Environmental Justice Report for the Clean Water 

Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” 

Under the Clean Water Act; Final Rule

A summary of public outreach and stakeholder engagement used to ensure 

transparency and meaningful participation of Minority, Low-Income, and Indigenous 

Populations

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Department of the Army

May 2015

 
Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... 3

Purpose............................................................................................................................ 4

The Clean Water Rule ...................................................................................................... 4

Background................................................................................................................... 4

Summary of the Final Rule............................................................................................ 4

Seeking Public Input to Strengthen the Final Rule ........................................................ 5

Environmental Justice Analysis........................................................................................ 5

What is Environmental Justice? .................................................................................... 5

How does one assess Environmental Justice?............................................................... 6

Evaluation of Environmental Justice through Public Participation ................................ 7

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 13

References..................................................................................................................... 14

Appendix A. Environmental Justice Advocacy Group Participants in 2014 Public Outreach 

Events for the Proposed Clean Water Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States"15

Appendix B. Summary of Public Outreach Events Attended by Environmental Justice 

Stakeholders in 2014 for the Proposed Clean Water Rule and Feedback Received........ 18

Appendix C. Environmental Justice Comments on the Proposed Clean Water Rule; 

Definitions of "Waters of the United States" ................................................................. 23

Page 2 of 27
Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army (Army) published a 

final rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), in light of the U.S. 

Supreme Court cases in U.S. v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County 

v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), and Rapanos v. United States (Rapanos). The agencies’ goal 

is to respond to requests from stakeholders across the country to make the process of identifying 

waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and easier to implement. 

This rule improves the process for making jurisdictional determinations under the CWA by minimizing 

delays and costs, makes protection of the nation’s clean water more effective, and improves 

predictability and consistency for landowners. This rule will result in a reduction in the geographic 

scope of waters historically protected under the CWA to reflect the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on 

Environmental Justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable

and permitted by law, to make Environmental Justice part of their mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the U.S. EPA defines Environmental Justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal 

for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same 

degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making 

process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

Meaningful involvement from minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, as well as other 

stakeholders, has been a cornerstone of development of the final rule. Consistent with E.O. 12898, 

EPA hosted a stakeholder briefing on May 12, 2014, in Washington D.C., and an additional 24 meetings 

between April – November 2014, through which Environmental Justice stakeholders were specifically 

engaged for technical input and meaningful involvement in this rulemaking process. 

The agencies have determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, because the 

Clean Water Rule does not establish any specific regulatory requirements that would affect these 

communities. Instead, it is a definitional rule that clarifies the scope of “waters of the United States” 

consistent with the CWA, Supreme Court precedent, and science. The definition itself imposes no 

direct impacts on the environment or public health for communities at large. All potential impacts are 

measured through CWA program implementation, which is outside of the scope of this rule. When the 

rule is implemented through the permitting process, Environmental Justice issues will be further 

addressed on a more site-specific basis.

Page 3 of 27
Purpose

The purpose of this report is to: (1) Present a summary of the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters 

of the United States”, (2) Describe the evaluation of Environmental Justice concerns in the context of 

the final rule, and (3) Discuss the findings of the Environmental Justice analysis, including the technical 

input received through outreach and public comments, and how that feedback has been considered in 

the development of the final rule.

The Clean Water Rule

Background

Congress enacted the amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act 

(CWA), in 1972 to address pollution entering the nation’s waters and to complement statutes such as 

the Rivers and Harbors Act that protects the navigability of waters. As a pollution prevention statute, 

the CWA extends beyond waters that are navigable in fact to include the headwater streams, lakes, 

and wetlands that require protection to meet its stated public health, environmental, and water 

quality goals. 

For almost 40 years, the legal test applied in determining the geographic scope of waters protected 

under the CWA was based on the authority given the Federal government under the Commerce Clause 

of the United States Constitution. The courts, including decisions of the Supreme Court, have 

consistently agreed that the geographic scope of the CWA should reach beyond waters that are 

navigable in fact. As a result, the CWA has consistently protected rivers, streams, creeks, wetlands, 

lakes, the territorial seas, and other water bodies on which Americans rely for clean, healthy, and 

abundant sources of water. The CWA serves as the nation’s single most important statute for 

protecting America’s clean water.

In light of Supreme Court Court cases in U.S. v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Solid Waste Agency of 

Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), and Rapanos v. United States 

(Rapanos) regarding the scope of “waters of the United States,” the agencies are revising their 

longstanding regulations defining the “waters of the United States.” 

Summary of the Final Rule

In this final rule, EPA and Army clarify the scope of “waters of the United States” that are protected 

under the Clean Water Act (CWA), using the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best 

available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies’ technical expertise and experience in 

implementing the statute. This rule makes the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA 

easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while 

protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of our nation’s water resources. 

This final rule interprets the CWA to cover those waters that require protection in order to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate 

waters, and the territorial seas. This interpretation is based not only on legal precedent and the best 

available peer-reviewed science, but also on the agencies’ technical expertise and extensive experience 

in implementing the CWA over the past four decades. The rule will clarify and simplify implementation 

Page 4 of 27
of the CWA consistent with its purposes through clearer definitions and increased use of bright-line 

rules. 

In this final rule, the agencies define “waters of the United States” to include eight categories of 

jurisdictional waters. The rule maintains existing exclusions for certain categories of waters, and adds 

additional categorical exclusions that are regularly applied in practice. The rule reflects the agencies’ 

goal of providing simpler, clearer, and more consistent approaches for identifying the geographic scope 

of the CWA. The rule establishes jurisdiction in three basic categories: waters that are jurisdictional in 

all instances, waters that are jurisdictional but only if they meet specific definitions in the rule, and a 

narrowed category of waters subject to case-specific analysis. 

For more information on the rule, see Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” in 

the Federal Register [EPA-HQ-2011-0880: FRL-991-47-OW]. 

Seeking Public Input to Strengthen the Final Rule

During this rulemaking process, the agencies committed themselves to providing a transparent, 

comprehensive, and effective process for taking public comment on the proposed rule. The agencies 

strove to gather all the input possible from a broad range of stakeholders who have critical experience, 

scientific information, or business perspectives regarding clean water programs. To meet this goal, the 

agencies convened over 400 meetings nationwide with states, small businesses, farmers, academics, 

miners, energy companies, counties, municipalities, environmental organizations, other federal 

agencies, and many others to provide an enhanced opportunity to provide input on the proposal. The 

agencies also received over one million public comments that informed the rule.

