Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search
Menu

Alert

Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

May 26, 2023

US Supreme Court Shrinks Federal Authority Under the Clean Water Act

On May 25, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated decision surrounding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) wetland authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The 9–0 ruling soundly rejected the EPA’s view of federal authority over wetlands under the CWA and created a far narrower test to determine what bodies of water fall under the CWA’s scope. 

The decision in Sackett v. EPA is the culmination of a 15-year dispute between a couple in Priest Lake, Idaho, and federal agencies (the EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers) over whether wetlands on the couple’s property are regulated under the CWA. Although the court ruled that the wetlands at issue were not subject to the CWA and that the “significant nexus” test originating from the decision in Rapanos v. United States no longer applies, the court split on how much to limit federal jurisdiction. 

A 5–4 majority of the court held that only those wetlands with a “continuous surface water connection” to traditionally navigable waters, such as larger streams, lakes, and rivers, fall under the CWA’s scope. This holding represents a significant departure from the EPA’s interpretation of its authority and is likely to reduce federal jurisdiction wetlands significantly. The four remaining justices agreed with the ruling but disagreed with the majority’s strict standard that an adjacent wetland must adjoin a traditionally navigable water to be regulated. 

As we previously reported, earlier this year, the EPA announced a final rule defining “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) that expanded the EPA’s authority under the CWA. That rule is now partially unworkable due to the court’s decision in Sackett. However, in the wake of the Sackett decision, the EPA has already announced that it is preparing a second regulation, which it will propose this fall. It is also likely that at least some states, if they have not already, will fill the regulatory void being left by the court’s decision. 

Barclay Damon will continue to monitor the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision and the EPA’s pending regulations.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Yvonne Hennessey, Environmental Practice Area chair, at yhennessey@barcalydamon.com; Tom Paul, counsel, at tpaul@barclaydamon.com; Dan Krzykowski, associate, at dkrzykowski@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Regulatory or Environmental Practice Areas or Energy Team.
 

Featured Media

Alerts

New York Public Service Commission Determines to Withdraw Its Finding in the New York City Offshore Wind Public Policy Transmission Need Process

Alerts

A "Sticky" Situation – Can Treatment of Administrative Claims Be Modified in a Subchapter V Plan?

Alerts

Key Affordable-Housing Provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Alerts

What the One Big Beautiful Bill Act Means for Clean-Energy Tax Credits

Alerts

One Big Beautiful Bill Act Changes Tax Incentives for Charitable Giving

Alerts

Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Wislande Claude, Felipe Fernandez, Howard Wilson, Lisa Cantwell, and Erika Alexandria—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits