Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

6 

SACKETT v. EPA 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

Stat. 1151 (codified, as amended, at 33 U. S. C. §403).  In 
addition, §13 of the Act, sometimes referred to as the “Re-
fuse  Act,”  prohibits  throwing,  discharging,  or  depositing
“any  refuse  matter  . . .  into  any  navigable  water  of  the 
United States, or into any tributary of any navigable water 
from which the same shall float or be washed into such nav-
igable  water.”  30  Stat.  1152  (codified,  as  amended,  at  33 
U. S. C. §407).  Section 13 also prohibits depositing mate-
rial “on the bank of any navigable water, or on the bank of 
any tributary of any navigable water, where the same shall
be  liable  to  be  washed  into  such  navigable  water  . . . 
whereby navigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed.” 
Ibid. 

Three  things  stand  out  about  these  provisions.    First, 
they use the terms “navigable water,” “water of the United
States,” and “navigable water of the United States” inter-
changeably.  33 U. S. C. §§403 and 407; see also V. Albrecht 
& S. Nickelsburg, Could SWANCC Be Right? A New Look
at the Legislative History of the Clean Water Act, 32 Env. 
L. Rev. 11042, 11044 (2002) (Albrecht & Nickelsburg).  As 
a result, courts have done the same in decisions interpret-
ing the River and Harbor Acts.  See, e.g., United States v. 
Stoeco  Homes,  Inc.,  498  F. 2d  597,  608–609  (CA3  1974); 
New  England  Dredging  Co.  v.  United  States,  144  F.  932, 
933–934 (CA1 1906); Blake v. United States, 181 F. Supp. 
584, 587–588 (ED Va. 1960).

Second, Congress asserted its authority only to the extent
that obstructions or refuse matter could impede navigation
or navigable capacity.  Thus, in United States v. Rio Grande 
Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690 (1899), this Court rec-
ognized that any “act sought to be enjoined” under the 1890 
Act must be “one which fairly and directly tends to obstruct
(that is, interfere with or diminish) the navigable capacity
of a stream.”  Id., at 709; accord, Lake Shore & Michigan 
Southern R. Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 365, 369 (1897) (holding