Gillibrand sounds alarm over EPA slashing water protections

"WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. SEN. KIRSTEN Gillibrand (D-NY) on Friday joined 15 Senate Democrats in opposing the Trump administration's proposed changes to the "Waters of the United States" rule, a move that would limit federal protections for wetlands and some waterways. In a to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Army Adam Telle, the senators expressed concern, saying the rule change is "legally unnecessary, scientifically unsound, and will harm public and environmental health by allowing more harmful chemicals into our waterways.""

""Sackett stripped protections for anywhere between 60 to 80 percent of America's wetlands, depending on ultimate implementation. And yet, the administration's new 2025 proposed rule goes even further than Sackett's draconian definition, excluding many types of headwaters, tributaries, and ephemeral or intermittent streams and water bodies," the senators wrote."

""The proposed rule would improperly exclude from federal jurisdiction many discharges that are functionally equivalent to discharges into jurisdictional waters. The ecology of these important water bodies is"

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and 15 Senate Democrats oppose the Trump administration's proposed 2025 revision to the "Waters of the United States" rule because it would limit federal protections for wetlands and some waterways. The senators addressed EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army Adam Telle, calling the change legally unnecessary, scientifically unsound, and harmful to public and environmental health by allowing more harmful chemicals into waterways. The revision responds to the 2023 Supreme Court Sackett v. EPA decision and would define "continuous surface connection" as directly touching, exclude groundwater, and narrow "relatively permanent" to presence during an unspecified wet season. Senators warn these definitions would exclude many headwaters, tributaries, ephemeral and intermittent streams, and could improperly exempt discharges that are functionally equivalent to discharges into jurisdictional waters.

Read at Brooklyn Eagle