Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 24

18 

SACKETT v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

§1251(b).  It is hard to see how the States’ role in regulating 
water resources would remain “primary” if the EPA had ju-
risdiction over anything defined by the presence of water.
See County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 590 U. S. ___, 
___ (2020) (slip op., at 7); Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 737 (plu-
rality opinion). 

B 
Although  the  ordinary  meaning  of  “waters”  in  §1362(7)
might  seem  to  exclude  all  wetlands,  we  do  not  view  that
provision  in  isolation.   The  meaning  of  a  word  “may  only
become evident when placed in context,” FDA v. Brown & 
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 132 (2000), and 
statutory context shows that some wetlands qualify as “wa-
ters of the United States.” 

In  1977,  Congress  amended  the  CWA  and  added 
§1344(g)(1), which authorizes States to apply to the EPA for
permission to administer programs to issue permits for the 
discharge of dredged or fill material into some bodies of wa-
ter.  In simplified terms, the provision specifies that state 
permitting programs may regulate discharges into (1) any
waters of the United States, (2) except for traditional navi-
gable waters, (3) “including wetlands adjacent thereto.”15 

When  this  convoluted  formulation  is  parsed,  it  tells  us
that at least some wetlands must qualify as “waters of the 
—————— 

15 This  provision  states  in  relevant  part:  “The  Governor  of  any  State 
desiring to administer its own individual and general permit program for
the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters (other 
than those waters which are presently used, or are susceptible to use in 
their  natural  condition  or  by  reasonable  improvement  as  a  means  to 
transport  interstate  or  foreign  commerce  shoreward  to  their  ordinary 
high water mark, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and 
flow  of  the  tide  shoreward  to  their  mean  high  water  mark,  or  mean 
higher high water mark on the west coast, including wetlands adjacent 
thereto)  within  its  jurisdiction  may  submit  to  the  Administrator  a  full
and complete description of the program it proposes to establish and ad-
minister under State law or under an interstate compact.”  33 U. S. C. 
§1344(g)(1).