The Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday it is seeking additional public comments as it works to redefine the scope of the Clean Water Act's protected waters, a move that would significantly limit federal jurisdiction over wetlands across the country.

The request for new input comes nearly a year after the agency initially proposed a rule defining "waters of the United States," or WOTUS, based on a 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA. That decision removed federal protections from vast areas of wetlands and isolated waters. The latest proposal is described as a "supplemental" rule that will help EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluate a wider range of options before issuing a final regulation.

What the Right Is Saying

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the rule will provide greater predictability for landowners, farmers, ranchers, energy producers, developers, and small businesses while still protecting water quality. "The EPA's goal is a durable WOTUS definition that follows the law and ends burdensome regulatory uncertainty," Zeldin said in a statement.

Administration officials argue the proposal strikes an appropriate balance between federal and state authority over waterways. The rule will focus on relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water such as streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands directly connected to those waters. EPA says lands removed from federal jurisdiction will still face regulation from states and tribes.

Supporters say the supplemental notice process reflects "continued commitment to transparency and public input," giving stakeholders a fuller opportunity to weigh in on policy options before a final rule is issued.

What the Left Is Saying

Environmental advocates say the proposed rule represents a significant retreat from Clean Water Act protections that have been in place for decades. J.W. Glass, a policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the proposal would "wipe out life-sustaining waterways in every corner of the nation." Glass argued that removing federal protections will leave vast stretches of wetlands and other low-lying areas vulnerable to storm surges driven by climate change.

Jon Devine, director of freshwater ecosystems at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the proposal "open season" on the nation's waterways. He said it would "virtually eliminate protection for freshwater wetlands," with especially severe consequences for the western United States where isolated wetlands are common.

Environmental groups argue that state regulations alone cannot replace the consistency and enforcement capacity of federal protections under the Clean Water Act.

What the Numbers Show

The 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA sharply limited federal authority over water pollution in certain wetlands, siding with Michael and Chantell Sackett, an Idaho couple who challenged EPA orders regarding their property near a lake.

EPA and the Army Corps have already received more than 220,000 comments on the initial proposal from a wide range of stakeholders. The agencies plan to accept public comments for 30 days once the supplemental notice is published in the Federal Register, expected within the next week.

The agencies have held three public meetings on the proposed rule. The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 and has been litigated repeatedly since then, reaching the Supreme Court twice before the Sackett decision, including a landmark 2006 ruling that also narrowed federal water jurisdiction.

The Bottom Line

EPA is seeking additional input as it works toward a final WOTUS rule implementing the Supreme Court's 2023 decision. The agency says the supplemental notice will help evaluate a wider range of policy options before issuing a final regulation.

The proposal is part of what EPA Administrator Zeldin calls a concerted effort to accelerate economic prosperity while rolling back environmental regulations. Once finalized, the rule will determine which wetlands and isolated waters fall under federal Clean Water Act protections versus state or tribal jurisdiction.

Environmental advocates are expected to continue challenging any final rule in court, setting up another potential Supreme Court case on the scope of federal water regulation.