WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court ruled on May 25 that the federal government will have less authority to regulate certain bodies of water across the United States.

The Court delivered its ruling for the ongoing Sackett v. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lawsuit, which extends back to 2007.

Chantell and Mike Sackett were building a new home on their property in Priest Lake, Idaho. A few months after their initial construction and back filling, the EPA sent the Sacketts a compliance order informing them that their work violated the Clean Water Act because the property contained a soggy portion considered protected wetlands.

The Sacketts disagreed with the agency’s assessment and eventually filed a lawsuit.

In the opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court said that the wetlands could only be regulated by the Clean Water Act if there is a “continuous surface connection” to a larger body of water that is regulated. The opinion ruled the Sackett’s land did not show that type of connection. 

Although the justices ruled unanimously in favor of the Sacketts, they were divided in their reasoning. Concurring opinions were filed by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who noted some of the implications the ruling could have for water policy in the country.

Kavanaugh said in his opinion that the Supreme Court’s “new and overly narrow test may leave long-regulated and long-accepted-to-be regulable wetlands suddenly beyond the scope of the agencies’ regulatory authority.”

Another part of the ruling provides more insight into the Biden administration’s recent “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rules announced in early January.

Several industry groups who were opposed to the new rules applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling. 

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) said it strongly supported the ruling as its currently in litigation over the WOTUS rules.

“Cattle producers across the country can breathe a sigh of relief today. Since EPA’s adoption of the ‘Significant Nexus’ test, cattle producers have had to retain costly legal services to determine if water features on their property are federally jurisdictional,” said Todd Wilkinson, president of the NCBA. “Today’s Supreme Court opinion refocuses the Clean Water Act on protecting our water resource through regulatory clarity. We look forward to working with the EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers as they implement the Court’s new Continuous Surface Connection standard.”

NCBA noted that it submitted an amicus brief for the Sackett case. 

EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan stated his disappointment in the decision by the Court and its decision on water protection.

“The Biden-Harris Administration has worked to establish a durable definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ that safeguards our nation’s waters, strengthens economic opportunity, and protects people’s health while providing the clarity and certainty that farmers, ranchers, and landowners deserve,” Regan said. “These goals will continue to guide the agency forward as we carefully review the Supreme Court decision and consider next steps.”