Rapanos v. United States (2006)
Rapanos v. United States (547 U.S. 715, 2006) was a pivotal Supreme Court case on the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Court limited the EPA’s and Army Corps’ authority to regulate certain wetlands, holding that only wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to “relatively permanent” waters fall under federal jurisdiction. Justice Kennedy’s concurrence introduced the “significant nexus” test, which further complicated the regulatory landscape. The fractured ruling led to decades of regulatory uncertainty, impacting water pollution control and wetland protection nationwide[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].
Key Events Timeline
- 1972: Clean Water Act enacted, defining “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), but leaving the scope ambiguous.
- 1989: John Rapanos fills wetlands on his Michigan property without a federal permit; the nearest navigable water is 11-20 miles away.
- 1995-2003: Rapanos is convicted and fined for violating the CWA. He appeals, arguing his land is not under federal jurisdiction.
- Feb 21, 2006: Supreme Court hears consolidated cases (Rapanos and Carabell) on the definition of WOTUS.
- June 19, 2006: Supreme Court issues a 4-1-4 split decision: the plurality (Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito) limits CWA jurisdiction to “relatively permanent” waters and wetlands with a “continuous surface connection”; Kennedy’s concurrence proposes the “significant nexus” test; dissenters (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) favor broader federal authority.
- 2006-2025: Agencies and courts struggle to apply Rapanos; EPA and Army Corps issue multiple rules and guidance documents, but litigation and regulatory uncertainty persist.
Supreme Court Vote
Wetlands and Federal Jurisdiction: Quantitative Context
| Year | Estimated U.S. Wetlands (million acres) | % Wetlands Under Federal CWA Jurisdiction | Major Regulatory Event |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1980 | 110 | ~65% | Broad WOTUS interpretation |
| 2000 | 107 | ~60% | Pre-Rapanos federal rules |
| 2006 | 107 | ~55% | Rapanos decision |
| 2015 | 106 | ~65% | Obama "Clean Water Rule" |
| 2020 | 106 | ~45% | Trump "Navigable Waters Protection Rule" |
| 2023 | 105 | ~55% | Biden "Revised Definition of WOTUS" |
| 2025 (proj.) | 105 | ~50% | Post-Sackett, ongoing litigation |
Result: The scope of wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act has fluctuated by millions of acres due to shifting Supreme Court interpretations and agency rules. Rapanos led to significant regulatory uncertainty and ongoing litigation over WOTUS.
Legal Logic and Precedent
Key Holdings
- Plurality (Scalia): CWA jurisdiction covers only “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing” waters and wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to such waters.
- Concurrence (Kennedy): Wetlands must have a “significant nexus” to navigable waters-i.e., must significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of those waters.
- Dissent (Stevens): Supported broad federal jurisdiction over wetlands, consistent with prior agency practice.
Implications for Wetland and Water Regulation
| Area | Before Rapanos | After Rapanos |
|---|---|---|
| Wetlands Protection | Broad federal jurisdiction; most wetlands regulated | Many wetlands excluded unless “continuous surface connection” or “significant nexus” shown |
| Regulatory Certainty | Clearer, though broad, agency rules | Ongoing litigation; case-by-case analysis; regulatory “whiplash” |
| Land Development | More permits required, more federal oversight | Developers can challenge jurisdiction; some wetlands unprotected |
| Environmental Impact | Higher wetland protection, less habitat loss | Potential for increased wetland loss and water pollution in excluded areas |
Why Rapanos v. United States Matters
Rapanos v. United States fundamentally narrowed federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, limiting the EPA’s and Army Corps’ ability to regulate wetlands. The fractured decision created lasting confusion: lower courts and agencies have struggled to apply the “continuous surface connection” and “significant nexus” tests, resulting in decades of litigation and shifting federal rules. The case continues to shape water pollution control, wetland protection, and property rights nationwide.
Key citation: Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006); Clean Water Act §404.