EPA moves to limit scope of clean water law to reduce amount of wetlands it covers

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday a significant redefinition of the Clean Water Act’s scope, substantially limiting the wetlands covered under federal protection. The new rule builds upon a 2023 Supreme Court decision that had already removed protections for extensive wetland areas across the country.

The revised “Waters of the United States” rule will narrow federal jurisdiction to focus primarily on relatively permanent bodies of water, including streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes, along with wetlands directly connected to these water bodies, according to the EPA.

This regulatory change is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to roll back dozens of environmental regulations. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin characterized these efforts as accelerating economic prosperity while putting “a dagger through the heart of climate change religion,” a framing that critics view as dismissing legitimate environmental concerns in favor of industry interests.

Speaking at EPA headquarters, Zeldin explained that the new rule implements directives from the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA ruling. That decision significantly restricted the federal government’s authority to regulate water pollution in certain wetlands while strengthening property rights. The case centered around Michael and Chantell Sackett, an Idaho couple who sought to build a home near a lake but faced regulatory hurdles.

“Democratic administrations had long weaponized the definition of navigable waters to seize more power from American farmers, landowners, and families,” claimed Zeldin, a former Republican congressman who has spearheaded efforts to eliminate regulations perceived as climate-friendly. Despite this partisan framing, Zeldin insisted the rule change wasn’t motivated by ideology but rather aimed at creating a “clear, simple, prescriptive rule that will stand the test of time.”

When questioned about the durability of the rule after decades of regulatory back-and-forth between administrations, Zeldin pointed to the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision as the difference-maker. “We’re following Sackett very closely,” he said. “We’re treating it with respect. The words are being interpreted strictly.”

The proposal, which will undergo at least 45 days of public comment, aims to reduce bureaucratic processes for farmers, ranchers, industry, and other private landowners, according to Zeldin. He contended that the rule strikes a balance between federal and state authority while maintaining water quality protections, noting that states and tribes would still regulate lands removed from federal jurisdiction.

Environmental organizations strongly criticized the proposal as a concession to industry interests. J.W. Glass from the Center for Biological Diversity warned that the change “will destroy thousands of miles of waterways critical to wildlife across the United States” and eliminate natural areas that protect communities from increasingly severe storm surges linked to climate change.

Andrew Wetzler of the Natural Resources Defense Council added that “by gutting protections for wetlands and streams, EPA is trying to disown its legal obligation to protect our drinking water and our communities.” He emphasized that wetlands serve as natural flood protection, and removing their protections endangers millions of people.

Zeldin defended the rule change by noting that complaints about overly intrusive water regulations have emerged in every state he has visited since taking office. He described being particularly moved by the plight of small farmers struggling to determine whether water on their property falls under federal jurisdiction.

The Clean Water Act’s scope has swung dramatically with changing administrations. While Trump sought to narrow the law’s reach during his first term, Democratic administrations have typically expanded federal regulatory power over the nation’s waterways. The Sackett ruling largely validated Trump’s limited approach, forcing the Biden administration to revise protections to comply with the decision.

Some conservative groups had previously argued that even Biden’s revised rules protected too many wetlands and excessively restricted private property rights. Damien Schiff, the senior attorney who represented the Sacketts in their Supreme Court case, praised the latest proposal as “a meaningful step toward relief for property owners still burdened by unjustified and illegal Clean Water Act regulations.”