States are indeed suing over the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) regulations again, continuing a long history of legal battles surrounding the scope of federal water protections under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This ongoing conflict centers on how broadly or narrowly the term “waters of the United States” is defined, which determines what water bodies fall under federal jurisdiction and regulation.
The WOTUS definition has been a contentious issue for decades because it directly affects landowners, developers, farmers, and states by dictating which waters require federal permits for activities like dredging, filling, or discharging pollutants. The Clean Water Act aims to protect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, but the exact reach of federal authority has been debated intensely.
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions, such as in the Sackett case, have clarified that only relatively permanent waters—those that exist continuously or for the majority of the year—and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to such waters qualify as WOTUS. This ruling narrowed the scope of federal jurisdiction, emphasizing that waters regulated under the CWA must be relatively permanent bodies like streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans, excluding intermittent or ephemeral waters and isolated wetlands without a direct connection to navigable waters.
Despite these clarifications, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers have continued to revise the WOTUS rule to align with court decisions and policy goals. These revisions often trigger lawsuits from states and interest groups on both sides of the regulatory spectrum. Some states argue that the federal government is overreaching and infringing on state authority by regulating too broadly, while others contend that narrowing the definition weakens water protections and harms environmental and public health.
For example, some states have moved to adjust their own water quality standards and definitions to align with or diverge from the federal WOTUS rule, creating a patchwork of regulations that complicate compliance and enforcement. In some cases, state legislatures have passed laws or directives to disconnect from the federal definition, aiming to maintain stricter protections or reduce regulatory burdens. These state actions sometimes conflict with federal rules, leading to further legal challenges.
The legal disputes often focus on whether the EPA and Corps have followed proper procedures and statutory authority in defining WOTUS, with courts scrutinizing whether the agencies’ rules are consistent with the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court precedents. Lawsuits typically challenge the agencies’ interpretations as either too expansive or too restrictiv
