January 05, 2026

Safe Waters of the United States Are Critical to All

More than 80% of wetlands and at least 5 million miles of streams would lose federal protection

By Nancy Stoner, Senior Attorney

updated on 1/5/26

Last fall, the Trump EPA and Army Corps of Engineers proposed a new regulation to change the definition of which “Waters of the United States” will be protected under the Clean Water Act. This change would threaten rivers, lakes, and wetlands that have enjoyed federal protection since 1972. Water knows no boundaries; it is not constrained within state lines and pollution flows from small streams downstream into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, so giving free reign to polluters across the country puts us all at risk. I testified in opposition to the new regulation on December 16, 2025, in defense of clean water and the health of the American people. We also submitted official comments to EPA. Here are some highlights:

Read Full Testimony

Read Full Comments

It Rejects American Interests

The Clean Water Act is one of the nation’s most effective statutes for ensuring that Americans have safe, clean water to drink, to swim in, to fish, and to enjoy. The nation’s waters, including the Great Lakes, have dramatically improved since 1972. The Clean Water Act is also one of the most popular laws in the US. In poll after poll, 90% of Americans or more want more protection for US rivers, lakes, and wetlands, not less!

It Squanders Precious Resources

Under the proposed rule, including EPA’s and the Corps’ proposed interpretation of a recent Supreme Court decision, more than 80% of wetlands in the contiguous United States and at least 5 million miles of streams would lose federal protection. Such a sweeping rollback is inconsistent with decades of scientific evidence demonstrating the essential roles that streams and wetlands play in maintaining water quality, recharging groundwater, reducing flooding, supporting wildlife, and sustaining communities. The result will be more pollution, more flooding, most costly and contaminated tap water, fewer ducks, fewer fish to catch, and the loss of the beauty of America’s wonderful water resources.

Since this proposal is being put forth by US EPA and the Army Corps, agencies charged with protecting the waters of the United States, you might think that it is designed to provide better protection to our nation’s waters. But it isn’t. It is designed to make it easier and cheaper for polluters to pollute.

“more than 80% of wetlands and at least 5 million miles of streams would lose federal protection”

And if it weren’t already clear that it was written with the interests of polluters in mind – not the interests of the American public – the proposal makes that even clearer by calculating the cost savings to polluters as the justification for the proposed rule and not even attempting to determine how the rule will adversely impact the public.

It Ignores Costs and Harms to the Public

You read that right. The proposal does not answer any of these questions:

• How will this proposal affect the safety of tap water?
• How will it affect water quality at America’s beaches?
• How will it affect the safety of eating fish caught in America’s rivers?
• How will it affect flooding in America’s cities, towns, and rural communities?
• How will it affect the availability of clean irrigation water for America’s farmers?
• How will it affect the number of waterfowl in America’s wetlands?
• How will it affect the availability of safe well water for Americans to drink?

Americans don’t want less protection for their wetlands, rivers, and lakes, and didn’t vote for more water pollution or for EPA or the Corps to stop doing their jobs. EPA and the Corps should withdraw this proposed rule now.