Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 51

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

17 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

The Army Corps of Engineers originally understood the
CWA  in  precisely  this  way.    In  its  1974  regulation  estab-
lishing the first CWA §404 permitting program,6 the Corps 
interpreted  the  term  “the  waters  of  the  United  States”  to 
establish jurisdiction over the traditional navigable waters
as determined by the expanded Daniel Ball test, noting also 
that the term is limited by Congress’ navigation authority.
39 Fed. Reg. 12115.  The Corps anchored its jurisdiction in 
the expanded Daniel Ball test, defining “navigable waters”
to include “those waters of the United States which are sub-
ject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and/or are presently, or 
have been in the past, or may be in the future susceptible
for use for purposes of interstate or foreign commerce.”  33 
CFR §209.120(d)(1) (1974); see also §§209.260(d)(1)–(3) (re-
quiring “[p]ast, present, or potential presence of interstate 
or  foreign  commerce,”  “[p]hysical  capabilities  for  use  by
commerce,”  and  “[d]efined  geographic  limits  of  the  water
body”).  The  regulations  also  made  clear  that  traditional
navigability factors were the baseline for CWA jurisdiction: 
“It  is  the  water  body’s  capability  of  use  by  the  public  for 
purposes of transportation or commerce which is the deter-
minative factor.”  §209.260(e)(1).
  Almost  immediately,  however,  a  few  courts  and  the  re-
cently created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-
jected  this  interpretation.    Instead,  they  interpreted  the 
CWA  to  assert  the  full  extent  of  Congress’  New  Deal  era
authority to regulate anything that substantially affects in-
terstate commerce by itself or in the aggregate.  See United 
States v. Ashland Oil & Transp. Co., 504 F. 2d 1317, 1323– 
1329  (CA6  1974);  P.  F.  Z.  Properties,  Inc.  v.  Train,  393 
F. Supp. 1370, 1381 (DC 1975); National Resource Defense 
Council, Inc. v. Callaway, 392 F. Supp. 685, 686 (DC 1975); 

—————— 

6 Section  404  authorizes  the  Corps  to  “issue  permits  . . .  for  the  dis-
charge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified 
disposal sites.”  33 U. S. C. §§1344(a), (d).