The Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday that it’s seeking additional input on how it defines certain water bodies in the U.S. The supplemental proposal is a continuation of a larger push to redefine which waters of the United States (commonly referred to as WOTUS) can be regulated under the Clean Water Act.
A broader proposed rule — one that could roll back protections for 80 percent of the continental U.S.’ mapped wetlands, according to the EPA — underwent public comment in late 2025 and early 2026 but has not yet been finalized. The conservation community has warned that these sweeping changes to how the waters of the U.S. are regulated would be a disaster for America’s fish and wildlife.
Related: ‘This Would Have Serious, Real-World Impacts.’ Why the EPA’s Rule Change on Water Protections Would Be a Disaster for Fish and Wildlife
Home-building groups and segments of the agricultural community have cheered the proposed rollbacks, which will allow them to fill in wetlands or discharge pollutants without a federal permit.
The 2023 Supreme Court ruling Sackett v. EPA substantially changed how the federal Clean Water Act is interpreted, but also left many key definitions unclear. Friday’s supplemental notice from the EPA and the Army attempts to clarify relatively narrow definitions.
“These definitions are very important because, particularly for these smaller streams that are so critical to the health of larger rivers, and also for these smaller wetlands, would carve out a bunch of waters that would no longer be protected under the Clean Water Act,” says Gary Belan, senior director of American Rivers’ Clean Water program. “The [proposed] definitions regulate what’s easy to see, not necessarily what’s real on the ground.”
For instance, the EPA is currently proposing that a perennial stream should be defined as a stream that has water in it every day of the year under ordinary conditions, with a tolerance for one dry stretch of up to 30 consecutive days
“That’s a very unscientific cutoff,” says Belan. ”You have streams in the West that are dry for longer than that. They still have groundwater underneath them. But if they’re dry for longer than thirty days, they’ll be cut out of protection.”
Another is the concept of “continuous surface connection.” If you can see where the water of a wetland touches a river on the surface, then it’s protected under the proposed definition. If you can’t see that connection, it’s not protected under the proposed definition, explains Belan. This ignores the reality of everything from groundwater to natural and seasonal flooding.
“If wetlands are dry in certain parts of the year, or they’re adjacent to the river but don’t have that visible surface connection, you can build on top of them, you can dredge them, you can dump stuff into them,” says Belan. “There’s often a groundwater connection between these waters. If you’re dumping pollution there, that can still get in the groundwater and then impact your adjacent water body, which isn’t good for fish, [wildlife], and people.”
In other words, many of the country’s currently protected wetlands — areas like bogs, marshes, and prairie potholes that provide critical habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wildlife — would no longer be conserved.
“It’s really hard to regulate something as complex and as important as the waters of the United States when definitions keep changing,” Jack Polentes, policy and government relations senior manager for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, told Outdoor Life last year. “This is being framed as a clarity issue. But clear rules that lead to dirtier waters aren’t a win for sportsmen and women.”
Proposed changes to the Clean Water Act come at a time when the West is already grappling with dire water shortages and the U.S. at large endures record heat and persistent drought. Now is not the time to put the country’s water supply at further risk, says Belan. He may be a civil engineer with a background in environmental policy, but it doesn’t take an expert to recognize that “water flows downhill.”
“In all these instances, if these waters aren’t protected, eventually pollution and flooding is going to make its way downstream,” says Belan. “It can really increase the costs for drinking water treatment. It can significantly increase the incidence of flooding, because that water has to go somewhere. It’s just going to increase costs for everybody.”
The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are expected to hold a 30-day public comment period before finalizing the rule. The dates for that comment period have not been announced, but it will open when the supplemental proposed rules is published to the Federal Register.
“Respond to this,” urges Belan. “They’re giving us thirty days to comment, which isn’t a lot of time. if you feel passionately about clean water, send in a comment to the EPA.”
Read Next: Mallard Numbers Continue to Decline, According to Latest USFWS Survey
As we reported previously, the federal government can readily dismiss generic or form-letter submissions to public comment periods. Experts advise the public to write unique, personal comments or to personalize form letters to ensure they are counted by federal agencies.
Read the full article here