This report will focus on the feedback received from Environmental Justice stakeholders, an evaluation 

of potential impacts, and the agencies’ incorporation of public comments to develop the final rule. 

Environmental Justice Analysis

In setting the stage for the analysis, we first define Environmental Justice, and then identify the 

parameters of the analysis:

What is Environmental Justice? 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (1994) states “... each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority, 

low-income, and indigenous populations.”

The E.O. directs federal agencies to develop Environmental Justice strategies that identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs on 

minority, low-income, and indigenous populations. The E.O. also is intended to promote 

nondiscrimination in federal programs that affect human health and the environment, and aims to 

provide minority, low-income, and indigenous communities with access to public information and 

opportunities for meaningful public participation in matters relating to human health and the 

environment. 

Page 5 of 27
As outlined in EPA’s "Environmental Justice Strategy: Executive Order 12898" (1995), EPA defines 

Environmental Justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. More specifically: 

• Fair treatment means that no group of persons should bear a disproportionate share of the 

negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial 

operations or policies. 

• Meaningful involvement means that: (1) people have an opportunity to participate in decisions 

about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public’s contribution 

can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) their concerns will be considered in the 

decision making process; and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of 

those potentially affected. 

Environmental Justice is an important element of policy-making and project planning for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) as well. In compliance with Executive Order (EO) 12898, the Corps adheres 

to the tenets of EPA’s guidance on Environmental Justice, in addition to guidance developed by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) entitled; “Environmental Justice under the National 

Environmental Policy Act” (1997). This guidance requires the Corps to develop an evaluation of the 

potential effect any proposed action may have on the “human environment.” 

EPA and Army continue to work toward full implementation of the E.O. in their policies and programs. 

In honor of the 20th anniversary of the signing of E.O. 12898 on Environmental Justice, EPA developed 

Plan EJ 2014 (2011). Plan EJ 2014 is EPA’s overarching strategy for advancing Environmental Justice. 

This document outlines a comprehensive implementation plan that seeks to build stronger 

relationships with communities overburdened by environmental and health hazards and build 

partnerships that improve conditions in such communities (USEPA 2014). Through Plan EJ 2014, EPA 

has worked to develop a suite of tools to integrate Environmental Justice and civil rights into its 

programs, policies, and activities.

How does one assess Environmental Justice? 

EPA and Army followed EPA’s guidance for the assessment of Environmental Justice impacts on 

disadvantaged communities. The most recent EPA guidance outlined in Plan EJ 2014 and the Plan EJ 

2014 Progress Report describes the agencies’ steps and strategies to fully implement Environmental 

Justice into their programs and policies. To meet the requirements of E.O. 12898, EPA directs rule 

writers and decision-makers to respond to three basic questions (EPA 2011 and 2014): 

1. How did your public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for 

minority, low-income, and indigenous populations?

2. How did you identify and address existing and new disproportionate environmental and public 

health impacts on minority, low-income, and indigenous populations?

3. How did actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the outcome or final decision?

Page 6 of 27
The agencies used these questions to guide their evaluation of potential Environmental Justice 

impacts, which is further summarized below.

Evaluation of Environmental Justice through Public Participation

The agencies committed themselves to providing a transparent, comprehensive, and effective process 

for taking public comment on the proposed rule. The agencies strove to gather all the input possible 

from a broad range of stakeholders who have critical experience, scientific information, or business 

perspectives regarding clean water programs. To meet this goal, the agencies convened over 400 

meetings nationwide with states, small businesses, farmers, academics, miners, energy companies, 

counties, municipalities, environmental organizations, other federal agencies, and many others to 

provide an enhanced opportunity to provide input on the proposal. The agencies also received over 

one million public comments that informed this rule.

The public comments identified a number of areas where the proposed rule could be more effective in 

protecting clean water, could be more clear and easy to understand, could help to reduce potential 

burdens on farmers and small businesses, and could be more responsive to the needs of states and 

local governments. Below are some of the major comments the agencies heard during meetings with 

stakeholders and in public comments submitted to the agencies:

• Protect and enhance the key role given to states and tribes under the statute to 

implement CWA programs.

• Understand potential indirect effects on cities, counties, and other municipalities that 

must comply with the requirements of the CWA.

• Define the scope of CWA jurisdiction consistent with decisions of the Supreme Court.

• Recognize the role of farmers in conserving the nation’s vital aquatic resources.

• Address potential burdens on the small business community.

• Ensure the CWA remains effective in protecting the clean water on which the nation 

depends for our health, the economy, and the environment.

• Make this rule less complicated, easier to understand, and more predictable to 

implement.

Consistent with E.O. 12898, EPA hosted a stakeholder briefing on May 12, 2014, in Washington D.C., 

and an additional 24 meetings between April and November 2014, through which Environmental 

Justice stakeholders were specifically engaged for technical input and meaningful involvement in this

rulemaking process. In response to the E.O., the agencies have assessed the technical feedback and 

recommendations collected from Environmental Justice stakeholders according to the three questions 

for rule writers and decision-makers, and summarized the feedback received below. Detailed 

information on the meetings, participants, and written comments received can be found in Appendices 

A, B, and C. 

1. How did your public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for 

minority, low-income, and indigenous populations?

During each public meeting, the agencies provided an overview of the proposed rule, and answered 

questions from the stakeholders in attendance. The participants offered comments on the proposed 

rule and its potential impact on low-income, minority, and indigenous communities. Many of the 

Page 7 of 27
comments provided by Environmental Justice stakeholders were consistent with major comments 

received nationally such as:

• Make this rule less complicated, easier to understand, and more predictable to implement.

• Ensure the CWA remains effective in protecting the clean water on which the nation depends 

for our health, the economy, and the environment.

• Understand potential indirect effects on cities, counties, and other municipalities who must 

comply with the requirements of the CWA.

Additional comments from Environmental Justice stakeholders included: 

• Ensure the final rule maintains tribal sovereignty on waters bordering state and tribal lands.

• Consider the ecological significance of other categories of waterways, such as Carolina bays, 

prairie potholes, and vernal pools that deserve regulatory protection without the need to 

undertake a case-by-case determination of whether they qualify as “waters of the United 

States” for purposes of the CWA.

