Supreme Court And Trump Administration Attempts to Remove Protections & Pollute Our Environment: And They Are Trying To Change 50+ Years of Law to Avoid Breaking the Law

Re: Comments on the Proposed Federal Rule Updated Definition of “Waters of the United States”, 90 FR 52498

The comments are regarding Federal Rule 52948.[1] The proposal to re-define ‘continuous surface connection’ in the Rule is based on shallow interpretation in favor of partisan, right-wing politics of Sackett v.EPA, rather than the objectives of the Clean Water Act and the overwhelming science supporting hydrological connections between wetlands and Waters of the United States (WOTUS). The Clean Water Act implements multiple provisions providing for the protection of aquatic ecosystems and detailed protection for the wetlands inevitably apart of such ecosystems.

Wetlands encompass 4–6% of the planet, yet they are one of the most essential ecosystems: filtering water naturally and preventing pollution, “provid[ing] life-cycle dependent aquatic habitat… for species located in traditional navigable waters”[2] of the nation, growing vegetation, storing water to prevent flooding and maintain water supply, and existing as the most efficient systems of greenhouse gas sequestration. 87% of wetlands have been destroyed and their protection is more important than ever.

The hydrological connections that exist between wetlands and WOTUS previously promulgated by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) are not the ‘continuous surface connections’, defined by Trump Administration and Supreme Court, given that many wetlands do not have surface water consistently due to their natural absorbent functions. The water of wetlands often is absorbed by its dense vegetation and unique soil and flows from the surface to ground into other WOTUS. The wetlands’ water consequently impacts physical, chemical, and biological integrity of WOTUS, in addition to other various causes of impact, such as mutual species’ inhabiting both the wetland and WOTUS.

The fulfillment of the purpose of the Clean Water Act, the integrity of the nation’s waters[3] and water pollution elimination[4], requires greater protection for wetlands due to wetlands’ impact upon WOTUS. Yet, the proposed Federal Rule uses baseless language to contradict science-based support for hydrological connections between waters that illuminate the need for greater protection of wetlands. Removing protections of these waters that have inevitable connections to WOTUS will increase pollution and environmental harm. We therefore share these comments to urge you to rescind your proposed rule to update the WOTUS definition of ‘continuous surface connection’ and instead adhere to a regulatory regime in accordance with the Act’s purpose.

THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT

Traditionally, WOTUS means “traditional navigable waters, or a relatively permanent body of water connected to a traditional navigable water.”[5]The Supreme Court most recently defined Waters of the United States to be “a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters,”[6]“wetland[s] [with] a continuous surface connection with that water,”[7] and “only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographic[al] features’ that are described in ordinary parlance asstreams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.’”[8] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army (“the Agencies”) are proposing a Federal Rule, Updated Definition of “Waters of the United States, to amend and re-define WOTUS within the Clean Water Act.[9] The Agencies intend to implement the Sackett definition into the revised definition of WOTUS by redefining “relatively permanent” and “continuous surface connection” [10]’, as well as removing interstate from the definition of WOTUS. Prior to the Sackett decision, the adjacent requirement of wetlands meant defined by a border or neighboring proximity. The law currently defines WOTUS to include wetlands that are adjacent to other WOTUS and vaguely defines adjacent as having a “continuous surface connection,” as implemented by the 2023 Rule, Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming.[11] These modifications are based upon conforming to the right-winged ideology in Sackett, rather than “the best available science,” the Act’s objectives, and Act-adhering, preceding SCOTUS interpretations.

