In the case of United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., et al., 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a broad interpretation of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over wetlands that are adjacent to navigable waters. The defendant, Riverside Bayview Homes, had begun filling in a wetland property without obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers as required by Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act. The company argued that because their land was not actually part of any body or waterway but merely adjacent to it and separated by man-made barriers such as dikes and berms, they were not subject to regulation under this act. However, based on scientific evidence about how these types of ecosystems functioned together with nearby bodies of water even when physically separated from them by human intervention like dikes or berms; Justice White delivered an unanimous decision stating that Congress intended for "waters" under its purview included wetlands which could affect interstate commerce due to their ecological connection with traditional navigable waters.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., Justice White disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act (CWA). He argued that Congress intended to regulate only those wetlands that were adjacent to bodies of water over which it had jurisdiction. The CWA was not meant to extend federal control over all areas where water might flow during a heavy rainfall or flood event. According to him, allowing such broad interpretation would give an almost limitless jurisdictional reach into local and private affairs, contrary to traditional understandings and constitutional limitations on federal authority. Furthermore, he criticized the Army Corps of Engineers' expansive definition of 'waters,' stating it went beyond what was reasonable or contemplated by Congress when they passed this legislation.