Attorney General Bonta Rebukes Trump Administration’s Revised Attempt to Loosen National Clean Water Protections

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra - Press Releases · October 9, 2026 · g5378538

October 9, 2026 Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov OAKLAND  — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 19 attorneys general and one city in submitting a comment letter opposing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Army Corps) supplemental proposed rule that would significantly reduce federal protections for streams and wetlands nationwide. If adopted, this rulemaking would redefine the “waters of the United States” that are subject to pollution discharge permits and other important safeguards under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA and Army Corps  previously proposed  a rule change but is now using this supplemental rule to add new definitions that would further narrow the scope of CWA permitting requirements and protections beyond those in the original proposal. In today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that this supplemental proposed rule conflicts with the CWA, is inconsistent with applicable caselaw, and flouts the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).   “For decades, agencies have interpreted ‘waters of the United States’ broadly to maximize protections of waters nationwide because the importance of clean water is indisputable. Nevertheless, with this supplemental proposed rule, President Trump is trying to make a splash for his industry friends by introducing ambiguous terms and removing protections from countless rivers, streams, and wetlands that would be susceptible to additional pollution and harm,”  said Attorney General Bonta.  “The principles that guide our fight are clear enough to fit on a bumper sticker: Americans deserve clean water. That’s why we opposed this proposed change before, and why we’re doing it again. In the interest of science, public health, and environmental integrity, now is the time to strengthen — not weaken — clean water protections for everyone.”  BACKGROUND   The CWA was intended “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” along with establishing uniform federal water quality protections applicable to all states, in recognition of the fact that waters cross state boundaries and downstream states often have no ability to regulate the pollution that may originate upstream. This is achieved through the CWA’s core programs, including the prohibition on discharges of pollutants to “navigable waters” and “waters of the United States.” For decades, EPA’s and Army Corps’ regulations interpreted “waters of the United States” broadly to maximize federal protection of waters nationwide. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in  Sackett v. EPA , which considered the scope of “waters of the United States” in relation to wetlands, the Biden Administration's EPA and Army Corps promulgated a revised regulatory definition that conformed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion.   In November 2025, the Trump Administration's EPA and Army Corps proposed a new definition that would unlawfully limit “waters of the United States” to roll back protections for many waters that are vitally important for water quality. On September 9, 2026, the agencies published a supplemental proposed rule that would further this backslide in federal water quality regulation with new definitions that would narrow the scope of the CWA permitting requirements and protections beyond those in the original proposal. The supplemental rule proposes revised definitions of the key terms “relatively permanent” and “continuous surface connection” to ensure that waters only receive CWA protection if they are standing or continuously flowing every day of the year during ordinary conditions, with some limited exceptions. The effects would be particularly harmful in western states, like California, where many rivers, lakes, and streams are fed by seasonal rain or melting snowpack. The EPA’s and Army Corps’ proposal and supplemental proposal, if adopted, would create ambiguity and confusion rather than promote a clear definition of “waters of the United States” that is consistent with the CWA’s purpose, science, and U.S. Supreme Court caselaw.  In today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that the proposed rule:  Is contrary to the CWA and is arbitrary and capricious because it will provide unequal CWA protection throughout the U.S. and will degrade water quality, thereby contradicting the CWA’s fundamental water quality objective. Is contrary to law because it includes numerous revisions that are not required to ensure consistency with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA. Lacks scientific support, is insufficiently reasoned, fails to account for regional differences in climate and hydrology, and does not appropriately consider states’ reliance on the existing definitions. In sending today’s letter, Attorney General Bonta, alongside New York Attorney General Letitia James, co-led the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, as well as the City of New York.

October 9, 2026 Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov OAKLAND  — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 19 attorneys general and one city in submitting a comment letter opposing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Army Corps) supplemental proposed rule that would significantly reduce federal protections for streams and wetlands nationwide. If adopted, this rulemaking would redefine the “waters of the United States” that are subject to pollution discharge permits and other important safeguards under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA and Army Corps  previously proposed  a rule change but is now using this supplemental rule to add new definitions that would further narrow the scope of CWA permitting requirements and protections beyond those in the original proposal. In today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that this supplemental proposed rule conflicts with the CWA, is inconsistent with applicable caselaw, and flouts the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).   “For decades, agencies have interpreted ‘waters of the United States’ broadly to maximize protections of waters nationwide because the importance of clean water is indisputable. Nevertheless, with this supplemental proposed rule, President Trump is trying to make a splash for his industry friends by introducing ambiguous terms and removing protections from countless rivers, streams, and wetlands that would be susceptible to additional pollution and harm,”  said Attorney General Bonta.  “The principles that guide our fight are clear enough to fit on a bumper sticker: Americans deserve clean water. That’s why we opposed this proposed change before, and why we’re doing it again. In the interest of science, public health, and environmental integrity, now is the time to strengthen — not weaken — clean water protections for everyone.”  BACKGROUND   The CWA was intended “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” along with establishing uniform federal water quality protections applicable to all states, in recognition of the fact that waters cross state boundaries and downstream states often have no ability to regulate the pollution that may originate upstream. This is achieved through the CWA’s core programs, including the prohibition on discharges of pollutants to “navigable waters” and “waters of the United States.” For decades, EPA’s and Army Corps’ regulations interpreted “waters of the United States” broadly to maximize federal protection of waters nationwide. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in  Sackett v. EPA , which considered the scope of “waters of the United States” in relation to wetlands, the Biden Administration's EPA and Army Corps promulgated a revised regulatory definition that conformed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion.   In November 2025, the Trump Administration's EPA and Army Corps proposed a new definition that would unlawfully limit “waters of the United States” to roll back protections for many waters that are vitally important for water quality. On September 9, 2026, the agencies published a supplemental proposed rule that would further this backslide in federal water quality regulation with new definitions that would narrow the scope of the CWA permitting requirements and protections beyond those in the original proposal. The supplemental rule proposes revised definitions of the key terms “relatively permanent” and “continuous surface connection” to ensure that waters only receive CWA protection if they are standing or continuously flowing every day of the year during ordinary conditions, with some limited exceptions. The effects would be particularly harmful in western states, like California, where many rivers, lakes, and streams are fed by seasonal rain or melting snowpack. The EPA’s and Army Corps’ proposal and supplemental proposal, if adopted, would create ambiguity and confusion rather than promote a clear definition of “waters of the United States” that is consistent with the CWA’s purpose, science, and U.S. Supreme Court caselaw.  In today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that the proposed rule:  Is contrary to the CWA and is arbitrary and capricious because it will provide unequal CWA protection throughout the U.S. and will degrade water quality, thereby contradicting the CWA’s fundamental water quality objective. Is contrary to law because it includes numerous revisions that are not required to ensure consistency with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA. Lacks scientific support, is insufficiently reasoned, fails to account for regional differences in climate and hydrology, and does not appropriately consider states’ reliance on the existing definitions. In sending today’s letter, Attorney General Bonta, alongside New York Attorney General Letitia James, co-led the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, as well as the City of New York.

Источник: California Attorney General Xavier Becerra - Press Releases