Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

23 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

state or foreign commerce.”  40 CFR §230.3(s)(3) (2008) (em-
phasis  added).  To  leave  no  doubt  that  the  agencies  have 
entirely broken from traditional navigable waters, they give 
several  examples  of  qualifying  waters:  those  that  “are  or
could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recrea-
tional or other purposes,” those “[f]rom which fish or shell-
fish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign
commerce,” those that “are used or could be used for indus-
trial  purposes  by  industries  in  interstate  commerce,” 
“[t]ributaries of ” any such waters, and “[w]etlands adjacent
to” any such waters.  §§230.3(s)(3)(i)–(iii), (5), (7).  This def-
inition and others like it are premised on the fallacy repu-
diated in SWANCC: that the text of the CWA expands fed-
eral  jurisdiction  beyond  Congress’  traditional  “commerce 
power over navigation.”  531 U. S., at 168, n. 3. 

Nonetheless, under these boundless standards, the agen-
cies have “asserted jurisdiction over virtually any parcel of
land  containing  a  channel  or  conduit  . . .  through  which 
rainwater  or  drainage  may  occasionally  or  intermittently
flow,” including “storm drains, roadside ditches, ripples of 
sand in the desert that may contain water once a year, and 
lands that are covered by floodwaters once every 100 years.” 
Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 722 (plurality opinion).  The agen-
cies’  definition  “engulf[s]  entire  cities  and  immense  arid 
wastelands” alike.  Ibid.  Indeed, because “the entire land 
area of the United States lies in some drainage basin, and 
an  endless network  of  visible  channels  furrows  the  entire 
surface,” “any plot of land containing such a channel may 
potentially be regulated.”  Ibid. 

If this interpretation were correct, the only prudent move 
for any landowner in America would be to ask the Federal 
Government for permission before undertaking any kind of 
development.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 86, 116–117.  This regime
turns Congress’ traditionally limited navigation authority 
on its head.  The baseline under the Constitution, the CWA, 
and the Court’s precedents is state control of waters.  See