In the most recent proposed Rule, Updated Definition of “Waters of the United States”, The Agencies’ redefine ‘continuous surface connection’ to mean 1.having surface water at least during the wet season and 2. abutting ( i.e., touching) a jurisdictional water.”[12] Since the 2023 Federal Rule codified WOTUS to include only wetlands adjacent to other WOTUS and defined adjacent as ‘continuous surface connection,[13] there was ambiguity on wetland protection. Now, the proposed Federal Rule’s definition clarifying continuous surface connection based upon Sackett is unambiguous and severely limiting. The Sackett decision requires the wetland to WOTUS continuance to be “indistinguishable,”[14]“making it difficult to determine where the water ends and wetland begins.”[15] Wetlands therefore are at severe risk of loss of protection in contrast to the Act’s objective. Rather than basing the definition solely on Sackett, the definitions of WOTUS must include the years of Agency promulgated science and all objectives of the Act.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTARY IN OPPOSITION TO FEDERAL RULE UPDATING WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Clean Water Act was established to protect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of WOTUS. The Act established regulations and national policies that prohibit pollution into navigable waters and prevent the impairment of their chemical and biological characteristics to attain the Act’s objective. As proven by science and often yielded to by the Supreme Court, the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of WOTUS are impacted by non-adjoining wetlands. There exist hydrological and ecological connections between the bodies of water that result in dependency, meaning that if a wetland or seasonal surface water loses protection and consequently increases in polluted water quality, the water quality of the WOTUS will be harmed as well. These science-based connections accentuated by Federal Agencies and conceded to by SCOTUS prior to Sackett reveal the proposed Rule’s updated definition of ‘continuous surface connection’ to be directly contrary to the objective of the Act and harmful to the WOTUS and environment.

Wetlands are defined by their unique ability to store water in their dense vegetation, soil, and groundwater that often flows into other WOTUS, and species that often intermingle between the two bodies of water, regardless of abutting or adjacency. Wetlands undeniably impact other water’s integrity, requiring protection under the Act in accordance with the Act’s purpose.

I. The Intention of the Clean Water Act to Ensure Heightened Protection of Wetlands: The Expansion of Federal Authority Over Wetlands to the Army Corps of Engineers And The Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems

The Act recognizes the integrity of US waters necessarily include protection of wetlands and provisions of the Act demonstrate an ardent recognition of the value of wetlands. The Act intended for elimination of pollution in the Waters of the United States and therefore implemented provisions for protections of water eco-systems and wetlands. The Act sets a national policy to develop major technology necessary to eliminate pollution into WOTUS.[16] Recognizing the unique value of wetlands and their inherent complexity, the Act expanded federal authority of wetlands to the Army Corps, who have the expertise to rightfully handle the “environmentally vital areas” [17] that are wetlands. In addition to the Army Corps of Engineers authority under §404 over wetland permits for dredged material, the Act further allotted the United States Fish and Wild Service authority of the National Wetland Inventory. [18]

The authority to the Corps resulted in regulations and guidance emphasizing the vital importance of wetlands in the environment.[19] The government allowed the codification of Army Corp drafted regulation identifying all wetlands as “environmentally vital areas”[20] that should be protected from unnecessary alteration or destruction[21], as provided by the Army Corp’s Act-abiding Federal Rule.[22] These regulations were implemented in the initial years of the Act’s implementation, demonstrating the regulations’ fulfillment of the Act’s purpose, since regulations at the time were intended to further the Act.

As history and precedent shows, the authority given to the Army Corps has substantially guided judicial, Congressional, and EPA interpretation of wetland and water protection under the Act. As stated by the Corps and justified by the SCOTUS in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., the objective of integrity of WOTUS cannot be fulfilled if wetlands with hydrological connections to the waters are not protected, since pollution of the wetland can induce pollution of the WOTUS.[23] The Court acknowledged that ‘‘in the majority of cases’’ wetlands result in ‘‘significant effects on water quality and the aquatic ecosystem.”[24] The court deferred even to “the Corps’ assertion of jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to a traditional navigable water, noting its reasonability and stating that adjacent wetlands may be regulated as “WOTUS” because they are ‘‘inseparably bound up’’ with navigable waters.[25]

Furthermore, in Raponos, Justice Kennedy illuminates the Act’s purpose in adherence to wetland protection in accordance with the Corps’ interpretation that:

“the rationale for Clean Water Act regulation is, that wetlands can perform critical functions related to the integrity of other water… Accordingly, wetlands possess the requisite nexus, and thus come within the statutory phrase “navigable waters,” if the wetlands… significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as “navigable.”[26]

