Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 73

6 

SACKETT v. EPA 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in judgment 

timber.  Ibid. 

In short, the term “adjacent” is broader than “adjoining”
and does not require that two objects actually touch.   We 
must  presume  that  Congress  used  the  term  “adjacent” 
wetlands  in  1977  to  convey  a  different  meaning  than
“adjoining”  wetlands.  See  Russello  v.  United  States,  464 
U. S. 16, 23 (1983). 

II 
Longstanding  agency  practice  reinforces  the  ordinary
meaning  of  adjacency  and  demonstrates,  contrary  to  the 
Court’s  conclusion  today,  that  the  term  “adjacent”  is 
broader than “adjoining.”

After the Act was passed in 1972, a key question quickly 
arose:  Did “waters of the United States” include wetlands? 
By 1975, the Army Corps concluded that the term “waters 
of the United States” included “adjacent” wetlands.  40 Fed. 
In  1977,  Congress  itself  made  clear  that
Reg.  31324. 
“adjacent” wetlands were covered by the Act by amending 
the Act and enacting §1344(g).  91 Stat. 1601. 

Since 1977, when Congress explicitly included “adjacent” 
wetlands  within  the  Act’s  coverage,  the  Army  Corps  has
adopted  a  variety  of  interpretations  of  its  authority  over 
those  wetlands—some  more  expansive  and  others  less 
expansive.    But  throughout  those  45  years  and  across  all
eight  Presidential  administrations,  the  Army  Corps  has 
always included in the definition of “adjacent wetlands” not
only  wetlands  adjoining  covered  waters  but  also  those 
wetlands that are separated from covered waters by a man-
made dike or barrier, natural river berm, beach dune, or the 
like. 

  In  1977  and  1980,  under  President  Carter,  the  Army
Corps  and  EPA  defined  “adjacent”  wetlands  as 
including wetlands “separated from other waters of the
United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural 
river berms, beach dunes and the like.”  42 Fed. Reg.