Wildlife Society opposes supplemental US waters proposal

The story in brief

What you need to know

• TWS’s comments oppose the supplemental proposal and call for the agencies to retain the 2023 WOTUS definition. The group argues that the proposal would narrow federal protections for wetlands and streams beyond what the Supreme Court required in Sackett v. EPA. This is TWS’s assessment of the proposal, not a settled outcome of the rulemaking.3
• The agencies describe the rulemaking as an effort to clarify which waters fall within federal jurisdiction and to make regulation more predictable. They anticipate that a narrower scope would mean fewer Clean Water Act permits and lower regulatory costs.1
• The supplemental proposal follows the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision and an earlier agency proposal in November 2025. The rulemaking concerns the scope of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over waters and wetlands; it has not yet produced a final definition.2
• Intermittent streams are among the aquatic systems TWS identifies as potentially affected by the proposal’s criteria. The available reporting does not establish how any final criteria would apply to particular streams or wetlands.3
• The public comment deadline has passed, but the agencies have yet to adopt a final definition. Their stated aims of regulatory clarity and lower permitting burdens differ from TWS’s concern about the reach of federal protections.13

Conservation context

Why this matters

The definition determines which waters and wetlands fall within the scope of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The proposed direction and TWS’s response therefore raise questions about the future extent of federal coverage, but the reporting does not establish what ecological effects would follow from any change.13

The developing story

What happens next

The agencies will consider the submitted comments as they work towards a final rule. The final definition, including how its criteria will apply to intermittent streams and wetlands, remains unresolved.12

Established evidence

What we know

• The supplemental proposal concerns the federal definition of WOTUS under the Clean Water Act.12
• TWS submitted comments on 9 October 2026, opposing the proposal and urging the agencies to retain the 2023 definition.3
• The proposal is supplemental and is not a final rule; the comment deadline has passed.23

Open questions

What we don't know

• What final definition the agencies will adopt after considering comments.12
• How any final criteria would affect federal jurisdiction over intermittent streams and wetlands in practice.3
• How much state and Tribal protections would cover waters outside federal jurisdiction under a narrower definition.23
• What ecological effects, if any, changes in federal coverage would have, or how those effects would compare with the agencies’ projected cost savings.13

Source coverage

Read the reporting