Two Years After Sackett: Still Wading Through Muddy Waters

As music pioneer Fela Kuti once audaciously sang—water no get enemy (water has no enemy). This is a proverb from the Yoruba tribe of Nigeria that sums up a universal basic reality: water sustains life. It is simply irreplaceable, essential, and ubiquitous. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett v. EPA has left basic federal pollution protections for many waterways across the country and the communities that depend on them in a state of uncertainty. For frontline and fence-line communities already overburdened by environmental injustices, the effects are even more severe. But as history has repeatedly shown, these same communities possess the strength and determination to demand a different future.

A Blow to Water Protections

Two years ago, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sackett v. EPA, limiting the scope of the Clean Water Act. The central question of the case was what constitutes waters of the United States (WOTUS) and what waterways fall within the federal purview of safeguards against pollution and destruction. Michael and Chantell Sackett to fill in and develop wetlands on their property without a federal permit.

In a 5-4 split on the reasoning, a conservative majority of the Court sided with the Sacketts, narrowly defining WOTUS and upending decades of bi-partisan broad implementation of the law. Under the Court’s ruling, the only wetlands with Clean Water Act protection would have to have a “continuous surface connection” to navigable waters (i.e., oceans, rivers, lakes, etc.).

Isolated wetlands, intermittent streams, and other important waterways are now more exposed to development and pollution with minimal oversight and restrictions. Additionally, the ruling stated that the Act only protects other waters that are “relatively permanent,” meaning the potentially millions of miles of streams that do not flow year round could also lose protections.

The Sackett decision has far-reaching effects. Wetlands are more than just swampy areas. They provide essential ecosystems for filtering contaminants, mitigating flooding, and supporting biodiversity. For communities now coping with the cumulative impacts of industrial pollution, Sackett represents yet another obstacle in obtaining the clean water protections that most of us take for granted.

Removing safeguards for many wetlands and streams will severely exacerbate the vulnerabilities of environmental justice communities living in floodplains or near industrial facilities. What SCOTUS did by weakening protections of the Clean Water Act will reverberate across generations, further exacerbating disparities. 

This March, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers announced their intention to again redefine the streams and wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act. EPA remarked that the previous administration used a looser interpretation of WOTUS, and signaled their likelihood to even further narrow the number of wetlands and streams that are protected under current federal regulations.

This would mean that developers and polluters alike would have even fewer checks against increasing industrial runoff, tainting drinking water, and habitat loss in communities without strict federal oversight. This all comes at a time when the administration has shifted federal priorities and funding away from clean water and reducing public health impacts from pollution, to deregulation at an alarming rate.

Forward: Resilience and Advocacy

With federal rollbacks of water protections across the country, we have to work to construct state and local protections to close the regulatory gap. We can do this by assertive state and local-level organizing to help create strong legislation favoring wetlands and accompanying surface water. Grassroots mobilization at the local level is also central to the environmental justice movement.

Impacted communities need to continue organizing and mobilizing, hold polluters accountable, and demand the equal application of laws under existing law. Additionally, there must be a focused strategy on national legislative actions urging Congress to restore broad federal protections for waters. 

It is extremely tough to have these discussions in such a polarizing political climate. But through sustained advocacy to build momentum around issues like climate change and environmental justice, there is an opportunity to demand and realize needed reforms. Collaborators in this fight can also fill a void by funding litigation, conducting necessary academic research, and amplifying the voices of the communities most impacted by water pollution and at extreme risk of flooding.

Advocates can particularly learn from environmental justice communities because of their traditional community science knowledge and grassroots approach to fighting pollution, which are critical to reversing weakened federal protections and implementing effective solutions to water pollution and flood management. 

Conclusion

Fela’s words remind us that water is sacred and vital to sustainability. Water protection is not solely an environmental issue—it is a matter of justice, dignity, and survival. This moment demands that we think big, act boldly, and stand in solidarity with those most affected by environmental degradation. 

Water has no enemy, but progress can. We must ensure that our laws and policies reflect the value of water and all communities that depend on it. Only by working together can we turn the legacy of this decision into an opportunity for transformative change.

Join us in advancing environmental justice. Sign up for the Environmental Justice, Health, and Community Resilience and Revitalization Program’s quarterly newsletter and follow us on Instagram.