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 (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

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—and explore our broader efforts to ensure Americans are free to make productive use of their property through our new Environment and Natural Resources practice group. 

If you’ve faced unconstitutional land use restrictions—like the Lincks or Sacketts—please consider submitting your case 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,