FirstAlerts

EPA and Corps Issue Supplemental Proposed Rule to Further Revise WOTUS Definition

The agencies have issued a supplemental proposed rule to further revise the definition of 'waters of the United States.'

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 9, 2026, 12:54 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 9, 2026, 12:59 p.m. ET
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have issued a supplemental to further revise the definition of 'waters of the United States' (WOTUS), according to a report by the National Law Review. The is the latest step in an ongoing rulemaking process to scale back federal jurisdiction over WOTUS. The National Law Review reports that the agencies issued the supplemental proposal to further revise the definition.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 9, 2026, 12:54 p.m. ETFirst report

    EPA Proposes Further Revision to WOTUS Definition

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers have issued a supplemental proposed rule to further revise the definition of 'waters of the United States' (WOTUS), according to a report by the National Law Review.

    The proposed rule is part of an ongoing rulemaking process. The EPA and the Corps have not yet finalized the rule, and the proposal is open for public comment and further review.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 19 Sept 2026, 16:59current

    First published.

  2. Version 19 Sept 2026, 16:54current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.