Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 15

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

sought to minimize SWANCC’s impact.  They took the view
that this Court’s holding was “strictly limited to waters that
are ‘nonnavigable, isolated, and intrastate’ ” and that “field 
staff  should  continue  to  exercise  CWA  jurisdiction  to  the 
full extent of their authority” for “any waters that fall out-
side of that category.”9  The agencies never defined exactly 
what they regarded as the “full extent of their authority.”
They  instead  encouraged  local  field  agents  to  make  deci-
sions on a case-by-case basis.

What  emerged  was  a  system  of  “vague”  rules  that  de-
pended  on  “locally  developed  practices.”    GAO  Report  26. 
Deferring to the agencies’ localized decisions, lower courts
blessed an array of expansive interpretations of the CWA’s
reach.  See, e.g., United States v. Deaton, 332 F. 3d 698, 702 
(CA4  2003)  (holding  that  a  property  owner  violated  the
CWA by piling soil near a ditch 32 miles from navigable wa-
ters).  Within  a  few  years,  the  agencies  had  “interpreted
their jurisdiction over ‘the waters of the United States’ to 
cover  270-to-300  million  acres”  of  wetlands  and  “virtually 
any  parcel  of  land  containing  a  channel  or  conduit  . . . 
through  which  rainwater  or  drainage  may  occasionally  or 
intermittently flow.”  Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 
715, 722 (2006) (plurality opinion).

It was against this backdrop that we granted review in 
Rapanos v. United States.  The lower court in the principal
case  before  us  had  held  that  the  CWA  covered  wetlands 
near ditches and drains that eventually emptied into navi-
gable waters at least 11 miles away, a theory that had sup-
ported the petitioner’s conviction in a related prosecution. 
Id., at 720, 729.  Although we vacated that decision, no po-
sition commanded a majority of the Court.  Four Justices 
concluded that the CWA’s coverage did not extend beyond 
two categories: first, certain relatively permanent bodies of 

—————— 

9 EPA  &  Corps,  Memorandum,  Supreme  Court  Ruling  Concerning 

CWA Jurisdiction Over Isolated Waters 3 (2001) (alteration omitted).