WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that it will redefine the scope of the nation’s Bedrock Clean Water Act and significantly limit the wetlands it covers, building on a two-year-old Supreme Court decision that lifted federal protections for vast areas.
If the new “Waters of the United States” rule is finalized, the Clean Water Act’s federal jurisdiction will focus on relatively permanent, still or continuously flowing bodies of water, such as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes, and wetlands that are directly connected to such bodies of water, the EPA said.
The proposal, according to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, would “promote economic prosperity while promoting economic prosperity.” It’s a dagger that cuts through the heart of climate change religion. ” Critics say water regulations are a boon to ranchers and industry.
Zeldin said this at a press conference at the agency’s headquarters. new rules It will fully implement the directives laid out by the Supreme Court in the case known as Sackett v. EPA. Judgment in 2023 Significantly limited the federal government’s power to control water pollution. It encroached on certain wetlands and boosted property rights over clean water concerns with a ruling in favor of Michael and Chantelle Sackett. idaho couple A person who wanted to build a house near a lake.
Zeldin is a former Republican congressman. rescinding supposedly climate-friendly regulations; He said Democratic administrations have long “weaponized the definition of navigable waters to seize more power from America’s farmers, landowners, and families.” Still, he said the proposed rule changes are not motivated by ideology or partisanship and are intended to be “clear, simple, prescriptive rules that will stand the test of time.”
Asked why he is confident this rule will hold despite decades of partisan conflict. water regulations, Zeldin answered in one word: “Sacket.”
“One of the big differences is that the Supreme Court is involved and we are monitoring Mr. Sackett very closely,” Zeldin said. “We are treating this case with respect. Words are strictly interpreted. We are sticking to the prescriptive language of the Supreme Court’s decision. And that is a very big difference from the past.”
Zeldin said the rule, which would require at least 45 days of public comment, would cut through red tape and provide clarity for farmers, ranchers, industry and other private landowners. He added that the proposal would also protect water quality by balancing federal and state powers, and that lands removed from federal jurisdiction would continue to be subject to regulation from states and tribes.
Environmentalists denounced the proposal as a favor to industry by President Donald Trump.
“The Trump EPA’s short-sighted push to encourage industry to cultivate wetlands and streams will destroy thousands of miles of waterways critical to wildlife across the country,” said JW Glass, a policy expert at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. “This political gift from Mr. Trump to the polluters who support him will wipe out life-sustaining waterways in every corner of the country and destroy countless natural areas that protect us from the increasingly destructive storm surges of the climate crisis.”
Andrew Wetzler, executive vice president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, another environmental group, added, “By stripping wetlands and streams of protection, the EPA is denying its legal obligation to protect drinking water and communities. Wetlands are natural defenses against flooding, and stripping them of that protection puts millions of people at risk.”
But Zeldin, who has visited all 50 states since taking office earlier this year, said he has heard complaints about the invasive nature of water rules in every state. He said the Trump administration listened to the concerns of farmers and other groups concerned about federal interference in how their land is used and moved to create limited, predictable and permanent rules that define which waterways are protected by the Clean Water Act.
“If you really want to understand the impact of the WOTUS rule, past, present and future, I encourage you to speak with all affected stakeholders, all affected landowners,” Zeldin said.
The most impactful testimony for Zeldin was that of “small farmers who are struggling to make a living, but they have no idea whether the water on their property comes from the United States.” “Their frustration spikes when it doesn’t make sense that what’s on their property is interpreted as U.S. water. That’s when their advocacy and passion really starts to show.”
President Trump tried to narrow the scope of the water law during his first term, but the Democratic administration Expands federal authority to regulate lakes across the countryrivers, streams, wetlands, oceans. The change in government has resulted in dramatic changes in the way water laws are interpreted and applied.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Sackett case largely agreed with the Trump administration’s limited approach, and the Biden administration Rewrite the protection according to the judgment. Some conservative groups have complained that the revised rules still protect too many wetlands and unfairly restrict private property rights.
Damien Schiff, a senior attorney at the Pacific Law Foundation who represented the Sacketts in court, said the latest proposal “represents a meaningful step toward providing relief to property owners who remain burdened by unjust and illegal Clean Water Act regulations.”
