Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 44

10 

SACKETT v. EPA 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

ble waters.”  Consistent with that backdrop, the term “nav-
igable  waters”—used  interchangeably  with  “waters  of  the 
United  States”  and  “navigable  waters  of  the  United 
States”—referred to the waters subject to Congress’ tradi-
tional authority over navigable waters until the enactment 
of the CWA. 

1 
The  term  “navigable  waters”  has  been  in  use  since  the 
founding  to  refer  to  the  highways  of  commerce  that  were 
key to the Nation’s development.  Great cities like Philadel-
phia  and  St. Louis  emerged  at  first  as  commercial  ports
along these navigable waters.  The Framers recognized that 
“Providence has in a particular manner blessed” our coun-
try with “[a] succession of navigable waters” that “bind [the
Nation] together; while the most noble rivers in the world,
running at convenient distances, present [Americans] with 
highways for the easy communication of friendly aids and 
the  mutual  transportation  and  exchange  of  their  various
commodities.”  The Federalist No. 2, p. 38 (C. Rossiter ed. 
1961)  (J.  Jay).  These  “vast  rivers,  stretching  far  inland” 
have been of “transcendent importance” to our Nation’s eco-
nomic  expansion  by  forming  “great  highways”  for  com-
merce.  L. Houck, Law of Navigable Rivers xiii (1868). 

This Court authoritatively set out the scope of the term
“navigable waters of the United States” in the seminal case 
of  The  Daniel  Ball,  10  Wall.  557  (1871).    That  case  arose 
under  the  Steamboat  Act  of  1838,  which  prohibited  the
transportation  of  goods  “upon  the  bays,  lakes,  rivers,  or 
other  navigable  waters  of  the  United  States.”    §2,  5  Stat. 

—————— 
Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 113, 120 (1921) (“[I]t is curious and inter-
esting that the importance of these inland waterways, and the inappro-
priateness  of  the  tidal  test  in  defining  our  navigable  waters,  was  thus 
recognized by the Congress of the Confederation [in the Northwest Ordi-
nance] more than 80 years before this court decided The Daniel Ball . . . 
and more than 60 years before The Propeller Genesee Chief ”).