Today, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on a case regarding the Waters of the United States. Sackett vs. EPA takes a closer look at how expansive the Clean Water Act is in terms of wetlands. “In 2006, SCOTUS issued a decision called the Repanos case where there was a split amongst the justices on whether or not wetlands could be considered under the Clean Water Act,” explains Kale Van Bruggen, attorney, Rinke Noonan Law Firm. “Four justices said wetlands could only be regulated by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers if they had a relatively permanent surface connection to downstream navigable waters. One justice said wetlands could be regulated if there was a significant nexus between the wetlands and downstream navigable water.” If EPA and the Army Corps can satisfy one test or the other, the agencies have jurisdiction. “The Sackett appeal aims at whether the new makeup of the court apply with precedence a majority opinion saying only those wetlands with a relatively permanent surface connection can be regulated by the Army Corps and EPA under the Clean Water Act.” The outcome of this case is important to northern agriculture; much of the area farmed is considered prairie potholes. The court decision is expected by the end of the year. Separately, the EPA is also redefining WOTUS, trying to make a more durable definition. Hear the story.