A federal judge has dismissed the U.S. government’s Clean Water Act lawsuit against an Idaho ranch, citing a change in U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

However, the federal government can revise its complaint against Ace Black Ranches of Bruneau, Idaho, and try to correct the shortcomings identified by Chief U.S. District Judge David Nye.

“Until the government has provided more detailed allegations and information, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the court must dismiss,” Nye said.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed earlier this year, the 800-acre ranch unlawfully filled wetlands adjacent to the Bruneau River with sand and gravel, polluting the waterway.

Ace Black Ranches claimed the fill material was needed to level ground for the installation of a center pivot irrigation system but denied affecting wetlands with a continuous surface water connection to the river.

Under a Supreme Court ruling issued last year, the federal government only has Clean Water Act jurisdiction over wetlands if they’re continuously connected by surface water to a navigable river.

The ranch argued the complaint failed to “plausibly allege” that it’s “difficult to determine where the river ends and the wetlands begin,” as required under the Supreme Court’s tightened jurisdictional standards.

The nation’s highest court set a new Clean Water Act legal precedent in another case that pitted Idaho landowners against the federal government, Sackett v. EPA, which scrapped the previous longstanding requirement of a “significant nexus” between rivers and wetlands.

The lawsuit against Ace Black Ranches demonstrates a “disregard for the Supreme Court’s attempt to make the law clear,” potentially subjecting the ranch to years of expensive litigation that’s not warranted, according to the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

“Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations show an abusive approach to federal regulation that the U.S. Supreme Court looked to curb,” the ranch said.

The federal government acknowledged that its lawsuit “did not incorporate additional language from Sackett” and didn’t include more specifics about the wetlands but claimed that “does not render the complaint deficient.”

At this stage in the litigation, it’s not necessary for the U.S. government to provide detailed allegations about the surface water connection, which is a “fact-intensive inquiry,” and it isn’t required to prove the wetlands and river are “indistinguishable,” the plaintiff claimed.

“Requiring a more exacting fact-pleading standard would undermine the United States’ ability to bring cases against violators of the Clean Water Act,” the government said.

However, the judge has agreed with the ranch that “the government’s pleadings are not sufficiently clear” regarding the Clean Water Act accusations.

Without such specifics, the plaintiff isn’t entitled to “discovery,” or the exchange of information about evidence in the case, he said. Under the ruling, the government has a month to submit an amended complaint “remedying the deficiencies” in the original pleading.

“Lingering questions abound,” Nye said. “Which wetlands are at issue? Do those wetlands currently maintain a surface connection with the river? Did they at some point maintain a surface connection to the river? How are the wetlands indistinguishable from the river?”