Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the "Waters of the United States" Rule

Background

Before its revocation, the executive order issued by President Donald Trump aimed primarily at dismantling the 2015 Clean Water Rule (often referred to as the Waters of the United States or WOTUS rule). It directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers to review and subsequently consider repealing or revising this rule. The Clean Water Rule expanded the scope of water bodies protected under the Clean Water Act to include smaller streams and wetlands, which resulted in heightened regulatory oversight. Under Trump's directive, these agencies were tasked with minimizing federal overreach and clarifying the scope and scale of protected waters, which led to a narrower interpretation that excluded certain waterways, diminishing federal regulatory authority.

Operational adjustments ensued as federal agencies pulled back on enforcement of the broad protections previously mandated. Agencies were less aggressive in pursuing violations related to smaller water bodies, often deemed peripheral under the new interpretation. This notably reduced the regulatory uncertainty and compliance costs faced by agricultural and real estate sectors, among others. For instance, some farmers found relief in the reduced oversight of ditches and ephemeral streams on their lands. Similarly, developers saw reduced hurdles for construction projects around wetlands previously protected under the Clean Water Rule.

Despite these industrial benefits, environmentalists and some state agencies perceived these changes as detrimental to environmental protection. Concerns loomed that reducing the scope of federal oversight could lead to increased pollution, habitat degradation, and a rise in disputes over state versus federal jurisdiction. The legal landscape was fraught with challenges from stakeholders who argued that the interpretation conflicted with the Clean Water Act's intent. Such dispute injected uncertainty within legal and regulatory frameworks as multiple lawsuits were filed, creating a patchwork of jurisdictional applications across different states.

Reason for Revocation

President Joseph R. Biden Jr. revoked this executive order as part of a broader environmental policy shift that underscores his administration's commitment to stringent environmental regulations and climate action. The reversal reflects a return to an expansive understanding of the Clean Water Act, allowing more robust federal oversight over U.S. waterways to protect ecosystems, ensure clean drinking water, and build resilience against climate impacts. Biden's administration aligned its priorities with stronger environmental leadership, science-based policy formulation, and renewed government accountability.

The revocation came in light of the Biden administration's overarching ideology that centers on climate change mitigation and environmental justice being core governance tenets. President Biden signed a suite of executive orders aimed at reversing Trump-era deregulations that were seen as environmentally regressive, emphasizing science-driven decisions in regulatory frameworks. This included the empowerment of federal agencies to restore and strengthen environmental protections that were perceived as weakened during the Trump administration.

Furthermore, the administration was motivated to act in response to growing public concern over water quality and environmental health issues. The erosion of water protections under the previous administration was regarded as a setback by many environmental groups, thus necessitating a policy correction. Initiatives by the Biden administration sought to involve a more comprehensive stakeholder engagement process, ensuring that science and public input continued to play significant roles in shaping water quality standards and federal clean water policies.

Biden's environmental strategy also illustrated a commitment to uphold international obligations around climate and environmental policy. In addition to re-joining the Paris Agreement, the administration's actions to strengthen the Clean Water Act were aligned with meeting both domestic and international targets for pollution reduction and sustainable water management, aligning federal policies with the demands of contemporary environmental governance.

Winners

Environmental and conservation groups are among the primary beneficiaries of this revocation. The Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and other similar organizations have long advocated for comprehensive water protections against industrial pollution and habitat destruction. The reinstatement of broad waterway protections aligns with their goals to safeguard ecosystems, secure wildlife habitats, and maintain biodiversity.

States with more stringent environmental regulations that were previously overshadowed by federal rollbacks could regain momentum in their water quality initiatives. States such as California, which historically have embraced progressive environmental policies, find themselves better positioned to enforce comprehensive environmental standards with federal backing, thus fostering improved state-federal regulatory cooperation and compliance.

The broader public stands to benefit as well, particularly communities relying on waters impacted by varying degrees of contamination. Strengthened water protections ensure clearer, safer drinking water sources by reducing pollutants in upstream water bodies. Cleaner waters also enhance recreational opportunities and boost tourism in regions reliant on pristine waterways, translating into economic and health benefits for local populations.

Losers

Some agricultural interests and land developers are likely to be disadvantaged by the revocation of Trump's water rule changes. Eliminating the narrower definition of protected waters potentially subjects a greater number of waterways to federal jurisdiction, increasing regulatory oversight and compliance costs for these stakeholders. Farmers, particularly those operating near smaller, ephemeral streams, may face renewed challenges and delays in land use practices, which translates to increased operational expenses.

Industries involved in natural resource extraction, such as oil and natural gas, that operate near water bodies might also face more stringent permitting requirements and scrutiny from environmental regulators. Companies in these sectors could experience increased procedural hurdles and potential project delays, impacting project timelines and profitability.

While large corporations typically possess the resources to navigate complex regulatory landscapes, smaller businesses may find themselves less equipped to manage the escalating compliance costs. This disparity creates a competitive disadvantage, as smaller landowners and businesses are impacted by increased regulatory burdens, potentially influencing their financial viability and resource allocation.