EPA Announces Final Rule On New Clean Water Act’s Jurisdiction

Posted by Frank Giles|May 28, 2015

The EPA has announced its final rule on the agency’s new Clean Water Act, which also has been identified as “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) as the debate over the policy unfolded in recent years. According to the agency, the new rule was necessary to clarify its jurisdiction in regulating the Clean Water Act.

Many farm groups raised alarm when EPA announced it planned to redefine what is considered WOTUS to clarify confusion left in the wake of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006. The farm groups said of the initial proposal that many places where water collected or runs off might now be considered subject to Clean Water Act regulation. The American Farm Bureau Federation even created a hash tag campaign (#DitchTheRule) to oppose the change, noting that ditches might now be considered WOTUS.

In announcing the final rule, EPA officials have insisted that all previous Clean Water Act exemptions and exclusions for agriculture remain in place and the farm sector has nothing to worry about. The agency further noted only ditches that feed into a protected waterway would now be subject to the Act.

However, farm groups remain skeptical. American Farm Bureau’s president Bob Stallman released the following statement on the final rule: “We are undertaking a thorough analysis of the final WOTUS rule to determine whether the EPA listened to the substantive comments farmers and ranchers submitted during the comment period. Based on EPA’s aggressive advocacy campaign in support of its original proposed rule – and the agency’s numerous misstatements about the content and impact of that proposal – we find little comfort in the agency’s assurances that our concerns have been addressed in any meaningful way.

“The process used to produce this rule was flawed. The EPA’s proposal transgressed clear legal boundaries set for it by Congress and the courts and dealt more with regulating land use than protecting our nation’s valuable water resources. EPA’s decision to mount an aggressive advocacy campaign during the comment period has tainted what should have been an open and thoughtful deliberative process. While we know that farmers and ranchers were dedicated to calling for substantial changes to the rule, we have serious concerns about whether their comments were given full consideration.