Farm groups frustrated with new WOTUS rule

WASHINGTON — Representatives from various agricultural groups questioned the timing of the “waters of the U.S.” final rule and the lack of certainty.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers jointly announced on Dec. 30 a final rule establishing a definition of WOTUS that will go into effect 60 days after it’s published in the Federal Register.

Here’s what ag organization representatives said about the ruling:

“AFBF is extremely disappointed in the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers’ new WOTUS rule. Farmers and ranchers share the goal of protecting the nation’s waterways, but they deserve rules that don’t require a team of attorneys and consultants to identify ‘navigable waters’ on their land. EPA has doubled down on the old significant nexus test, creating more complicated regulations that will impose a quagmire of regulatory uncertainty on large areas of private farmland miles from the nearest navigable water. Even more puzzling is the administration’s insistence on moving forward with a new rule while the Supreme Court is about to issue a decision on the scope of the Clean Water Act. A ruling in the Sackett case could send WOTUS back to the drawing board, so it makes no sense for EPA to issue a rule that will only cause more disruption and uncertainty. We appreciate the agencies’ attempt to provide needed clarifications of the prior converted cropland exclusion and exemptions for irrigation ditches and stock ponds, but the overall rule is still unworkable for America’s farm families. The back and forth over water regulations threatens the progress made to responsibly manage natural resources and will make it more difficult for farmers and ranchers to ensure food security for families at home and abroad.”

Zippy Duvall, president

American Farm Bureau Federation

“The National Association of Wheat Growers is deeply concerned that the EPA and U.S. Army Corps rushed to get this revised definition out prior to the end of the year instead of waiting for the decision in the Sackett case before the Supreme Court. While we continue reviewing the final rule, since the rulemaking process was announced last year, NAWG has stressed that farmers need clarity regarding jurisdiction, recognize important agricultural water features and more long-term certainty from the courts and administrations. In April 2022, NAWG filed an amicus brief with other agriculture groups in the Supreme Court case, which is examining the scope of federal jurisdiction as a water of the United States under the Clean Water Act.”

Chandler Goule, CEO

National Association of Wheat Growers

“We are disappointed that EPA moved ahead with its final rule when the Supreme Court will soon render a decision on this matter. The court’s ruling could negate major elements of this WOTUS rule and will create even more uncertainty for farmers. This year, NCGA submitted comments to EPA and encouraged corn growers to do the same as the rule was being considered. The group also participated in regional hearings held by EPA. NCGA has made it clear that farmers are committed to the objectives of the Clean Water Act and the protection of water quality around agricultural operations and downstream. But the organization has argued, achieving these objectives does not require drainage and water features, which are distant from relatively permanent flowing tributaries, be made subject to EPA’s regulations. As farmers, we are the ones who will feel the impact of this rule.”

Tom Haag, president

National Corn Growers Association

“For too long, farmers and ranchers have dealt with the whiplash of shifting WOTUS definitions. The Biden administration sought to finalize a WOTUS definition that will protect both our nation’s water supply and cattle producers across the nation. While the rule retains longstanding, bipartisan WOTUS exclusions for certain agricultural features, it creates new uncertainty for farmers, ranchers and landowners across the nation. NCBA previously called for the EPA to retain agricultural exclusions for small, isolated and temporary water features that commonly appear on farms and ranches. These exclusions have broad support and were included in WOTUS rules under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The rule fails to clearly exempt isolated and ephemeral features from federal jurisdiction and relies on ‘case-by-case’ determinations to assess whether a feature is federally regulated. The rule is a far cry from the regulatory certainty provided by the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, creating a significant and costly burden for agricultural producers.”

Mary-Thomas Hart, chief counsel

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association