Since Sackett v. EPA (2023), many privately owned ponds fall outside federal jurisdiction entirely. We check your specific site and put the answer in writing before you spend a dollar.
Send us your pond's location and we'll tell you, in writing, which permits apply to your site and which don't — before you commit to anything.
Get Your Free Pre-ScreenFor decades, the reach of the Clean Water Act depended on a shifting, often expansive definition of "waters of the United States" (WOTUS). In Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), the Supreme Court significantly narrowed that definition. Under Sackett, WOTUS is now limited to (1) relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water connected to traditional navigable waters, and (2) wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to such a water body, making it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins.
Separately, whether a structure requires authorization under the Rivers and Harbors Act depends on whether the water body is "navigable" — a distinct but related test. A moored floating structure is also not automatically a federal "vessel": in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115 (2013), the Supreme Court held that a floating structure not practically capable of being used for transportation is not a "vessel" under federal maritime law — the opinion expressly lists "a swimming platform on pontoons" among the things that are not vessels. No maritime classification exempts a floating array from permitting.
A privately owned, isolated stormwater retention pond, process pond, irrigation pond or quarry lake is frequently non-jurisdictional (outside WOTUS) and non-navigable. When both are true, no Clean Water Act Section 404 permit and no Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit applies to placing a floating structure on it.
That absence of federal permitting — not a vessel exemption — is what removes 18-24 months from a traditional floating solar timeline for the ponds where it applies. See our retention pond solar page for what that timeline looks like in practice.
None of the above is a blanket exemption. Whether a given pond is jurisdictional depends on its hydrology, its connection (or lack of one) to other waters, and state-specific rules — it has to be evaluated site by site.
It is also state-dependent and currently in flux. As of July 2026, EPA and the Army Corps apply the amended January 2023 rule — which incorporates the Sackett standard — in 24 states plus D.C. and the territories, while the pre-2015 regulatory regime remains in effect in the other 26 states because of ongoing litigation. A further proposed rule has been pending since November 17, 2025. We track this and factor the applicable regime for your state into every pre-screen.
A non-jurisdictional pond removes federal wetlands and navigability permitting. It does not remove every permit. Depending on your project, expect to still need:
If your project involves federal grant or loan funding — common for municipal water, wastewater and irrigation district ponds — Build America, Buy America (BABA) domestic-content requirements can apply on top of the permits above. FloatSolar's racking is manufactured domestically in the United States, which supports that documentation; see our made-in-USA and BABA compliance page for details on what domestic content can and can't cover.
It depends entirely on the water body. If the pond, lake or basin qualifies as a 'water of the United States' (WOTUS), placing a structure on it can trigger a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit and, if the water is also navigable, a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit. Many privately owned ponds do not meet the current WOTUS definition, which means neither permit applies — but that has to be checked for your specific site, not assumed.
In Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of 'waters of the United States' to relatively permanent standing or continuously flowing water bodies connected to traditional navigable waters, plus wetlands with a continuous surface connection to such a water body. That eliminated federal jurisdiction over many isolated, private ponds that had previously been treated as regulated waters under a broader interpretation.
Privately owned, isolated stormwater retention ponds, process ponds, irrigation ponds and quarry lakes frequently fall outside the post-Sackett WOTUS definition because they lack a continuous surface connection to a relatively permanent, continuously flowing water body. That said, jurisdiction is fact-specific — hydrology, connection to other waters, and state rules all matter. We check this for you in writing before you commit to anything.
Even on a non-jurisdictional pond you'll typically still need a local building permit, a local electrical permit, a utility interconnection agreement with NEC Article 690 compliance, and — if the water body is state-owned — state submerged-lands or environmental resource permits (in Florida, FDEP sovereign submerged lands authorization and an SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit). If your project touches U.S. Army Corps of Engineers infrastructure you may need a Section 408 review, a licensed hydro project would trigger FERC involvement, and any federal funding or federal nexus can trigger NEPA review.
When a pond is confirmed non-jurisdictional and non-navigable, there is no CWA Section 404 or Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit to obtain, which is what typically removes 18-24 months from a traditional floating solar timeline. Local building, electrical and interconnection approvals still apply, and most projects in that position deploy in roughly 4-8 weeks.
We run a free jurisdictional pre-screen using your pond's location and available site data and tell you, in writing, which permits we believe apply and which don't before you spend anything. For anything ambiguous, we'll tell you that too, and where appropriate recommend a formal jurisdictional determination from the Army Corps.
No. As of July 2026, EPA and the Army Corps apply the amended January 2023 WOTUS rule, which incorporates the Sackett standard, in 24 states plus D.C. and the territories, while the pre-2015 regulatory regime remains in effect in the other 26 states as a result of ongoing litigation. A further proposed rule has been pending since November 17, 2025. This is actively in flux, which is exactly why we check each site individually rather than relying on a general rule.
No. This page is general information about federal jurisdiction over water bodies. Jurisdictional determinations are site-specific and depend on facts we can only evaluate once we have your location and site data. Nothing here should be treated as a legal opinion or a substitute for a formal jurisdictional determination where one is warranted.
Send us your pond's location and we'll tell you, in writing, which permits apply to your site and which don't — before you commit to anything.
Start Your Pre-Screen