High court reconsiders 'significant nexus' ruling on wetlands

Here's the latest development in a longstanding debate over how much power the government has to regulate water on private land: The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Michael and Chantell Sackett can build a house on their northern Idaho property that has a disputed connection to wetlands. In considering the case, the Supreme Court said it would decide whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used the proper test to determine whether wetlands are 'waters of the United States'," and thus subject to federal regulation, Chuck Abbott reports for the Food & Environment Reporting Network.

The conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the Sacketts, "said the case would give the Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit a 2006 ruling that said that if a wetland has a 'significant nexus' with navigable waters, it is covered by the Clean Water Act. There have been repeated arguments over how to identify that connection," Abbott reports. Pacific Legal attorney Damien Schiff said the Sacketts' property lacks a surface water connection to any body of water and shouldn't be subject to federal regulation.

This isn't the Sacketts' first trip to the Supreme Court over the 0.5-acre plot near Priest Lake. When they bought the property in 2004, they were told it had wetlands so they would need federal permits before building on it. "The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2012 that the Sacketts had the right as landowners to challenge the EPA’s wetlands determinations. The Pacific Legal Foundation represented them in that case, too," Abbott reports.