• Consider developing guidance to further assist states and tribal nations in implementing the 

final rule 

• Be mindful of the indirect effect this rule has on the relationship to endangered species listings 

and protection of beneficial uses.

In review of the written comments, EPA and Army received seventeen letters from Environmental 

Justice organizations, Members of Congress, and concerned citizens regarding the potential impact of 

this rule on Environmental Justice communities. Additional comment letters submitted on the 

proposed rule that mentioned terms like “minority” and “disadvantaged” with respect to the 

commenter’s public interest (ex. agriculture, or small business development) were reviewed and 

considered separately. 

Of the seventeen letters received, eight provided support for the proposed rule, five opposed the 

proposed rule, two focused comments on their concern with the potential environmental impact of 

this rule on disadvantaged communities, and two requested additional analyses to determine the 

socio-economic impact of this rule on disadvantaged communities. Recommendations for final rule 

development were also provided in fifteen of the letters received. Many of the comments provided

were consistent with the major comments received, nationally, through public outreach. A summary of 

unique comments provided by the Environmental Justice community are highlighted below.

Letters of Support 

• Clarifies the scope of the CWA.

• Restores protection to headwaters, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and to wetlands and 

other waters located near or within the floodplain of tributaries.

• Clarifies of jurisdictional coverage for a number of wetlands and stream segments that are 

currently in limbo under the CWA, thereby protecting their role in providing clean and 

affordable drinking water supply, recreation, and aquatic habitat. 

• Eliminates confusion in how clean water protections are interpreted and implemented. The 

healthy communities that we are building cannot continue without reliable, clean water.

• Finalize the Waters of the U.S. rule that clarifies what waterways are protected under the CWA.

Page 8 of 27
Letters of Opposition 

• Fails to explicitly exempt waters that directly impact human health and waters used for 

agricultural practices. This rule change will require federal funding for implementation.

• Fails to recognize states’ primary role in regulating and protecting their streams, ponds, 

wetlands, and other bodies of water.

• Creates economic impacts to States. Additional and substantial regulatory costs associated 

with changes in jurisdiction and increased permitting requirements will result in bureaucratic 

barriers to economic growth, negatively impacting farms, small businesses, commercial 

development, road construction, and energy production.

• Fails to identify the point on the continuum from non-connectivity to full connectivity at which 

a significant nexus would occur and instead the determination is left to the judgment of the 

agencies.

Concerns and Recommendations

• Clarify how the agency will incorporate EJ into the final rule, and whether EJ communities will 

be given consideration in permitting consistent with E.O. 12898.

• Increase engagement with EJ communities on this rule. The proposed rule could improve 

access to clean and safe water for these communities but in order to do so, communication of 

this rule is critical.

• Clarify potential impact on our community and region.

• Strengthen the final rule by further clarifying that important wetlands and other waters located 

beyond floodplains are also categorically protected under the CWA. 

• Include headwaters and wetlands explicitly in the definition. 

• Urge the agencies to be expansive and inclusive in providing CWA protection to headwater 

streams, intermittent and ephemeral waters, and wetlands.

• Define non-adjacent “other waters” as “Waters of the United States” and identify additional 

subcategories of waters that are jurisdictional, rather than requiring case-by-case 

determinations. 

• Include other categories of waters, such as Carolina bays, prairie potholes, and vernal pools 

that deserve regulatory protection without the need to undertake a case-by-case 

determination of whether they qualify as “waters of the United States” for purposes of the 

CWA.

• Restore critical protections to waterways currently at risk due to loopholes in the law.

• Provide for new science by not categorically excluding any of the “other waters.” Establish a 

process that allows evolving science to inform future jurisdictional decisions. 

• Clarify that all waters with a “significant nexus” to downstream waters are clearly protected 

under the CWA.

• Clarify the exact nature of “traditional navigable waters” to eliminate any uncertainty as to 

which waters are intended to be covered by that term. 

• Clarify wastewater treatment exemptions.

• Clarify terms such as floodplain and riparian area.

• Consider the unintended impacts of the proposed rule on water delivery systems.

• Define specific terms like similarly situated, ephemeral, intermittent, perennial, gullies, rills, 

non-wetland swales, and uplands.

Page 9 of 27
• Revise the preamble and proposed Definition so that it protects the broadest category of 

waters allowed under the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. 

Constitution, as intended by Congress. 

• Urge the agencies to leave in place all portions of the existing definition that have not been 

invalidated by the Supreme Court.

• Remove new definitions and other language that limit jurisdiction in a manner not supported by 

law or science.

• Remove categorical exclusions that are not supported by law or science.

• Rely on all valid jurisdictional tests for categorically protecting waters to the full extent allowed 

under the Commerce Clause.

• Consider the economic impacts of the agencies’ policies knowing that their actions will have 

serious impacts on struggling families, seniors, low-income households and small business 

owners.

• Expand analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action in the analysis of 

Environmental Justice in minority and low-income populations, especially for ranchers.

• Recommend that the agencies analyze the impact to nearby communities and identify whether 

a community is disproportionately affected before issuing a permit such as those for Municipal 

Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). 

• Expand communication with the EJ community on the proposed rule, and its effects on lowincome communities1. 

2. How did you identify and address existing and new disproportionate environmental and public 

health impacts on minority, low-income, and indigenous populations?

Because the final rule does not itself establish any specific regulatory requirements, there are no 

existing or new disproportionate environmental or public health impacts on minority, low-income, or 

indigenous populations. Instead, it is a definitional rule that clarifies the scope of “waters of the 

United States” consistent with the CWA, Supreme Court precedent, and science. Programs established 

by the CWA, such as the section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

program, the section 404 permit program for discharge of dredged or fill material, and the section 311 

oil spill prevention and cleanup programs, all rely on the definition of “waters of the United States.” 

The final rule includes eight categories of jurisdictional waters, maintains existing exemptions for 

certain categories of activities and waters, and adds additional exclusions for categories of waters that 

are never covered under the Act. The final rule does not establish regulatory requirements and, 

therefore, does not impose direct costs on any entity. Instead, it is a definitional rule that clarifies the 

scope of “waters of the United States.” The agencies prepared an economic analysis to better 

understand the indirect incremental costs and benefits that may result from any change in the number 

1 This Clean Water Rule imposes no direct impacts on the environment or public health. All potential impacts of this 

definitional rule are measured through CWA program implementation. This comment references meaningful involvement 

in the permitting process, and not specifically the definition in the rule.

