1993). While remarkable in its candor, the announcement contained a kernel of truth. If the agencies and NWF believe that the Clean Water Act inadequately protects wetlands and other natural resources by insisting upon the presence of an “addition” to trigger permit requirements, the appropriate body to turn to is Congress. Without such an amendment, the Act simply will not accommodate the 'Tulloch Rule. The judgment of the district court is Affirmed. 1 . The challenged regulation does not address discharge of "fill material," which the Corps defines as "any material used for the primary purpose of replacing an aquatic area with dry land or of changing the bottom elevation of an [sic] water-body." 33 CFR § 323.2(e). 2 . Compare United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251, 257 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 3 . EPA promulgated a parallel rule, which is
holding that regulations pur porting to reach wetlands whose degradation or destruction could affect interstate or foreign commerce were beyond statutory authorization because they would include intrastate waters that need have nothing to do with navigable or interstate waters recognizing that navigable waters railroads and highways are channels of commerce which can be regulated under congress commerce powers recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce