Waters of the United States: Definitely a Regulation, Not Guidance


Last week, what appears to be a draft (so long that it is in two separate parts) of EPA’s proposed rule defining “waters of the United States” was widely circulated.  Part of what I love about this story is that it is uncertain whether this is in fact the draft rule that EPA sent to OMB to review.  On one hand, it has many of the hallmarks of an EPA proposed rule.  However, there are some aspects that do read somewhat oddly, particularly the level of informality in the text.  According to the Daily Environment Report on Friday, Gina McCarthy testified that the draft rule is very early in the process of interagency review.  That makes sense, because my own take is that this has to be the rule, but that it’s definitely not quite ready for prime time.

Some aspects of the draft rule are not surprising and seem likely to be incorporated in any final rule.  These include defining all tributaries to waters traditionally regulated, and all waters “adjacent” to waters traditionally regulated as being among the “waters of the United States.  It is also unsurprising that EPA has proposed to determine on a case by case basis whether other waters have a “significant nexus” to waters of the United States.

What’s left to do?  A lot.  For example, EPA proposes to include a definition of “floodplains” and indicates that contributions to flood storage would be relevant to determining whether “other waters” have a significant nexus to waters of the United States and should thus be subject to jurisdiction.  However, EPA has not defined floodplain based on any particular level of storm event.  This has contributed to concerns noted in Greenwire that EPA is still trying to reserve a significant level of discretion in its interpretation of “waters of the United States.”

I have previously noted that the importance of this issue and the significant legal rights affected by the definition warrant EPA rulemaking, rather than reliance on case-by-case interpretation of guidance.  That the draft takes up two separate 160-page documents, and still leaves some important questions unanswered, only confirms that there is a reason why the rulemaking process exists.  EPA is apparently determined to issue this rule before Obama leaves office, but it still has some work to do.


Written by:

Published In:


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.