Page 10 of 27

 
of positive jurisdictional determinations2 associated with CWA programs relying on the definition of 

“waters of the United States.” 

Key Elements of the Analysis

When determining which waters are covered by the CWA today, the agencies make jurisdictional 

determinations consistent with the law, existing regulations and policy, and the Supreme Court rulings 

in 2001 (SWANCC) and 2006 (Rapanos). This scope of waters currently covered by the CWA is 

considerably smaller than the scope of waters historically covered prior to the SWANCC and Rapanos

Supreme Court decisions. Based on the reduction in the scope of CWA jurisdiction, the agencies 

conclude that the new rule would impose no additional costs when compared to historic application of 

the regulation it replaces. 

For purposes of this economic analysis, however, the agencies evaluated costs and benefits associated 

with the difference in jurisdictional determinations between the new rule and current field practice, 

which is based on the 2008 EPA and Army jurisdiction guidance. This policy guidance has been 

implemented by the agencies since 2008 and reflects the Supreme Court decisions that limited 

assertion of CWA jurisdiction for some types of waters. Compared to this baseline, the agencies 

anticipate the new rule will result in an increase in the number of positive jurisdictional determinations 

and an associated increase in both costs and benefits that derive from the implementation of CWA 

programs.

Evaluation of Jurisdictional Determinations

To calculate indirect costs and benefits to CWA programs, the agencies first estimated the potential 

changes to jurisdictional determinations due to the final rule. The agencies reviewed a sample of 

negative jurisdictional determinations (JDs) (i.e., determinations of no jurisdiction) completed by the 

Corps in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 to assess whether or not the JD would change under the final rule.3 

The agencies relied upon JDs covering three categories of waters– streams, wetlands, and other waters

– as the basis for analysis. Conservative assumptions were applied that have the effect of consistently 

increasing the number of positive JDs that results from the new rule.

As a result of the estimates derived for all three categories of JDs in the FY13 and FY14 data, the 

agencies estimate that there will be an increase in positive jurisdictional determinations annually due 

to the new rule when compared with current field practice. 

Costs and Benefits

Although not part of the Environmental Justice analysis, as part of the economic analysis described 

above, EPA conducted a robust cost benefit analysis for this rule. That analysis addresses some 

concerns raised by minority or low-income ranchers/farmers who are concerned about the cost of this 

2 A “positive jurisdictional determination” is a decision to assert CWA jurisdiction over a particular water. The alternative is

a “negative jurisdictional determination” which is a decision not to assert CWA jurisdiction over a particular water. It is 

important to note that the purpose of the economic analysis is not to estimate the change in the numbers of waters subject 

to jurisdiction.

3 The information available in the Corps’ ORM2 database does not allow the agencies to evaluate the percent of waters 

currently found to be jurisdictional that will not be under the final rule.

Page 11 of 27

 
rule. For more detail please see Economic Analysis of the EPA-Army Clean Water Rule (Docket EPA-HQ2011-0880) in the docket for this rule.

Overall, the agencies’ analysis indicates that for all scenarios of costs and benefits associated with the 

future implementation of this rule through CWA programs, the indirect incremental benefits exceed 

indirect incremental costs by a ratio of up to 2:1, which is further explained in the Economic Analysis 

report. The greatest potential for changes in jurisdictional determinations will likely be seen in casespecific determinations of similarly situated and adjacent waters, previously defined as “other waters.” 

Lastly, indirect costs and benefits may be over-estimated because each newly jurisdictional water will 

not be affected by all CWA programs simultaneously, and a particular activity affecting a water may be 

exempt from permitting under the CWA. 

3. How did actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the outcome or final decision?

A detailed response to comments document has been prepared by the agencies and is available in the 

public docket for this rulemaking (Docket EPA-HQ-2011-0880).

The agencies listened carefully to what the public had to say and their input has been reflected in a 

number of key revisions to the final rule:

• Protect Tributaries and their Adjacent Waters: Science clearly demonstrates that 

tributaries and their adjacent waters as defined in the final rule must be protected 

under the CWA. The nation’s streams, creeks, rivers, and their adjacent waters are not 

just connected to downstream traditional navigable waters, interstate waters and the 

territorial seas, they are integral to protecting the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of these downstream waters.

• Provide More Bright Lines: Science also shows that certain wetlands contribute to 

downstream waters by holding flood waters, filtering pollutants, and trapping 

sediments. This rule identifies the places where these wetlands are found and provides 

for case-specific determinations of whether they are “waters of the United States.” 

• Simplify Definitions: The final rule establishes that only those waters that have the 

physical indicators of sufficient flow – bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark –

are protected tributaries. The public also raised concerns that the definition of 

“neighboring” was unnecessarily complicated and confusing. The final rule is revised by 

removing some terms that caused confusion and providing clearer lines identifying 

protected waters.

• Reduce Potential Burdens on Farmers: Groundwater, including tile drain systems, 

grassed waterways on farms, ditches with ephemeral flow and those that do not 

connect to the tributary system, gullies and erosion channels, and features on farm land 

including swales, farm and stock ponds that are built on dry land, as well as all features 

that do not have the physical indicators of protected tributaries, and all prior converted 

croplands, are not covered by this rule. 

• Exclude Many Stormwater Control and Water Recycling/Reuse Structures: The final 

rule makes clear that many municipal separate storm sewer system structures and 

water recycling structures, including retention and detention basins, infiltration 

Page 12 of 27
structures, curbs and gutters, and water delivery systems constructed on dry land, are 

not covered by this rule.

The agencies’ final rule is based on sound peer-reviewed science and the law, and is easier to 

understand and implement. In addition, it protects jobs dependent on clean water, saves time and 

money for the regulated community and agencies implementing the CWA, and ensures that the nation 

will continue to have abundant and safe supplies of clean water for businesses, farming, communities, 

fishing and swimming, and drinking water. The final rule reflects important improvements identified in 

hundreds of meetings with stakeholders and hundreds of thousands of public comments. 

The Clean Water Rule will benefit future implementation of the CWA by clarifying the extent of 

jurisdictional waters, and identifying where data collection and analysis may be appropriate for future 

program evaluations. 