Justice Kennedy further and notably makes the statement that the rationale for the Corps’ jurisdiction, “of course”[27], as provided by the Court’s interpretation of the Act in Riverside Bayview, over wetlands is wetlands’ significant nexus with navigable waters and integral part of the aquatic environment.[28] The Act provides protection for “aquatic ecosystems” and “associated aquatic ecosystems,”[29] and resultingly, the law currently recognizes wetlands as a part of the aquatic environment.[30]

I. The Value of Wetlands And Its Impact Upon WOTUS That Require the Definition of WOTUS to Include All Wetlands

Wetlands serve a multitude of environmental protections, including water filtration; water storage; greenhouse gas storage; and life-dependency functions for many species that live within other Waters of the United States. “They also support biodiversity, help with water quality and protect coastal communities from flooding and rising seas.”[31] For years, they have been codified in law to be “environmentally vital areas…[and a] productive and valuable public resource, the unnecessary alteration or destruction of which should be discouraged as contrary to the public interest.”[32]

…As a result, for forty years, regulations have been in place to include adjacent wetlands in the definition of Waters of the United States,[33] since they are aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, Supreme Court decisions prior to Sackett have emphasized CWA protection for non-abutting waters due to their hydrologically connected impact upon WOTUS’ physical, biological, and chemical integrity.[34] Prior to Sackett, adjacency was defined to be bordering, contiguous, or neighboring.[35] The Supreme Court has litigated this definition of years to conclude what are ‘adjacent wetlands’ defined to be WOTUS. A majority of wetlands are not abutting the water, but are neighboring or even have a hydrological connection to a WOTUS without adjacency. The Court has conceded to the science and the previous Corps’ conclusions that wetlands influence the ecological integrity of WOTUS, not only regardless of physical touch but also regardless of even adjacency.

Moreover, wetlands have hydrological connections with covered waters that are not adjacent or abutting and connections through various ecological cycles[36], such as species inhabiting the covered waters that depend on the wetland for survival.[37] In cases such as U.S. v Ramonos, there is serious consideration for the significant nexus standard that emphasizes wetland impact upon WOTUS that are not adjacent nor abutting, yet still affect that WOTUS’ chemical, biological, and physical integrity to necessitate protection for the wetland as well.[38]Justice Kennedy provides a thorough advocacy for the significant nexus standard. The standard supported by the Court through Kennedy’s concurrence in Raponos acknowledges there is a significant nexus that would necessitate protection for a wetland when the wetland influences the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the WOTUS.[39] The influence can be because of the pre-Sackett definition of adjacent, to border or have close proximity, or can have an individual case of hydrological connection that requires wetland coverage under the Act to ensure protection of the impacted WOTUS. The hydrological connections of wetlands to WOTUS that qualify that wetland for protection are not only supported by Justice Kennedy, but also by EPA reports, EPA Federal Rules, and the Army Corps.

The modification of the definition of continuous surface connection threatens the wetlands that are the certain aquatic ecosystems and WOTUS the Act strives to protect. The proposed definition disregards previous SCOTUS analysis and decisions prior to Sackett that acknowledge years of science and regulation recognizing the value of wetlands. The proposed rule must be rescinded and instead address the necessity of wetlands to have protection under the Act due to ecological connections between non-adjacent wetlands and traditionally defined navigable waters. These connections are not connected by the proposed interpretation of adjacent as abutting.[40] The inclusion of wetlands in the Waters of the United States should necessarily include the science previously acknowledged by the Supreme Court regarding hydrological and ecological connections between two or more bodies of water.

II. The Flaws of The Indistinguishability Factor of the Proposed Abutting Requirement

In Riverside, the Supreme Court acknowledges the problem with finding a boundary between waters and wetlands and concedes that regulation of water pollution “must focus on all waters that together form the entire aquatic system.”[41] “Water moves in hydrologic cycles, and the pollution of this part of the aquatic system, regardless of whether it is above or below an ordinary high water mark…will affect the water quality of the other waters within that aquatic system.”[42]

