Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: February 4, 2022
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
On December 7, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army announced a proposed rule to revise the definition of “waters of the United States.” The agencies are proposing to reinstate the pre-2015 definition, with updates to reflect consideration of Supreme Court decisions. These Supreme Court decisions have not provided clarity on this issue and therefore much litigation has ensued regarding this term.
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), a permit must be obtained prior to the discharge of any pollutants into “navigable waters.” The CWA defines the term “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” As described in greater detail in prior articles, the WOTUS Rule has been the subject of protracted litigation over the past several years.
In 2015, the Obama Administration promulgated the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” which broadly defined the scope of jurisdictional waters as whether a water or wetland possesses a “significant nexus” to waters that are or were navigable. The 2015 WOTUS Rule prompted significant litigation, which prevented it from being implemented in more than half of the country. Upon taking office, President Donald Trump made it a priority to repeal the Obama-era rule and create a more restrictive WOTUS definition. The EPA and Army subsequently rescinded the 2015 rule and proposed a new definition of WOTUS. The Trump Administration’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR ) also prompted legal challenges.
Following a federal district court decision vacating the NWPR on August 30, 2021, the agencies halted implementation of the NWPR and began interpreting “waters of the United States” consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime. According to the EPA, its current rule proposal is intended to bring greater legal certainty by largely returning to the familiar pre-2015 definition.
On June 9, 2021, EPA and the Department of the Army announced their intent to revise the definition of WOTUS. Upon review of the NWPR, the agencies determined that it did not appropriately consider the water quality impacts of its approach to defining “waters of the United States,” in contravention of Congress’s objective in the Clean Water Act “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and that the rule’s reduction in the scope of protected waters could have a potentially extensive and adverse impact on the nation’s waters.
The agencies’ Proposed Rule establishes a revised WOTUS definition that would interpret “waters of the United States” to mean the waters defined by the longstanding 1986 regulations, with amendments to certain parts of those rules to reflect the agencies’ interpretation of the statutory limits on the scope of the “waters of the United States” and informed by Supreme Court case law. Specifically, the agencies interpret the term “waters of the United States” to include:
As explained in the Proposed Rule, the “relatively permanent standard” means waters that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing and waters with a continuous surface connection to such waters. Meanwhile, the “significant nexus standard” means waters that either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas (the “foundational waters”).
The public comment period will close on February 7, 2022. According to the Rule Proposal, the agencies will consider all public comments on the proposed rule including changes that improve clarity, implementation and long-term durability of the definition. The agencies will also consider changes through a second rulemaking that they anticipate proposing in the future, which would build upon the foundation of this proposed rule.
The proposed WOTUS Rule while trying to provide clarity to the definition of navigable waters, still falls short in providing a roadmap to the regulated community. As such, litigation on what WOTUS means will likely continue. Members of the regulated community should, therefore, stay informed regarding WOTUS Rule developments and participate in the notice and comment process.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Monica Schroeck, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!