Lee Zeldin as EPA head

Good question. EPA is in charge of developing the Corps' Section 404 regulations so it will be interesting to see how far they roll things back. The 2023 Sackett decision removed ephemeral waters and lots of wetlands from our jurisdiction. I expect that Mr. Zeldin and Corps ASA will issue regs and AJD policy memos that narrow jurisdiction even further, probably removing lots of intermittent streams and non-contiguous adjacent wetlands.

My hope and belief is that the new administration will shift agency focus from prescriptive codes to measuring actual performance. Where is the pollution? What are the real sources of contaminants? Is the air, water and land cleaner?

Bob Sweeney said:

My hope and belief is that the new administration will shift agency focus from prescriptive codes to measuring actual performance. Where is the pollution? What are the real sources of contaminants? Is the air, water and land cleaner?

Click to expand...

But is it possible to do that before significant irreversible harm is done? That's my main concern with that sort of initiative.

My opinion is that Mr. Zeldin is fairly centrist, and not much will change. I just don't see him as a major disruptor. I know I'm in the minority, though.

StrictlyUrban said:

But is it possible to do that before significant irreversible harm is done? That's my main concern with that sort of initiative.

Click to expand...

I understand your concern, but we've gotten so bogged down with rules and regulations that they're often too prohibitively expensive and complicated to follow. It just leads to a bunch of lawsuits.

Interpretation of the 3-12-2025 WOTUS Continuous Surface Connection Memorandum from Dir. Zeldin. What is the consensus regarding federal jurisdiction of intermittent streams? Will intermittent streams be a feature under state jurisdiction?

cpaschke said:

Interpretation of the 3-12-2025 WOTUS Continuous Surface Connection Memorandum from Dir. Zeldin.

Click to expand...

Yeah, EPA rescinded all CSC JD policy memos the other day. A wetland is now only jurisdictional if it directly abuts an RPW/TNW - i.e., the three-parameter wetland boundary has to intersect the OHWM. Wetlands any higher in the floodplain or connected only by a discrete conveyance are no longer regulated under Section 404. This is totally consistent with Sackett but will mean major loss of wetland justification nationwide.

cpaschke said:

What is the consensus regarding federal jurisdiction of intermittent streams?

Click to expand...

No consensus. EPA announced they intend to redefine WOTUS but didn't say anything about how the definition of RPW might change.

Per Sackett, RPWs are defined as:

only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water "forming geographic[al] features" that are described in ordinary parlance as
"streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes."

Click to expand...

You have to ask, could RPWs be redefined narrowly to only include perennial streams based on this?