The stringent requirement of a wetland to ‘abut’ a water of the United States to have protection under the Act is extremely narrow and severely limits protections to wetlands. The “indistinguishability” requirement defined in Sackettembedded in the proposed definition of ‘abut’ is nearly an impossibility given that wetlands are inherently distinguishable from other water formations. Wetlands and U.S. waters are inevitably distinguishable since they exist as two entirely different water compositions that share minimal to no resemblance to a reasonable person’s perception, even in the wetland’s ending and water’s beginning. In Riverside, the court declared that “this continuum to find the limit of “waters” is far from obvious,” and termed “defining the bounds” to be a problem.[43] As said wisely by Justice Kennedy, it “is wrong to suggest that wetlands are ‘indistinguishable’ from waters to which they bear a surface connection… Even if the precise boundary may be imprecise, a bog or swamp is different from a river.” [44] Therefore, the proposed definition change of ‘continuous surface connection’ to require ‘abutting a requisite jurisdictional water’ is not only absurd in its absence of logic, but harmful in its potential to remove protection for the majority of wetlands.

Part II

I. The Intention of the Act to Continuously Protect Surface Water of Wetlands and All WOTUS

The Act sets forth the policy of the protection of “flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the navigable waters,” and “aquatic environment.”[45] The confining of wetland surface water protection to the wet season does not adhere to patterns of the navigable waters and aquatic environment that result in surface water occurring only outside of the wet season in some years as a result of science-based alterations in yearly precipitation, heat and evaporation, and climate change.

The Act promulgates science and research to best maintain water quality that is disregarded by the Rule’s stringent confining of surface water to exist at least within the wet season. “Major research and technology”[46] necessary to eliminate pollution into WOTUS would find that wetland are essential for pollution control of the aquatic ecosystems including WOTUS.

The Act demonstrates intent to protect surface water of wetlands regardless of presence in the wet season as illuminated in the national goal set forth to pursue “wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water.” [47]The interim existence of water even only within the dry season therefore qualifies for protection under the stated goal. ‘Wherever attainable’ requires the utmost protection for water protection if possible. It is undeniably more prudent to take the preventive measures to maximize water protections federally than to deregulate water. The deregulation through confining protection to the wet season will increase pollution in the deregulated wetland or water, that will inevitably pollute the aquatic environment and WOTUS, requiring increased mitigation for resulting harm.

Merely because surface water does not exist within the wet season is not justification to deregulate water. The Act gave regulation of wetlands to the Corps and USFWS recognizing its uniqueness from other WOTUS in tandem with its emphasis on the development of “technology necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters.” Many wetlands exist in areas that are uniquely arid and subject to climate change and unpredictable weather patterns of rainfall and evaporation, requiring modern technological development to eliminate pollution. National goals implemented would require protection of most wetlands, including modern protections based upon “major research”[48] in response to climate change’s increasing effects.

II. The Federal Rule Proposal to Include Surface Water During the Wet Season Disregards the Fundamental Definition of Wetlands

The requirement of surface water at least during the wet season is completely devoid of logical application to the unique ecosystems that are wetlands. Wetlands are defined by their mutual feature of “a substrate that is at least periodically saturated with or covered by water;” function as “natural sponges” with substantial “holding capacity” within their soil, dense vegetation, and groundwater that often flows into other bodies of water[49], and variable presence of surface water based upon their vegetation growing season. While rainfall and the ‘wet season’ still affect wetland, this precipitation is often stored in the wetland after the vegetation and soil have dried within the summer. The dry season thereby increases its holding capacity allowing for more storage within the soil, vegetation, and groundwater and often having no surface water.

Wet season often does not result in surface water for wetlands since wetlands have the unique ability to store the water, especially after experiencing a dry summer and growing season of dominant vegetation. Surface water of wetlands is not dependent on the promulgated ‘wet season’, but rather their own growing season. Some of these wetlands, for example, “hold water early in the growing season and then usually dry out,[50]” for the remaining year, therefore having the absence of moisture necessary to store the precipitating water and resultingly, have minimal surface water during the rainy season. [51] “Wetlands function as natural sponges that traps and slowly releases surface water… Trees, root mats and other wetland vegetation also slow the speed of flood waters.”[52] Even in areas that rain frequently, such as Washington, there are some of the driest wetlands[53] yearly due to extreme storage efficiency and water flow to other WOTUS.

