Before revision: Because jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends beyond public property, the broader definitions of "traditional navigable" and "significant nexus" used to establish the scope of authority under the Act are still ambiguously defined and therefore open to judicial interpretation as indicated in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: " Carabell v. United States " and " Rapanos v. United States " .USACE, Civil Works Regulatory Program – CWA Guidance to Implement the U.S. Supreme Court Decision for the Rapanos and Carabell Cases However, because authority under the Act is limited to protecting only navigable waters, jurisdiction over these smaller creeks is not absolute and may require just compensation to property owners when invoked to protect downstream waters.
After revision: Because jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends beyond public property, the broader definitions of "traditional navigableandsignificant nexus used to establish the scope of authority under the Act are still ambiguously defined and therefore open to judicial interpretation as indicated in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Carabell v. United States " and " Rapanos v. United States " .USACE, Civil Works Regulatory Program – CWA Guidance to Implement the U.S. Supreme Court Decision for the Rapanos and Carabell Cases However, because authority under the Act is limited to protecting only navigable waters, jurisdiction over these smaller creeks is not absolute and may require just compensation to property owners when invoked to protect downstream waters.