Comment on Wetlands Protections by January 5th

[Big Fin]

Many of you might have read the Outdoor Life article as to why the proposal to redefine "The Waters of the United States" is so important. If you haven't, here is a link - https://www.outdoorlife.com/opinion/epa-rule-change-disastrous-for-fish-wildlife/

Summary being, the Administration is working to change the Definition of what waters are covered under the Clean Water Act. For decades, wetlands were covered under this definition. That process slowed the conversion of wetlands to agriculture and development, though still allowed enough variance that wetland losses have continue, just at a slower pace.

The effort to change these wetlands protections is being done under the campaign of Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, an Executive Order signed by POTUS. As is normally the case when industry pushes for change, it is not rational common sense changes that get proposed, rather a complete shift to the opposite end of the spectrum.

I'm all about getting rid of extraneous regulations, but when we are talking about water, a vital resource that moves and flows, a resource where entire communities can be impacted when water flows through a property, I'm not on board with fewer protections.

We have already lost the majority of wetlands in this country. I hope hunters are interested in conserving what we have left.

If you take the time to comment, the Corps of Engineers is taking comments at this link until January 5th - https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/COE_FRDOC_0001-1000

 

[Dougfirtree]

Done. Thanks for throwing up the link, Randy. All I want for Christmas is a political/financial system that recognizes that most people, regardless of politics, want clean water, clean air, public lands and strong populations of wildlife!

 

[SAJ-99]

Comment submitted. Thanks Randy.

 

[mukbowhunt]

Submitted.

 

[Gellar]

Wetlands are such a vital component of nature’s filtration system anyone who drinks water or uses water in any way should be all in on saving wetlands.

 

[Bambistew]

The Sackett decision is the primary catalyst for recent changes in wetland and WOTUS interpretation, not a policy agenda driven by Trump. The U.S. Supreme Court significantly narrowed the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, which in turn requires the Corps and other agencies to adjust their regulatory approach. I'm not siding with one side or the other here, just stating the SCOTUS decision is driving the bus and has been since 2023.

The definition of wetlands and Waters of the United States has been unclear and inconsistently applied for decades. Recent efforts to revise or clarify that definition do not appear likely to resolve this longstanding uncertainty and may further complicate implementation and enforcement.

Additionally, the statement in the referenced Outdoor Life article is inaccurate, along with the other hyperbole linked to acid drainage. The link has nothing to do with Sackett and defining wetlands. The article attributes observed discoloration in remote Alaskan streams to “mining contaminants” released from thawing permafrost.These are not mining related contaminants, rather naturally occurring minerals that have accumulated in permafrost over thousands of years and are being mobilized as permafrost degrades exacerbated by unusually wet conditions (may be transitioning into a new "normal," for this region, or not).

Send in a comment, but make sure it has a well defined purpose and not an opinion. They're just going through the motions, and its highly unlikely that any comment will change their view. Its been to the SCOTUS after all...

 

[Bonasababy]

The Sackett decision is the primary catalyst for recent changes in wetland and WOTUS interpretation, not a policy agenda driven by Trump. The U.S. Supreme Court significantly narrowed the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, which in turn requires the Corps and other agencies to adjust their regulatory approach. I'm not siding with one side or the other here, just stating the SCOTUS decision is driving the bus and has been since 2023.

The definition of wetlands and Waters of the United States has been unclear and inconsistently applied for decades. Recent efforts to revise or clarify that definition do not appear likely to resolve this longstanding uncertainty and may further complicate implementation and enforcement.

Additionally, the statement in the referenced Outdoor Life article is inaccurate, along with the other hyperbole linked to acid drainage. The link has nothing to do with Sackett and defining wetlands. The article attributes observed discoloration in remote Alaskan streams to “mining contaminants” released from thawing permafrost.These are not mining related contaminants, rather naturally occurring minerals that have accumulated in permafrost over thousands of years and are being mobilized as permafrost degrades exacerbated by unusually wet conditions (may be transitioning into a new "normal," for this region, or not).

Send in a comment, but make sure it has a well defined purpose and not an opinion. They're just going through the motions, and its highly unlikely that any comment will change their view. Its been to the SCOTUS after all...

But...the Sackett decision...if I recall correctly...was cherry picked and supported by monied interests that had the result they achieved in mind.

Just like the Heller case.

