Supreme Court to revisit Clean Water Act case

The Supreme Court of the United States will once again hear the case of a couple fighting to build a home in the Idaho panhandle amidst wetlands regulations, according to a Successful Farming article.

Chantell and Mike Sackett have been a part of a legal challenge for their home’s construction since 2007 when the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers informed the Sacketts that they needed a federal permit or pay thousands of dollars per day in fines.

The Sacketts’ case was first heard by the Supreme Court in 2012. The court ruled that the Sacketts had the right to challenge the EPA’s wetlands determinations.

Now, the court will revisit the case to determine if the Sacketts’ lot contains navigable waters subject to federal control.

“The Sacketts’ ordeal is emblematic of all that has gone wrong with the implementation of the Clean Water Act,” says Damien Schiff, a senior attorney at Sacramento, California-headquartered Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the Sacketts. “The Sacketts’ lot lacks a surface water connection to any stream, creek, lake or other water body, and it shouldn’t be subject to federal regulation and permitting.”

By hearing the Sacketts’ case, the court will revisit its 2006 opinion it determined in Rapanos v. United States. In the case, it was decided that if a wetland has a “significant nexus” with navigable waters, the land is protected by the Clean Water Act.

Different presidential administrations have altered the components of the water act, specifically changing how to decide what body of water is covered by the act. This hearing comes at the same time the Biden administration is scribing a new definition of the upstream coverage of the Clean Water Act.

The Supreme Court said it would debate whether the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals “set forth the proper test for determining whether wetlands are ‘waters of the United States’ under the Clean Water Act.”