Waters of the U.S. Survey

From May 30 through June 12, 2017, NDEQ is soliciting input from local governmental agencies and other interested parties regarding a request from U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) to provide state and local input relating a forthcoming proposal to revise the definition of waters of the United States. (For more information about the federal request for input, see “Nebraska Solicits Input on Waters of the United States ”).

The purpose of NDEQ’s Online Survey is to provide NDEQ with additional perspectives as the agency develops a response to the EPA and Army Corps’ request for preliminary state and local input. Because states and local governments have been given a short deadline to develop responses, NDEQ is asking for online comments to be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Monday, June 12 .

There are fields on the survey that are optional, including e-mail address, and your name or the organization you represent. Anonymous submissions will be accepted, but you are encouraged to include your name and e-mail address in case we have questions.

Date Created:

4/26/24, 10:33 AM

Name/Organization (optional):

Email (optional):

1. How would you like to see the concepts of “relatively permanent” defined and implemented?

a. Perennial plus streams with “seasonal flow” – Current practice: season flow equals about three months (varies regionally)

b. Perennial plus streams with another measure of flow – Use appropriate, implementable metrics, e.g., frequency of flow, intersecting water table

c. Perennial streams only – Streams that carry flow throughout the year, except in extreme drought

d. Other

In the box below, please type any related comments:

2. How would you like to see the concept of “continuous surface connection” defined and implemented?

a. Surface connection even through non-jurisdictional feature – Current practice considers directly abutting wetlands and those with a continuous surface connection, regardless of distance, to be jurisdictional

b. Some degree of connectivity – Use appropriate, implementable metrics, e.g., distance

c. Wetlands must directly touch jurisdictional waters

d. Other

In the box below, please type any related comments:

3. How would you like to see the agencies interpret “consistent with” Scalia? Are there particular features or implications of any such approaches that the agencies should be mindful of in developing a new definition for waters of the U.S.?

4. What opportunities and challenges exist for your state or locality with taking a Scalia approach?

5. Do you anticipate any changes to the scope of your state or local programs (e.g., regulations, statutes or emergency response scope) regarding CWA jurisdiction? In addition, how would a Scalia approach potentially affect the implementation of state programs under the CWA (e.g., 303, 311, 401, 402 and 404)?

6. What economic impacts or growth opportunities do you see from this rule?