EPA has burned too many Bridges and Scotus Brings them to a Stop

V
Nothing in the separate opinions filed by JUSTICE KAVANAUGH and JUSTICE KAGAN undermines our analysis. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH claims that we have “rewritten]” the CWA, post, at 12 (opinion concurring in judgment), and JUSTICE Kagan levels similar charges, post, at 3—4 (opinion concurring in judgment). These arguments are more than unfounded. We have analyzed the statutory language in detail, but the separate opinions pay no attention whatsoever to §1362(7), the key statutory provision that limits the CWA’s geographic reach to “the waters of the United States.” Thus, neither separate opinion even attempts to explain how the wetlands included in their interpretation fall within a fair reading of “waters.” Textualist arguments that ignore the operative text cannot be taken seriously.
VI
In sum, we hold that the CWA extends to only those “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right,” so that they are “indistinguishable” from those waters. Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 742, 755 (plurality opinion) (emphasis deleted); see supra, at 22. This holding compels reversal here. The wetlands on the Sacketts’ property are distinguishable from any possibly covered waters.

The discription of Sacketts Property is so similar to Property I own. Thank You Sacketts.