Joan V. Bayley, et al. v. United States

Petitioners owned a lot with a slowly failing 1937 bulkhead onshore of the shoreline along Hood Canal, Washington state. Hundreds of properties along Hood Canal use bulkheads to control erosion. The lot has had no continuous surface water connection to any body of water since 1937. In August 2017, with state approval arising from the Coastal Zone Management Act, Petitioners performed routine maintenance of their 1937 bulkhead. In August 2020, the United States filed a Clean Water Act complaint alleging Petitioners caused environmental injuries that incurred an astounding $323,134,524 of penalties. In November 2020, the state’s lead agency found the permitted activities were complete, in compliance, and closed its permit. Without any violations under state law, Petitioners received a shoreline variance and permit to build a house on the lot. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the default judgment entered in favor of the United States while disregarding the District Court’s statement, “Although Mr. Bayley obtained approval from Mason County for the project, he took no steps to comply with federal law.” The questions presented are:

1. Did Congress provide the ultimate remedy to federal overreach by releasing and relinquishing the United States’ complaint for Clean Water Act environmental violations due to Petitioners following state authority?

2. Did the United States waive the allegations raised in its complaint for Clean Water Act environmental violations due to its approval of the State of Washington’s environmental program, which resulted