America thrives on clean water. The final rule is vital for the success of the nation’s businesses, 

agriculture, energy development, and the health of our communities. The agencies have defined the 

scope of the CWA in a final regulation that protects clean water and public health, promotes jobs and 

the economy, and ensures the agricultural community has clarity needed to continue to produce the 

food, fuel, and fiber we rely upon. 

Conclusion

For the waters defined as “water of the United States” under the CWA, the agencies proposed 

revisions to the following categorical definitions: (1) Tributaries, (2) Adjacency, (3) Other waters, and 

(4) Exclusions. The public comments received from Environmental Justice stakeholders have helped to 

reshape each of the definitions as proposed, which now incorporate features that provide increased 

clarity for regulators, stakeholders, and the regulated public for identifying waters as ‘‘waters of the 

United States.’’ 

The Clean Water Rule imposes no direct impacts on the environment or public health for communities 

at large, and does not change the current structure of permit and regulatory processes under the Act. 

Therefore, EPA finds that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects. Understanding that all potential impacts of this definitional rule are measured 

through CWA program implementation, which is outside of the scope of this rule, the agencies will 

encourage additional data collection for future evaluations by the implementing programs.

EPA has developed EJSCREEN, a screening and mapping tool used by EPA to help identify areas with 

potential Environmental Justice concerns that may warrant further consideration, analysis, or outreach 

as the Agency develops programs, policies, and other activities that may affect communities. This and 

other tools like EJSCREEN may be useful to assist in further evaluation of environmental justice within 

CWA programs.

The Clean Water Rule will further benefit future implementation of the CWA by clarifying the extent of 

jurisdictional waters, and identifying where data collection and analysis may be appropriate for future 

program evaluations. 

Page 13 of 27
References

1. CEQ 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act

2. E.O. 12898. 1994. Presidential Executive Order; Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations

3. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) (33 U.S.C. 1251 - 1376; Chapter 758; P.L. 

845, June 30, 1948; 62 Stat. 1155)

4. 33 U.S.C. 403. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899

5. USEPA 2014. Plan EJ 2014 Progress Report

6. USEPA 2011. Plan EJ 2014

7. USEPA 2010. Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development 

of an Action. OPEI regulatory development series

8. USEPA 1995. Environmental Justice Strategy. Memo from Administrator Carol Browner

9. USEPA website: Clean Water Rule: (http://www2.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule)

Page 14 of 27
Appendix A. Environmental Justice Advocacy Group Participants in 2014 Public 

Outreach Events for the Proposed Clean Water Rule: Definition of "Waters of the 

United States"

Organizations State

National Tribal Water Council Various

American Agri-Women Various

Center for Water Advocacy Alaska

Chickaloon Native Village Alaska

Georgetown Tribal Council Alaska

Alaska Inter-Tribal Council Alaska

CSP2 Alaska

Alaska's Big Village Network Alaska

Alaska Inter-Tribal Council Alaska

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council Alaska

Chignik Lagoon IGAP Alaska

Alatna Village Council Alaska

San Carlos Apache Tribal EPA Arizona

San Carlos Apache Tribe Arizona

White Mountain Apache Tribe Arizona

Bishop Paiute Tribe California

Karuk Tribe California

Cortina Band of Wintun of California California

Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake California

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians California

Hopland Band of Pomo Indians California

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians California

Tule River Tribe California

Fort Independence Paiute Indian Reservation California

Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley California

Lytton Rancheria California

Elk Valley Rancheria California

Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley California

Klamath Riverkeeper California

Karuk Tribe California

Cold Springs Rancheria California

Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians California

Campo Band of Mission Indians Tribal EPA California

Latino Ranchers Association Colorado

Southern Ute Indian Tribe Colorado

Trees, Water & People Colorado

League of Women Voters Colorado, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota

Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut Connecticut

Seminole Tribe of Florida Florida
Nez Perce Tribe Idaho

Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Iowa

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Kansas

Floyds Fork Environmental Association Kentucky

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Michigan

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Michigan

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Michigan

Little Band of Ottawa Indians Michigan

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Michigan

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi Michigan

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe Michigan

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Michigan

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Michigan

Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians Michigan 

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Minnesota

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Minnesota

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Minnesota

Fon du Lac Reservation Minnesota

Fort Belknap Indian Community Montana

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Montana

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Nebraska

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Nevada

Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada Nevada

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes Nevada

Pueblo of San Ildefonso New Mexico

Pueblo of Laguna New Mexico

Pueblo of Sandia New Mexico

Pueblo of Tesuque Environment Department New Mexico

Pueblo of Santa Ana New Mexico

Division of Natural Resources New Mexico

Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force New York

Shinnecock Environmental Department New York

Spirit Lake Tribe North Dakota

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe North Dakota, South Dakota

River Network Ohio

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma Oklahoma

Otoe-Missouria Tribe Oklahoma

Wyandotte Nation Oklahoma

Kialegee Tribal Town Oklahoma

Iowa tribe of oklahoma Oklahoma

The Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Oklahoma

Sac and Fox Nation Oklahoma

Chickasaw Nation Oklahoma

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Oregon

Page 16 of 27
Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate South Dakota

Skokomish Indian Tribe Washington

Yakama Nation Environmental Management Washington

Colville Confederated Tribes Washington

Yakama Nation Washington

Quinault Indian Nation Washington

Rural Coalition Washington DC

Menominee Tribe Wisconsin

Forest County Potawatomi Community Wisconsin

Sokaogon Chippewa Community Wisconsin

Lac du Flambeau Tribe Wisconsin

Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission Wisconsin

Bad River Natural Resources Department Wisconsin

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians Wisconsin

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Michigan, Minnesota, 

Wisconsin

Wind River Reservation Wyoming

Non-Traditional Stakeholders Meeting Participants (see 

Appendix B)

Various

Page 17 of 27
Appendix B. Summary of Public Outreach Events Attended by Environmental Justice Stakeholders in 2014 for the Proposed Clean Water Rule and 

Feedback Received

Meeting/Call/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

EPA HEADQUARTERS

National Tribal Water 

Council Call

April 9, 2014 Conference Call United South and Eastern Tribes Overview of proposed rule, review of consultation process and next 

steps

General Stakeholders -

Call 

April 11, 2014 Washington, DC Tribes, State, Local Government, NGOs, Associations, 

