LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- The Trump administration is seeking additional comment on its proposed rewrite of the waters of the U.S., or WOTUS, rule to refine definitions for terms such as "relatively permanent" water bodies and "continuous surface connection."

The agency said in a proposed supplemental rule released on Friday that the way EPA proposed defining the terms received significant pushback.

In a November 2025 WOTUS proposal, EPA generally defined relatively permanent as waters flowing year-round or at least during the wet season. It also proposed a definition for continuous surface connection for wetlands as wetlands with surface water during the wet season that abut jurisdictional waters.

The EPA said the proposed supplemental rule would likely reduce the number of wetlands currently under federal jurisdiction.

"The agencies anticipate that the majority of wetlands that are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands under current regimes would not satisfy the supplemental definition of 'continuous surface connection,' as most wetlands do not contain perennial surface water," according to the proposal.

The proposal would define relatively permanent to mean perennial bodies of water.

QUESTION ADJACENT, ABUTTING

What's more, the EPA is questioning whether the terms adjacent and abutting are "operative in the definition" of continuous surface connection, or "should be removed from the definition entirely."

The agencies propose defining perennial as having standing or continuously flowing water every day of the year during "ordinary" conditions.

"Tributaries without standing or continuously flowing water every day of the year, except for under certain anomalous or non-anomalous events, would thus not be considered 'relatively' permanent," according to the proposal.

"The agencies anticipate that most intermittent streams would not satisfy the requirements in the supplemental option for the proposed definition of 'relatively permanent.'"

Redefining relatively permanent would likely have the biggest effect on intermittent streams in the arid West, according to EPA.

In addition, the agency proposes what it calls a new 30-day "bright-line interruption" standard.

The proposal states, "A body of water also does not lose its relatively permanent status if it dries up for no more than a single period of up to 30 consecutive days in any given year as a result of non-anomalous events resulting in a temporary interruption such as low tide or a regularly occurring dry spell."

SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR DROUGHT

The supplemental proposal also seeks comment on whether drought should be treated as a special exception when it comes to a water body's relatively permanent status.

The EPA also is considering whether to replace a wet-season wetland test with a perennial surface-water test.

The agency proposes this new definition: "'Continuous surface connection' means perennial surface water in a wetland that is continuously connected with the surface water in the jurisdictional water such that it is difficult to determine where the jurisdictional water ends and the wetland begins."

AFBF SUPPORTS RULE

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said farmers support the proposal.

"The new WOTUS rule provides a clear understanding of federal jurisdiction, which is critical for farmers who may face severe penalties or even jail time for unknowingly violating the law," Duvall said in a statement.

"While we're still reviewing the details of the final rule, we're hopeful that it will prove durable and bring an end to the regulatory back and forth farmers have endured during the past decade."

The EPA's 2025 proposal to redefine waters of the U.S. was in response to and to conform with the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Sackett v. EPA.

The Supreme Court sided with two Idaho property owners in dispute with EPA, ruling EPA's use of the significant nexus test when making Clean Water Act determinations is too broad.

In writing the 5-4 majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said EPA misinterpreted the Clean Water Act's reach when it comes to the property owned by Michael and Chantell Sackett and that the term significant nexus isn't found in the Clean Water Act.

"In sum, we hold that the CWA extends to only those 'wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are 'waters of the United States' in their own right,' so that they are 'indistinguishable' from those waters," Alito said in his opinion.

"This holding compels reversal here. The wetlands on the Sacketts' property are distinguishable from any possibly covered waters."

Read more on DTN:

"SCOTUS Sides With Sacketts in CWA Case," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @DTNeeley

(c) Copyright 2026 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.