Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Supreme Court Clarifies Murky “Waters of the United States” Definition: It No Longer Includes Mud Puddles

by May 26, 2023
May 26, 2023

Jay Schweikert and Isaiah McKinney

This week, in Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court closed the book on Mike and Chantell Sackett’s 19 year saga of trying to build on their land. In 2004, the Sacketts purchased property 500 feet from the shores of Priest Lake, Idaho. In 2007, after they started to fill in wet spots in their property so they could build a home, EPA officials informed the Sacketts that their property was a wetland adjacent to a tributary that fed into the lake, and therefore counted as “navigable waters” under the EPA’s jurisdiction pursuant to the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The Sacketts would need to get a permit if they wanted to build, and a permit, if the Sacketts could get one, would cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Sacketts challenged the EPA’s decision, but the lower court decided the EPA’s order was not “final,” so the Sacketts could not challenge it. The Sacketts appealed, eventually going to the Supreme Court in 2012, which held that the EPA’s decision was a final order and the Sacketts were able to challenge it.

11 years later, the Sacketts were back at the Supreme Court, this time asking whether their property could be regulated as “waters of the United States” under the CWA. This is the fourth time the Supreme Court has addressed the scope of this provision—and this time the Court got it right.

The story of CWA regulation and litigation is too long and confusing to tell here in full. But the last time the Supreme Court addressed the scope of “navigable waters”—which the statute further defines as “waters of the United States”—in 2006, the Court split 4–1‑4, so there was no controlling majority. The two main opinions from that case, Rapanos v. United States—written by Justices Scalia and Kennedy respectively—disagreed on the test that should be applied to determine if a wetland was “waters of the United States.” Justice Scalia’s test would apply to “permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water,” and wetlands that shared a “continuous surface connection” to such permanent bodies of water. Justice Kennedy considered this term more broadly to include all bodies of water that had a “significant nexus” with navigable‐​in‐​fact waters.

Lower courts split on which test to apply, but most courts applied Justice Kennedy’s broader test. One of the issues with his test, however, was that “significant nexus” had no real limiting principle. Land that was in no way connected to navigable waters, but which was damp for a couple months of the year, could be regulated as “waters of the United States” because sufficient water molecules from that land interacted with nearby bodies of water. Justice Kennedy’s test was indeed expansive.

This week, the Court unanimously rejected the significant nexus test and held that the EPA lacked jurisdiction to prohibit the Sacketts from building on their land. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, essentially adopted Justice Scalia’s test from Rapanos. Quoting from Justice Scalia’s opinion, Justice Alito explained that the term “waters of the United States” is limited to “only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.” But amendments to the CWA, in a provision discussing permits, state that the EPA can regulate not only “waters of the United States,” but also “adjacent wetlands.” These “adjacent wetlands” must not be distinct and separate from “waters of the United States,” Alito explained, because otherwise the amendments would be drastically changing the scope of the statute via an ancillary provision. Congress was not changing the scope of the CWA by allowing permits for wetlands. Rather an “adjacent wetland” is an “indistinguishably part of a body of water that itself constitutes ‘waters’ under the CWA.” Therefore, as Scalia wrote in 2006, “adjacent wetlands” must be connected to navigable waters via “a continuous surface connection.”

This decision brings clarity to an area of the law that has been infamously obtuse. The scope of the CWA has bounced back and forth for decades, leaving farmers, homebuilders, and property owners across this country in confusion on what they can and cannot do on their property. Not only did the Supreme Court pen a happy ending for the Sacketts—they will now get to build their dream home—but property owners everywhere have received much needed clarity on whether their property qualifies as “waters of the United States.” Not only did property rights win the day, but so also did clarity and simplicity.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Is the Big Move Real? Or Just a Quick AI-Generated Rally?
next post
Tips n’ Tricks to Enhance Your Chart Annotating

You may also like

New Defending Globalization Content: A Case Against World...

July 9, 2024

Title 42 Failed. It Should Not Be Extended...

May 10, 2023

High Earners Make Relatively Smaller Tax Errors

May 23, 2023

Immigration Restrictions Prevent Mutually Beneficial Exchange

September 22, 2023

House GOP Pushes Back Against OECD

May 26, 2023

Wasn’t Lower Inflation Supposed to Be Impossible without...

July 17, 2023

Taiwan Arms Backlog, October 2024 Update: New Air...

November 22, 2024

New Light Rail Project for Los Angeles Comes...

November 15, 2024

Friday Feature: Church-Based Learning Centers

March 29, 2025

Opposing War with Iran Shouldn’t Keep You Out...

November 15, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Harmony Squad: Supreme Court Issues Six Unanimous Decisions

      June 5, 2025
    • Quick Login to AmourFactory: A Beginner’s Guide

      June 5, 2025
    • Disabling Trump’s “Tariff Button”

      June 5, 2025
    • ‘Sick puppy’ Tim Walz should never have been on Dems’ 2024 ticket, Trump says

      June 5, 2025
    • Federal judge orders Trump to restore funding to Clinton-era agency gutted by DOGE

      June 5, 2025
    • Musk says Trump would have lost 2024 election without him as ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ feud continues

      June 5, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,149)
    • Investing (2,011)
    • Politics (15,535)
    • Stocks (3,128)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved