Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 18

12 

SACKETT v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

Fed. Reg. 3143.  So are any “[i]ntrastate lakes and ponds,
streams, or wetlands” that either have a continuous surface 
connection to categorically included waters or have a signif-
icant  nexus  to  interstate  or  traditional  navigable  waters. 
Id.,  at  3006,  3143.  Like  the  post-Rapanos  guidance,  the
rule states that a significant nexus requires consideration
of a list of open-ended factors.  88 Fed. Reg. 3006, 3144.  Fi-
nally, the rule returns to the broad pre-2020  definition of 
“adjacent.”  Ibid.;  see  supra,  at  7.    Acknowledging  that 
“[f ]ield work is often necessary to confirm the presence of a
wetland”  under  these  definitions,  the  rule  instructs  local 
agents to continue using the Corps’ Wetlands Delineation
Manual.  88 Fed. Reg. 3117. 

B 
With the benefit of a half century of practice under the 
CWA, it is worth taking stock of where things stand.  The 
agencies maintain that the significant-nexus test has been
and remains sufficient to establish jurisdiction over “adja-
cent” wetlands.  And by the EPA’s own admission, “almost 
all waters and wetlands” are potentially susceptible to reg-
ulation  under  that  test.    80  Fed.  Reg.  37056.    This  puts
many property owners in a precarious position because it is 
“often  difficult  to  determine  whether  a  particular  piece  of
property  contains  waters  of  the  United  States.”    Hawkes 
Co., 578 U. S., at 594; see 40 CFR §230.3(t) (2008).  Even if 
a  property  appears  dry,  application  of  the  guidance  in  a 
complicated manual ultimately decides whether it contains
wetlands.  See  88  Fed.  Reg.  3117;  Wetlands  Delineation 
Manual  84–85  (describing  “not  . . .  atypical”  examples  of 
wetlands  that  periodically  lack  wetlands  indicators);  see
also Hawkes Co. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 
782 F. 3d 994, 1003 (CA8 2015) (Kelly, J., concurring) (“This
is a unique aspect of the CWA; most laws do not require the
hiring of expert consultants to determine if they even apply
to you or your property”).  And because the CWA can sweep