Washington– The Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that it is redefining the scope of the nation’s key Clean Water Act to limit the wetlands it covers, building on a Supreme Court decision two years ago that struck down federal protections for large areas.
When finalized, the new “Waters of the United States” rule will ensure that federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act focuses on perennial, permanent, or continuously flowing bodies of water, such as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes, along with wetlands associated with such bodies of water, the EPA said.
the New base The project will help accelerate economic prosperity while protecting vital water resources, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said at a news conference at agency headquarters. He said the rule would fully implement guidance provided by the Supreme Court in the case known as Sackett v. EPA. 2023 ruled sharply Limit the federal government’s authority to monitor water pollution In some wetlands, property rights were strengthened due to concerns about clean water in the ruling in favor Idaho couple Who sought to build a house near the lake.
Zeldin, a former Republican congressman who has pushed to repeal dozens of environmental regulations, said the proposed water rule was not driven by ideology or partisanship. Instead, he said, the goal was to create a “clear, simple guideline that will stand the test of time.”
When asked why he was confident this rule would persist after decades of partisan debate over water regulation, Zeldin gave a one-word answer: “Sackett.”
“That’s one of the big differences from the past, is that the Supreme Court weighs in, and we’re following Sackett very closely,” Zeldin said. “We are treating the matter with respect. The words are being interpreted strictly. We are adhering to the guiding language of the Supreme Court’s decision. This is a very big difference from the past.”
The rule, which faces public comment for at least 45 days, will cut red tape and provide clarity for farmers, ranchers, industry and other private landowners, Zeldin said. The proposal would also protect water quality by balancing federal and state authority, he said, adding that any lands removed from federal jurisdiction would still face regulation from states and tribes.
Environmentalists criticized this proposal as a gift to industry.
“Trump’s short-sighted efforts to encourage industries to plow more wetlands and streams will destroy thousands of miles of waterways vital to wildlife across the United States,” said J.W. Glass, a policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. “This political gift from Trump to the polluters who support him will wipe out life-sustaining waterways in every corner of the country, and will destroy countless natural areas that protect us from increasingly destructive storms caused by the climate crisis.”
But Zeldin, who has traveled to all 50 states since taking office earlier this year, said concerns about the invasive nature of the water base have emerged in every state. He said the Trump administration has listened to the concerns of farmers and other groups concerned about federal interference in how they use their land, and has moved to create limited, predictable and permanent rules that define the waterways protected by the Clean Water Act.
“If you really want to appreciate the impact of the WOTUS rule — past, present and future — I encourage you to talk to all the affected stakeholders, all the affected landowners,” Zeldin said.
Zeldin said the testimony that affected him the most came from “some small farmers who are struggling to make ends meet, and have no idea whether the water on their property is water of the United States or not.” “Their frustration goes through the roof when something on their property and it’s interpreted as waters of the United States doesn’t make sense. Then their advocacy and passion really starts to shine through.”
President Donald Trump has sought to shrink the scope of water law in his first term, while Democratic administrations have expanded federal authority to regulate the nation’s lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and oceans. The change in administrations has led to dramatic fluctuations in how water law is interpreted and applied.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Sackett case largely agreed with the Trump administration’s limited approach and pushed the Biden administration back Writing protection to comply with the ruling. Some conservative groups have complained that the revised rule still protects too many wetlands and inappropriately restricts private property rights.