Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 11

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

dirt and rocks.  A few months later, the EPA sent the Sack-
etts a compliance order informing them that their backfill-
ing violated the CWA because their property contained pro-
tected  wetlands.    The  EPA  demanded  that  the  Sacketts 
immediately “ ‘undertake activities to restore the Site’ ” pur-
suant to a “ ‘Restoration Work Plan’ ” that it provided.  Sack-
ett v. EPA, 566 U. S. 120, 125 (2012).  The order threatened 
the Sacketts with penalties of over $40,000 per day if they 
did not comply.

At  the  time,  the  EPA  interpreted  “the  waters  of  the 
United States” to include “[a]ll . . . waters” that “could affect 
interstate or foreign commerce,” as well as “[w]etlands ad-
jacent”  to  those  waters.  40  CFR  §§230.3(s)(3),  (7)  (2008).
“[A]djacent”  was  defined  to  mean  not  just  “bordering”  or
“contiguous,”  but  also  “neighboring.”    §230.3(b).  Agency
guidance instructed officials to assert jurisdiction over wet-
lands  “adjacent”  to  non-navigable  tributaries  when  those 
wetlands had “a significant nexus to a traditional navigable 
water.”6  A “significant nexus” was said to exist when “ ‘wet-
lands,  either  alone  or  in  combination  with  similarly  situ-
ated lands  in the region, significantly affect the chemical, 
physical,  and  biological  integrity’ ”  of  those  waters.  2007 
Guidance 8 (emphasis added).  In looking for evidence of a 
“significant nexus,” field agents were told to consider a wide
range  of  open-ended  hydrological  and  ecological  factors.
See id., at 7. 

According to the EPA, the “wetlands” on the Sacketts’ lot
are  “adjacent  to”  (in  the  sense  that  they  are  in  the  same
neighborhood as) what it described as an “unnamed tribu-
tary”  on  the  other  side  of  a  30-foot  road.    App.  33.  That 
tributary feeds into a non-navigable creek, which, in turn, 
feeds into Priest Lake, an intrastate body of water that the 

—————— 

6 EPA & Corps, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U. S. Su-
preme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United 
States 7–11 (2007) (2007 Guidance).