{"id":1684646,"date":"2022-10-12T07:32:58","date_gmt":"2022-10-12T11:32:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1684646"},"modified":"2022-10-12T07:36:04","modified_gmt":"2022-10-12T11:36:04","slug":"no-dry-land-isnt-navigable-water-for-federal-bureaucrats-to-regulate-and-scotus-must-say-so","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/no-dry-land-isnt-navigable-water-for-federal-bureaucrats-to-regulate-and-scotus-must-say-so\/","title":{"rendered":"No, Dry Land Isn\u2019t \u2018Navigable Water\u2019 For Federal Bureaucrats To Regulate, And SCOTUS Must Say So"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">32<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fno-dry-land-isnt-navigable-water-for-federal-bureaucrats-to-regulate-and-scotus-must-say-so%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1684646&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div><\/div>\n<p>The Supreme Court recently kicked off this term with oral arguments in\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/pacificlegal.org\/case\/sackett-v-environmental-protection-agency\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Sackett v. EPA<\/em><\/a>, a blockbuster environmental law case that could provide property owners with long-overdue clarity regarding the enjoyment of their land.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>To understand the facts of the controversy is to sympathize with the petitioners. In 2004, Chantell and Mike Sackett purchased a 0.63-acre vacant lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, with the intention of building their family home. After obtaining all necessary local permits, the Sacketts began construction. But shortly after starting preliminary earthmoving activities, government officials entered the lot and said to the Sacketts\u2019 construction workers that the homesite contained \u201cwetlands\u201d subject to federal regulation as \u201cnavigable waters\u201d under the Clean Water Act.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>One could forgive the Sacketts for being surprised. Located in a mostly built-out residential subdivision, their property contains no bodies of water. Nor does the lot include any surface water connections to any body of water. To the north, there lies a county-operated road; to the south, east, and west, there sit residential buildings. Despite the absence of water and the prevalence of surrounding development, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) claim that soggy pockets of the Sacketts\u2019 property are \u201cnavigable waters\u201d and are therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/pacificlegalfoundation\/52327630835\/in\/album-72177720301408375\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">an aerial snapshot<\/a>\u00a0of the Sacketts\u2019 property speaks volumes about federal regulatory overreach.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In asserting jurisdiction, the EPA and Corps rely on a convoluted causal chain that would make Rube Goldberg proud. According to the agencies, the Sacketts\u2019 proposed homesite is subject to the Clean Water Act permit because: Priest Lake is navigable water; a non-navigable creek connects to Priest Lake; the non-navigable creek is connected to a non-navigable, man-made ditch; the non- navigable, man-made ditch is connected to wetlands; these wetlands, though separated from the Sacketts\u2019 lot by a 30-foot-wide paved road, are nevertheless \u201csimilarly situated\u201d to wetlands alleged to exist on the Sacketts\u2019 lot; and these alleged wetlands on the Sacketts\u2019 property, aggregated with the wetlands across the street, bear a \u201csignificant nexus\u201d to Priest Lake. If your head is spinning after that explanation, you\u2019re not the only one.<\/p>\n<h2>Slippery Standard<\/h2>\n<p>The key to federal power lies in that last step of the agencies\u2019 attenuated logic \u2014 the impossibly amorphous \u201csignificant nexus\u201d concept. Notably, this slippery standard is a judicial creation.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In the 2016 case<em>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=6892271506340161224&amp;q=rapanos&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=20003\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Rapanos v. United States<\/a><\/em>, the jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act was squarely before the court, but no opinion garnered a majority. A plurality opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia argued that only those wetlands that have a continuous surface water connection to regulated waters may themselves be regulated. A concurring opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy advanced a different and much broader test, allowing for regulation of wetlands regardless of any surface connection, so long as the wetlands bear an (undefined) \u201csignificant nexus\u201d with traditional navigable waters, and the significance of that nexus would be based on aggregating all similar property in an unspecified area. Thus, unlike Scalia\u2019s test, the significant nexus test requires no hydrological connection of any quantity, nor does it limit jurisdiction to those wetlands that are inseparably bound up with adjacent waters.<\/p>\n<p>As Scalia correctly\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=6892271506340161224&amp;q=rapanos&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=20003\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">predicted<\/a>, the \u201cperfectly opaque\u201d significant nexus test \u201cis not likely to constrain\u201d regulators. For this precise reason, the EPA and Corps, in the immediate wake of the\u00a0<em>Rapanos<\/em>\u00a0decision, quickly adopted Kennedy\u2019s capacious standard as their own. Accordingly, in 2007, the agencies applied the significant nexus framework to determine that the Sacketts\u2019 property fell within their regulatory ambit.\u00a0<\/p>\n<h2>Sacketts Challenge Claimed Authority<\/h2>\n<p>Believing that their lot does not contain \u201cnavigable waters,\u201d the Sacketts (with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation, where I work) challenged the agencies\u2019 claimed authority. In response, the agencies moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that, before they could sue, the Sacketts first had to comply or wait for the government to enforce the $75,000 daily penalties that were accruing. The district court granted the agencies\u2019 motion and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In 2012, however, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the circuit and district courts\u2019 decisions. In holding that the Sacketts could have their day in court, the unanimous court admonished the agencies for their \u201cstrongarming of regulated parties.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>On remand, the district court (again) sided with the government, ruling that the agencies have the authority to regulate the Sacketts\u2019 property under the significant nexus test. The Sacketts (again) appealed, and the Ninth Circuit (again) affirmed. But the Supreme Court (again) granted certiorari, and now the Sacketts are before the court for the second time in a decade.\u00a0<\/p>\n<h2>Broad Implications<\/h2>\n<p>The immediate stakes, of course, are whether the Sacketts may build their dream home. For more than 15 years, the Sacketts\u2019 plans have been on hold, and, at long last, the end of their ordeal is in sight.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Yet the overall implications of this case are much broader. That\u2019s because the Sacketts\u2019 plight is emblematic of all that has gone wrong with the implementation of the Clean Water Act since the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0<em>Rapanos<\/em>. Under the prevailing jurisdictional test, \u201c[a]ny piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act,\u201d as Justice Samuel Alito\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=4532036890035140708&amp;q=sackett+v+epa&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=20003\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">has explained<\/a>. Even the agencies\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.federalregister.gov\/documents\/2015\/06\/29\/2015-13435\/clean-water-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">concede<\/a>\u00a0that \u201calmost all waters and wetlands across the country theoretically could be subject to a case-specific jurisdictional determination\u201d under the status quo.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In practice, a \u201csignificant nexus\u201d is whatever the agencies say it is. There\u2019s no way for hapless landowners to know if they\u2019re potentially subject to the Clean Water Act\u2019s civil and criminal penalties \u2014 unless they can afford hundreds of thousands of dollars for consultants and attorneys necessary to have a fighting chance at disproving jurisdiction under the significant nexus test and getting that determination to hold up in court. Few have such resources. <\/p>\n<p>Even when landowners do have the necessary means to defend their property rights, they remain reluctant to proceed without permits, given the crushing consequences if their assessment of jurisdiction proves to be wrong.\u00a0Here, it bears noting that Justice Kennedy, the progenitor of the \u201csignificant nexus\u201d concept, subsequently\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=18123948263996525085&amp;q=Hawkes,+578+U.S&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=20003\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">expressed<\/a>\u00a0concern with the agencies\u2019 \u201cominous\u201d application of his idea, which \u201ccontinues to raise troubling questions regarding the Government\u2019s power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the Nation.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Although it\u2019s a fool\u2019s errand to prognosticate the court\u2019s outcomes, multiple justices during oral arguments expressed discomfort with the significant nexus standard. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, allowed to the petitioners\u2019 counsel that, \u201cI \u2026 understand some of your points about\u201d the seemingly limitless test.<\/p>\n<p>For a statute that touches on millions of acres of land, the lack of clarity is both dismaying and counterproductive. In\u00a0<em>Sackett v. EPA<\/em>, the Supreme Court can and should chart a better course for the Clean Water Act by articulating a clear, easily administered, constitutionally sound rule for wetlands jurisdiction, using the surface-water-connection test set forth in the\u00a0<em>Rapanos\u00a0<\/em>plurality opinion. Just as the court bears responsibility for creating the \u201csignificant nexus\u201d framework, so the court has a duty to end it, and thereby provide long-needed regulatory certainty to property owners.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\" \/>\n<p>\n  William Yeatman is a senior legal fellow at Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm dedicated to the principles of individual rights and limited government.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court recently kicked off this term with oral arguments in\u00a0Sackett v. EPA, a blockbuster environmental law case that could provide property owners with long-overdue clarity regarding the enjoyment<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1433,"featured_media":1684648,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1684646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1684646","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1433"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1684646"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1684646\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1684648"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1684646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1684646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1684646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}