September 04, 2026
Washington, D.C. – Today, the Trump administration’s EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a supplemental proposed rule, known as the “Waters of the U.S.”, that will restrict even further Clean Water Act protections for most streams and wetlands that are essential to keeping waterways in the Midwest clean and prevent flooding.
Statement by Nancy Stoner, ELPC Senior Attorney
“EPA and the U.S. Army Corps get it wrong again by re-proposing to further weaken one of the most important environmental and public health statutes in our nation’s history. Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 to protect waterways across the U.S. from pollution or destruction. EPA and the Corps don’t even pretend that their re-proposal will provide better protection for waterways that Americans recognize are critical to ensuring safe drinking water and a healthy U.S. economy.
“The EPA and Army Corps’ new proposal issued today makes one thing clear: the Trump administration wants to gut the Clean Water Act. Limiting the definition of waters of the United States to only “perennial” waters and wetlands would exclude the vast majority of streams and wetlands from its scope.
“The re-proposal reads as if the purpose of the Clean Water Act is to eliminate regulation. It isn’t. It’s about protecting waterways for swimming, fishing, drinking, irrigation, livestock watering, manufacturing, and a host of other essential uses. While it has not yet succeeded in its goal of making waters nationwide swimmable and fishable by 1983, 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. Waterways are cleaner thanks to the Clean Water Act establishing a system of protection that stopped pollution at its source before it reached the Mississippi or the Great Lakes.
“Today’s Re-Proposed Rule tears at the very foundation of that system by eliminating protection for the streams that feed the larger lakes and rivers and allowing the wetlands that filter out pollution and prevent flooding to be paved over. EPA can try to change the rules by eliminating protections that Congress decisively put in place, but it can’t change the underlying science. No matter what the Trump EPA says or does, water still flows downhill and pollution flows with it into rivers, lakes, and even worse, into the source waters for our drinking water.
“Unfortunately, EPA doesn’t know the value of water. This Re-proposed Rule, like so many others by the Trump EPA, would weaken the protections that Americans have relied upon for more than 50 years. 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, more costly and contaminated tap water, diminished wildlife and habitat, fewer fish, and the loss of the beauty of America’s wonderful water resources.
“The Great Lakes sustain a $6 trillion economy, contain more than 90% of North America’s supply of surface freshwater, and provide drinking water for more than 40 million people in the United States and Canada. All of North America’s waterfowl depend on wetlands, while half of the continent’s other migratory birds use them at some point during their annual life cycles. Ninety percent of fish caught by American recreational anglers need wetlands for shelter, food supply, spawning, and nursery areas. According to the National Park Service, between 60% and 90% of U.S. commercial fisheries depend on wetlands.
“EPA and the Army Corps once again propose a major narrowing of the scope of waters of the United States covered by the Clean Water Act without seriously acknowledging or analyzing any of these potential impacts, which merely scratch the surface of the critical values that would be harmed by the new proposal, if adopted.”