Other unique factors acting as ‘sponges’ include soil, rubble, aridity, sand, and dominance of vegetation that may dictate the surface water’s presence. Wetlands in arid areas, for example, will have surface water “for variable periods without detectable seasonal periodicity. Weeks, months, or even years may intervene between periods of inundation.”[54]In other wetlands, “surface water is present…generally for more than a month during the growing season…but is absent by the end of the season in most years.” [55]The growing season is often between Spring and Fall, opposed to the rule-promulgated ‘wet season’ that generally ensues within Winter.

Furthermore, the presence of surface water in a wetland is often not easily distinguishable. There may be surface water, yet the growing vegetation may be covering the vegetation. The “presence of water, while central to the concept of wetland, is often the most difficult indicator to assess accurately because it is more dynamic (temporally variable).”[56]Additionally, in the wet season, after the growing season produced high quantities of vegetation, the vegetation and soil may absorb the rainfall at a higher rate and store it.

“At least during the wet season” means that there is surface hydrology annually in response to the annual, seasonal precipitation.[57] Some wetlands often store water during the wet season and thereby have no surface water in response to seasonal rainfall, despite performing still the essential wetland functions for the environment.[58] Therefore, it is irrational to measure the surface water of a wetland by the ‘wet season’ since the surface water of a wetland is dependent on its unique and complex growing season. The requirement of surface water “at least during the wet season” is contrary and disrespectful to the very unique natural aquatic ecosystems that are wetlands and must necessarily not be implemented.

III. The Volatility of Surface Waters In Consideration of Factors Not Including Wetlands’ Inherent Growing Season

In the event that the concept of the growing season of wetlands would not be considered, the Agencies proposing the rule should consider other factors that result in surface water instead of soelly focusing on ‘the wet season.’ The proposed federal rule to change ‘continuous surface connection’ to only waters present at least within the wet season would remove protections for waters that do not depend on seasonal rainfall or evaporation to exist. The rule acknowledges that “there may be regional variation in a wet season,” and, “the time period that encompasses flow during the wet season can vary across the country based upon climate, hydrology, topography, soils, and other conditions.” [59] Yet, the rule fails to acknowledge the fundamental flaw of reliance on a wet season: it does not always exist.

“Seasonal patterns geographically, local groundwater behavior, topography, geology, soils, river systems, and proximity to the coast”[60], in addition to climate change patterns and drought can all influence surface water of wetlands to flow only outside of the wet season. Incidents such as ‘El Nino’ and dam spills can alter the wet season and produce massive amounts of water during the dry season into previously empty surface areas of water that are intended to be covered under the Act. These previously empty areas that regain surface water during the dry season inevitably impact protected WOTUS and aquatic ecosystems.

Justice Kennedy expands on the flawed rationale of the limit of coverage to surface waters within only certain periods of time of the year. Kennedy emphasizes that certain surface water, such as the LA river, is not dependent on a wet-season or any season.[61]Kennedy further settles the dispute over implementing the wet-season constraint on the Act’s coverage with the analogy that the “merest trickle” of continuous water during the wet season would be protected under the wet-season rationale, yet “torrents thundering at irregular intervals through otherwise dry channels would not.”[62]

CONCLUSION

Years of regulation and science advocated by the EPA, Army Corps, and USFWS, the exact agencies the Clean Water Act authorized to manage the Act’s fulfillment, unanimously prove the uniquely essential value of wetlands to the aquatic ecosystem and their undeniable influence upon phys8ical, biological, and chemical integrity of other Watrs of the Untied States. As stated by SCOTUS and the Agencies, wetlands should be protected under the Act as WOTUS dependent on their impact upon other waters’ integrity to ensure elimination of pollution. The requirement of ‘physical abutting’ and ‘surface water at least during the wet season’ in the updated definition of adjacent as continuous surface connection is entirely contrary to the reality of the fundamental concept of wetlands and the inherent hydrological connections of the Waters of the United States. The rule must be rescinded and regulations must be reconstructed in adherence to the Act’s objective that supports the necessity of wetlands as protected US waters.

[1] Updated Definition of “Waters of the United States”, 90 Fed. Reg. 52498, November 20, 2025. [hereinafter Updated Definition Rule].

