Overview
Title
WOTUS Notice: The Final Response to SCOTUS; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Recommendations
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA and the Department of the Army want to hear what different people think about what counts as the "waters of the United States." They plan to hold meetings to listen to everyone's ideas and make sure everybody understands the rules about water.
Summary AI
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army aim to involve various stakeholders in discussions about the "waters of the United States" definition due to a recent Supreme Court ruling. The agencies plan to hold listening sessions and are actively seeking written feedback from the public to inform future administrative actions and clarify the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction. They also address concerns regarding the Revised Definition of "Waters of the United States" stemming from the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, impacting the way certain water bodies are regulated under federal law. This effort emphasizes broad public engagement to ensure clear and consistent understanding and implementation.
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army intend to engage with State and Tribal co- regulators; industry and agricultural stakeholders; environmental and conservation stakeholders; and the public on certain key topics related to the implementation of the definition of "waters of the United States" in light of the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. The agencies are committed to learning from the past regulatory approaches--the pre-2015 regulations and guidance, the 2015 Clean Water Rule, the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, the 2023 Rule, and the Amended 2023 Rule--while engaging with stakeholders before taking further administrative action to provide any additional clarification to agency staff, co-regulators, and the public on specific aspects of the definition of "waters of the United States." This notice includes an announcement of forthcoming listening sessions on specific key topic areas to hear interested stakeholders' perspectives on defining "waters of the United States" consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction and how to implement that interpretation as the agencies consider next steps. The agencies are also accepting written recommendations from members of the public via a recommendations docket. These opportunities are intended to provide for broad, transparent engagement with a full spectrum of stakeholders.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army addresses the implementation of the term "waters of the United States," particularly following a Supreme Court decision known as Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. This notice announces upcoming listening sessions and invites written feedback from the public to clarify and refine how the Clean Water Act should be applied. The agencies are seeking broad public engagement and input from a variety of stakeholders, including industry representatives, environmental groups, and the general public.
General Summary
This Federal Register notice is focused on refining the definition of "waters of the United States" as affected by the Supreme Court ruling in 2023. The definition is a pivotal factor in determining the federal government's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The EPA and the Army aim to engage with stakeholders through listening sessions and a public docket for written recommendations to achieve a clear and consistent understanding of the term. These actions are in response to the challenges and ambiguities brought about by the court's decision, which impacts how various water bodies are managed and regulated under federal law.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several concerns emerge from this document:
Complex Terminology: The document is dense with legal terminology and reference to past regulatory regimes, which may be daunting for a lay audience. Understanding these terms is crucial given their potential impact on legal and environmental frameworks.
Ambiguity in Definitions: There's potential for confusion, particularly regarding what qualifies as "relatively permanent" waters. This ambiguous language may lead to disparate interpretations and enforcement across various jurisdictions.
Continuous Surface Connection: Stakeholders might find it challenging to grasp what features qualify under this definition. This difficulty can affect stakeholders differently, particularly when trying to comply with or enforce water regulations.
Feedback Influence Unclear: The document does not clearly delineate how public and stakeholder feedback will specifically influence future administrative actions, which might lead participants to question their impact.
Participation Fairness and Transparency: The listening sessions operate on a first-come, first-serve basis, which could raise concerns about fairness and equitable access for all interested parties.
Prior Knowledge Assumed: Understanding the Supreme Court case's full implications requires prior knowledge that the document does not provide, possibly leaving some stakeholders underinformed.
Ephemeral Streams Exclusion: Concerns might arise over the exclusion of ephemeral streams from jurisdiction, as these water bodies can be ecologically significant in certain regions, and further justification of their exclusion is scant.
Impact on the Public
This effort holds significant implications for how water resources are managed nationally. Clearer definitions and regulatory guidelines could lead to more effective protection of waterways. However, ambiguity could result in inconsistent enforcement and compliance challenges, especially for smaller landowners and developers.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Industry and Agricultural Stakeholders: These groups may benefit from clearer, more predictable regulations which could facilitate planning and compliance. However, there might be concerns over any restrictive interpretations that could limit land use.
Environmental and Conservation Groups: Such organizations may be wary of any regulatory definitions that could narrow federal protection of water resources, potentially jeopardizing ecosystems.
State and Tribal Co-regulators: These entities might face challenges aligning federal definitions with local priorities, especially if federal guidance remains ambiguous.
General Public: Broader public interests in environmental protection could be affected. Clarity in water regulations is essential for ensuring sustainable practices and safeguarding natural resources.
Overall, the document represents a vital step in refining water regulation, but it underscores the need for transparent, detailed engagement to address stakeholder concerns and ensure effective Clean Water Act implementation.
Issues
• The document contains complex legal terminology and references to multiple regulatory regimes which may be difficult for lay readers to understand.
• There is ambiguity in the definition of 'relatively permanent' waters, which could lead to inconsistent interpretations and enforcement across different regions.
• The section on 'continuous surface connection' is complex and could confuse stakeholders, particularly around what features qualify for this definition.
• The document does not specify how stakeholder feedback will directly influence future administrative actions, which could lead to uncertainty among participants.
• There may be concerns about the fairness and transparency of the listening sessions, especially if the opportunities to speak are limited and based on a 'first-come, first-serve' basis.
• The document assumes prior knowledge of the Supreme Court case Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2023) and its implications without providing a summary, which might be necessary for context.
• There could be potential concerns regarding the exclusion of ephemeral streams from jurisdiction without a detailed justification, which might not account for regional ecological significance.