The US Supreme Court on May 25 issued a 5-4 ruling limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory authority over wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA), striking a blow to the Biden Administration’s newly drafted “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) definition.
Writing for the majority in Sackett v. EPA, Justice Samuel Alito said the CWA extends only to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection” to water bodies that are already protected as permanent and directly connected to a traditional navigable water. Joining him in the majority opinion were Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett.
The ruling countered the “significant nexus” standard that guided the EPA’s latest WOTUS definition, which was published in late December (GM Jan. 6, p. 1) and went into effect on March 20. Legal challenges prevented the new definition from being implemented in all states, however (GM April 14, p. 1).
The decision was hailed by numerous farm and industry groups, including The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
The original case that was appealed to the Supreme Court involved Mike and Chantell Sackett, a couple that for 16 years has been prevented from building a home on their 0.63-acre property in Priest Lake, Idaho, because EPA claims part of the property contains wetlands and is therefore subject to regulation under the CWA. Oral arguments in the case were presented last October.
While all nine Supreme Court justices agreed that the land owned by the Sacketts should not have been subject to CWA authority, the court was split on how much EPA’s regulatory authority should be limited. Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing for a broader interpretation of EPA authority over wetlands.
“There can be no debate, in my respectful view, that the key statutory term is ‘adjacent’ and that adjacent wetlands is a broader category than adjoining wetlands,” Kavanaugh wrote. “To be faithful to the statutory text, we cannot interpret ‘adjacent’ wetlands to be the same thing as ‘adjoining’ wetlands.”
EPA Administrator Michael Regan issued a statement saying the agency would “carefully review” the Supreme Court decision as it considers its next steps. He expressed “disappointment in the ruling, however, claiming that it “erodes longstanding clean water protections.”
TFI President and CEO Corey Rosenbusch, however, said the decision is a “win for agriculture” by striking down the significant nexus test.
“While regulatory interpretation from the EPA will take time, the SCOTUS decision is a great first step in providing the clarity that the fertilizer industry needs for long-term planning and capital investments that will allow us to continue providing the critical nutrients that feed the crops that feed our communities,” Rosenbusch said.
“All of agriculture has been waiting for this ruling,” said ARA President and CEO Daren Coppock. “The decision finally restores common sense back into WOTUS regulation. Hopefully it lays to rest efforts by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to extend CWA jurisdiction well beyond Congressional intent.”
Coppock said ARA had earlier warned that EPA was premature in issuing the new WOTUS rule while the Supreme Court ruling was pending.
“The Court’s ruling today should provide the legal certainly necessary for ag retailers and their farmer customers,” he added. “The EPA needs to expeditiously update the WOTUS regulation according to the clear ruling issued by the Supreme Court.”
“The EPA clearly overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act by restricting private landowners from developing their land despite being far from the nearest navigable water,” said AFBF President Zippy Duvall. “The justices respect private property rights. It’s now time for the Biden Administration to do the same and rewrite the Waters of the United States rule.”
“This sensible ruling preserves protections for our nation’s valuable water resources while providing clarity to farmers and others about the process of determining federal jurisdiction over wetlands,” said NCGA President Tom Haag. “This is a great day for corn growers.”
“Today’s ruling proves that protecting our nation’s waterways and growing food, fiber and fuel are two tandem efforts – not two competing interests,” said NASDA CEO Ted McKinney. “There is, however, still work to be done to ensure farmers and ranchers are equipped to best care for their land while following applicable federal or state requirements.”