Industry: Clearwater, Wetland Studies, Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management, Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality, Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, National 

Congress of American Indians, Iowa Governor's Office, 

Ground Water Protection Council, Water Alliance, 

National Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture, National Association of Water Companies, 

Sierra Club, National Association of Home Builders, 

National Association of Counties, Izaak Walton 

League, U.S. Council of Mayors

Ditches, MS4s, ditch maintenance exclusion, conservation practices, 

green infrastructure, waters going through tribal lands, adjacent waters 

and subsurface flow, neighboring

National Tribal Water 

Council

April 22, 2014 Washington, DC Tribal: National Tribal Water Council and EPA National 

Tribal Caucus

Overview of proposed rule

Non-Traditional 

Stakeholders Briefing 

May 12, 2014 Washington, DC Variety of stakeholders: Sustainable Business 

Network of Massachusetts, Local First Chicago, Klean 

Kanteen, One Percent for the Planet, Rural Coalition, 

Boxed Water is Better, American Sustainable Business 

Council, Lake Champlain International, Triple Ethos, 

Office of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Junxion Strategy, 

Barrett International Technology, Mile High Business, 

Illinois Green Business Association, Howard 

University, Ethical Markets Media, Night and Day 

Distribution, Transitioning to Green, The Young 

Zeronauts, University of St. Andrews, RxArtisans, 

Illinois Green Business Association

Overview of proposed rule, impact on agriculture

River Network Webinar May 13, 2014 Washington, DC NGO: River Network Groups Overview of proposed rule

River Rally June 2, 2014 Pittsburgh, PA NGO: River Network River Rally Overview of proposed rule, other waters, connectivity report
Meeting/Call/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

American Agri-Women June 9, 2014 Washington, DC Agriculture: American Agri-Women Overview of proposed rule, ephemeral tributaries, scope of jurisdiction, 

exemptions and exclusions

Rural Coalition/National 

Wildlife Federation Call 

July 30, 2014 Conference Call NGOs: Rural Coalition, National Wildlife Federation, 

Conservation Stewards (CO), National Latino Farmers 

and Ranchers Trade Association (DC), North Carolina 

Association of Black Lawyers Land Loss Preservation 

Project, Federation of Southern Cooperatives (AL), 

Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project/Muscvgee 

Food Sovereignty Association, Colorado Latino 

Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association, Northern 

New Mexico Stockman's Association, New Mexico 

Acequia Association, Mississippi Association of 

Cooperatives, RC board member/tribal community, 

Farmworker Association of Florida, National Hmong 

American Farmers (Fresno, CA)

Overview of proposed rule, scope of rule, interpretive rule and Section 

404 exemptions, exclusions, ditches, ephemeral waters/tributaries, 

adjacent waters

Tribal Consultation Call October 23, 2014 Conference Call Tribes: Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians (CA), 

Quapaw Tribe (OK), Barona Band of Inaja Mission 

Indians (CA), Pueblo of Santa Ana (NM), Confederated 

Tribes of the Colville Indians, Ricon Tribe, Great Lakes 

Indian Wildlife and Fish Commission

Overview of proposed rule, definition of tributary, significant nexus, 

expansion of EPA jurisdiction

River Network Tribal 

Webinar 

November 3, 2014 Webinar NGO: Tribal River Network, Tribes (88 webinar 

participants, mostly tribes)

Tribal perspectives; native corporations; interstate commerce; ditches; 

definition of tributary, upland, neighboring; new types of waters not 

covered; impacts on boundary waters; prairie potholes; seepage lakes

EPA REGION 1 

Meeting/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

Regional Tribal Council 

Call 

September 10, 2014 Boston, MA Tribes Impacts to agriculture, questions on consultation 

EPA REGION 2

Meeting/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

Page 19 of 27
Meeting/Call/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

NYC Parks, Bronx River 

Alliance, others - Outdoor 

Sampling Event

August 18, 2014 Bronx, NY State, NGO: NYC Parks, Bronx River Alliance Water quality 

EPA REGION 3

Meeting/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

Greening America's 

Capitals 

September 23, 2014 Richmond, VA Local Officials Grant announcement, City of Richmond

EPA REGION 6

Meeting/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

Tribes: Regional Tribal 

Operations Committee 

Meeting

March 28, 2014 Dallas, TX Tribes Waters of the U.S. overview, partnership

City of San Antonio Urban 

Waters

October 29, 2014 San Antonio, TX San Antonio city leadership, Congressman Doggett, 

general public

Waters of the U.S. overview, upcoming opportunity for partnership

National Hispanic Medical 

Association

November 8, 2014 San Antonio, TX NGO: National Hispanic Medical Association Briefly touched on Waters of US, upcoming opportunity for partnership

EPA REGION 7

Meeting/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

Other Stakeholders 

Roundtable

April 29, 2014 Topeka, KS Kansas Canoe & Kayak Association; League of Women 

Voters; Sierra Club; Kansas Natural Resource Council; 

Kansas Building Industry Association; The Nature 

Conservancy; Friends of the Kaw

Connectivity report and science, ephemeral, timing of the final rule, 

specific waters like playas and Sandhills, mitigation, diversion canals

Other Stakeholders 

Roundtable

May 6, 2014 Ames, IA Sierra Club, League of Women Voters of Iowa, U.S. 

