DAILY Bites
-
AFBF urged EPA and the Army Corps to finalize a clear, durable WOTUS rule that reduces uncertainty for farmers and ranchers.
-
The group said the proposal aligns with Supreme Court precedent, especially Sackett v. EPA, by narrowing jurisdiction and defining key terms.
-
AFBF backed clearer wetland standards, continued exclusion of prior converted cropland, and keeping most ditches and groundwater outside WOTUS.
DAILY Discussion
The American Farm Bureau Federation submitted formal comments on Monday to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army regarding a revised definition of “waters of the United States.”
In its comments, AFBF reiterated support for the goals of the Clean Water Act while warning that shifting definitions of WOTUS have created decades of uncertainty for landowners.
“Ever-changing rulemakings that redefine the scope of the CWA have created decades of regulatory uncertainty. We have seen WOTUS definitions change with each administration, guidance documents offered and then rescinded, and confusing litigation that have provided more questions than answers. Landowners, small businesses, and American families are the ones who suffer the most. This administration has an opportunity to produce a durable rule that injects clarity and certainty into the definition of WOTUS.”
The AFBF went on to explain the problem of unclear boundaries and its influence on usual farming practices, particularly where there are water-related characteristics on farmland, including ponds, ditches, irrigation, low areas, wetlands, and ephemeral drainage, most of which could have water seasonally or after precipitation.
The group warned that expanding federal jurisdiction over these features could subject routine work such as plowing, planting, irrigation management, or fence building to costly permitting requirements and significant liability.
According to AFBF, the proposed WOTUS definition takes an important step toward aligning agency interpretation with Supreme Court precedent — especially the 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA, which narrowed the scope of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction and removed the broader “significant nexus” test.
AFBF stated that the proposed rule reflects a “thoughtful and balanced approach” by adopting key legal standards and adding clarity through definitions of terms that drive jurisdiction, including “relatively permanent” and “continuous surface connection.”
In a summary accompanying the filing, Farm Bureau Vice President of Public Policy and Economic Analysis John Newton highlighted the organization’s priorities for a durable and defensible rule.
“Farmers and ranchers support the creation of a legally durable rule that injects clarity into the regulatory process and does not leave landowners guessing what parts of their property are subject to regulation,” wrote John Newton, vice president of public policy and economic analysis.
AFBF outlined several recommendations intended to ensure the rule reflects Supreme Court guidance and protects state primacy over land and water use while avoiding ambiguity that could lead to enforcement actions or litigation. Among the organization’s recommendations are:
- Further defining “relatively permanent” to narrow the regulatory scope;
- Clarifying when wetlands should fall under WOTUS;
- Continued exclusion of prior converted cropland; and
- Exclusion of ditches from WOTUS jurisdiction.
AFBF also supported the agencies’ proposal to eliminate “interstate waters” as a standalone category, arguing that doing so would better align with the Clean Water Act’s emphasis on navigability and limit federal jurisdiction to waters clearly tied to traditional navigable waters.
In addition, the group backed explicit exclusions for groundwater and reinforced that ditches constructed in dry land should remain non-jurisdictional under the proposed framework, even if they carry flow.
»Related: Proposed WOTUS rule seen as relief for farmers, ranchers, developers
