Resources

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA develop regulatory definition of WOTUS.
 

Legal Impetus for WOTUS Rules – First major U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS)      case SWANCC v. United States.

​

Legal guidance issues by Army Corps and EPA discussing the scope of jurisdiction in light of SCOTUS ruling in SWANCC.

​

Further legal impetus for WOTUS Rules – Second major SCOTUS case in Rapanos v. United States.

​

Legal Guidance issued in light of the SCOTUS ruling in Rapanos.

Obama Administration proposes new WOTUS Rule.

​

Federal Court issues nationwide stay against Obama WOTUS Rule.

Trump Administration notifies of intent to “repeal and replace” Obama WOTUS rule.

State of Colorado files comments opposing the Trump approach.

Trump administration issues proposed WOTUS rule to become effective 2020.

Trump administration publishes a revised WOTUS rule to take effect June 2020.

Division seeks legislative authorization for “Gap Waters” program during 2019 Colorado Legislative Session, with no bill introduced.

​
 

Colorado sues and obtains injunction against Trump Rule.

Division again seeks legislative authorization for “Gap Waters ” program during

Colorado Legislative Session, with no bill introduced.

10th Circuit overturns injunction against the Trump Rule.

Trump Rule becomes effective in Colorado April 26, 2021.

Division seeks “emergency” funding for enforcement, withdraws funding request.

​

Biden Administration announces intent to initiate a new WOTUS rulemaking and withdraw Trump Rule.
 

US District Court of Arizona Imposes Nationwide Injunction On Trump  Rule: Pasqua Yaqui Tribe v.  EPA
 

EPA Halts Implementation of New Navigable Waters Rule as a result of the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe decision. 

​

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment announces it will no longer pursue Dredge & Fill legislation.

EPA releases a Revised Definition of WOTUS and its Proposed Rulemaking Changes and publishes the estimated Economic Impact of those changes. 

​
 

CDPHE requests annual funding amounting to millions of dollars of public funds based upon the "expectation" that the CDPHE will have oversight into Dredge & Fill activities 
 

Michael Sackett, et us., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency

Accepted for Review by the Supreme Court of the United States
Petition, EPA Response Brief, Sackett Reply Brief