The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on Monday a proposal to redefine the scope of the Clean Water Act, narrowing the types of wetlands and waterways under federal protection. This move follows a 2023 Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA that limited federal authority over certain wetlands.
Under the new “Waters of the United States” rule, federal jurisdiction would focus on permanent or continuously flowing bodies of water—such as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes—as well as wetlands directly connected to these waters. The EPA stated that this approach aligns with the Supreme Court’s guidance and aims to provide clarity for landowners and industry.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described the proposal as part of an effort to accelerate economic growth while responding to concerns from farmers and landowners about regulatory overreach. At a news conference, Zeldin said: “Democratic administrations had long ‘weaponized the definition of navigable waters to seize more power from American farmers, landowners and families.’ Still, he said the proposed rule change was not motivated by ideology or partisanship, but instead was intended to be a ‘clear, simple, prescriptive rule that will stand the test of time.’”
When asked why he believes this rule will endure despite ongoing political debate over water regulation, Zeldin replied: “Sackett.” He added: “That’s one of the big differences from the past, is that you have the Supreme Court weighing in, and we’re following Sackett very closely,” Zeldin said. “We’re treating it with respect. The words are being interpreted strictly. We are sticking to the prescriptive language of the Supreme Court decision. And that is a very significant difference from the past.”
The proposal will undergo at least 45 days of public comment before any final decision is made.
Environmental groups criticized the changes as weakening protections for critical waterways and wildlife habitats across the country. J.W. Glass from the Center for Biological Diversity said: “The Trump EPA’s shortsighted push to encourage industries to plow over more wetlands and streams will destroy thousands of miles of waterways critical to wildlife across the United States,” adding that it would harm natural areas protecting against storm surges.
Andrew Wetzler at Natural Resources Defense Council commented: “By gutting protections for wetlands and streams, EPA is trying to disown its legal obligation to protect our drinking water and our communities… Wetlands are nature’s safeguard against flooding, and stripping away protections for them puts millions of people in harm’s way.”
Zeldin responded by emphasizing feedback received during visits across all 50 states since taking office earlier this year: “If you want to really appreciate the impact of the WOTUS rule — past, present and future — I would encourage you to speak to all those impacted stakeholders, all those impacted landowners.” He highlighted stories from small farmers uncertain whether their property falls under federal regulation as particularly influential in shaping his perspective.
The Clean Water Act has seen varying interpretations depending on which party controls presidential administrations; previous Republican efforts sought narrower definitions while Democratic policies tended toward broader coverage.
The recent Supreme Court ruling largely endorsed limiting federal oversight—a stance echoed by some conservative groups who continue pushing for further reductions in regulatory reach regarding private property rights.
