You are obviously a lot more well-versed than most of us on WOTUS. You should also probably stop using them big words on TBH. It's deleterious.
I thought Tiffany Dowell from Texas Agriculture Law explained it well: "The late Justice Scalia’s opinion (which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts) held that the Clean Water Act applied to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” traditionally recognized as “streams, oceans, rivers and lakes” that are connected to traditional navigable waters. Also within the scope of the Act, according to the Scalia opinion, would be wetlands abutting these water bodies if they contain continuous surface water flow connection such that the wetland and the water were “indistinguishable.” This stands in contrast to the approach taken by the 2015 rule, which would seem to follow more along the lines of the Justice Kennedy concurrence in Rapanos, adopting the “significant nexus” standard."
I thought Tiffany Dowell from Texas Agriculture Law explained it well: "The late Justice Scalia’s opinion (which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts) held that the Clean Water Act applied to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” traditionally recognized as “streams, oceans, rivers and lakes” that are connected to traditional navigable waters. Also within the scope of the Act, according to the Scalia opinion, would be wetlands abutting these water bodies if they contain continuous surface water flow connection such that the wetland and the water were “indistinguishable.” This stands in contrast to the approach taken by the 2015 rule, which would seem to follow more along the lines of the Justice Kennedy concurrence in Rapanos, adopting the “significant nexus” standard."
Comment