Key Takeaways
- Sackett v. EPA (2023) dramatically narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA) by holding that only wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters are protected as "waters of the United States."
- The Supreme Court’s decision restricts the EPA’s regulatory authority, potentially removing federal protections from millions of acres of wetlands and creating significant uncertainty for regulators, landowners, and environmental advocates.
- The ruling has already prompted regulatory changes and legal debates, with the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers amending their rules and environmental groups warning of serious consequences for water quality and ecosystem health.
Introduction
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), commonly known as Sackett II, stands as one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in environmental law in recent decades. The case addressed the reach of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a pivotal federal law enacted in 1972 to regulate the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters and to protect wetlands. The Supreme Court’s ruling, issued on May 25, 2023, not only resolved a long-standing dispute between an Idaho couple and the EPA but also fundamentally altered the landscape of federal water protections in the United States.
This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the Sackett v. EPA decision, its background, legal reasoning, and far-reaching implications for environmental regulation, property rights, and the future of the Clean Water Act. For those seeking the full Supreme Court opinion, it is available here. Additional case details can be found on Oyez.
Background of the Case
The Clean Water Act and "Waters of the United States"
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed in 1972 with the ambitious goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Central to the CWA is the term "waters of the United States" (WOTUS), which defines the scope of federal regulatory authority. The CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into "navigable waters," defined as "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." However, the precise definition of WOTUS has been the subject of legal and regulatory debate for decades.
The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—the primary agencies responsible for implementing the CWA—have issued various rules and guidance attempting to clarify which wetlands and waterways fall under federal jurisdiction. These interpretations have shifted over time, often in response to court rulings and political changes.
The Sacketts' Dispute with the EPA
In 2004, Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased a small parcel of land near Priest Lake, Idaho, intending to build a home. The property was separated from the lake by a road and several other parcels. When the Sacketts began backfilling their lot with gravel, the EPA intervened, asserting that their property contained wetlands protected under the CWA. The EPA issued a compliance order, demanding the Sacketts restore the site and halt further construction, under threat of fines up to $75,000 per day.
The Sacketts challenged the EPA’s order, arguing that their property was not subject to federal regulation because it lacked a sufficient connection to navigable waters. After years of litigation, including an earlier trip to the Supreme Court in 2012 (Sackett I), the dispute ultimately centered on the proper test for determining whether wetlands are covered by the CWA.
Legal Journey: From Lower Courts to the Supreme Court
Lower Court Decisions
Initially, both the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the EPA, applying the agency’s broad interpretation of WOTUS. The Ninth Circuit relied on the "significant nexus" test articulated by Justice Kennedy in the 2006 Supreme Court case Rapanos v. United States, which extended federal protection to wetlands with a significant ecological connection to navigable waters, even if not directly connected by surface water.
Grant of Certiorari and Supreme Court Review
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the ongoing confusion over the scope of the CWA and to determine whether the Sacketts’ property fell within its ambit. The case was argued on October 3, 2022, and the decision was announced on May 25, 2023.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Majority Opinion
Justice Samuel Alito authored the unanimous opinion for the Court. The central holding was that only wetlands with a "continuous surface connection" to traditional navigable waters are covered by the CWA. This bright-line test replaced the broader "significant nexus" standard, which had allowed federal regulation of wetlands with indirect or ecological connections to navigable waters.
The Court reasoned that the CWA’s text and structure did not support such an expansive interpretation. Instead, the phrase "waters of the United States" was read to encompass only those wetlands that are indistinguishable from, and directly abut, navigable waters.
Key Excerpts from the Opinion
Justice Alito emphasized the need for clarity and predictability:
“The CWA extends only to those wetlands that are ‘as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States,’ such that it is ‘difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.’”
The Court criticized the "significant nexus" test as overly vague and susceptible to arbitrary enforcement, noting that it had led to confusion for landowners and regulators alike.
Concurring Opinions
While the decision was unanimous in result, several Justices filed concurring opinions. Some expressed concerns about the majority’s narrow approach, warning that it could leave many ecologically important wetlands unprotected. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by three other Justices, argued that the majority’s test departed from the CWA’s text and longstanding agency practice.
Impact on the Clean Water Act
Narrowing Federal Jurisdiction
The Sackett decision marks a significant contraction of federal regulatory authority under the CWA. By limiting jurisdiction to wetlands with a direct surface connection to navigable waters, the Court excluded vast swaths of wetlands that had previously enjoyed federal protection. Estimates suggest that as much as half of the nation’s 118 million acres of wetlands could be affected.
Regulatory Response
In response to the ruling, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have moved swiftly to amend the WOTUS rule to conform with the Supreme Court’s interpretation. The agencies issued a revised rule in August 2023, removing the significant nexus test and clarifying that only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to navigable waters are covered. The updated regulations can be found on the EPA’s official website: Revised Definition of "Waters of the United States".