IMO...there is significant value...if enough comment...even if the comments dont change much.

The folks behind this won't change their minds...but like the land sale issue a large showing can have an impact politically, esp. in an election year.

 

[Bullshot]

It's worthwhile to knowledgeably comment (see my next post on summary) but there is nothing stopping a state or often even a county or municipality from regulating wetlands more strictly than the fed govt, and would be a potentially far more effective use of time and money lobbying for increased protections than WOTUS could provide. Every few years, the ACOE definitions and courts mess up the definition and thus protections from federal perspective, particularly isolated wetlands or intermittent streams. Don't rely on these ever shifting federal protections, move your own states to assume additional protection of wetlands and waters within their boundaries - other states already have, and offer far more protection, buffers, riparian areas, wildlife habitat, etc than feds do even in best case.

 

[Bullshot]

From SWS:


To Society of Wetland Scientists Members,

This memo is a summary of the United States proposed rule revising the regulations defining the scope of waters covered under the federal Clean Water Act.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of the Army announced proposed changes to the definition of waters of the United States (WOTUS) on November 17, 2025. The proposed rule is intended to be in line with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision and is expected to significantly limit federal jurisdiction over wetlands and streams.

Important changes include definitions to “relatively permanent” water bodies and “continuous surface connection” that were included, but not well defined, in the Sackett decision. Specifically, the following are proposed:

• Define “relatively permanent” to ensure the Sackett decision is fully implemented. The term focuses on those waters that are standing or continuously flowing year-round or at least during the wet season. The proposed definition would only include waters that flow during the “wet season” and could exclude all ephemeral streams and likely exclude many intermittent streams.
• Define the term “tributary” to ensure only inclusion of bodies of water with relatively permanent flow and defined bed and banks that connect to a downstream traditional navigable water either directly or through one or more waters or features that convey relatively permanent flow.
• Define “continuous surface connection” to fully implement the Sackettdecision. The proposed definition would require wetlands to meet a two-part test to be considered jurisdictional: 1) they must abut a jurisdictional water and 2) they must have surface water at a minimum during the wet season.
• Remove “interstate waters” from the categories of jurisdictional waters to ensure that such waters are no longer considered jurisdictional just by crossing a state line.
• The proposed regulation also intends to exempt from regulation “ditches (including roadside ditches) constructed or excavated entirely in dry land.”
• Clarify what constitutes “prior converted cropland” so that such farmland only loses its designation if it is abandoned and “has reverted to wetlands”. This provides additional clarification on abandonment to help agricultural producers implementing good farming practices.
• Better define what constitutes “excluded waste treatment systems” to ensure systems are not excluded improperly.
• Emphasize that groundwater is not considered WOTUS.

The new regulation, as proposed, would likely limit jurisdiction to only those waterways with relatively permanent flow, connected to traditional navigable waters (and territorial seas) by waterbodies that also “convey relatively permanent flow.” The proposed regulation specifies that “a tributary does not include a body of water that contributes surface water flow to a downstream jurisdictional water through a feature such as a channelized non-jurisdictional surface water feature, subterranean river, culvert, dam, tunnel or similar artificial feature, or through a debris pile, boulder field, wetland, or similar natural feature, if such feature does not convey relatively permanent flow”. Wetlands are only regulated if touching such regulated waterbodies and have “continuous surface connection”.

The revised definition could significantly limit the federal jurisdiction of streams and wetlands. The “wet season” varies widely geographically and could require additional field work and extended monitoring to verify whether a stream or wetland has water during the full “wet season”. Additionally, large wetland systems having both surface inundation (ponding) and subsurface saturation would need to be further divided during field efforts to determine what portions of a wetland fall under federal jurisdiction’s “continuous surface connection” and what do not meet that criteria.

We expect that more reliance on wetland and stream protection will fall on the states to regulate aquatic resources within their boundaries. A 45-day public comment period started on November 20, 2025, and will conclude on January 5, 2026. A final rule will likely be published in early to mid-2026. SWS’ Public Policy and Regulation Section is evaluating submitting a comment letter. For additional information, or if you want to assist with the potential preparation of the comment letter, please reach out to John Lowenthal, president of the Public Policy and Regulation Section at [email protected].



Sincerely,


Becky Pierce

SWS President
&
John Lowenthal

Public Policy & Regulation Section President