By Tyler Linnebur | Commentary, ConservAmerica
A year has passed since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett v. EPA and its impact on America’s water regulation is unmistakable.
For decades, Western states have grappled with the complexities of water rights and regulations, given the resource’s immense value and critical importance to the region. This landmark decision, which narrows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s ) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) authority and shifts more responsibility to the states, has triggered significant changes in both the ongoing debate and the ways states protect their water resources.
By clarifying the constitutionally limited scope of federal authority, the Sackett ruling aligns with Congress’s original intent to regulate “navigable waters” primarily for commercial purposes, leaving the regulation of other waters to state governments, should they choose to do so.
To understand the significance of this ruling, it’s essential to consider the historical context. The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 aimed to restore and maintain the nation’s waters by preventing pollution and enforcing water quality standards along navigable waters of the United States. It regulates pollutant discharges into U.S. waters and establishes surface water quality standards. The term “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) defines which bodies of water are protected under the CWA, including navigable waters, interstate waters, and adjacent wetlands.
The Sackett ruling narrowed the scope of the CWA by redefining WOTUS. Before this decision, WOTUS was broadly defined, allowing the federal government to regulate many waters, such as rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, and even some non-navigable waters and tributaries that were believed to affect navigable waters. This broad definition encompassed many isolated wetlands and ephemeral streams in the arid western United States— bodies of water that were, at times, almost comically categorized as navigable waters. This overly expansive and vague definition not only allowed the federal government to exceed its constitutional authority but also proved impractical and unreasonable to enforce effectively.
The definition of WOTUS was central to the Sackett ruling, which arose from a case involving an Idaho couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, who challenged the EPA’s claim that their property contained federally protected wetlands. The Court unanimously ruled in their favor, although with varied reasoning. The majority opinion redefined WOTUS to include only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to navigable waters, significantly limiting the EPA’s regulatory scope and altering the CWA’s protection of wetland and water bodies. Previously, the “significant nexus standard” allowed the EPA to regulate wetlands affecting the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, territorial seas, or interstate waters. The Sackett decision rejected this test, limiting federal jurisdiction to wetlands directly connected to navigable waters. Now, adjacent wetlands must have a “continuous surface connection” to navigable waters to be protected by the CWA.
The benefits of the ruling extend far beyond the Sackett family, positively impacting landowners, farmers, and businesses that no longer face the regulatory and legal uncertainty associated with the previous broad definition. These groups also gain from reduced regulatory hurdles and streamlined processes for infrastructure projects and agricultural operations, which support economic development by removing barriers to land use, enabling more confident planning and investment. Additionally, states now have the flexibility to design and enforce water protection measures tailored to their unique regional needs. For example, Colorado can craft public policies that address frequent droughts and the competition between urban and rural areas for water supplies. Meanwhile, states like Florida or Louisiana can focus on flood prevention and control. A federal one-size-fits-all policy or a vague, case-by-case approach fails to account for the nuanced conditions of these diverse states.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett v. EPA represents a pivotal shift in America’s approach to water regulation, particularly in the Western states where water rights and management are critical issues. By narrowing the scope of the Clean Water Act and redefining WOTUS, the decision rebalances federal and state responsibilities, aligning with the original intent of Congress to focus federal oversight on truly navigable waters. This ruling not only reduces regulatory uncertainty for landowners, farmers, and businesses but also empowers states to tailor their water protection measures to better address local needs. As a result, the Sackett decision fosters a more effective and regionally responsive framework for water management, supporting both environmental protection and economic growth across the diverse landscapes of the United States.
Tyler Linnebur is a fellow at ConservAmerica and is based in Denver, Colorado. He is an accountant passionate about the environment and a prosperous economy. Visit Tyler’s social media accounts and website with links below!
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.