The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 3 in the Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency case.
The case originated after Michael and Chantall Sackett began building a new home in Idaho and placed a large quantity of sand and gravel on their empty plot of land. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency soon after notified the Sacketts that their property contained protected wetlands that qualify as “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and that all construction must stop.
The Sacketts argue there is no direct connection between their property and the federally protected waters, and that the EPA has no jurisdiction over their property. The case has been working its way through the court system since 2012.
The decision in the case could greatly impact how federal jurisdictional waters are defined and therefore where the EPA can enforce the CWA. Currently, bodies of water such as wetlands must show a “significant nexus” or clear chemical or physical impact on a federal body of water to come under CWA protections.
While many expect SCOTUS to scale back the enforcement powers of the CWA it has been reported at least six justices seem reluctant to diminish the EPA’s authority to protect federal waters.
NGWA will continue to monitor the case. For questions or to learn how to become involved in NGWA’s government advocacy, contact NGWA Public Relations and Government Affairs Manager Ben Frech at bfrech@ngwa.org.