The Court most recently interpreted the term вЂвЂwaters of the United StatesвЂ™вЂ™ in Rapanos v. In 2001 and again in 2003, the agencies developed guidance toВ address the definition ofВ вЂњwaters of the United StatesвЂќВ under the Clean Water Act following the SWANCCВ decision. The Court held that the use of вЂњisolatedвЂќВ non-navigable intrastate ponds by migratory birds was not by itself a sufficient basis for the exercise of federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. Army Corps of EngineersВ ( SWANCC) in 2001, the Court rejected a claim of federal jurisdiction over non-navigable, isolated, intrastate ponds that lack a sufficient connection to traditional navigable waters, noting that the term вЂвЂnavigableвЂ™вЂ™ must be given meaning within the context and application of the statute. In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Supreme Court deferred to the CorpsвЂ™ assertion of jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to a traditional navigable water, stating that adjacent wetlands may be regulated as waters of the United States because they are вЂвЂinseparably bound upвЂ™вЂ™ with navigable waters and вЂвЂin the majority of casesвЂ™вЂ™ have вЂвЂsignificant effects on water quality and the aquatic ecosystemвЂ™вЂ™ in those waters. Three Supreme Court decisions have addressed the definition of вЂњwaters of the United States.вЂќ In 1985, in United States v. In the mid-1980s, both agencies promulgated a definition of вЂњwaters of the United States.вЂќ Since the 1970s, EPA and the Department of the Army have defined вЂњwaters of the United StatesвЂќ by regulation.

Department of the Army to define вЂњwaters of the United StatesвЂќ in regulations. The Clean Water Act does not define вЂњwaters of the United StatesвЂќ rather, it provides discretion for EPA and the U.S. Clean Water Act programs, including Water Quality Standards, TMDLs, and sections 311, 402, and 404 address вЂњnavigable waters,вЂќ defined in the statute as вЂњthe waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.вЂќ вЂњWaters of the United StatesвЂќ is a threshold term in the Clean Water Act and establishes the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Act. Memos are most effectively used when sent to a small to moderate number of people to communicate company or job objectives.Clean Water Act Approved Jurisdictional Determinations Also, be certain that material is not too sensitive to put in a memo sometimes the best forms of communication are face-to-face interaction or a phone call. If it is an issue involving only one person, do not send the memo to the entire office. Ensure that all of the people that the memo is addressed to need to read the memo. Regardless of the specific goal, memos are most effective when they connect the purpose of the writer with the interests and needs of the reader.Д¬hoose the audience of the memo wisely. They accomplish their goals by informing the reader about new information like policy changes, price increases, or by persuading the reader to take an action, such as attend a meeting, or change a current production procedure. Memos have a twofold purpose: they bring attention to problems, and they solve problems. This handout will help you solve your memo-writing problems by discussing what a memo is, describing the parts of memos, and providing examples and explanations that will make your memos more effective.

Definition memoranda