Ag organizations push for clear definition of the Waters of the United States
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Environmental issues were a topic of discussion at the National Association of Farm Broadcasters annual convention.
One of the main concerns was the definition of Waters of the United States.
"We have had a lot of confusion and consternation throughout the countryside as to the regulatory definition of WOTUS," said Courtney Briggs, senior director of government affairs at the American Farm Bureau Federation. "There has been ping ponging back and forth of definitions based on the administration, which has led to a lack of certainty and lack of clarity for our members."
"Waters of the U.S., that's probably the most problematic when you think about farmers and their concerns and getting a better definition of waters of the U.S.," said Mary Kay Thatcher, Senior Manager Federal Government Industry Relations for Syngenta.
Waters of the United States encompasses many things, including land rights, the ability for landowners to use their land and Clean Water Act permits.
"We've seen this regulatory creep over the last several decades that has been very concerning," Briggs said. "Fifty years ago, when they passed the Clean Water Act, rivers were literally on fire. Now, fast forward 50 years, we are talking about regulating low spots, like we have come very far."
Clean Water Act compliance comes with high penalties, Briggs said.
"If a farmer is found to be non-compliant, they can be fined up to $64,000 per day for every day of noncompliance, or they can go to jail. So, there are civil and criminal liabilities attached to Clean Water Act compliance," she said.
Briggs said she had hoped the 2023 Supreme Court ruling of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency would create clarity and certainty around the regulatory definition of Waters of the United States.
"Unfortunately, the Biden administration has not done that," she said. "So that is going to be one of our top priorities is making changes to that definition to provide a bright line of jurisdiction for our members."
Both groups are hoping that terms may become clearer under the new Trump administration.
"Potentially, I mean, a really good outcome would be to have Congress do something so that we don't have this definition going back and forth whenever you change an administration or change a head person at EPA," Thatcher said.
"There's a few terms within the Biden administration's definition that they have, I believe, intentionally left undefined in order for them to expand their jurisdictional reach to allow them to have the latitude to regulate however they please," Briggs said. "I think if we can find some definitions that are clear and precise for our members, that will clear up a lot of uncertainty in the lack of clarity in the regulatory space."
Briggs encourages the new administration to create a rulemaking that respects the law, congressional intent and the Sackett decision.
"That Sackett decision is incredibly important because it reined in the federal government's jurisdictional reach," she said. "We have just seen the Biden administration exploit the gray areas that still exist in a post-Sackett world. So that is my hope that we can get a regulatory definition that respects all of the court decisions and Congress's decision under the Clean Water Act."
