Opinion of the Court
shows that “adjacent” cannot include wetlands that are not part of covered “waters.” See supra, at 22.
Second, this ratification theory cannot be reconciled with our cases. We have repeatedly recognized that §1344(g)(1) “ ‘does not conclusively determine the construction to be placed on … the relevant definition of “navigable waters.” ’ ” SWANCC, 531 U. S., at 171 (quoting Riverside Bayview, 474 U. S., at 138, n. 11); accord, Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 747–748, n. 12 (plurality opinion). Additionally, SWANCC rejected the closely analogous argument that Congress ratified the Corps’ definition of “waters of the United States” by including “ ‘other … waters’ ” in §1344(g)(1). 531 U. S., at 168–171. And yet, the EPA’s argument would require us to hold that §1344(g)(1) actually did amend the definition of “navigable waters” precisely for the reasons we rejected in SWANCC.
Third, the EPA cannot provide the sort of “overwhelming evidence of acquiescence” necessary to support its argument in the face of Congress’s failure to amend §1362(7). Id., at 169–170, n. 5. We will infer that a term was “ ‘transplanted from another legal source’ … only when a term’s meaning was ‘well-settled’ before the transplantation.” Kemp v. United States, 596 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2022) (slip op., at 9–10). Far from being well settled, the Corps’ definition was promulgated mere months before the CWA became law, and when the Corps adopted that definition, it candidly acknowledged the “rapidly changing nature of [its] regulatory programs.” 42 Fed. Reg. 37122. Tellingly, even the EPA would not adopt that definition for several more years. See 45 Fed. Reg. 85345 (1980). This situation is a far cry from any in which we have found ratification. See, e.g., George v. McDonough, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 5) (finding ratification when “Congress used an unusual term that had a long regulatory history in [the] very regulatory context” at issue).
The EPA also advances various policy arguments about