Congressional staff, The Nature Conservancy, Iowa 

Environmental Council,

Iowa State University, Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources, Iowa League of Cities

Need for formal implementation guidance; interpretive rule and 404(f) 

exemptions; definition of neighboring; appropriate watershed size for 

similarly situated waters; cost impact to municipalities; waters of the 

state; groundwater connectivity 

EPA REGION 8

Page 20 of 27
Meeting/Call/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

Meeting/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

Tribal Directors and Chairs 

Call

March 25, 2014 Teleconference Tribal Directors and Chairs Overview of proposed rule

EPA/Rocky Moutain 

Farmers Union (RMFU) 

Stakeholder Event

October 9, 2014 Denver, CO Speakers (invited*): RMFU, Clean Water Action, 

Senator Udall*, Senator Bennet*, Gov. Hickenlooper*, 

Colorado University Water Policy Experts, National 

Latino Ranchers & Farmers Trade Association, 

Colorado Foundation for Water Education, local 

ranchers/farmers

Media (invited): Colorado rural and statewide 

newspapers, radio and TV stations, Associated Press, 

The New York Times, Social media 

Overview of the proposed rule, rule impact on agricultural community in 

Colorado; importance of clean water for agricultural production; 

agricultural exemptions; ditches

The River Network October 9, 2014 Webinar River network membership Overview of the proposed rule. Questions: Agricultural activities 

regulated under the proposal; exemptions for agriculture activities; 

ephemeral streams and intermittent streams (including those that are 

covered up in urban areas); impact of the proposed rule on to 

agriculture community

EPA REGION 9

Meeting/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

Region 9 Tribes, Regional 

Tribal Operations 

Committee (RTOC) Spring 

Meeting

May 1, 2014 Santa Rosa, CA Tribes Need to rehabilitate streams that are dry now to prior conditions; 

relationship to endangered species listings and protection of beneficial 

uses; 

HQ Outreach Tour (NRCD, 

Tribes, AZ Farm Bureau)

August 11-12, 2014 Prescott and 

Phoenix, AZ

Agriculture: NRCD, Arizona Farm Bureau Ephemeral waters, ditches, exemptions 

EPA REGION 10 

Meeting/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

Regional Tribal Operations 

Meeting

May 29, 2014 Tribal representatives Overview of proposed rule

Page 21 of 27
Meeting/Call/Event Date Location Organizations/Groups Represented Topics Discussed

Workshop presented to 

agricultural producers, 

tribal representatives and 

other state resource 

agencies at the 

Washington Department 

of Ecology

June 5, 2014 Agricultural producers, tribes, state resource agencies Overview of proposed rule

Waters of the U.S. 

Proposed Rule Webinar 

for Tribal Interests

November 5, 2014 Webinar Cascade Environmental Group, Chickaloon Native 

Village, Confederated Umatilla Tribes, Cow Creek 

Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, Idaho Rivers United, 

Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Kiana Traditional Council, 

Makah Tribe, Regional Tribal Operations Committee, 

Tulalip Tribe, Washington State Department of 

Agriculture 

Isolated wetlands; ditches; groundwater connections; tributary 

definition emphasis on hydrology (instead of presence of fish); 

clarifications between exemptions and excluded waters

Waters of the U.S. 

Outreach Webinar 

Presentation to General 

Audience

November 5, 2014 Webinar 12 participants from tribes, state agencies, NGOs, 

federal agencies, general public

Wetlands considered as tributaries; water quality standards (for 

temperature and turbidity) for wetlands with little or infrequent 

hydrologic connections. 

Page 22 of 27
Appendix C. Environmental Justice Comments on the Proposed Clean Water Rule; Definitions of "Waters of the United States"

Commenter Support the Rule Oppose the Rule EJ-related Concern Recommendations for Final Rule Development

Annette Shafer: 

Idaho Farm Bureau

The rule does not explicitly exempt 

waters that directly impact human 

health and waters used for agricultural 

practices. This rule change will require 

federal funding for implementation

A full environmental impact assessment in order to 

determine all potential socio-economic impacts, 

impacts to rural and disadvantaged communities 

and areas, impacts to irrigable lands.

Anonymous 

(tracking # 1jy8buzu-j)

Please consider the economic impacts of your 

policies knowing that your actions will have serious 

impacts on struggling families, seniors, low-income 

households and small business owners.

Audubon California Our organizations support the 

proposed rule for the clear protections 

it restores to headwaters, intermittent 

and ephemeral streams, and to 

wetlands and other waters located 

near or within the floodplain of these 

tributaries.

We urge the Agencies to strengthen the final rule by 

further clarifying that important wetlands and other 

waters located beyond floodplains are also 

categorically protected under the Clean Water Act. 

Additional recommendations include: 1. 

Categorically define certain non-adjacent “other 

waters” as “Waters of the United States” and 

identify additional subcategories of waters that are 

jurisdictional, rather than requiring case-by-case 

determinations. 

2. Provide for new science by not categorically 

excluding any of the “other waters.” Establish a 

process that allows evolving science to inform future 

jurisdictional decisions. 

3. Our organizations urge the Agencies to swiftly 

finalize a rule to clarify that all waters with a 

“significant nexus” to downstream waters are clearly 

protected under the Clean Water Act.
Commenter Support the Rule Oppose the Rule EJ-related Concern Recommendations for Final Rule Development

Cochise County It is important for both the study and 

the proposed rule to acknowledge that 

connectivity falls along a continuum 

from non-connectivity to full 

connectivity and also to acknowledge 

that it is the responsibility of the 

government to fully define when a 

"significant nexus" occurs along that 

spectrum. Unfortunately, the agencies 

fail to identify the point on the 

continuum from non-connectivity to full 

connectivity at which a significant nexus 

would occur and instead the 

determination is left to the judgment of 

the agencies.

The Connectivity report, upon which 

the proposed rule is based, offers a 

scientific presumption of connectivity 

for both tributaries and other waters. 

Alternatives to the proposed rule have not been 

fully analyzed in the analysis of the potential costs 

and benefits associated with this action (under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, page 22220), in 

the analysis of economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, page 22220), in the analysis of 

environmental justice in minority and low-income 

populations, especially for ranchers (under Executive 

Order 12898, page 22221), and in the analysis of 

environmental impacts (under the National 

Environmental Policy Act [NEPA], page 22222). All of 

the analyses would need to be rewritten and 

supplied for public comment prior to including the 

alternatives in a revised proposed rule supplied for 

public comment prior to issuing a final rule.

Environmental 

Justice Coalition of 

Water

Thank you for proposing a rule to 

clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act 

and urge you to restore critical 

protections to the waterways in 

California that are currently at risk due 

to loopholes in the law. California's 

disadvantaged communities are 

disproportionately harmed by 

environmental pollution.

Urge your agencies to strengthen the categorical 

protections to be extended to our nation's wetlands. 

Many non-adjacent waters, referred to in the 

proposed rule as "other waters" provide critical 

benefits to the waterways we love, filtering our 

pollution and preventing flooding. We urge you to 

follow the best science available on the connectivity 

of our waterways and use it to shape jurisdictional 

decisions.

