What The Clean Water Act Does
The Clean Water Act is a federal law from 1972 focused on reducing water pollution. It requires the EPA to set pollution limits, establish water quality standards, and manage permitting for facilities that discharge waste into waterways. It also requires states to run plans for measuring and maintaining water quality.
Under the act, it is illegal to discharge pollutants from a point source into waters of the United States without an EPA permit. A point source is any distinct outlet that releases pollutants. This includes intentional discharge sites like pipes and ditches, and also unintentional sources such as sewage overflows and leaks.
Many industries rely on facilities that count as point source dischargers. Examples include oil and gas companies, home builders, mining operations, and factory farms. Factory farms are described as the largest source of water pollution in the country.
Why WOTUS Definitions Matter
Because the Clean Water Act does not define “waters of the United States,” administrations and courts have reshaped the meaning over time. The definition controls which waterways fall under federal pollution limits and permitting rules.
A key recent shift came from the Supreme Court case Sackett v. EPA. The Court ruled that the act applies to streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes. Other waters, including wetlands, receive protection only if they have continuous or standing flow or a surface connection to those waters, or if they significantly affect the integrity of downstream navigable, interstate, or territorial waters. The EPA revised its WOTUS definition in 2023 to match that ruling.
The new Trump administration proposal would replace the 2023 regulation and narrow protections further. It also adds stricter requirements for some waterways, including streams, to qualify for coverage.
What The Proposed Rule Changes
The regulation is described as technically complex and 49 pages long. In practice, it tightens what counts as WOTUS and therefore what receives Clean Water Act protection.
One major element is the introduction of a “wet season” standard. Under this approach, many waterways would qualify only if they flow continuously during the wet season. Haley Gentry of the Tulane Institute on Water Resources Law and Policy notes that “wet season” is not a defined legal term and varies widely across regions and even within the same region. She also points out that precipitation and drought patterns shift year to year, which makes a single national definition difficult.
Royal Gardner of Stetson University adds that timing issues could leave some streams unprotected. Some streams start flowing midway through a wet season and continue into the next season. Even if they flow continuously for months, they might not qualify if that flow does not occur entirely within the wet season.
The proposal also raises inclusion standards for certain features that have typically been protected. Waste treatment facilities, ditches, and prior converted cropland — former wetlands drained for agriculture — would need to meet more specific requirements to qualify.
In addition, the proposal clarifies that groundwater is not subject to Clean Water Act regulations. This is described as a small change because groundwater has not usually been covered anyway. The proposal also removes language that automatically covered interstate waters.
Potential Environmental And Insurance-Related Effects
Reducing the number of waterways under Clean Water Act protections means more water pollution could occur. Water pollution can damage plants, animals, living organisms, and ecosystems. The World Health Organization estimates that more than half a million people die each year from drinking microbiologically contaminated water.
Gentry also says the proposal would increase flood risk. Wetlands help prevent floods. One study estimates that each hectare of wetlands in the United States prevents between $1,840 and $8,000 in flood damage. Wetlands also store carbon and help mitigate climate change. If wetlands lose federal protection, they could face long-term degradation that reduces both flood prevention and carbon storage.
From an insurance standpoint, Gentry adds that higher flood risk in some areas could lead to higher flood insurance costs for some Americans, tied to the loss of wetlands and related protections.
Rulemaking Timeline And Next Steps
The proposed regulation is still moving through the rulemaking process. Public comments are open until January 5, 2026. After that, the EPA may issue a final version if it chooses to proceed. Federal law requires the final text to be posted for at least 30 days before enactment.
Gardner notes that the proposed rule asks for public input on multiple approaches. He expects those comments to influence the final version. He also says he does not expect the final regulation to become more protective than the proposal.
Broader Regulatory Context
The proposal highlights the significant influence that presidential administrations have over environmental regulation through their interpretation. Although the Sackett decision narrowed Clean Water Act coverage, the Biden administration’s 2023 interpretation was more protective than this new proposal.
Because WOTUS definitions can be rewritten, a future administration could issue another rule that supersedes this one, just as this proposal would supersede the 2023 regulation.
Get the latest insurance market updates and discover exclusive program opportunities at ProgramBusiness.com.