400 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
- Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
- Local 202.783.3870
Michigan resident John Rapanos argued that the EPA could not use the Clean Water Act (CWA)Ã‚Â to establish jurisdiction over his property. The government argued that because water drained through his land, the EPA was justified in regulating it.
In the decision, the court ruled that the government may have interpreted the CWA too broadly and overstepped its jursidictionÃ‚Â byÃ‚Â regulating Rapanos' land.Ã‚Â Cato calls this a victory for property rights, but don't get too excited.Ã‚Â In failing to reach a consensus on exactly how far the government's jurisdiction reaches, the court left the door open for more regulationÃ‚Â and similar cases in the future.Ã‚Â This splitÃ‚Â has left someÃ‚Â interpreting the decision asÃ‚Â a victory for federal regulation, as it does not explicity deny the EPA's claim that wetlands can be regulated under the CWA.
In the end, this rulingÃ‚Â simply complicates an already vague set of laws and leaves the lower courts to reach case-by-case conclusions.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â