EPA rule would drastically curb protections for wetlands
- The San Juan Daily Star
- 1 hour ago
- 4 min read
By MAXINE JOSELOW
The Trump administration proposed earlier this week to significantly limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to limit pollution in wetlands, rivers and other bodies of water across the country.
The proposed rule could strip federal protections from millions of acres of wetlands and streams, potentially threatening sources of clean drinking water for millions of Americans. It was a victory for a range of business interests that have lobbied to scale back the Clean Water Act of 1972, including farmers, homebuilders, real estate developers, oil drillers and petrochemical manufacturers.
“I know that across the country, news of today’s proposal is going to be met with a lot of relief from farmers, ranchers, other landowners and governments,” said Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, during an event at the agency’s headquarters in Washington featuring Republican members of Congress and industry executives.
Under the Clean Water Act, companies and individuals must obtain a permit from the EPA before releasing pollutants into the nation’s waterways. They must receive a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before discharging any dredged or fill material, such as sand, silt or construction debris.
A 2023 Supreme Court decision had set the stage for the EPA’s action by curtailing the agency’s power to police millions of acres of wetlands. In the majority opinion in Sackett v. EPA, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Clean Water Act allowed the agency to regulate only wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to a “relatively permanent” body of water.
But Alito did not explicitly define a “relatively permanent” body of water. Now, the Trump administration is describing it as a body of water that flows either year-round or during the “wet season.”
The new definition would exclude wetlands that abut or touch many intermittent streams, which do not flow during dry periods. It also could exclude ephemeral streams, which sit dry for much of the year and fill up only after rainfall or snowmelt.
These changes could strip federal protections from up to 55 million acres of wetlands, or about 85% of all wetlands nationwide, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.
“The administration is preparing to rip away protections from the vast majority of wetlands in the United States, which are the waters that protect our communities from floods, help filter drinking water and provide habitat for millions of birds and fish,” said Andrew Wetzler, senior vice president for nature at NRDC.
Ephemeral streams can be small, but a recent study found that they provided about 55% of the water flowing through most river systems used in drinking water supplies.
“This rule will mean more unsafe drinking water and more expensive water treatment costs for taxpayers,” said Jim Murphy, senior director of legal advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation, a conservation group.
The National Association of Home Builders, an industry trade group, praised the Trump administration’s proposal, saying it would slash costs for builders and developers, potentially lowering the price of new homes. “This is a significant step toward reducing regulatory red tape, cutting permitting costs and lowering the cost of doing business in communities across the country — all while continuing to protect our nation’s vital waterways,” Buddy Hughes, chair of the association, said in a statement.
Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., who chairs the House Committee on Natural Resources, said the proposal would help fix a “broken” permitting process in the United States. “We’re losing our ability to build things here in America,” he said at the EPA event.
Ever since Congress passed the Clean Water Act to protect all “waters of the United States,” policymakers in Washington have been squabbling over how, exactly, to define those bodies of water.
In 2015, the Obama administration widened the law’s scope to cover smaller streams and headwaters. Several Republican-led states challenged the rule in court as an example of regulatory overreach, leading a federal judge to pause its implementation.
During Trump’s first term, the EPA repealed the Obama-era rule and issued a weaker version. Then in 2023 the Supreme Court ruled in Sackett v. EPA, dealing a setback to the Biden administration’s efforts to again strengthen the regulation.
The Sackett case concerned an Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, who sought to build a house on what an appeals court called “a soggy residential lot” near a lake. The EPA determined that there were wetlands on the property, and it ordered the couple to stop construction or risk paying fines of more than $40,000 per day.
The Sacketts, represented by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, sued. The case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that the couple’s 0.63-acre lot — and other properties like it nationwide — was not subject to federal oversight.
“This proposed rule is significant not just for small landowners like the Sacketts, but for all sectors of the regulated community, whether it’s agriculture or home construction or industrial development,” said Damien Schiff, a senior attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
After the proposal is published in the Federal Register, the EPA will solicit public comment for 45 days before finalizing the rule.
Comments