EPA and Army Corps Issue Supplemental Proposal on 'Waters of the United States' Definition
The agencies seek additional comment on regulatory options for defining federally protected waters under the Clean Water Act.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 9, 2026, 1:47 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 9, 2026, 1:47 a.m. ETFirst report
EPA and Army Corps Issue Supplemental Proposal on 'Waters of the United States' Definition
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army have issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the definition of "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, according to a Federal Register document published September 9, 2026. The notice supplements an earlier proposal from November 20, 2025, and responds to public comments received on that proposal.
The agencies state that the rulemaking aims to provide greater regulatory certainty and increase program predictability and consistency in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. The supplemental notice adds regulatory options on certain aspects of the proposed rule and seeks additional comment. Comments are due by October 9, 2026.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 05:52current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 05:47current
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.