EPA Proposes Rollbacks on the Clean Water Act (Again)

That this era’s Environmental Protection Agency is proposing fresh easement of the Clean Water Act is no bombshell. Drafted jointly by the EPA and the Army Corps, the so-called “Polluted Water Rule” purports to “unveil [a] clear, durable WOTUS proposal,”—by deeming any waters not directly connected to “navigable interstate waterways” (or Waters of the United States, acronymized as WOTUS) as, essentially, not water at all, and, as such, not protected on behalf of the public.

The proposal, at its heart, aims to redefine what constitutes a waterway, doubtless drummed up by already-well-lined pockets looking to defile the vestiges of our tiniest and fragilest aqueous ecosystems that, to the uninformed and unconcerned, might appear insignificant, but be they sources of drinking water, critical nurseries, or flood and storm-surge barriers, they are among our most critical.

1972’s Clean Water Act (CWA), administered by the President Nixon-founded EPA (1970), sought to further protect the environment by “regulating the protection of the nation’s water,” per the EPA’s CWA page, by “aim[ing] to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution in the nation’s water in order to ‘restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s [sic] waters,’” as written in CWA section 101(a).

Ever since the CWA was ratified, various businesses and private interests have been plying the federal government for rollbacks on the protection of everything from creeks, brooks, rivers, and streams to wetlands, tidal estuaries, and beaches—you name it. But the largest and most successful revisions have taken place since the start of this century (‘01, 06’, ‘15, ‘23, and now bets are on ‘26).

The most recent of these anachronistic rulings, all of which surely have even Tricky Dick tossing and turning in his grave, was Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. Sparked by a wetland dispute in Idaho over what constitutes wetlands, the ruling dictates that any water that does not have “a continuous surface connection” with a “water(s) of the United States” (WOTUS) cannot be designated as wetlands, and therein are no longer protected under the Clean Water Act. The Polluted Water Rule is but a fortification of the above ruling that does anything but protect our waterways and further chisels away at the EPAs legacy.

What are the “waters” bearing the brunt of these soon-to-open floodgates? Think water sources for petrochemicals to be developed from and discharged into, a pristine river to shoulder toxic textile dyes, “waterfront” real estate development on a marsh—though bereft of federal distinction, can it still be called waterfront?

Wherever water—within even its most miniscule confines—can be used and/or abused for industrial gain, there lies a point of contention between public interest and some shortsighted entity to put it to work for or as a result of little if anything beyond greed.

Each and every waterway, I’m sad to feel obliged to state, also happens to flow into our dearest Mother Ocean. Whether or not you depend on her for your nourishment, livelihood, or inhabitance, if you’re finding yourself on this page, you almost certainly engage in some form of folly within her midst. And if that particular place lies anywhere near the shoreline, yet another round of desecrations are likely headed to a peak near you. That is, unless enough concerned citizens and organizations have something to say and pipe up about it.

Fortunately for us, Surfrider Foundation is on the forefront of this case. Surfrider’s Ocean Friendly Gardens Coordinator, Kathryn Dressendorfer, put concerns surrounding the WOTUS plainly: “The paving and development of our natural environments, especially in seasonally flooded areas and wetlands, damages these natural buffer systems that filter and absorb water. The resulting stormwater and runoff pollutes water downstream, and continues to be the number one cause of beach closures nationwide.”

And Surfrider’s Senior Manager of Science and Policy, Katie Day, didn’t mince words, either, when we reached out for comment on where surf-going folk are concerned: 

“Water quality in the surf zone is mainly determined by what's happening along the coast and upstream. So surf breaks near and downstream from undeveloped natural environments, with intact wetlands and clean streams are generally going to have far better water quality than surf breaks near developed areas with lots of impermeable surfaces and pollution sources-- think Trestles vs. Santa Monica Pier. This new rule proposes to scale back protections for millions of acres of our nation's wetlands and streams, meaning many of those natural environments that we rely on to support resilient communities and clean water at the beach, could be destroyed, filled, and polluted.”

So, even if you prefer a quarter-pounder to a filet of pole-caught wild finfish, even if you could care less what—or whether anything—is swimming in your local waters (or non-waters, as it were), even if the water your children drink might be purple, flammable, and radioactive nine ways to Sunday, for all that is left that is good and decent to you, consider the surf. Your surf. Our surf.

The EPA will soon open a 45-day comment period for public feedback, and in a news post, Day says Surfrider is working with their national coalition partners to submit comments in opposition to the proposed rule.