Wading Into the “Waters of the United States”

Wading Into the “Waters of the United States”

Legal Sidebari

Wading Into the “Waters of the United States”
December 28, 2018
The Trump Administration recently unveiled a proposed rule that would redefine the jurisdictional reach
of the Clean Water Act. The principal federal law restricting pollution of the nation’s surface waters, the
Clean Water Act prohibits discharging certain pollutants into “the waters of the United States, including
the territorial seas” without a permit. But what constitutes “waters of the United States”—or WOTUS—
has been the subject of political debate and litigation for more than four decades. The Trump
Administration’s proposed regulations are intended to provide clarity on what waters and wetlands the
Clean Water Act governs, but observers expect legal challenges once the rule is finalized. While the
regulations are in proposed form, a string of court decisions related to previous WOTUS interpretations
have created a fragmented legal landscape in which “waters of the United States” means different things
in different parts of the nation.
A Recent History of WOTUS
For more than forty years, all three branches of government have struggled with how to interpret the
meaning of “waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act (as detailed in this CRS Report). In the
Supreme Court’s most recent case on the issue from 2006, Rapanos v. United States, the High Court
issued a fractured 4-1-4 decision with no majority opinion providing a rationale on how to determine
whether a particular waterbody is a water of the United States. Writing for a four-justice plurality, Justice
Scalia advocated a bright-line rule whereby the phrase would cover only “relatively permanent, standing
or continuously flowing bodies of water,” such as streams, rivers, or lakes; and wetlands that have a
“continuous surface connection” to other waters subject to the Clean Water Act. Justice Kennedy, by
contrast, wrote in a concurring opinion that WOTUS may include waterbodies that possess a “significant
nexus” to traditionally navigable waters.
Since Rapanos, courts and commentators have not always agreed on how to apply the Court’s fractured
opinion in practice. Hoping to provide a “simpler, clearer, and more consistent approaches for identifying
the geographic scope of the Clean Water Act,” the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps)—the agencies responsible for administering the Clean Water Act—
promulgated new regulations in 2015, titled the “Clean Water Rule,” which redefines WOTUS and
incorporates Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test in his Rapanos concurrence. The Obama
Administration intended the Clean Water Rule to take effect in August 2015, but numerous plaintiffs,
including 31 states, filed suit challenging its legality. The plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the
new rule exceeded the agencies’ statutory and constitutional authority and did not comply with the
Administrative Procedure Act’s rulemaking requirements. As this litigation wove its way through the
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10236
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
courts, President Trump—a vocal critic of the Clean Water Rule—took office and announced a change in
executive branch policy toward WOTUS.
The Trump Administration Charts a New Course
In February 2017, President Trump issued an executive order (examined here) directing EPA and the
Corps to review and revise or rescind the Clean Water Rule. Whereas the Clean Water Rule invoked
Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test, the executive order directs the agencies to consider
interpreting the meaning of WOTUS in a manner consistent with Justice Scalia’s Rapanos plurality
opinion.
EPA and the Corps plan to carry out the executive order through a two-step process to (1) repeal the Clean
Water Rule and (2) engage in a separate rulemaking process to develop new regulations that will define
the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act. In July 2017, the agencies issued proposed regulations
(Step One Proposal) that would carry out the first step of repealing the Clean Water Rule. Their most
recent proposed rule (Step Two Proposal), announced on December 11, 2018, would complete step two by
substantively redefining the meaning of WOTUS. Both rules are still in proposed form, and have not been
finalized.
How Does the Trump Administration’s Proposal Differ from the Clean Water Rule?
The definition of WOTUS in the Clean Water Rule differs significantly from the Step Two Proposal. The
Clean Water Rule deconstructs the jurisdictional analysis into three categories: (1) waters that are
categorically WOTUS; (2) waters subject to a case-specific analysis to determine if they satisfy the
“significant nexus” test; and (3) waters that are categorically excluded from WOTUS. The Trump
Administration’s Step Two Proposal retains the first and third categories. For the second category, the
proposal eliminates the “significant nexus” analysis for case-specific determinations, and seeks to replace
it with revised definitions of certain terms such as “tributary” and “adjacent wetlands.”
Other key changes in the Step Two Proposal include:
 Removing Clean Water Act coverage of “ephemeral waters” that flow or pool only in
response to precipitation and certain ditches that contain ephemeral flows or are “upland”
from other jurisdictional waters.
 Requiring water to flow continuously year-round (“perennial waters”) or during certain
times of the year (“intermittent waters”) for Clean Water Act coverage.
 Including only lakes and ponds that are traditionally navigable waters subject to federal
jurisdiction or that are connected to such waters through tributaries.
 Removing interstate waters—or waters which form part of state’s boundary—as an
independent category of waters subject to the Clean Water Act.
 Narrowing wetlands coverage to include only wetlands that abut jurisdictional waters or
that have a direct hydrological connection to such waters, and excluding wetlands
separated by a berm, dike, or other barrier.
Future of the Step Two Proposal
Once published in the Federal Register, the Step Two Proposal will be open for comment for 60 days.
While many industry interest groups praised the proposal, some environmental groups criticized the
approach and stated they will bring legal challenges when the rule is finalized. The focus of future
lawsuits, if filed, is likely to depend on the rulemaking process and content of the final rule. But observers
expect critics to challenge whether EPA and the Corps articulated sufficient rationale to depart from
Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test. Critics of that test argue that it is overbroad and too

