3 ms·
> To assert jurisdiction over an adjacent wetland un- der the CWA, a party must establish “first, that the adjacent [body of water constitutes] . . . ‘water[s]
by wcerfgba 3y ago
> To assert jurisdiction over an adjacent wetland un-
der the CWA, a party must establish “first, that the adjacent [body of
water constitutes] . . . ‘water[s] of the United States’ (i.e., a relatively
permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable
waters
This (interstate navigable) does seem like a much more restricted version or interpretation of 'waters' and areas one might want to protect though. Does this ruling impose this interpretation now? If so, would a large lake contained entirely within a single state no longer be a WOTUS?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> This (interstate navigable) does seem like a much more restricted version or interpretation of 'waters' and areas one might want to protect though. Does this ruling impose this interpretation now? No. (Thomas argued for such circumscription.) The Opinion functionally concerns itself with wetlands, finding "that the CWA extends to only those 'wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right,' so that they are 'indistinguishable' from those waters." (On page 19, the Opinion concedes that "the waters of the United States" are a broader category than "traditional navigable waters.") There is a debate about the difference between adjacent, neighboring and adjoining. But the Court is unanimous in most material respects.