Supreme Court Limits EPA’s Power Under Clean Water Act

May 25, 2023 by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Limits EPA’s Power Under Clean Water Act
The U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate wetlands under the Clean Water Act, in the process finally ending a legal battle between the property owners and the agency that’s gone on for the past 19 years.

The dispute began in 2004, when Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased a vacant property near Priest Lake in Bonner County, Idaho.

Shortly after completing their purchase, they began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare for building a home on the site. That’s when the EPA stepped in, issued a “stop work” order, and informed them that their property contained wetlands and that their backfilling violated the Clean Water Act’s prohibitions on discharging pollutants in “waters of the United States.”

The agency classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. 

The couple was ordered to restore the site or face penalties of over $40,000 for every day they were in violation of the act.

Instead, the Sacketts sued, contending that though sometimes filled with rainwater, the ditches on their property were not “waters of the United States.” 

A federal judge in Idaho granted summary judgment to the EPA, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later affirmed the ruling, holding that the Clean Water Act covers wetlands with an ecologically significant nexus to traditional navigable waters and that the Sacketts’ wetlands satisfied that standard. 

On Thursday, the Supreme Court said the lower courts’ interpretation of the significant nexus statement was too broad.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Samuel Alito Jr. held that the Clean Water Act applies only to wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States.” 

As a result, Alito continued, a party claiming that the Clean Water Act applies to adjacent wetlands must first establish that the adjacent body constitutes a “water of the United States,” and second, that the wetland has “a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.”

In this case Alito and the other justices said, “The wetlands on the Sacketts’ property are distinguishable from any possibly covered waters.”

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion which was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Elena Kagan filed a concurring opinion in which she was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion that was joined by Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson.

In his concurrence, Thomas wrote that Thursday’s opinion “curbs a serious expansion of federal authority that has simultaneously degraded states’ authority and diverted the federal government from its important role as guarantor of the nation’s great commercial water highways into something resembling ‘a local zoning board.’”

“But, wetlands are just the beginning of the problems raised by the agencies’ assertion of jurisdiction in this case,” he continued. “Despite our clear guidance in SWANCC that the CWA extends only to the limits of Congress’ traditional jurisdiction over navigable waters, the EPA and the corps have continued to treat the statute as if it were based on New Deal era conceptions of Congress’ commerce power.”

SWANCC is the synonym for the 2001 case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers in which the high court reaffirmed “the states’ traditional and primary power over land and water use.”

“But, while not all environmental statutes are so textually limited,” Thomas continued, “Congress chose to tether federal jurisdiction under the CWA to its traditional authority over navigable waters. The EPA and the corps must respect that decision.”

Dan can be reached at [email protected] and at https://twitter.com/DanMcCue

A+
a-

In The News

Health

Voting

Supreme Court

Five Takeaways From the Abortion Pill Case Before US Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday did not appear ready to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone,... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday did not appear ready to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone, in a case that could have far-reaching implications for millions of American women and for scores of drugs regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. It's... Read More

March 26, 2024
by Tom Ramstack
Supreme Court Skeptical of Ban on Abortion Pill Mifepristone

WASHINGTON — A hearing Tuesday before the Supreme Court indicated a majority of the justices want to maintain women’s access... Read More

WASHINGTON — A hearing Tuesday before the Supreme Court indicated a majority of the justices want to maintain women’s access to the abortion pill mifepristone despite objections from anti-abortion activists. The doctors and organizations who sued argued the Food and Drug Administration was wrong in granting... Read More

March 19, 2024
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Gives Texas Green Light to Deport Illegal Immigrants

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to begin enforcing a state law that effectively allows officials... Read More

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to begin enforcing a state law that effectively allows officials to deport undocumented immigrants, despite objections from the Biden administration, which argued only the federal government has authority over immigration issues. In an unsigned order, the... Read More

A Supreme Court Ruling in a Social Media Case Could Set Standards for Free Speech in the Digital Age

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Monday is taking up a dispute between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social... Read More

March 4, 2024
by Dan McCue
Justices Rule Trump Can Stay on Colorado Ballot

WASHINGTON — In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump may remain on Colorado’s... Read More

WASHINGTON — In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump may remain on Colorado’s primary ballot, rejecting a challenge to his eligibility based on a section of the 14th Amendment that bars those who have “engaged in insurrection” from holding... Read More

About as Many Abortions Happening in US Monthly as Before Roe Was Overturned, Report Finds

The number of abortions performed each month is about the same as before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and... Read More

The number of abortions performed each month is about the same as before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and the nationwide right to abortion more than a year and a half ago, a new report finds. The latest edition of the #WeCount report conducted for... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top