context: "Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right." By assenting to settlement in this action, Defendants waived, for example, the right to contest the EPA's regulatory jurisdiction, which would have been an element of the EPA's substantive claim.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 133 F.3d 251, 264
citation_a.parenthetical: indicating proof of interstate nexus is an element of criminal liability under CWA
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Krilich, 209 F.3d 968, 972 (7th Cir.2000) (“[T]he interstate connection, i.e. that the waters involved were ‘waters of the United States,’ is merely an element of the United States’ Clean Water Act case under section 301.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 992, 121 S.Ct. 482, 148 L.Ed.2d 455 (2000); see also United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251, 264 (4th Cir.1997) (indicating proof of interstate nexus is an element of criminal liability under CWA); United States v. Ahmad, 101 F.3d 386, 391 (5th Cir.1996) (recognizing the existence of “purely jurisdictional elements”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: "[T]he interstate connection, i.e. that the waters involved were 'waters of the United States,' is merely an element of the United States' Clean Water Act case under section 301."
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Krilich, 209 F.3d 968, 972 (7th Cir.2000) (“[T]he interstate connection, i.e. that the waters involved were ‘waters of the United States,’ is merely an element of the United States’ Clean Water Act case under section 301.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 992, 121 S.Ct. 482, 148 L.Ed.2d 455 (2000); see also United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251, 264 (4th Cir.1997) (indicating proof of interstate nexus is an element of criminal liability under CWA); United States v. Ahmad, 101 F.3d 386, 391 (5th Cir.1996) (recognizing the existence of “purely jurisdictional elements”).