Clean Water Rule
The rule was published in response to concerns about lack of clarity over the act's scope from legislators at multiple levels, industry members, researchers and other science professionals, activists, and citizens.
[7][8] USACE and EPA published a revised definition of WOTUS on January 18, 2023, restoring the pre-2015 regulations on the scope of federal jurisdiction over waterways, effective March 20, 2023.
After analysis, the EPA and Department of the Army found that higher instance of water coverage would produce a 2:1 ratio of benefits to costs in implementation after the final rule.
Waters used in normal agricultural, ranching, or silvicultural activities, as well as certain defined ditches, prior converted cropland, and waste treatment systems continue to be excluded.
[17] Rapanos v. United States resulted in a 2006 Supreme Court decision with five justices concurring to vacate rulings against the defendants, but issuing three distinctly differing opinions leaving uncertain which of the described tests defined the limit of the federal authority to regulate wetlands.
Following the SWANCC ruling, the EPA (then under the George W. Bush administration) issued guidelines in 2003 restricting regulatory review of some 20 million acres of isolated wetlands and gave advance notice of proposed rulemaking which would substantially narrow the scope of WOTUS and weaken CWA protections.
[19][20] After strong opposition from Congress the planned legislation was abandoned, to the relief of environmental advocates and disappointment of land development groups who sought a reduction in federal wetlands protection.
[20] The lack of a majority opinion in the 2006 Rapanos case prompted a second set of EPA guidelines directing the agency to determine wetlands protection on a case-by-case basis.
In contrast to the manner in which the 2003 and 2007 guidelines were issued, the EPA and the USACE conducted peer-reviewed hydrological studies, interagency reviews, and economic analyses before publishing a formal proposed rule on April 21, 2014.
[1] EPA had stated that the 2015 rule created no additional burden for stakeholders working in agriculture since there was no change to the exemptions for activities necessary to forestry, ranching, or farming.
One U.S. water news organization stressed that, while the rule was an update to the CWA, there is still a need for more regulation since more than half of the nation's streams and rivers do not meet standards and most pollution issues come from nonpoint sources, such as agricultural runoff.
"[25] The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water expressed, in its comment on the rule, the need to "strengthen the categorical protections" to wetlands, to minimize flooding and support pollution remediation.
[27] A separate, revised interpretive rule to the Clean Water Act, section 518, determined tribal lands should be treated as states and was made effective in May 2016.
[31] The Clean Water Rule was part of a larger mobilization by the Obama administration to ingrain the presidency with an environmental legacy, which Republicans have viewed as an “over-reach” of executive power.
[31] Some state and local governments also consider the Clean Water Rule an unconstitutional over-reach violating federalism principles and due process provisions outlined in the 10th and 14th amendments respectively.
[35] On February 22, 2017, the Business Roundtable provided a list of federal regulations to the Trump administration which it wished to have reviewed for repeal or major reform; the Clean Water Rule was among the "wishlist" of sixteen.
[41] On February 28, 2017 Trump signed an executive order directing EPA to review the Clean Water Rule for conflicts with his economic growth agenda.
"[7][8] In June 2021 the administration of President Joe Biden described "significant environmental degradation" from hundreds of recently-initiated development projects that were not subject to regulatory approval because of the 2019 repeal.
