Action Alert: OPPOSE the Proposed Rule Change for Waters of the United States
- Kathy Urffer
- 6 hours ago
- 3 min read
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of the Army have recently announced a proposed rule that would change the definition of "waters of the United States." Among other eliminations of protections, the proposed rule would significantly decrease wetland protection, exclude protections for rivers that only flow part of the year, and suggest that any artificial or natural break in flow (ex. a human made culvert or stormwater channel) cuts off upstream protection.
This rule change would reduce protections for wetlands, vernal pools, and other waterbodies with groundwater connections—all of which are abundant in the Connecticut River watershed and important for flood resiliency and aquatic habitat.
You can find the full text of the proposed rule, their press release, and other information on the EPA’s website here, and submit your public comment here. Read on for more details and a comment template.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The proposed change follows a 2023 Supreme Court decision (Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency) in which a key distinction from previous Clean Water Act language includes a new necessity for "continuous surface connection." Here’s the exact language from the Sackett v. EPA decision:
“We hold that the CWA extends to only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, so that they are ‘indistinguishable’ from those waters.”
These waterways are vital for a healthy watershed in the following ways:
Creating habitats for fish, amphibians, birds, and other wildlife
Replenishing groundwater that communities rely on
Absorbing floodwaters to reduce flood damage and erosion
Supporting diverse food chains important for fishing
Creating climate resilience by storing and releasing water
Filtering pollution to reduce pollutants in nearby rivers
Sequestering carbon
Supporting healthier forests and cleaner air
Providing ecosystem services that lead to economic benefits such as water treatment cost savings and increased property values
The Clean Water Act has already been amended by the Supreme Court’s decision, but any further weakening will create more significant negative consequences for clean water, healthy habitats, and communities. It may result in habitat destruction, more flooding, and increased costs for local communities. Some estimates highlight the potential loss of up to 80% of wetlands nationwide, stripping away some of the most effective natural infrastructure we have for preventing floods.
The EPA is accepting public comments through January 5th, 2026. The Connecticut River Conservancy will be submitting comments and encourage the public to do the same.
Your comment can help sway the EPA! Share your expertise, be specific, and share your personal story.
Please send your personalized version of the following message:
I am writing to express my strong OPPOSITION to the proposed rule change related to “Waters of the United States.” I urge the EPA to retain protections for our waterways and wetlands instead of eliminating them.
Robust clean water protections are critical to prevent industrial pollution and development from threatening the health and safety of people and wildlife. They also help to reduce the impact of flooding, which is becoming more frequent, severe, and expensive. After recent federal rollbacks, a strong definition of the “Waters of the United States” rule is even more essential for protecting wetlands and waterways, and they are incredibly popular across the country and here in [YOUR STATE] where we have abundant wetlands and other non-continuous surface connection waters.
[IF POSSIBLE, PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF A WATERWAY OR WETLAND THAT MAY BE PLACED AT RISK DUE TO THIS PROPOSED RULE]
Unfortunately, the EPA’s proposed rule favors polluters and fails to listen to Americans who are demanding strong water protections. The proposed rule fails to meet the needs of communities, ecosystems, and waterways across the United States.
Sincerely,
[SIGNER'S NAME]