{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://hageman.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-supreme-court-ruling-sackett-v-epa-great-day-wyoming", "Statement on Supreme Court Ruling: Sackett v. EPA \u2013 A Great Day for Wyoming", "2023-05-25", "2023", "2023-05", "Republican", "House", "WY", "Harriet M. Hageman", "H001096", "hageman.house.gov", "hageman", "https://hageman.house.gov/media/press-releases", "scraper", "Washington, DC \u2013 Today, the Supreme Court released its much-anticipated opinion in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. (To watch Rep. Hageman discuss today\u2019s decision, click here)\n\nCongresswoman Harriet Hageman stated, \u201cToday is a great day for Wyoming, a great day for private property rights, and a great day for farmers and ranchers. It is, however, a sad day for unelected bureaucrats who think they should be able to dictate how we use our land and water.\n\n\u201cIn the case of Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court finally clarified that the term \u2018navigable\u2019 means what it says and says what it means. The EPA only has jurisdiction over navigable waters of the United States, not non-navigable wetlands, drainage ditches, and small ponds on private property.\n\n\u201cThe feds had clearly exceeded their authority under WOTUS and had expanded on the original law by redefining what is a \u201cnavigable body of water,\u201d rescinding changes made to WOTUS under the Trump administration, and increasing regulation of waters that would not be navigable under any circumstances. These new and punitive regulations were a de facto taking of private property.\n\n\u201cLiberty, freedom, and the rule of law were vindicated by today\u2019s court opinion\u201d\n\nExcerpt from the SCOTUS opinion:\n\nIn writing the majority opinion, Justice Alito states, \u201cThe CWA\u2019s use of \u201cwaters\u201d refers only to \u201cgeographic[al] features that are described in ordinary parlance as \u2018streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes\u2019 \u201d and to adjacent wetlands that are \u201cindistinguishable\u201d from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection. To assert jurisdiction over an adjacent wetland under the CWA, a party must establish \u201cfirst, that the adjacent [body of water constitutes] . . . \u2018water[s] of the United States\u2019 (i.e., a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters); and second, that the wetland has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the \u2018water\u2019 ends and the \u2018wetland\u2019 begins.\u201d\n\nContact: Chris Berardi, Senior Advisor/Communications Director", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-04-07T23:55:44Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://hageman.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-supreme-court-ruling-sackett-v-epa-great-day-wyoming"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.6916552558541298, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}