State and Local Implications
With federal protections curtailed, responsibility for wetland protection may increasingly fall to state and local governments. Some states have robust wetland protection programs, while others rely heavily on federal standards. The patchwork of regulations could lead to inconsistent protections and enforcement across the country.
Legal and Environmental Implications
For Landowners and Developers
For property owners like the Sacketts, the decision is a victory for property rights and regulatory certainty. Landowners seeking to develop or modify their land now have a clearer, more predictable standard for determining whether their property is subject to federal regulation. This could reduce delays, compliance costs, and the risk of severe penalties.
However, the ruling also places a greater burden on landowners to understand the new legal landscape and to ensure compliance with both federal and state laws. It is possible that some wetlands, no longer protected by federal law, may still be regulated under state statutes or local ordinances.
For Environmental Protection
Environmental groups and scientists have warned that the Sackett decision could have serious consequences for water quality and ecosystem health. Wetlands play a critical role in filtering pollutants, storing floodwaters, and providing habitat for wildlife. By narrowing the scope of protected wetlands, the ruling may lead to increased development, pollution, and loss of valuable ecosystems.
The decision also raises concerns about the cumulative impact of unregulated wetlands on the health of downstream navigable waters. Many wetlands without a surface connection still contribute to water quality and hydrology through subsurface flows and ecological functions.
For Federal Agencies
The Sackett ruling places new constraints on the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, limiting their ability to enforce the CWA and regulate activities affecting wetlands. The agencies must now operate under a narrower definition of WOTUS, which may complicate enforcement efforts and reduce their ability to address emerging environmental threats.
The decision also sets a precedent for future legal challenges to federal environmental regulations, signaling a Supreme Court that is skeptical of expansive agency authority absent clear congressional authorization.
Ongoing Developments and Future Outlook
Litigation and Legal Uncertainty
The Sackett decision has already sparked new litigation and legal debates over the application of the revised WOTUS rule. Some environmental groups have filed lawsuits challenging the adequacy of state protections, while industry groups have sought further clarification on the boundaries of federal jurisdiction.
The decision leaves open questions about the status of wetlands with intermittent or seasonal surface connections, as well as the role of groundwater and other hydrological features in determining jurisdiction.
Congressional Action
Some lawmakers have called for congressional action to clarify the scope of the CWA and restore protections for vulnerable wetlands. However, given the current political climate, significant legislative changes appear unlikely in the near term.
The Role of States
In the wake of Sackett, states with strong environmental laws may step in to fill the regulatory gap, while others may see increased development and loss of wetlands. The result could be a patchwork of protections that varies widely across the country.
Implications for Future Regulatory Interpretations
The Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA may influence the interpretation and enforcement of other federal environmental statutes, particularly where statutory language is ambiguous or regulatory authority is contested. The ruling underscores the importance of clear congressional direction and may prompt agencies to adopt more cautious approaches in future rulemaking.
Practical Guidance for Attorneys and Landowners
Assessing Wetland Status Post-Sackett
Attorneys representing landowners, developers, or environmental groups must now carefully assess whether a given wetland has a continuous surface connection to navigable waters. This often requires hydrological studies, site inspections, and consultation with experts.
The revised WOTUS rule provides some guidance, but many questions remain about how it will be applied in practice. For complex or high-stakes projects, seeking legal advice and engaging with regulatory agencies early in the process is advisable.
Navigating State and Local Regulations
With federal protections reduced, state and local regulations take on added importance. Attorneys should be familiar with relevant state wetland statutes, permitting requirements, and enforcement practices. In some cases, state law may provide broader protections than the CWA.
Monitoring Regulatory Developments
Given the rapidly evolving legal landscape, staying informed about regulatory updates and court decisions is critical. The EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and state agencies frequently issue guidance and updates in response to legal developments.
For ongoing legal research and analysis, Counsel Stack provides a robust platform for attorneys seeking to navigate the complexities of environmental law. Visit www.counselstack.com for up-to-date resources and expert insights.
Conclusion
Sackett v. EPA represents a watershed moment in American environmental law, redefining the reach of the Clean Water Act and reshaping the balance between federal authority, state regulation, and private property rights. While the decision provides clarity on the definition of "waters of the United States," it also raises new questions and challenges for regulators, landowners, and environmental advocates.
As the legal and regulatory landscape continues to evolve, staying informed and seeking expert legal guidance is more important than ever. For attorneys and professionals navigating these complex issues, Counsel Stack offers comprehensive legal research tools and resources to support effective advocacy and compliance.
Disclaimer: This guide is intended as a general overview of Sackett v. EPA and the Clean Water Act. It does not constitute legal advice. The law in this area is complex and subject to change. For specific legal questions or advice, consult with a qualified attorney or visit Counsel Stack for further research and analysis.
