United States v. Robertson, No. 16-30178 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Panel affirmed defendant's conviction for knowingly discharging dredged or fill material from a point source into a water of the United States without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251–1388; willfully injuring and committing depredation of property of the United States causing more than $1,000 worth of damage to the property; and knowingly discharging dredged or fill material from a point source into a water of the United States on private property without a permit. Defendant's convictions stemmed from the excavation and construction of a series of ponds on National Forest System Lands. The panel held that Northern California River Watch v. City of Healdsburg, 496 F.3d 993 (2007), remains valid and binding precedent. In Healdsburg, jurisdiction was determined to exist under the "significant nexus" test set forth in Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). The panel also held that the statutory term "waters of the United States" was not unconstitutionally vague and defendant had fair warning of the term; defendant's argument that the district court should have granted his motion to acquit after the jury deadlocked at his first trial was foreclosed; and the panel rejected defendant's remaining arguments.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel affirmed convictions for violating the Clean Water Act (CWA) by knowingly discharging dredged or fill material from a point source into a water of the United States without a permit; willfully injuring and committing depredation of property of the United States, causing more than $1,000 worth of damage to the property; and knowingly discharging dredged or fill material from a point source into a water of the United States on private property without a permit. The defendant’s first trial ended with a hung jury, and the defendant was convicted after a second trial. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that the Government did not establish that there was jurisdiction under the CWA. The panel held that Northern California River Watch v. City of Healdsburg, 496 F.3d 993 (2007) (holding that Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), is the controlling test for determining CWA jurisdiction), is not clearly irreconcilable with United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), and remains binding precedent. The panel held that the district court did not err in determining that CWA jurisdiction existed under the “significant nexus” test set forth in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Rapanos.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.