Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

SACKETT v. EPA 

Syllabus 

wetlands” because the “presence of water is ‘universally regarded as 
the  most  basic  feature  of  wetlands’ ”  proves  too  much.    Brief  for  Re-
spondents 19.  It is also tough to square with SWANCC’s exclusion of 
isolated ponds or Riverside Bayview’s extensive focus on the adjacency
of  wetlands  to  covered  waters.    Finally,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the 
States’  “responsibilities  and  rights”  in  regulating  water  resources 
would  remain  “primary”  if  the  EPA  had  such  broad  jurisdiction.
§1251(b).  Pp. 14–18.

(2) Statutory  context  shows  that  some  wetlands  nevertheless 
qualify  as  “waters  of  the  United  States.”    Specifically,  §1344(g)(1), 
which authorizes States to conduct certain permitting programs, spec-
ifies that discharges may be permitted into any waters of the United 
States,  except  for  traditional  navigable  waters,  “including  wetlands 
adjacent thereto,” suggesting that at least some wetlands must qualify
as “waters of the United States.”  But §1344(g)(1) cannot define what 
wetlands the CWA regulates because it is not the operative provision
that defines the Act’s reach.  Instead, the reference to adjacent wet-
lands  in  §1344(g)(1)  must  be  harmonized  with  “the  waters  of  the 
United  States,”  which  is  the  operative  term  that  defines  the  CWA’s 
reach.  Because the “adjacent” wetlands in §1344(g)(1) are “includ[ed]”
within “waters of the United States,” these wetlands must qualify as 
“waters of the United States” in their own right, i.e., be indistinguish-
ably part of a body of water that itself constitutes “waters” under the 
CWA.  To hold otherwise would require implausibly concluding that
Congress tucked an important expansion to the reach of the CWA into 
convoluted language in a relatively obscure provision concerning state 
permitting programs.  Understanding the CWA to apply to wetlands 
that are distinguishable from otherwise covered “waters of the United
States” would substantially broaden §1362(7) to define “navigable wa-
ters”  as  “waters  of  the  United  States  and  adjacent  wetlands.”   But 
§1344(g)(1)’s use of the term “including” makes clear that it does not 
purport to do any such thing.  It merely reflects Congress’s assumption
that certain “adjacent” wetlands are part of the “waters of the United
States.” 

To  determine  when  a  wetland  is  part  of  adjacent  “waters  of  the
United States,” the Court agrees with the Rapanos plurality that the 
use of “waters” in §1362(7) may be fairly read to include only wetlands 
that  are  “indistinguishable  from  waters  of  the  United  States.”    This 
occurs only when wetlands have “a continuous surface connection to 
bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, so that 
there  is  no  clear  demarcation  between  ‘waters’  and  wetlands.”    547 
U. S., at 742. 

In sum, the CWA extends to only wetlands that are “as a practical