[2] Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States”, 80 Fed. Reg. 37054, June 29, 2015.

[3] Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387 (1972),§ 1251(a).

[4] 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387 (1972).

[5] Kate R. Bowers, et. al, Waters of the United States (WOTUS): Frequently Asked Questions About the Scope of the Clean Water Act,https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47408, (2026).

[6] Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 US 651, (2023).

[7] Sackett, at 685.

[8] Sackett, at 671.

[9] Updated Definition Rule.

[10] Sackett, at 684.

[11] Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming, 88 Fed. Reg. 61964, September 8, 2023.

[12] Updated Definition Rule.

[13] *Sackett,* at 684.

[14] Sackett, at 654.

[15] Sackett at 678–679;. Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 755, (2006).

[16] Clean Water Act, §101(a)(6).

[17] CWA, §209.120(g) (3) (i) (ii)(1975)

[18] §208(b)(4)(B)(v).

[19] §404; 33 USC §1344.

[20] §209.120(g) (3) (i) (ii)(1975).

[21] 33 CFR §320.4 (b)(1–2)(i-viii).

[22] Permits For Activities In Navigable Waters Or Ocean Waters, 40 Fed. Reg. 31324, (July 25, 1975).

[23] United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, at 133–134, (1985).

[24] Riverside, at 135 n.9 (1985).

[25] Riverside, at 134.

[26] Raponos, 547 U.S. at 780 (Kennedy, J, concurring)

[27] Id. at 779.

[28] Id.

[29] CWA, §320(k).

[30] 33 CFR §320.4 (b)(2)(ii)

[31] Interior Department Announces More Than $50.6 Million for Wetland Conservation Projects and National Wildlife Refuges, USFWS, (Sep 13, 2023), https://www.fws.gov/rivers/carp/carp/press-release/2023-09/interior-department-announces-more-506-million-wetland-conservation-projects.

[32] Permits For Activities In Navigable Waters Or Ocean Waters, 40 Fed. Reg. 31324, (July 25, 1975).

[33] 33 CFR §328.3 (4) (1975–2026).

[34] Riverside, at 134–135.

[35] 40 CFR §203(b)(2015).

[36] EPA Office of Research and Development, Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands To Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence (Final Report), EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), (January 2015).

[37] Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States”, 80 Fed. Reg. 37054, June 29, 2015.

[38] Rapanos, at 719, (2006).

[39] Id. at 779–781.

[40] Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States”, 80 Fed. Reg. 37054, June 29, 2015, 80 Fed. Reg. 37054, June 29, 2015

[41] Riverside, at 133.

[42] Riverside, at 123, 133–134.

[43] Riverside, at 132.

[44] Raponos, at 772.

[45] CWA, §404(f)(1)(e).

[46] CWA, §101(a)(6).

[47] §101(a)(2).

[48] §101(a)(6).

[49] Wetland Functions and Values: Surface and Ground Water Protection, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation, (2026), https://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/wetlands/functions/water-quality.

[50] Id.

[51] Id.

[52] Why are Wetlands Important?, EPA, (2026), https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/why-are-wetlands-important.

[53] Wetlands Through The Seasons, USFWS, (August 6, 2025), https://www.fws.gov/story/2025-08/wetlands-through-seasons.

[54] Federal Geographic Data Committee Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats, https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Classification-of-Wetlands-and-Deepwater-Habitats-of-the-United-States-2013.pdf

[55] Id.

[56] Id.

[57] Updated Definition Rule.

[58] Wetlands Through The Seasons, USFWS, (August 6, 2025), https://www.fws.gov/story/2025-08/wetlands-through-seasons.

[59]Kayla Hollingswort, Sara Dewey, Proposed Definition of Waters of the United States, Environmental & Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, (January 8, 2026), https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/proposed-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states/#_ftnref24.

[60] Lauren M.T. Broyles, A change in season, a change in water?, Penn State Institute of Energy And The Environment, (November 18, 2022), https://iee.psu.edu/news/blog/change-season-change-water.

[61] Raponos, at 769–770.

[62] Raponos, at 769.