Army Corps of Engineers Defies Sackett v. EPA by Blocking Utah Housing Development Over Non-Qualifying Wetland
Source: Bonner Russell Cohen. "Feds Defy SCOTUS Ban On Labeling Every Puddle A 'Protected Wetland'." October 5, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that despite the Supreme Court ruling that federal agencies can only regulate 'real' water bodies like rivers and lakes (not random ditches and damp patches), the Army Corps of Engineers is still blocking a housing project in Utah by claiming jurisdiction over a drainage ditch nowhere near any navigable water. He says this proves that unelected bureaucrats are ignoring the Supreme Court and the Trump administration needs to step in and stop them.
Conclusion
The Army Corps of Engineers is unlawfully defying the Supreme Court's Sackett v. EPA ruling by continuing to assert wetlands jurisdiction over land that does not meet the Court's narrowed definition of regulable 'waters,' and the Trump administration must immediately reverse this overreach.
Premises
- The Supreme Court's 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision limited CWA jurisdiction to 'relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water' like streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.
- The Old Farm Subdivision property contains only a small drainage ditch and a 2.74-acre damp area, located nearly nine miles from the nearest navigable water (the Great Salt Lake), with no hydraulic connection to it.
- Multiple physical barriers—an upland area, a railroad, an interstate highway, and a reservoir—separate the property from the Great Salt Lake, further undermining any claim of connection to navigable waters.
- Despite this, the Army Corps of Engineers withdrew/denied the developers' CWA permit on April 8, 2026, effectively killing a 265-home development project.
- This action occurred under an agency headed by Trump appointees, despite the administration's stated goal of rolling back regulatory overreach, suggesting entrenched bureaucratic resistance to the Sackett ruling.
- EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has proposed a rule requiring 'continuous surface connection' to a covered permanent water body—a standard the Corps' Utah ruling does not meet—showing even the administration's own proposed standards contradict the Corps' action.
- Legal experts (Pacific Legal Foundation) argue the CWA grants only limited authority over navigable waters, not total control over every drainage ditch and damp land parcel.
Assumptions
- The Sackett decision's criteria are clear and objectively applicable to this specific property without reasonable dispute.
- The Corps' action represents deliberate defiance or bureaucratic inertia rather than a good-faith but differing interpretation of ambiguous facts or law.
- Blocking this single development is illustrative of a broader pattern of agency overreach rather than an isolated case.
- Economic benefits of housing development (265 homes amid high prices) are relevant to the legal question of wetlands jurisdiction.
- The administration has both the authority and obligation to directly reverse individual Corps permitting decisions.
- A drainage ditch and damp area created or maintained by human landscaping (subdivision construction) should be treated the same as naturally occurring wetlands under Sackett analysis.