"Waters of the United States": Tell Federal Agencies Not to Further Roll Back Protections for Our Waters!

"Waters of the United States" Definition: Government's Post-Sackett Request for Recommendations

In March 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers announced they plan to revise the definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS). This definition determines which types of waters are regulated under the Clean Water Act and, following the passage of Senate Bill 89, has significant implications for Kentucky. SB89 redefined "waters of the Commonwealth" to limit protections against pollution to only those waters that are defined as “navigable” under the federal Clean Water Act, with few exceptions. Therefore, any changes to the definition of WOTUS will also change which waters are protected as “waters of the Commonwealth.”

The EPA and Army Corps are gathering input on the WOTUS definition from various stakeholders through a 30-day public comment period (which ends April 23, 2025) and a series of six listening sessions (to be held in late April and early May). They are asking for comments on a variety of potential changes to the regulations the prior administration issued following the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA. The comment period and listening sessions will almost certainly be followed by a rule which interprets Sackett to exclude many more wetlands and other waters than the current rules do (which is already a lot, because the existing rules follow the Sackett ruling, and Sackett was a huge rollback by itself). 

What this means for Kentucky is that even fewer waters will have protections! According to EPA, about 65% of all Kentucky's streams and rivers are ephemeral or intermittent and 54% of streams providing water for surface water intakes that supply public drinking water systems are intermittent, ephemeral, or headwater streams. Although protections for most ephemeral streams were removed based on the Sackett decision, more intermittent streams have remained protected under the “relatively permanent” test. Further narrowing the definition of WOTUS so that fewer of these streams and wetlands receive protections was one of the main goals identified in Project 2025. Kentucky’s drinking water and river systems, which rely on intermittent and ephemeral streams, will undoubtedly be impacted.

Learn more here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0093-0001

What YOU can do: submit a public comment!

Go to Regulations.gov and submit your comment:  https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0093-0001

Suggested message: I am writing to ask that you to not take any action to further weaken the definition of “Waters of the United States.” The current WOTUS rule complies with the Sackett decision and further clarification is not necessary. The costs of any further, unnecessary rollbacks will be borne by the public in the form of less safe drinking water, increased flooding, and further loss of protections for waters that sustain our communities, farms, and ecosystems.

Make it personal and feel free to include some of the talking points below:

Benefits of waters and wetlands

• Wetlands and streams are valuable resources that provide essential fish and wildlife habitats, store carbon, prevent flooding, filter out harmful pollution and protect clean drinking water.
• Science is clear: wetlands and streams of all kinds greatly influence water quality in downstream waters, including drinking water sources. 
• Pollution flows downstream.  Major rivers and lakes cannot be effectively protected from pollution if the small streams that flow into them are unprotected. Wetlands are the kidneys of the watershed, filtering out pollution.
• Polluters are pushing to further undermine protections for wetlands that directly abut other water bodies if they don’t have surface water connections or if they might otherwise be “distinguishable” from the adjacent water. They’re also claiming that seasonal streams can’t be protected unless they flow for huge stretches of the year (ranging from 6 to 9+ months). These kinds of arbitrary conditions have nothing to do with how wetlands and streams function in the real world.

Support for strong public protections for water

• The goals of the Clean Water Act are broadly supported by the public. Ninety-four percent of Americans say that protecting the water in our nation’s lakes, streams, and rivers is important.
• EPA’s notice indicates a plan to adopt a weaker interpretation of the Clean Water Act than required by the Supreme Court. Such an interpretation will allow pollution to flow into rivers, lakes and coastal waters whenever the unprotected waterway is connected to the downstream water.
• The vast majority of people across the country value clean, safe water and have no interest in more pollution in their water.  

This is yet another giveaway to corporate polluters and reckless developers

• The Biden Administration already released a final rule to conform with the Sackett v. EPA decision, and there is no need to give more handouts to polluters.
• The administration has already broken its promise to protect clean water and against EPA’s mission to protect the environment and public health. Further cuts to EPA funding and staff will mean less protections for clean water.
• Don’t place corporate polluters above public health. 

The Impacts of Weaker Protections

• If this administration further weakens protections for clean water, everyone will be faced with increased threats from pollution to clean, safe, reliable drinking water and public health. In addition to more contamination, we will also see worsened flooding and more severe drought, because of increased reckless development.  
• These proposals will lead to the further destruction of wetlands and waterways increasing the threat of flooding and damage to our communities. Weakened rules would also threaten already-limited water supplies on which communities rely for drinking water, irrigation, farming, businesses, and more.
• More pollution will increase costs for local water treatment and raise families’ water bills.
• Communities which face severe impacts from rainstorms, hurricanes, and other floods will have even less natural protection from increasingly dangerous weather.