The Trump administration on Monday proposed new definitions of what bodies of water would qualify for protection under the Clean Water Act.
“There will be less that will be regulated by the federal government,” the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, Lee Zeldin, told reporters.
The rule proposed by the White House, in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, excludes groundwater and interstate waters from protections and redefines words like “relatively permanent,” “continuous surface connection” and ”tributary.” Any bodies of water granted protections under the Clean Water Act are deemed “Waters of the United States.”
“This proposal recognizes that states and tribes know their local land and water resources best,” reads an EPA press release. “The proposed definition of WOTUS [Waters of the United States] protects water quality by affirming federal protections where appropriate and supporting the role of states and tribes as primary regulators managing their own land and water resources.”
Trending
The proposed measure dictates that wetlands must be “indistinguishable” from jurisdictional waters, with a “continuous surface connection.” The rules will also limit permafrost wetlands from the scope of the definition, and offer exclusions on ditches, previously converted cropland and waste treatment systems.
Zeldin said the proposed rules would protect navigable waters, advance cooperative federalism and lead to economic growth.
“Democrat Administrations have weaponized the definition of navigable waters to seize more power from American farmers, landowners, entrepreneurs, and families,” Zeldin said in the statement. “We heard from Americans across the country who want clean water and a clear rule. No longer should America’s landowners be forced to spend precious money hiring an attorney or consultant just to tell them whether a Water of the United States is on their property.”
The agency first announced in March its plan to redefine former President Joe Biden’s definition of “Waters of the United States,” and consequently held nine public listening sessions in Utah and West Virginia.
The EPA is building upon a Supreme Court decision from 2023 in which the majority ruled that the Clean Water Act allowed the agency to only regulate wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to a “relatively permanent” body of water.
But the high court’s failure to define a “relatively permanent” body of water halted any immediate changes to the law. Trump’s new proposal outlines relatively permanent bodies of water as those that flow either year-round or during the “wet season.”
Environmental groups on Monday largely denounced the proposal, while agricultural industry groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation, or AFBF, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, or the NCBA, celebrated the new guidelines.
“Waters of the U.S. has been a longstanding and frustrating issue for family farmers and ranchers,” NBCA President Buck Wehrbein said in a statement. “Every few years, the definition of a ‘water of the U.S.’ has changed … We appreciate the EPA finally fixing previous WOTUS rules and supporting America’s family farmers and ranchers.”
On the other hand, the vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund, Will McDow, said the EPA’s proposed rules were “not based in science, difficult to implement in practice and will create a dangerous lack of clarity.”
“This rule brings tremendous uncertainty and risk to our nation’s drinking water, flood protections and critical habitats,” McDow said in a statement.
Tarah Heinzen, the legal director of Food & Water Watch, a Washington based environmental group, said in a statement that the rule “flies in the face of science and commonsense” and would lead to more pollution downstream.
“Clean water is under attack in America, as polluting profiteers plunder our waters — Trump’s EPA is openly aiding and abetting this destruction,” Heinzen said. “This proposed rule weakens the bedrock Clean Water Act, making it easier to fill, drain, and pollute sensitive waterways from coast to coast.”
The proposed rule must undergo a 45-day public comment period, during which EPA and the Army Corps plan to host at least two hybrid public meetings.
Author