Georgia Water 

Coalition

Support of the proposed regulatory 

definition of “waters of the United 

States” contained in 40 C.F.R. § 

230.3(s)-(u). For us in Georgia, it would 

bring a number of wetlands and stream 

segments that are currently in limbo 

under the Clean Water Act, thereby 

protecting their role in providing clean 

and affordable drinking water supply, 

recreation, and aquatic habitat. The 

current regulatory regime has been 

While we do support the proposed rule, we see 

several opportunities for improvement. The exact 

nature of “traditional navigable waters” can be more 

fully spelled out so as to eliminate any uncertainty 

as to which waters are intended to be covered by 

that term. There are also other categories of 

waterways, such as Carolina bays, that deserve 

regulatory protection without the need to undertake 

a case-by-case determination of whether they 

qualify as “waters of the United States” for purposes 

of the Clean Water Act.

Page 24 of 27
Commenter Support the Rule Oppose the Rule EJ-related Concern Recommendations for Final Rule Development

confused in recent years by several 

Supreme Court decisions that have 

deviated from the Act’s original scope.

Greybull Valley 

Irrigation District

A significant nexus would occur and 

instead the determination is left to the 

judgment of the agencies.

We ask that you consider the economic impacts of 

your policies knowing that your actions will have on 

struggling families, seniors, low-income households 

and small business owners.

Rep. Dennis Hedke 

(KS)

Additional Analyses needed to determine impact. 

Request EPA produce studies and information 

detailing how your agency assessed the economic 

impact of WOTUS to individual Kansas counties, 

agriculture, local business, families, and 

disadvantaged populations.

Sen. Larry Powell 

(KS) - September 9, 

2014

Additional analyses needed to determine impact. 

Request EPA produce studies and information 

detailing how your agency assessed the economic 

impact of WOTUS to individual Kansas counties, 

agriculture, local business, families, and 

disadvantaged populations.

Sen. Larry Powell 

(KS) October 1, 

2014

For those concerned about the impact 

WOTUS might have on disadvantaged, 

minorities, and families, the 

requirements of Executive Orders 12602 

and 12298 have been systematically 

ignored.

Page 25 of 27
Commenter Support the Rule Oppose the Rule EJ-related Concern Recommendations for Final Rule Development

MSWD (Mission 

Springs Water 

District)

Federal assistance has helped leverage 

state and local investments into one of 

the economically disadvantaged areas 

of our region. It is in this spirit that 

"we" express concern for the proposed

rule and its potential impact on our 

community and region.

Clarify wastewater treatment exemptions, 

Floodplain and Riparian Area Designations. Be 

mindful of the unintended impacts of the proposed

rule on water delivery systems, clarify or define 

specific terms (Significant nexus, similarly situated, 

ephemeral, intermittent, perennial, gullies, rills, nonwetland swales, and uplands). 

Pamilico-Tar 

Riverkeeper

Support the proposed rule to the 

extent that it maintains protections for 

Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs). 

Interstate Waters, and Territorial Seas. 

Also support the agencies' and SAB's 

work to document "significant nexus."

We urge the agencies to strengthen and clarify the 

final rule in line with our more detailed comments 

below, and to revise the preamble and Proposed 

Definition so that it protects the broadest category 

of waters allowed under the Commerce Clause, 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, 

as intended by Congress. Among other things, we 

urge the agencies to leave in place all portions of the 

existing definition that have not been invalidated by 

the Supreme Court, to remove new definitions and 

other language that limit jurisdiction in a manner 

not supported by law or science, remove categorical 

exclusions that are not supported by law or science, 

and to rely on all valid jurisdictional tests for 

categorically protecting waters to the full extent 

allowed under the Commerce Clause.

National Religious 

Partnership for the 

Environment

Writing to urge the Administration to 

finalize the Waters of the U.S. rule that 

clarifies what waterways are protected 

under the Clean Water Act. The 

proposed rule will protect waters in 

parishes such as Orleans, St. James, 

West Baton Rouge, Caddo, Terrebonne,

and Lafourche that have significant 

populations of African Americans, 

Native Americans, or low-income 

communities.

Page 26 of 27
Commenter Support the Rule Oppose the Rule EJ-related Concern Recommendations for Final Rule Development

Eco-Justice 

Ministries

Eco-Justice Ministries affirms the 

proposed definition of "waters of the 

United States" under the Clean Water 

Act as an important and helpful 

clarification of the currently ambiguous 

language.

We strongly encourage definitions that are inclusive 

of headwaters and wetlands. We urge the EPA to be 

expansive and inclusive in providing CWA protection 

to headwater streams, intermittent and ephemeral 

waters, and wetlands.

New Jersey

Environmental 

Justice Alliance

Support the proposed rule. Call for the strengthening of the proposed Definition 

of Waters of the United States Under the Clean 

Waters Act to clarify which streams, wetlands and 

other waters are protected under the Clean Water 

Act.

Brian: City Greens I support the Waters of the U.S. 

rulemaking that is underway by the US 

EPA and the Corps of Engineers. We 

believe this rulemaking will clear up 

confusion in how clean water 

protections are interpreted and 

implemented. The healthy 

communities that we are building 

cannot continue without reliable, clean 

water.

I implore the EPA to approve this rule and 

strengthen it by fully restoring protections to other 

waters, such as prairie potholes and vernal pools. By 

doing so, it brings Missouri another step closer to 

full compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Local Government 

Advisory 

Committee (LGAC)

(1) “ The LGAC has concerns about how 

the agency will incorporate EJ into the 

final rule; and whether EJ communities 

will be given consideration in 

permitting consistent with Executive 

Order 12898”.(2) “The LGAC urges the 

EPA to further their engagement with 

EJ communities. The proposed rule 

could improve access to clean and safe 

water for these communities but in 

order to do so, communication of the 

rule is critical.” 

(1) “The LGAC recommends that EPA expand their 

communication of the proposed rule and its effects 

to low income EJ communities, especially those with 

poor access to clean water. This would involve onthe-ground engagement with community members 

and creating outreach materials that are 

community-oriented and multi-lingual.”(2) “The 

LGAC recommend that the EPA, before issuing a 

permit such as those for MS4s, analyze the impact to 

nearby communities and identify whether a 

community is disproportionately affected. The 

Committee recommends that is a community is 

disproportionately affected, a permit should not be 

authorized”. 

Page 27 of 27