Trump EPA Making Another Major Move

The Trump administration is moving forward with a major rewrite of federal water regulations that could significantly reduce the number of wetlands subject to Clean Water Act protections, potentially changing the rules for farmers, landowners, developers and businesses across the country.

The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced Friday that they are seeking additional public input on how the federal government should define “waters of the United States,” better known as WOTUS.

It is a technical-sounding definition with major real-world consequences.

WOTUS determines which streams, rivers, wetlands and other waters fall under federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. That can determine whether a property owner or business needs a federal permit before certain construction, development or discharge activities can take place.

The Trump administration says the goal is to establish clearer limits on federal authority and provide greater certainty for Americans who own, farm or develop land.

Environmental organizations warn that the changes under consideration could substantially reduce federal protections for wetlands.

What Is the Trump Administration Changing?

At the center of the proposal is a deceptively simple question: What qualifies as a “relatively permanent” body of water?

The answer matters because of a 2023 Supreme Court decision that significantly limited the federal government’s authority over wetlands under the Clean Water Act.

Under a WOTUS proposal released in November 2025, federal regulators considered waters that flow year-round or throughout the wet season to be relatively permanent.

The EPA and Army are now seeking comments on an alternative that would focus on perennial waters — essentially waters with standing or continuously flowing water throughout the year under ordinary conditions.

The agencies are also considering an exception allowing certain temporary interruptions lasting no more than 30 consecutive days in a year.

Although the distinction may sound minor, it could have major consequences for wetlands and streams that routinely become dry during part of the year.

Why WOTUS Matters to Property Owners

The WOTUS debate has been especially important to farmers, ranchers, builders, manufacturers and other landowners.

When a water feature falls under federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction, certain activities can require federal permits.

Determining whether federal jurisdiction applies has therefore been a major issue for property owners and businesses for years.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin says the administration wants a definition that complies with federal law while ending regulatory uncertainty.

The administration has argued that clearer boundaries could make it easier for farmers, businesses and landowners to determine whether their property falls under federal jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Changed the Rules in 2023

The latest proposal cannot be understood without looking at the Supreme Court’s landmark Sackett v. EPA decision.

The 2023 ruling substantially narrowed the federal government’s ability to regulate certain wetlands.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Clean Water Act applies to relatively permanent bodies of water and that covered wetlands must have the required continuous surface connection to jurisdictional waters.

That decision forced federal regulators to reconsider how WOTUS should be defined.

The EPA and Army Corps have since been working to translate the Supreme Court’s ruling into regulations that can be applied nationwide.

Could 94% of U.S. Wetlands Lose Federal Protection?

Environmental advocates say the potential impact could be enormous.

Jon Devine, director of freshwater ecosystems at the Natural Resources Defense Council, estimated that the narrower approach could leave approximately 94% of U.S. wetlands outside federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

That number should be understood carefully.

The 94% figure is an estimate from an environmental advocacy organization, not an official EPA estimate.

Environmental groups argue that relatively few wetlands directly border waterways containing surface water every day of the year.

They warn that narrowing federal jurisdiction could leave many wetlands dependent primarily on state, tribal or local environmental laws.

Farmers Say Clearer Rules Are Needed

Agricultural organizations have long argued that uncertainty surrounding WOTUS creates problems for farmers and rural landowners.

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said the proposed approach could provide farmers with a clearer understanding of when federal jurisdiction applies.

That distinction can matter when farmers are deciding how land can be used and whether federal permits could be required.

The WOTUS issue has moved back and forth through presidential administrations, federal agencies and the courts, creating years of changing regulations.

For people whose livelihoods depend on land use, regulatory certainty can be nearly as important as the regulation itself.

Manufacturers Also Back Greater Certainty

The debate extends well beyond agriculture.

Manufacturers and other industries operating near waterways can also face Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

Brandon Farris, executive vice president of the Steel Manufacturers Association, said the administration’s approach could reduce what the industry describes as regulatory “whiplash.”

Businesses have argued that constantly changing definitions make long-term investments more difficult because projects considered permissible under one administration can face different regulatory requirements under another.

Does This Mean Wetlands Will Have No Protection?

No.

This is one of the most important distinctions in the WOTUS debate.

A wetland that falls outside federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction does not automatically become completely unregulated.

State, tribal and local governments can have their own environmental protections and water regulations.

As a result, what happens to a wetland excluded from federal WOTUS jurisdiction can depend heavily on where that property is located.

Some states have extensive environmental regulations of their own, while others rely more heavily on federal standards.

The proposal is therefore about the boundaries of federal Clean Water Act authority, rather than the elimination of every environmental regulation affecting a particular wetland.

Environmental Groups Warn of Consequences

Environmental organizations remain strongly opposed to narrowing federal jurisdiction.

Wetlands can provide several important environmental functions, including absorbing floodwaters, filtering pollutants and providing habitat for wildlife.

Critics worry that removing federal jurisdiction could make some wetlands more vulnerable to development or pollution, particularly in states without comparable protections.

Supporters of a narrower WOTUS definition counter that the federal government must operate within the limits imposed by Congress and the Supreme Court, leaving states to regulate waters outside Washington’s jurisdiction.

That disagreement lies at the heart of the decades-long WOTUS battle.

Why This Fight Has Lasted for Years

Few environmental regulations have produced as much political and legal conflict as WOTUS.

Different presidential administrations have repeatedly attempted to redefine the government’s Clean Water Act authority.

The debate involves two competing concerns: protecting the nation’s water resources and establishing clear limits on federal authority over private property.

Farmers and business groups have often pushed for simpler and narrower federal rules.

Environmental organizations have generally favored broader protections because smaller streams and wetlands can be connected to larger water systems.

The Supreme Court’s Sackett ruling established important limits, but the federal government must still determine how those limits should work in practice.

What Happens Next?

The changes are not yet final.

The EPA and Army Corps are issuing a supplemental proposed rule and asking the public for additional feedback.

Once the supplemental proposal is officially published in the Federal Register, a 30-day public comment period will begin.

Federal regulators will review those comments before deciding what should appear in the final WOTUS regulation.

That means farmers, environmental organizations, businesses, states, tribes, property owners and members of the public will have another opportunity to weigh in before the administration completes the rulemaking process.

The Bottom Line

The Trump administration is considering a significant narrowing of how the federal government determines which waterways and wetlands receive Clean Water Act protection.

For farmers, ranchers, landowners and businesses, the change could mean clearer boundaries around when federal permits are required.

For environmental advocates, the concern is that a narrower definition could leave a substantial share of America’s wetlands outside federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

The key point is that no final rule has been adopted yet.

The upcoming public-comment period will be the next major step as the EPA and Army Corps determine how far federal water jurisdiction should extend following the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision.