and lakes, that does not prevent the canals from being “waters of the United States” for which a permit is necessary. Even tributaries that flow intermittently are “waters of the United States.” As the Eleventh Circuit stated: Pollutants need not reach interstate bodies of water immediately or continuously in order to inflict serious environmental damage.... [I]t makes no difference that a stream was or was not at the time of the spill discharging water continuously into a river navigable in the traditional sense. Rather, as long as the tributary would flow into the navigable body [under certain conditions], it is capable of spreading environmental damage and is thus a “water of the United States” under the Act. Eidson, 108 F.3d at 1342 (internal quotations and citations omitted) (<HOLDING>); see Driscoll v. Adams, 181 F.3d 1285, 1291
holding that drainage ditch connected to sewer drain and running into canal eventually leading to tampa bay was water of the united states holding that the land under navigable waters was not granted by the constitution to the united states but was reserved to the states respectively and that new states have the same rights jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil under navigable water as the original states holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states holding that the commandant of the united states disciplinary barracks and the united states are identical parties