The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of the Sackett family in their long-standing legal conflict with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This decision, part of the Sackett v. EPA case, dismisses the "significant nexus" test that defined "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act. The ruling clarifies federal authority, reducing conflicts between landowners, conservationists, and regulators.
Jonathan Wood from the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) stated, “Today’s ruling brings significant clarity to federal wetlands regulation but also signals the need to ramp up voluntary wetlands conservation." He emphasized that this clarity allows for private landowners to view wetlands as assets rather than liabilities.
The court's majority opinion limits the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction to wetlands directly connected to larger bodies of water. Some justices suggested a broader interpretation, including wetlands adjacent to water bodies but separated by barriers like levees. Under both interpretations, the Sackett property is exempt from regulation due to its distance from other water bodies.
The decision offers a clear standard for federal regulation and indicates where voluntary conservation efforts can be focused. This benefits landowners such as the Sacketts while aiding conservation efforts by minimizing conflict and better directing enforcement.
The Sackett family's legal struggle began in 2007 when they were barred from building a home near Priest Lake, Idaho. The EPA claimed non-compliance with the Clean Water Act for allegedly filling a regulated wetland without a permit. They faced potential fines and criminal charges if they did not restore it according to EPA standards.
According to EPA estimates, permit applicants spend $1 billion to $1.6 billion annually on compliance costs, with potential mitigation expenses exceeding $500,000 per acre if permits are granted.
The EPA argued that because the Sackett property contained a wetland similar to one across the street—which eventually connects to navigable waters—it was subject to regulation. However, this Supreme Court ruling invalidates that decision.
