The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reopened the public comment period on its revised definition of "waters of the United States" (WOTUS), admitting in its latest Federal Register notice that the agency has struggled to write a rule that narrows federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over wetlands without leaving gaps in coverage.

The reopened comment window gives industry, state agencies, and environmental organizations a second chance to weigh in on where the agency now draws the line between federally regulated waterways and waters left to states. EPA has not committed to a new signature date for the final rule.

Why the rule matters for materials operations

The WOTUS definition dictates whether a recycling facility, landfill, or transfer station needs a federal Section 404 dredge-and-fill permit or a Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for water touching its site. Operators of material recovery facilities (MRFs), construction and demolition recyclers, paper mills, and metal shredders track the rule closely because stormwater and process water routinely pass through features — intermittent channels, retention ponds, adjacent wetlands — that the narrowest reading of "waters of the United States" would exclude from federal oversight.

Industry associations have argued that an over-broad WOTUS definition exposes ordinary landfill construction, leachate management, and compost site siting to federal permitting delays. Environmental groups counter that a narrow definition leaves headwater streams and isolated wetlands without federal protection, allowing industrial discharges to flow unchecked downstream.

What changed after Sackett

The current rulemaking follows the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA, which struck down the significant-nexus test and limited federal jurisdiction to relatively permanent waters and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to them. EPA issued an interim final rule conforming the regulation to the ruling, then began work on a longer-term replacement. The agency has acknowledged publicly that translating Sackett's two-pronged test into a workable regulation has proven harder than expected.

That difficulty is the explicit reason EPA has now reopened the comment period, according to the framing of the latest action.

What's at stake for the circular economy

For the materials sector, the practical questions are:

• Will a finalized rule extend Clean Water Act permitting to new categories of facility stormwater, or pull back coverage from sites currently regulated?
• How will the rule treat leachate seeps, gas-to-energy condensate, and other waste-industry-specific discharges that pass through jurisdictional features?
• Will the rule trigger new state-level definitions that diverge from the federal floor, creating a patchwork permitting map for multi-site operators?

Secondary material markets — recycled aggregate, compost, and reclaimed soil — sit at the intersection of waste regulation and water regulation because producers often depend on on-site water management that triggers Section 402 permits.

What to watch next

The next milestone is the Federal Register publication of the reopened comment period and its associated deadline, which will set the clock on EPA's next step toward a final rule. Stakeholders should watch for:

• The exact comment closing date
• Whether EPA signals a new target for signing the final rule
• Companion guidance on industrial stormwater permits under the narrower definition
• Litigation in federal district courts if the final rule either expands or contracts jurisdiction in ways that draw challenges from either industry or environmental plaintiffs

Until EPA closes the comment period and signals a final-rule timetable, the materials sector will continue operating under the interim rule that conforms to Sackett, with the same permitting uncertainty that has followed the WOTUS file since the Supreme Court ruling.