Products, Vendors, CAD Files, Spec Sheets and More...
Sign up for LAWeekly newsletter
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued new guidance for the protection of wetlands and bodies of water protected under the Clean Water Act. The new guidance comes after decision made by Supreme Court last year, which identifies the wetlands, streams, rivers that subject to Clean Water Act. But environmental bodies are highly criticizing the decision for no clearly specifying the waters subject to EPA and Army Corps protection. According to the new guidance non-navigable waters, streams, wetlands are under protection of EPA and Army Corps, and non-permanent waters, wetlands are under protection only if there is a “significant nexus” between the uneven stream and a traditional waterway and will be treated on case-by-case basis. “We are committed to protecting America’s aquatic resources under the Clean Water Act and in accordance with the recent Supreme Court decision,” said John Paul Woodley Jr., assistant secretary of Army Corps. “This interagency guidance will enable the agencies to make clear, consistent and predictable jurisdictional determinations. The results, once posted on agency Web sites, will document how the scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction is being determined.” Bush Administration welcomed the new guidance. President?EUR??,,????'???s Administration wetlands policy has three key elements: policy of no net loss of wetlands, the program of restoration, enhancement, protection of three million acres of wetlands, conservation of isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes. “The Bush Administration is committed to protecting wetlands and streams under the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court decisions,” said Benjamin H. Grumbles, EPA’s assistant administrator for Water. “We’ll use our regulatory tools to meet the president’s ambitious wetlands goals.” But the new guidance is not welcomed by environmental organizations, which say the new guidance isolates single streams when making decisions about entire wetlands. This means that a single stream has a very little probability to adverse a large river. But scientists can prove that even a single headwater stream can have a bad impact on a large water body. Source: Ruzan Harutyunyan for HULIQ
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued new guidance for the protection of wetlands and bodies of water protected under the Clean Water Act.
The new guidance comes after decision made by Supreme Court last year, which identifies the wetlands, streams, rivers that subject to Clean Water Act. But environmental bodies are highly criticizing the decision for no clearly specifying the waters subject to EPA and Army Corps protection.
According to the new guidance non-navigable waters, streams, wetlands are under protection of EPA and Army Corps, and non-permanent waters, wetlands are under protection only if there is a “significant nexus” between the uneven stream and a traditional waterway and will be treated on case-by-case basis.
“We are committed to protecting America’s aquatic resources under the Clean Water Act and in accordance with the recent Supreme Court decision,” said John Paul Woodley Jr., assistant secretary of Army Corps. “This interagency guidance will enable the agencies to make clear, consistent and predictable jurisdictional determinations. The results, once posted on agency Web sites, will document how the scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction is being determined.”
Bush Administration welcomed the new guidance. President?EUR??,,????'???s Administration wetlands policy has three key elements: policy of no net loss of wetlands, the program of restoration, enhancement, protection of three million acres of wetlands, conservation of isolated wetlands such as prairie potholes.
“The Bush Administration is committed to protecting wetlands and streams under the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court decisions,” said Benjamin H. Grumbles, EPA’s assistant administrator for Water. “We’ll use our regulatory tools to meet the president’s ambitious wetlands goals.”
But the new guidance is not welcomed by environmental organizations, which say the new guidance isolates single streams when making decisions about entire wetlands. This means that a single stream has a very little probability to adverse a large river. But scientists can prove that even a single headwater stream can have a bad impact on a large water body.
Source: Ruzan Harutyunyan for HULIQ
Francisco Uviña, University of New Mexico
Hardscape Oasis in Litchfield Park
Ash Nochian, Ph.D. Landscape Architect
November 12th, 2025
Sign up to receive Landscape Architect and Specifier News Magazine, LA Weekly and More...
Invalid Verification Code
Please enter the Verification Code below
You are now subcribed to LASN. You can also search and download CAD files and spec sheets from LADetails.