In a win for landowners across the country, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled on May 25 in favor of the Idaho landowners in the case Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The decision narrows the EPA’s authority to regulate wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and also kills the significant nexus test.
“(The test) caused a lot of problems for landowners across the country, and we are happy to see that test go away,” said National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Chief Counsel Mary-Thomas Hart in a released audio recording.
“The holding against the significant nexus test is certainly at a minimum going to require the Biden administration to pull their 2023 (Waters of the U.S.) definition back for some serious reconsideration and revisions,” she said, adding, “There’s more work to be done there, but I think today’s the day to celebrate.”
Removing the significant nexus test will provide more regulatory certainty for producers, Hart said. In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, NCBA argued one of the issues with the test was the criminal liability with CWA violations.
“There’s no way we can constitutionally hold someone liable for a violation of the Clean Water Act if they’re not even aware that they’re violating the Clean Water Act,” Hart said. “The significant nexus test was so broad and so vague that someone could violate the Clean Water Act without even realizing it.”
Case details
Michael and Chantell Sackett have been battling with the federal government for more than 15 years to build a house on their lot near a large lake in Idaho. The couple filed suit after EPA said they could not build on their lot because construction violated the CWA. EPA argued the lot contained wetlands that qualified as navigable waters, and the Sacketts had to restore the property to its natural state.
On May 25, SCOTUS reversed a 9th Circuit Court’s ruling that EPA had jurisdiction over the Sacketts’ property. Justices agreed unanimously that EPA wrongfully claimed oversight of the wetlands, although the justices differed in their reasoning.
In an opinion of the court, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “We acknowledge that temporary interruptions in surface connection may sometimes occur because of phenomena like low tides or dry spells. In sum, we hold that the CWA extends to only those wetlands that are ‘as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States.’”
Alito also wrote that EPA’s interpretation of the act “gives rise to serious vagueness concerns in light of the CWA’s criminal penalties.” Due process requires Congress to define penal statues in a way that “ordinary people” can understand what is unlawful, yet the meaning of Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) under the EPA’s definition is “hopelessly indeterminate.”
“The boundary between a ‘significant’ and an insignificant nexus is far from clear,” Alito continued. “And to add to the uncertainty, the test introduces another vague concept—‘similarly situated’ waters—and then assesses the aggregate effect of that group based on a variety of open-ended factors that evolve as scientific understandings change.”
He concluded, “Wetlands on the Sacketts’ property are distinguishable from any possibly covered waters.”
In a statement, American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall applauded the ruling, saying, “The EPA clearly overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act by restricting private property owners from developing their land despite being far from the nearest navigable water.
“The justices respect private property rights,” he continued. “It’s now time for the Biden administration to do the same and rewrite the Waters of the United States rule.” — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
