New WOTUS Rule: Means Loss of Federal Wetland Protection

rick.savage • January 11, 2026

Challenging Start to 2026

This year begins at a challenging moment for wetlands conservation. Wetlands across the country continue to lose federal protections, leaving fewer wetlands safeguarded than at any point since the Clean Water Act was enacted.  Learn more about the proposed changes as www.epa.gov.


So what have we been doing in response?


We’ve been actively engaged in the policy process—attending hearings on new federal rules and collaborating with partner organizations to develop coordinated strategies to respond to changes to the Waters of the United States (WOTUS). At the local level, we’ve encouraged municipalities to speak out about the vital role wetlands play in protecting their communities from flooding, improving water quality, and supporting local economies.

South Carolina

In South Carolina, these efforts are beginning to show results. Some municipalities have passed local ordinances to protect additional wetlands, while others have explored incentive-based approaches that encourage developers to conserve wetlands during the planning process. Because South Carolina operates under “Home Rule,” local governments have greater flexibility to adopt policies that reflect the needs of their communities.

North Carolina

 

North Carolina faces a more restrictive landscape. Under Dillon’s Rule, municipalities can only exercise powers explicitly granted by the state legislature. As a result, beyond voluntary incentive programs, local governments have limited options to strengthen wetland protections. Additionally, recent state legislation—including the Farm Bill—prevents North Carolina from adopting wetland protections that exceed federal standards.


While these challenges are significant, our work continues. By engaging at every level—federal, state, and local—we remain committed to protecting wetlands and advocating for policies that recognize their essential role in healthy, resilient communities.

Comments submitted to EPA and USEPA on the proposed rule changes: 

  • Along with 75 other organizations, the Carolina Wetlands Association signed on to comments submitted to the Southern Environmental Law Center.
  • The Carolina Wetlands Association Board of Directors prepared and submitted our own comments.  A special thank you to  John Meagher and the Policy Committee for preparing these comments.
View Comments

What is Wrong with the  Proposed Changes to WOTUS?


One of the most concerning changes is the requirement for a continuous visual presence of water to verify that an area qualifies as a wetland, as well as a continuous visible surface connection to navigable waters of the United States. Anyone who has worked with wetlands knows that wetlands are dynamic systems, characterized by seasonal wet and dry periods. Water may not be visibly present year-round, even though the wetland is fully functional. The rules provide little clarity on how these seasonal variations should be addressed.


The overarching goal of the updated rules is clear: to reduce regulation—and therefore protection—of wetlands. This is deeply troubling given how critical wetlands are for carbon sequestration, flood control, water quality, education, recreation, wildlife habitat, and overall human well-being.


As protections decrease, we will lose wetland acreage. With fewer wetlands being classified as Waters of the US, fewer impacts will be offset with compensatory mitigation. This undermines the long-standing “No Net Loss” policy established under President George H.W. Bush, which aimed to ensure that wetland losses were balanced by restoration or creation elsewhere.


This is why your voice matters.


As supporters of wetlands, we must speak up—to your state legislatures and by getting involved with organizations actively fighting for wetland protection, including our Association. Policy decisions made today will determine the health of our communities for generations to come.


The next time you explore a wetland near you, remember: healthy wetlands mean healthy communities. Protecting them is not optional—it is essential.


Contact me is you want to help make a difference.


Rick Savage

Executive Director

You might also like

Celebrating Our Carolina Wetlands

Federal Rule Would Strip Protections from Many Wetlands and Streams

By kim.matthews • October 7, 2026
On September 9, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) offering additional ways to define “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). Why this definition matters The WOTUS definition determines which water bodies the federal government can protect under the Clean Water Act. In November 2025, the agencies proposed revisions to bring the definition in line with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA. After taking public comments, they have now put forward further options. The new proposal narrows federal jurisdiction even more, potentially stripping protections from the vast majority of U.S. wetlands and seasonal streams. What our comment letter says The Carolina Wetlands Association is submitting comments opposing the proposal. Our main concerns: It would undermine the Clean Water Act’s purpose. The law’s goal is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. This proposal would severely undercut that goal. The “days of water” test is a poor measure. The proposal decides jurisdiction by how many days a year water is present. That number correlates poorly with a waterway’s ability to carry pollution downstream to the rivers, lakes, and estuaries that would stay protected. Streams dry for as few as 30 days a year could lose protection, and polluters would have an incentive to discharge into them rather than into protected waters. Drinking water is at risk. About 56% of North Carolina’s stream miles feeding public drinking water systems are intermittent, ephemeral, or headwater streams. In South Carolina the figure is 51%. These systems serve 6.6 million people, who would bear higher health risks and treatment costs. Wetlands do critical work. They filter pollutants and nutrients that cause algal blooms, dead zones, and fish kills. Losing that function would also degrade groundwater, which many people drink untreated. The legal reasoning is flawed. We argue the agencies misread the Supreme Court’s language. “Relatively permanent” describes geographic features such as streams with defined beds and banks. The word “continuously” modifies “flowing” and doesn’t limit what counts as relatively permanent. It would be hard to implement. Many affected streams have no data showing how many days they lack surface water. That makes the rule difficult for agencies to administer and leaves landowners unable to tell whether the Clean Water Act applies to their property. The impacts haven’t been analyzed. The agencies should not finalize a rule before measuring the added pollution flowing from newly unprotected waters into those that supply drinking water, or projecting the resulting damage to downstream uses. What you can do Read the SNPRM Submit your comment by October 9, 2026, under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW-2025-0322 . Personal stories about the streams, wetlands, and drinking water you depend on are especially effective. Learn more: read the comments we submitted on the November 2025 version of the rule, many of which still apply.

Meet our new Board Members

By kim.matthews • September 2, 2026
Welcoming New Members to the Carolina Wetlands Association Board
Forested wetland with surface water present

Wetlands: Nature’s Hidden Defense Against Drought

By rick.savage • August 3, 2026
North and South Carolina is starting to recover from one of the most severe droughts in recent history. Drought covered essentially both states with reservoirs like Falls Lake and Jordan Lake dropping well below normal and cities including Raleigh and Durham enacting mandatory water restrictions. While the drought is largely over (given the second wettest July on record), I still think it is important to understand how wetlands mitigate droughts because the bottom line is drought impacts would be a lot worse without wetlands.