Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 54.0

20 

SACKETT v. EPA 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

United  States”  does  not  mean  any  water  in  the  United 
States. 

There  would  be  little  need  to  explain  any  of  this  if  the
agencies  had  not  effectively  flouted  our  decision  in 
SWANCC, which restored navigability as the touchstone of 
federal  jurisdiction  under  the  CWA,  and  rejected  the  key
arguments  supporting  an  expansive  interpretation  of  the 
CWA’s text.  We expressly held that Congress’ “use of the 
phrase ‘waters of the United States’ ” in the CWA is not “a 
basis for reading the term ‘navigable waters’ out of the stat-
ute”—directly contradicting the EPA’s 1973 interpretation,
upon which every subsequent expansion of its authority has 
been based.  531 U. S., at 172.  We also held that the Corps
did  not  “mist[ake]  Congress’  intent”  when  it  promulgated
its 1974 regulations, under which “ ‘the determinative fac-
tor’ ” for navigability was a “ ‘water body’s capability of use
by the public for purposes of transportation or commerce.’ ”  
Id., at 168 (quoting 33 CFR §209.260(e)(1)).  In doing so, we
rejected reliance on the CWA’s “ambiguous” legislative his-
tory, which the EPA had used “to expand the definition of 
‘navigable waters’ ” to the outer limit of the commerce au-
thority as interpreted in the New Deal.  531 U. S., at 168, 
n. 3.8  Instead, we made clear that Congress did not intend 
—————— 
(1940),  that  Congress  can  regulate  things  in navigable waters  for  pur-
poses  other  than  removing  obstructions  to  navigable  capacity.    I  note, 
however,  that  before  the  New  Deal  era,  courts  consistently  construed 
statutes to authorize only federal actions preserving navigable capacity
in order to avoid exceeding Congress’ navigation authority.  See supra, 
at 8–13. 

8 The historical context demonstrates that it was the Corps’ failure to 
regulate  to  the  full  extent  of  Congress’  navigation  power,  not  its  com-
merce power generally, that led to the enactment of the CWA.  See Al-
brecht & Nickelsburg, 11047 (explaining that the CWA’s legislative his-
tory is better interpreted “as the Supreme Court in SWANCC read it, to 
mean simply that Congress intended to override previous, unduly nar-
row agency interpretations to assert its broadest constitutional authority 
over  the  traditional  navigable  waters”);  see  also  S.  Bodine,  Examining
the  Term  “Waters  of  the  United  States”  in  Its  Historical  Context,  C.