EPA considers further narrowing Clean Water Act protections

The Trump administration on Friday said it will consider further narrowing protections for streams and wetlands under the Clean Water Act.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers issued a supplemental proposed rule that they said would be likely to reduce the bodies of water that are under the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction if its changes are adopted.

It would be expected to reduce the number of waters subject to the Clean Water Act in the West.

That means development or pollution in these streams and wetlands would no longer require a permit or potential mitigation.

The new changes come on top of an already proposed rule by the agencies that is also expected to narrow the Clean Water Act’s applicability. The additional proposal could narrow it further.

The EPA said in a press release that it is considering the new proposal “alongside” the rule it proposed last year as part of an effort to evaluate a wider range of options as it determines its final approach for regulating streams and wetlands.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a written statement that the agency is aiming to set up 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. We look forward to public feedback on this supplemental notice, which will help strengthen the real-world expertise behind the final rule,” he said.

However, environmental advocates raised concerns about the potential changes, saying they could worsen health and safety outcomes.

“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. It’s going to result in waters that … ourselves and our kids …. swim and fish in to be less safe and more polluted,” said Jim Murphy, the National Wildlife Federation’s associate vice president for legal advocacy.

“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,” Murphy added.

The rule in question concerns which waters are considered “Waters of the United States” and therefore subject to Clean Water Act protections.

In 2023, the Supreme Court narrowed the definition to only waters that are “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing.” It said that wetlands need to have a “continuous surface connection” with a protected body of water.

But questions remained about how to define those terms.

In its supplemental proposal, the Trump administration suggested defining “relatively permanent” streams as those that have standing or flowing water every day for at least 11 months out of the year.

Similarly, it proposed to define a protected wetland as one that has standing or flowing surface water that is continuously connected with surface water in another body that is already regulated by the clean water act every day for 11 months of the year.