Rebecca and Caleb Linck are the owners of a small 4.7-acre property in Bonner County, Idaho. The land has been in their family for more than 40 years...
Rebecca and Caleb Linck are the owners of a small 4.7-acre property in Bonner County, Idaho.
The land has been in their family for more than 40 years. It sits about a mile from a nearby stream and roughly two miles from a lake.
With plans for some modest agricultural activity in the future, Rebecca and Caleb hired a consultant to ensure their compliance with environmental laws and regulations—including the federal Clean Water Act.
[link removed]
The Lincks were soon surprised to learn that the Army Corps of Engineers claimed authority over 1.13 acres of purported “wetlands” on their property—with the Corps’ justification hinging on a convoluted “wetland complex” theory.
The trouble for the Corps, however, is that its theory flies in the face of well-established Supreme Court precedent set in Sackett v. EPA II
[link removed]
(2023)—and Rebecca and Caleb aren’t the kind to back down from a fight.
Worse still, the Lincks’ property is in the same county as the Sacketts’ property and shares many of the same features—leaving little room for ambiguity.
READ MORE
[link removed]
In its 2023 Sackett decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that federal regulation under the Clean Water Act extends only to traditionally recognizable bodies of water—like rivers, lakes, and streams—that are relatively permanent and continuously flowing.
Critically, “wetlands” are not traditionally recognizable “waters.” They’re what they sound like: wet land. And they may be regulated only if they have a continuous surface water connection to—and are indistinguishable from—a recognizable body of water. In other words, wetlands must be a part of a recognizable body of water in order to be regulated by the federal government.
In its “wetlands complex” theory, the Corps claims that parts of the Lincks’ property are somehow connected to an alleged wetland across a country road—despite the fact that the road is elevated and contains no culverts through which water could even theoretically pass. The Corps’ theory suggests this allegedly connected wetland then touches a small, unnamed stream, which connects to a named stream, and eventually to a traditional navigable water.
In short, the Corps is thumbing its nose at the rule of law by ignoring well-established Supreme Court precedent and asserting authority over land that obviously does not meet the clear requirements for federal wetlands regulation.
You can read more about the Lincks’ story on our case page
[link removed]
—and explore our broader efforts to ensure Americans are free to make productive use of their property through our new Environment and Natural Resources
[link removed]
practice group.
If you’ve faced unconstitutional land use restrictions—like the Lincks or Sacketts—please consider submitting your case
[link removed]
for review. As a reminder, all PLF clients are represented 100% free of charge.
Stay tuned for more updates on the Lincks’ fight and others like it.
Until then,
Charles T. Yates
Attorney
P.S. We're hosting a free webinar
[link removed]
to introduce our new Environment and Natural Resources group and some of its brightest minds on July 24 at 3:00 p.m. EDT / 12:00 p.m. PDT.
Support Our Mission
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
Copyright © 2025 Pacific Legal Foundation, All rights reserved.
Pacific Legal Foundation
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1290
Sacramento, CA 95814
[link removed]
Manage your communication preferences here.
[link removed]
