The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies announced a proposal to revise the definition of “waters of the United States,” which defines the scope of federal jurisdiction over permits under the Clean Water Act.
The EPA maintains that the proposal will protect water quality by striking a balance between federal and state authority, recognizing that states and tribes are in a better position to properly manage their local land and water resources.
This is a way to implement a ruling issued by the Supreme Court in 2023 that limited the authority of the EPA and other agencies to regulate millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams.
But in the opinion of Jim Murphy, Director of Legal Advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the proposal goes beyond the Supreme Court’s decision, which eliminated these basic protections primarily for streams and wetlands.
“So now those streams and wetlands, unless the state or local government protects them, can be polluted and destroyed without any consequences for the person who causes that damage. We believe this really goes against what both science and the law demand,” Murphy said in an interview with LRH.
In essence, the Supreme Court ruling infers that Congress did not intend to protect some of the smaller bodies of water, such as smaller streams and wetlands, but the NWF argues that science makes it clear that it is precisely in these streams and wetlands where the water originates.
“So, if you pollute the place where the water is born and begins its journey, that pollution will eventually reach our larger rivers and lakes, and it will harm our drinking water. It will affect the water from which we fish, and it will cause more flooding,” explains Murphy. From their perspective, the proposed rule will affect communities that don’t have the money to treat the water because many water treatment plants in historically disadvantaged communities often lack the necessary resources to treat it.
“So, when the water becomes more polluted, it requires greater expense to clean it, and many of these communities don’t have those resources now, so this is going to make the situation even more difficult for them,” he says.
Other groups agree. An analysis for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that between 38 and 70 million acres of wetlands are at risk of pollution or destruction under the proposal.
“By eliminating protections for wetlands and streams, the EPA is attempting to shirk its legal obligation to protect our drinking water and our communities. For the millions of Americans who swim or fish in our nation’s rivers and lakes, this is a devastating blow,” said Andrew Wetzler, senior vice president of nature at the NRDC.
The comment period for the new rule concludes on January 5, 2026, and you can participate through the process on the EPA website at www.epa.gov.
