Over the past decade, the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) has shifted repeatedly, creating uncertainty for permitting and project planning. Building on the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (together, the agencies) announced a proposal this week to further refine which water features qualify as WOTUS by narrowing key definitions and codifying — and expanding — exclusions. The proposal would apply across all Clean Water Act (CWA) programs that rely on WOTUS, including permitting under Sections 404 and 402, water quality certifications under Section 401, and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters under Section 303. The proposal is directionally deregulatory, meaning fewer waters are likely to be considered federally jurisdictional and therefore regulated. The new definition was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, marking the start of a 45-day public comment period through January 5, 2026. The public comment page can be accessed here.

This article was republished in the December 2025 edition of E-Outlook, the Environmental & Natural Resources Section of the Oregon State Bar’s newsletter.

This week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services) proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations that, if finalized, will generally restore the regulations adopted in 2019, during President Trump’s first term. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2025, starting a 30-day public comment period that ends on December 21, 2025.

As the longest federal government shutdown on record continued earlier this week, EPA stayed busy putting the finishing touches on one of its PFAS-related priorities — enabling EPA to “smartly collect” information about PFAS substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as required by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. Early signs of EPA’s desire to simplify the TSCA PFAS reporting rule, which was finalized by the Biden EPA in 2023, were evident in the agency’s April 2025 announcement of “Major Actions to Combat PFAS Contamination” discussed here, where EPA committed to implement the required information collection “without overburdening small businesses and article importers.”

On October 14, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) quietly announced it was delaying its release of a proposed rulemaking on California’s climate laws.

While the rules were originally mandated by January 1, 2025, a statutory amendment in 2024 pushed that deadline to July 1, 2025. As that date came and went without any proposed rulemaking, CARB announced its intent in a public workshop on August 21, 2025, to publish proposed rules on October 14. On that date, CARB instead posted a sentence on the “resources” section of its website that read, “CARB is proposing an updated timeline for bringing the initial rulemaking (including the fee-related provisions) to the board in Q1 2026.”

On September 24, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) published a list of entities it believes may be subject to the state’s climate disclosure laws, Senate Bill (SB) 253 and SB 261, which require companies “doing business in California” and meeting certain revenue thresholds to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions (SB 253) and climate-related financial risks (SB 261). Both laws require disclosing entities to pay CARB annual implementation fees. The preliminary list is “intended to support development of the fee regulation” according to CARB‘s announcement. However, the list is generating surprise and confusion among the regulated (and non-regulated) community, some of whom expected to find themselves on the list, and others who did not. Adding to the confusion, CARB made clear that the list includes entities that, at least under its initial staff concepts, would be exempt from the laws; the list also appears to include insurance companies that may be statutorily exempt from SB 261.

As the January 1, 2026, deadline to make the first required disclosure under California’s landmark climate laws approaches, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has announced that it will host another virtual public workshop on August 21 to discuss its ongoing efforts to develop regulations implementing California Senate Bills (SBs) 253 and 261. SB 253 (updated by SB 219) and SB 261, which are now codified in Sections 38532 and 38533 of the California Health and Safety Code, mandate certain entities to disclose climate-related financial risks by January 1, 2026, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by a date to be determined later in 2026. As CARB announced in its May 29, 2025, workshop, the agency does not intend to issue draft regulations until the end of the year, despite SB 219’s July 1, 2025, deadline. This has left many companies potentially affected by those regulations in the dark regarding whether they will be required to make disclosures. CARB’s August 21 workshop may finally provide clarity on some of the key applicability questions that remain unanswered as these 2026 disclosure deadlines loom.

In a significant victory for the hydropower industry, last week the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued an order in Cascadia Wildlands v. EWEB (Case No. 6:25-00446), reaffirming that the U.S. courts of appeals, on review of orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), have exclusive jurisdiction over controversies related to fish passage and other environmental measures included in hydropower licenses issued by FERC. This decision adds to precedent making clear that project opponents may not collaterally attack fish passage conditions in FERC licenses via citizen suits filed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The frenetic pace of anti-renewable actions from the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has continued into this week with the issuance of a new memorandum from Greg Wischer, deputy chief of staff for policy, directing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ratchet up enforcement of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) against wind energy projects, and to scrutinize the eagle permit program that the FWS adopted in 2024 after many years of development.

During the week of July 28, the Trump administration unleashed a new burst of actions aimed squarely at blocking wind and solar energy with the announcement of two new secretarial orders (SO) and three new policies by the Department of the Interior (DOI), plus one from the Department of Transportation (DOT). These latest measures follow on the heels of the recent internal directive from DOI Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Gregory Wischer implementing three new levels of political review for a comprehensive list of approvals, consultations, and interim steps in the permitting processes for wind and solar projects with a nexus to DOI’s regulatory authority. Although couched in terms of curbing “preferential treatment” for wind energy, the measures go well beyond any leveling of the playing field, instead significantly disadvantaging wind and solar — which the DOI refers to as “foreign-controlled energy sources” — compared to other sources of energy or uses of public lands.

On July 9, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a series of frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to its efforts to implement California’s landmark climate disclosure laws, SB 253 (requiring reporting of GHG emissions) and SB 261 (requiring disclosure of climate-related financial risks). Although draft implementing regulations are not anticipated before December 2025, public and private companies subject to the laws’ requirements face their first compliance deadlines beginning January 1, 2026.