<P> The district court granted summary judgment to the Corps of Engineers on the jurisdictional issue . On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Corps jurisdiction as well . The Seventh Circuit found that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate isolated waters, and that Congress, in enacting section 404, intended to reach such waters . The Supreme Court reversed . </P> <P> The SWANCC ruling saw the Court divide 5 - 4 . The five - justice majority opinion, in one reading, concluded only that the Corps and EPA could not continue to use the migratory bird rule to assert section 404 jurisdiction over isolated waters . "We conclude," said the Court at one point, that the' Migratory Bird Rule' is not fairly supported by the CWA ." The decision's rationale, however, was broader, appearing to preclude federal assertion of section 404 jurisdiction over isolated waters on any basis . Stated the Court: "In order to rule for (the Corps), we would have to hold that the jurisdiction of the Corps extends to ponds that are not adjacent to open water . But we conclude that the text of the statute will not allow this ." </P> <P> The Court deemed it unnecessary to reach the constitutional issue pressed by SWANCC: whether the EPA's interpretation of the CWA exceeded the power of Congress, under the Commerce Clause . </P> <P> The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that Congress, in enacting the 1977 amendments to the CWA, had not implicitly approved the Corps' broad definition of "navigable water" adopted that year under the original 1972 CWA . For example, Congress' failure to pass a bill in 1977 containing a narrow definition of navigable waters had not been shown by the Corps, said the majority, to constitute congressional approval of the Corps' broad definition . The majority then declined to afford the Corps the customary deference granted agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes . For one thing, it said that section 404 is not ambiguous at all . Even if it were, deference is not appropriate where an agency interpretation of a statute "invokes the outer limits of Congress' power," a reference to the Court's milestone decisions in recent years involving the reach of the Commerce Clause . That concern is particularly strong, it said, where the agency interpretation permits encroachment on a traditional state power, in this case land and water use . </P>

Solid waste agency of northern cook county v. army corps of engineers