>

This is great but ultimately meaningless if the next Republican in office can just gut it and end it, it feels like but a refrain.
This is great an all, until another member of the GOP is elected and they have their head of the EPA roll these back. 
We need to stop relying on an agency whose mandate changes with every election cycle to keep things clean, and start electing people to congress who will make this shit law. >

As someone currently studying to get their wetland delineation certification, this is some great news!! Protect our wetlands!! >

Been doing the env thing for over 15 years. Don’t get comfy with any regulation; keep nimble, things are always changing. Good luck with your career! >

Countdown to Circuit 5 saying that the Founders didn't mean that literally >

"if we look at this obscure law from 1809, we can see that..." >

I'm glad. My property has a small but thriving forested wetland that serves as the keystone of my local ecosystem. I hope this rule protects it from being developed/drained by future owners. >

You realize you can record a conservation easement that would protect that area forever, right? And you even get a tax break if that is donated to a nature group. Win/win. >

Not to rain on any parades, but this is pretty much just going back to the pre-2015 rules.   Which, suburban development was following anyways, since the industry view was that the 2016 EO wasn't going to be a forever situation. >

And companies will seek to sue over the new ruling. Elevating it to the supreme court, who will inevitably dismantle the EPA. 
Idk man, I'm sick of living in this dystopia. >

Sounds good, I hope water quality continues to be routinely tested and that the Government will impose penalties high enough to deter farmers and factories from letting their chemical waste run into waters >

Environmental scientist here!  If it's any reassurance, water is pretty rigorously monitored in this country.  The EPA and state/municipal agencies all test water quality indicators and pollutant concentrations regularly, and the results should be publicly available through the websites of those agencies.
Generally, municipal drinking water and wastewater plant influent/effluent are tested for various contaminants regularly throughout the year, and held to specific standards.  The big problem is making corporations take action if their industrial discharges cause water to fail standards.
We also have federally and state mandated water quality monitoring programs at known polluted sites.  If you look at all the EPA National Priorities List (Superfund) locations, a part of the legal process involves studying the sites to establish baseline water quality, and then periodically testing during and after remedial actions are taken to make sure those actions actually keep the water clean.  We usually do similar monitoring/testing for sediment, soils, vegetation, and animal tissue. >

then there's Flint, MI >

Republicans will say this is communism >

We just going to give up on waterfalls because we're not used to them? >

I know they’re gonna have it their way or nothin at all >

It's just moving to fast >

Only for the next Republican president to water them down. >

That's a good start.  I want to see factories shut down permanently if they are near water, like within 20 miles?  30 miles? >

Neato but i wish it went further with water rights etc >

There's some good and bad news here, from the perspective of a federal wetland delineator.
The good news is that this will roll back to a well-understood rule, with some expansion. Less exclusionary than the Trump admin's rule, less encompassing than the Obama admin's rule. It will also bring some clarity to exemptions that has been misunderstood and misapplied, leading to contention between the Army Corps and USDA. So now there's better alignment between these agencies when it comes to waters on agricultural lands, meaning it should be easier to figure out which agency renders the "authoritative"  decision in instances where both agencies may claim authority.
The bad news is that the decision in the Sackett v. EPA case heard by SCOTUS in this session could render this new rule pretty pointless. It's also going to be litigated like the WOTUS definition is every time it changes. But I'd be surprised if this rule was released if there wasn't some confidence that SCOTUS would rule in favor of the EPA, which is why the rule was written using some fairly robust language that rhymes with the actual statutory language SCOTUS was picking on.
I'm cautiously optimistic that this rule will stick, at least in part, regardless of what SCOTUS says. It's not to written to the extent it should have been considering the spirit of the Clean Water Act, but it's a step in the right direction.