The federal Clean Water Act applies to “waters of the United States,” an amorphous concept that was hotly debated for decades and created years of uncertainty.

The biggest takeaways from the Sackett decision are summarized below:Ĭreation of an Objective Standard-The “Significant Nexus” Analysis Is No More The new Sackett framework should also reduce the time and cost to obtain a federal permit. Going forward, parties seeking to impact a waterbody/wetland should have more certainty regarding which waterbodies/wetlands are subject to permitting, with fewer waterbodies/wetlands within the scope of federal permitting requirements. Wetlands that have a “continuous surface connection” with the above. Traditional interstate navigable waters (such as major rivers, lakes, and oceans) Ģ. “Relatively permanent” bodies of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters andģ. EPA, which will profoundly streamline the permitting requirements for many projects, including residential, commercial and industrial developments, utility and infrastructure construction projects, and road construction projects by significantly reducing the scope of wetlands and waters subject to federal dredge and fill permitting requirements under the federal Clean Water Act.įollowing the Sackett decision, the waters subject to federal Clean Water Act permitting requirements are limited to:ġ. On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, Sackett v.

Dredge and fill definition