The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have proposed new rules that would further narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act, potentially reducing the number of streams and wetlands protected under federal law. If implemented, the changes would likely lead to fewer waterways requiring permits for development or pollution, especially in the western United States. This proposal comes in addition to an earlier rule that also aimed to limit the Clean Water Act’s reach. The agencies argue that the goal is to create a more "durable" and clear definition of which waters are subject to federal regulation, reducing confusion and regulatory burdens. The new rule focuses on redefining "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS), the term used to determine which bodies of water are protected under the Clean Water Act. In 2023, the Supreme Court narrowed this definition to include only relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing waters, as well as wetlands with a continuous surface connection to such waters. However, the exact meaning of "relatively permanent" remained unclear. In its latest proposal, the EPA suggested defining "relatively permanent" streams as those with standing or flowing water at least 11 months of the year. Similarly, wetlands would need to have surface water continuously connected to another regulated water body for at least 11 months annually. The EPA is seeking additional public comments on the proposal, which is part of a broader effort to finalize a rule that fully implements the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA. That case, involving an Idaho couple who wanted to build a home near a lake, limited federal authority to regulate water pollution in certain wetlands, favoring property rights over environmental protections. The new rule, once finalized, is expected to reduce bureaucratic hurdles for landowners, farmers, and businesses while allowing states and tribes more control over water management. However, it could also leave many wetlands and low-lying areas vulnerable to climate change impacts like storm surges. Critics argue that the proposed rule would harm the environment by allowing more development in ecologically sensitive areas. Environmental advocates warn that it could "wipe out life-sustaining waterways" across the country. In contrast, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin maintains that the rule balances federal and state authority, noting that any lands removed from federal oversight would still be subject to state and tribal regulations. The public has already submitted over 220,000 comments on the proposal, and the agencies will accept additional feedback for 30 days after the supplemental plan is published in the Federal Register, expected soon.