Congressional Research Service
3
unpredictable for the average property owner to determine whether a waterbody constitutes part of
WOTUS.
What Constitutes WOTUS While the Trump Administration’s Rules are in Proposed Form?
The current legal landscape defining WOTUS is fragmented and complex. Because both rules in the
Trump Administration’s rescind-and-replace process are still in proposed form, the Obama
Administration’s Clean Water Rule remains the current regulation defining WOTUS. The United States
Courts of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) had entered a nationwide stay of the Clean Water
Rule in 2015. In January 2018, however, the Supreme Court held in National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM) v. Department of Defense (discussed here) that the Sixth Circuit lacked
jurisdiction, and that the challenges to the Clean Water Rule must begin in multiple federal district courts
across the country.
Faced with the potential reinstatement of the Clean Water Rule as a result of the NAM decision, the Trump
Administration engaged in another rulemaking process designed to suspend the Clean Water Rule until
February 2020. While the Clean Water Rule states that it is effective as of August 28, 2015, EPA and the
Corps issued a final rule (Applicability Date Rule), which adds a new “applicability date” of February 6,
2020 to the Clean Water Rule. Although the Applicability Date Rule is a final rule, in late 2018, two
federal district courts determined that the agencies did not comply with administrative rulemaking
requirements and issued orders vacating the Applicability Date Rule nationwide.
While there currently is no instrument that suspends the Clean Water Rule on a nationwide basis, litigants
have successfully enjoined it in some parts of the country. After NAM, challenges to the Clean Water Rule
at the district court-level resumed. Three federal district courts have entered preliminary injunctions,
temporarily barring application of the Clean Water Rule in some, but not all, states. As a result, the Clean
Water Rule currently is enjoined in 28 states, but it is the current enforceable regulation in 22 states, the
District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.

Congressional Research Service
4
Figure 1. Status of the Clean Water Rule

Source: North Dakota v. EPA, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (D.N.D. 2015); Georgia v. Pruitt. 326 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (S.D. Ga.
2018); Texas v. EPA, No. 3:15-CV-00162 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2018)
Congressional Interest in WOTUS
Because the WOTUS debate hinges on the meaning of a statutory term, Congress could enact legislation
that seeks to more clearly define the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act. During the 114th
Congress, the Senate and House passed a resolution of disapproval seeking to nullify the Clean Water
Rule under the Congressional Review Act, but President Obama vetoed the resolution. As discussed in
more detail in this CRS Report, some Members of the 115th Congress introduced legislation that would
repeal the Clean Water Rule or redefine the Clean Water Act’s jurisdictional terms.

Author Information

Stephen P. Mulligan

Legislative Attorney

Congressional Research Service
5

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
LSB10236 · VERSION 2 · NEW