The Trump administration announced Friday that it is considering additional restrictions on which streams and wetlands receive federal protection under the Clean Water Act.
The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers released a supplemental proposed rule that could reduce the number of bodies of water falling under the landmark law’s jurisdiction.
The potential changes are expected to have a significant effect in the West, where fewer streams and wetlands could qualify for federal oversight. Development or pollution affecting waters removed from the law’s jurisdiction would no longer require a federal permit or possible mitigation.
The latest proposal comes in addition to a rule introduced by the two agencies last year. That earlier measure was already expected to narrow the Clean Water Act’s reach, but the supplemental proposal could go even further.
The EPA said it would consider the latest proposal “alongside” last year’s rule as the administration evaluates a broader selection of options before determining its final approach to regulating streams and wetlands.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency is working to establish a “durable” rule that “follows the law and ends burdensome regulatory uncertainty.”
“Today’s action reflects our continued commitment to transparency and public input, ensuring we have fully considered a wide range of potential policy options,” Zeldin said in a written statement.
“We look forward to public feedback on this supplemental notice, which will help strengthen the real-world expertise behind the final rule,” he continued.
Environmental advocates, however, sounded the alarm over the proposed changes, arguing that limiting federal protections could produce negative public health and safety consequences.
“This is a very big deal. It puts a lot of pressure on states to protect waters; it’s going to result in higher treatment costs,” Jim Murphy, the National Wildlife Federation’s associate vice president for legal advocacy, said.
Murphy warned that waters used by adults and children for swimming and fishing could become “less safe and more polluted.”
“It’s going to result in higher drinking water costs, higher health risks. It’s a step backwards in terms of public health and safety,” he added.
At the center of the debate is which waterways qualify as “Waters of the United States” and are therefore covered by the Clean Water Act.
The Supreme Court narrowed that definition in 2023, ruling that protected waters must be “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing.” The court also said wetlands must possess a “continuous surface connection” to a federally protected body of water.
Questions remained, however, about exactly how those standards should be interpreted.
Under the administration’s supplemental proposal, “relatively permanent” streams would be defined as waterways containing standing or flowing water every day for at least 11 months of the year.
The administration proposed a similar standard for wetlands. A wetland would receive protection only if it has standing or flowing surface water continuously connected to another body of water already regulated under the Clean Water Act every day for at least 11 months annually.
The agencies will now consider public feedback as they weigh the competing options and prepare their final rule.
