Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 

that  apply  to  the  interpretation  of  the  relevant  statutory
provisions.  Bond, 572 U. S., at 857.  Under those presump-
tions, the EPA must provide clear evidence that it is author-
ized to regulate in the manner it proposes. 

1 
First,  this  Court  “require[s]  Congress  to  enact  exceed-
ingly  clear  language  if  it  wishes  to  significantly  alter  the
balance between federal and state power and the power of 
the Government over private property.”  United States For-
est  Service  v.  Cowpasture  River  Preservation  Assn.,  590 
U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (slip op., at 15–16); see also Bond, 
572 U. S., at 858.  Regulation of land and water use lies at 
the core of traditional state authority.  See, e.g., SWANCC, 
531 U. S., at 174 (citing Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hud-
son Corporation, 513 U. S. 30, 44 (1994)); Tarrant Regional 
Water  Dist.  v.  Herrmann,  569  U. S.  614,  631  (2013).    An 
overly broad interpretation of the CWA’s reach would im-
pinge  on  this  authority.  The  area  covered  by  wetlands 
alone  is  vast—greater  than  the  combined  surface  area  of 
California and Texas.  And the scope of the EPA’s concep-
tion of “the waters of the United States” is truly staggering
when  this  vast  territory  is  supplemented  by  all  the  addi-
tional area, some of which is generally dry, over which the 
Agency asserts jurisdiction.  Particularly given the CWA’s 
express policy to “preserve” the States’ “primary” authority
over land and water use, §1251(b), this Court has required 
a  clear  statement  from  Congress  when  determining  the 
scope of “the waters of the United States.”  SWANCC, 531 
U. S., at 174; accord, Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 738 (plurality 
opinion).

The  EPA,  however,  offers  only  a  passing  attempt  to 
square its interpretation with the text of §1362(7), and its
“significant  nexus”  theory  is  particularly  implausible.    It 
suggests  that  the  meaning  of  “the  waters  of  the  United