 35-11- 311 (1999) (Wetlands Act) § 35-11-103 (Supp. 2000) (Definitions) § 281.22 (1999) (Fees for water quality determinations for wetlands) MIGRATORY WISC. STAT: BIRD STATUTES § 29.364 (Supp. 2000) (Definition of migratory birds) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0351%3A24. Public record. Not legal advice.