was “designed and constructed to carry storm and other waste water runoff.” It asserts that the waterway is part of a “waste treatment system,” and thus cannot be considered part of the “waters of the United States” under the Act, citing 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14), and 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. The term “waters of the United States” has a very broad meaning under the Act. The Supreme Court has made this clear: In keeping with these views, Congress chose to define the inition of “waters of the United States” be construed broadly, several of our sister Circuits have held that non-navigable tributaries of navigable waterways qualify as “waters of the United States.” See, e.g., United States v. Eidson, 108 F.3d 1336, 1341-42 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 248, 139 L.Ed.2d 177 (1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 611
holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act holding an arbitration tribunal fell within the purview of section 1782 holding that bad faith handling of an insureds claim fell within the act holding that a small unnamed tributary fell under the act holding that a humanmade tributary fell under the act