EPA and Army Corps Propose Additional Changes Narrowing Clean Water Act Coverage
Science & ClimateWell-covered
|
The Facts
- The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced a supplemental proposed rule on Friday redefining "waters of the United States," or WOTUS.
- The supplemental proposal builds on a WOTUS rule the agencies proposed in November 2025.
- The agencies are seeking public comment on new alternatives for defining "relatively permanent" waters and "continuous surface connection" wetlands.
- The supplemental notice also proposes a definition for the term "perennial."
- The agencies said the changes would likely reduce the number of waters subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction, particularly in the West.
- The WOTUS definition determines where federal permits are required before pollutants or fill material are discharged into a water body.
- Both the November proposal and Friday's supplement follow the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Sackett v. EPA.
- EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency's goal is a durable WOTUS definition that ends burdensome regulatory uncertainty.
- No rules change immediately; the agencies will collect comments before developing a final rule.
Context
What is WOTUS and why does the definition matter?
"Waters of the United States" is the term that sets the reach of the Clean Water Act of 1972 NYT,GV Wire. Where the definition applies, development or pollution in streams and wetlands can require a federal permit and mitigation; where it does not, authority falls to states, tribes or local governments Hill,Dallas Express. The definition has been litigated for decades and has reached the Supreme Court twice since 2006 thespec.com.
Why is the EPA asking for more comment instead of finalizing the rule?
The EPA said the supplemental proposal will help the agencies evaluate a wider range of options as they work toward a final rule thespec.com,Washington Examiner. DTN reported that EPA's earlier proposed definitions of "relatively permanent" and "continuous surface connection" drew significant pushback DTN Progressive Far…, and the agencies received hundreds of thousands of comments on the 2025 proposal Agweek. The Associated Press described the additional request for information as highly unusual thespec.com.
How are supporters and critics responding?
Farm groups have sought clearer, more uniform standards; Missouri Farm Bureau President Garrett Hawkins said producers benefit from clear and consistent policy and want more respect for states' rights Brownfield Ag News. Critics cited by Newsmax say the proposal could strip federal safeguards from 94% of U.S. wetlands NewsMax, and Jon Devine of the Natural Resources Defense Council called it "a humongous rollback" that is bigger than the initial proposal NDTV Profit. The American Petroleum Institute and some congressional Republicans welcomed the move Common Dreams.
Where Left and Right agree, and where they split
- Where Left and Right agree
- The definition itself is the whole lever — 'relatively permanent,' 'continuous surface connection,' 'perennial' decide where a federal permit is required, and the new alternatives would shrink coverage.
- Where Left and Right split
- Whether the story is about wetlands and downstream communities losing permit protection, or about a landowner finally being able to read a rule and know where he stands.
- Why they won’t converge
- This is a values divide over who should bear the cost of error — downstream communities or landowners facing permits — and it survives agreement on the facts because both sides accept that fewer waters would be covered and simply price that consequence differently.
How left and right read it
Clean water should be the default, and anyone shrinking its legal reach owes the public a reason better than convenience. The agencies concede their new alternatives would likely cut the number of waters covered, especially in the West, yet that definition is precisely what decides where a permit is required before pollutants or fill are dumped. Fewer covered waters means fewer permits. Ending "regulatory uncertainty," as Administrator Zeldin frames it, is not a reason to leave wetlands and the communities downstream of them unprotected.
“The Trump administration on Friday took another step toward stripping federal protections from millions of acres of wetlands, which help filter drinking water for many communities and provide critical habitat for birds, fish and other wildlife.” — The New York Times
A landowner should be able to read a rule and know whether his own ground requires a federal permit before he moves dirt. That clarity has been missing for years, which is why the agencies are now proposing actual definitions for "relatively permanent," "continuous surface connection," and "perennial" — the very terms that decide when federal jurisdiction attaches. Sackett settled the question in 2023. Finish the job: write a durable definition and stop making people guess.
“Members of various industries have complained over the years that the EPA's oversight has extended too far and stymied business and development.” — Washington Examiner
The receipts — all 25 sources
Wire services (8)
Independent coverage (17)
Facts first. Then every angle.
The day’s biggest stories in one short brief — the facts everyone agrees on, then the competing values behind the headlines. Free in your inbox.