Environmental and public health organizations are sounding alarms over the Trump administration’s newly proposed rewrite of the Waters of the United States rule, arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency is advancing one of the most far reaching reversals of water protections in decades. The rule, introduced by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, would sharply restrict federal authority under the Clean Water Act by confining jurisdiction to water bodies that are permanently standing or continuously flowing. Wetlands without direct surface connections to those waters would lose federal protections that they have held for more than half a century.
Environmental justice campaigners said the proposal was “a gift to developers and polluters at the expense of communities” and accused the administration of weakening protections for the waterways that support drinking water systems, wildlife habitat, and climate resilience. Betsy Southerland, former director of the Office of Science and Technology in the EPA’s Office of Water, said the shift undermines the most basic expectations of public health. “Clean water protections shouldn’t change with each administration,” she said. “Every family deserves the same right to safe water, no matter where they live or who’s in office.”
The proposal arrives in the wake of the 2023 Supreme Court decision Sackett v. EPA, which significantly curtailed the agency’s ability to regulate wetlands. The Natural Resources Defense Council found earlier this year that the decision would remove federal protections from “60-95% of wetlands across the nation.” Under the new Trump EPA proposal, federal oversight would extend only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water, such as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes, along with wetlands that are directly connected to such bodies of water,” according to the agency’s announcement. Critics say this goes beyond the limits set by the Court and represents a broader rollback of Clean Water Act authority.
The Environmental Protection Network said the Zeldin rule “would eliminate protections for most wetlands without visible surface water,” describing the proposal as going “even further than Sackett v. EPA in codifying a narrower definition of wetlands.” Because these wetlands are often critical to flood control, groundwater replenishment, and pollution filtration, advocates say the effects could be felt across entire watersheds. They warn that states with limited regulatory capacity may not be able to compensate for the loss of federal oversight.
Zeldin framed the proposal as a long overdue response to what he called excessive regulation under previous administrations. At a news conference in Washington, he said the rule will “fully implement the direction provided by the Supreme Court in a case known as Sackett v. EPA.” He argued that the EPA is crafting a “clear, simple, prescriptive rule that will stand the test of time” and maintained that Democratic administrations “weaponized the definition of navigable waters to seize more power from American farmers, landowners and families.” Asked why he was confident the new rule would endure, he gave a one word answer: “Sackett.”
Still, environmental groups say the proposal lacks the scientific grounding needed to protect water resources in a period of intensifying climate impacts. Southerland said the rule “ignores decades of science showing that wetlands and intermittent streams are essential to maintaining the health of our rivers, lakes, and drinking water supplies.” She called it “one of the most significant setbacks to clean water protections in half a century” and described it as “a direct assault on the clean water Americans rely on.”
Advocates emphasize that wetlands play vital roles in public safety and water quality. Wetlands absorb floodwaters, trap pollution, recharge aquifers, and create habitat for fish and wildlife. As climate driven storms and extreme rainfall events become more common, groups argue that removing protections from wetlands will heighten risks for communities nationwide.
Tarah Heinzen, legal director for Food and Water Watch, said the rule “weakens the bedrock Clean Water Act, making it easier to fill, drain, and pollute sensitive waterways from coast to coast.” She said “Clean water is under attack in America, as polluting profiteers plunder our waters Trump’s EPA is openly aiding and abetting this destruction.” Heinzen warned that the rule “flies in the face of science and commonsense” and that removing protections for small streams and wetlands will result in “more pollution downstream in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our rivers.” She also stressed that the “critical functions” of wetlands “will only become more important as worsening climate change makes extreme weather more frequent. EPA must reverse course.”
Other environmental organizations echoed these warnings. Leda Huta, vice president of government relations for American Rivers, said the proposal “will likely make things worse for flood-prone communities and industries dependent on clean, reliable water.” She said the rule is “unnecessary and damaging, and ignores the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply.” Huta added that “The EPA is taking a big swipe at the Clean Water Act, our greatest tool for ensuring clean water nationwide.”
J. W. Glass, a policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said “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.” He warned that “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.”
Andrew Wetzler, senior vice president at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rule attempts to “disown its legal obligation to protect our drinking water and our communities.” He said “Wetlands are nature’s safeguard against flooding, and stripping away protections for them puts millions of people in harm’s way.”
Industry groups have embraced the EPA’s proposal. The National Association of Manufacturers said the narrower definition would help companies whose “ability to invest and build across the country” has been “undermined” by broader interpretations of the rule under the Obama and Biden administrations. Damien Schiff, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation who represented the Sacketts, said the proposal “represents a meaningful step toward relief for property owners still burdened by unjustified and illegal Clean Water Act regulations.”
Earthjustice indicated it is preparing for potential litigation. Drew Caputo, the group’s vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans, said the organization was reviewing the proposal and would “not hesitate to go to court to protect the cherished rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands that all Americans need and depend on.” He said, “The proposal avoids specifying the exact scale of the deregulation it proposes, but it clearly would result in a serious reduction in legal protections for waters across the United States.” Caputo warned that “Many waters that have been protected by the Clean Water Act for over 50 years would lose those protections under this proposal.”
The rule will undergo a public comment period of at least 45 days before it can be finalized. As the debate unfolds, the long term implications of the rollback remain uncertain, particularly for states that lack the regulatory infrastructure to manage water quality on their own. Advocates warn that communities in flood prone, drought prone, and industrially burdened regions will be the first to feel the effects.
Southerland’s call for consistent national protections underscores the broader frustration among environmental groups that have watched water rules swing from one administration to the next. “Clean water protections shouldn’t change with each administration,” she said. “Every family deserves the same right to safe water, no matter where they live or who’s in office.”
COMMENTS