This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
The U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the federal government’s power to designate certain wetlands as federally protected in a May 25 opinion that rejected the Biden administration’s broader definition—with justices ruling that only permanent water bodies with at least a surface connection to waters considered to be “navigable” can be regulated under the U.S. Clean Water Act related to certain activities such as construction and energy development.
At issue in the case, Sackett v EPA, was whether federally protected waters, known as "Waters of the United States," should include tributaries or wetlands that may not have a surface connection to larger bodies of water but have a significant downstream biological effect on them.