EPA Proposes Tighter Limits on Federally Regulated Waters

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Monday signed a proposed rule narrowing the federal definition of regulated waters, a shift driven by a Supreme Court mandate and reversing expansions pursued under previous Democrat administrations.

The proposal updates the definition of "Waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, limiting federal jurisdiction to waters with a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters.

The move reflects the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Sackett v. EPA, which sharply restricted the government's authority over wetlands and other water features.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and Adam Telle, assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works, signed the rule before sending it to the Federal Register for public notice and comment.

The agencies said the proposal is intended to provide regulatory clarity for farmers, landowners, developers, and energy producers who have faced shifting standards for more than a decade.

"Another victory for common sense!" Zeldin wrote Monday on X. "The Trump EPA just released a new proposed definition of 'Waters of the United States' that, if finalized, would deliver the clarity farmers, ranchers and landowners have been begging for.

"This definition follows the Supreme Court ruling in Sackett, advances cooperative federalism, and protects America's waterways."

In announcing the proposal, the EPA said the new definition seeks to protect water resources while reducing burdens on economic sectors that rely on predictable permitting.

The agency said the clearer standard would give states and tribes a stronger role in protecting waters not covered under federal law.

The proposal marks a major departure from the Obama and Biden administrations, which broadened federal reach over wetlands, tributaries, and intermittent streams.

The Obama administration's 2015 Clean Water Rule extended federal oversight to many seasonal and ephemeral waters, prompting lawsuits from states and farm groups that said the rule placed undue burdens on agriculture and private property.

The Biden administration attempted to restore those protections in early 2023, but the Sackett ruling invalidated key portions and forced the EPA and Army Corps to revise the rule.

Under the current proposal, features lacking a direct and visible connection to navigable waters — including many isolated wetlands and seasonal channels — would fall outside federal jurisdiction unless regulated by states.

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said in a statement Monday the proposal reflects the clarity producers have sought for years.

"Clean water is a top priority for farmers and ranchers — we depend on it," Duvall said. "We are pleased that the new rule protects critical water sources while respecting the efforts of farmers to protect the natural resources they've been entrusted with."

Rich Nolan, CEO of the National Mining Association, also praised the move, saying companies have been trying to operate "in a regulatory environment that has most closely resembled a pingpong match with ever-changing rules.

"Our urgent minerals and energy needs are clear, and the regulations that allow us to meet those needs should be equally clear.

"We applaud the EPA's careful consideration of federal and state jurisdiction, definition of what constitutes a covered water feature that provides more regulatory certainty, and alignment with the Supreme Court's Sackett decision, all while ensuring the rigorous environmental protections that are key to any responsible project."

The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said the proposal would leave many wetlands and headwaters vulnerable to pollution and destruction.

"The EPA's proposal is an extreme and unscientific exploitation of an already extreme and unscientific Supreme Court ruling," Jon Devine, director of freshwater ecosystems at the NRDC, said in a statement. "Erasing protections for wetlands and streams that clearly affect downstream water quality and community safety ignores decades of hydrological science and will create regulatory chaos, leaving businesses, farmers and communities with less certainty while exposing waters to more pollution."

Once published in the Federal Register, the rule will enter a public comment period before the agencies finalize the definition. Legal challenges are considered likely.