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

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday it is redefining the scope of the nation’s bedrock clean water law to limit the wetlands it covers, building on a Supreme Court decision two years ago that removed federal protections for significant areas.

When finalized, the new “Waters of the United States” rule will ensure that federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act is focused on relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water, such as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes, along with wetlands that are connected to such bodies of water, the EPA said.

The Idaho couple who sought to build a house near a lake.

Zeldin, a former Republican congressman who has pushed to rollback dozens of environmental regulations, said the proposed water rule was not motivated by ideology or partisanship. Instead, the goal was to devise a “clear, simple, prescriptive rule that will stand the test of time,” he said.

Asked why he is confident the rule will be sustained after decades of partisan back-and-forth over water regulation, Zeldin offered a one-word answer: “Sackett.”

“That’s one of the big differences from the past, is that you have the Supreme Court weighing in, and we’re following Sackett very closely,” Zeldin said. “We’re treating it with respect. The words are being interpreted strictly. We are sticking to the prescriptive language of the Supreme Court decision. And that is a very significant difference from the past.”

The rule, which faces at least 45 days of public comment, will cut red tape and provide clarity for farmers, ranchers, industry and other private landowners, Zeldin said. The proposal will also protect water quality by striking a balance between federal and state authority, he said, adding that any lands that are removed from federal jurisdiction will still face regulation from states and tribes.

Environmentalists slammed the proposal as a giveaway to industry.

“The Trump EPA’s shortsighted push to encourage industries to plow over more wetlands and streams will destroy thousands of miles of waterways critical to wildlife across the United States,” said J.W. Glass, a policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. “This political gift from Trump to the polluters that support him will wipe out life-sustaining waterways in every corner of the nation, and it will destroy countless natural areas that protect us from increasingly destructive storm surges driven by the climate crisis.”

But Zeldin, who has traveled to all 50 states since taking office earlier this year, said concerns about the invasive nature of the water rule have emerged in every state. The Trump administration has listened to concerns from farmers and other groups worried about federal interference in how they use their land, he said, and has moved to set limited, predictable and lasting rules defining which waterways the Clean Water Act protects.

“If you want to really appreciate the impact of the WOTUS rule — past, present and future — I would encourage you to speak to all of those impacted stakeholders, all those impacted landowners,” Zeldin said.

Testimony that affected him the most came from “some small farmer who’s struggling to make ends meet, and they have no idea whether or not the water on their property is a water of the United States or not,” Zeldin said. “Their frustration skyrockets when something on their property and was being interpreted as a water of the United States doesn’t make any sense. Then their advocacy and passion really starts coming out.”

President Donald Trump sought to shrink the water law’s reach in his first term, while Democratic administrations have expanded federal power to regulate the nation’s lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and oceans. The change in administrations has created drastic swings in how the water law is interpreted and applied.

The Supreme Court ruling in the Sackett case largely agreed with the Trump administration’s limited approach and led the Biden administration to r ewrite protections to comply with the ruling. Some conservative groups have complained that the revised rule still protected too many wetlands and improperly limited private property rights.