WASHINGTON, D.C. — The ongoing battle over the U.S. EPA’s proposed rule regarding waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) continued last week, as the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works moved forward on legislation that would force the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to rewrite the Clean Water Rule that became final last month.

Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), along with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), introduced the Federal Water Quality Protection Act that included some heavy-hitter co-sponsors such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The clash among lawmakers, agricultural organizations and the EPA has continued since the agency announced the rule more than a year ago.

Donnelly said no one wants cleaner water or better land conditions than the families who live on American farms. "The EPA needs to rewrite the Waters of the United States rule with input from the people who live and work on the land, alongside these waters every day," he said.

"The EPA needs to consult with those impacted, including small business owners and farmers, on something so critical as defining the ‘waters of the U.S.’ in a common-sense way. Our bill would ensure that the WOTUS rule can be written in a way that works for Hoosiers and all Americans."

But EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has said repeatedly comments from the ag community figured prominently in the final rule. She also brought in the climate change issue, in a statement released by the EPA.

"Protecting our water sources is a critical component of adapting to climate change impacts like drought, sea level rise, stronger storms and warmer temperatures – which is why EPA and the Army have finalized the Clean Water Rule to protect these important waters, so we can strengthen our economy and provide certainty to American businesses," she said.

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) released a "fact versus fiction" document last week that takes on specifics contained within the rule, including a statement that the new rule does not change exemptions for agriculture.

"The rule doesn’t technically ‘change’ the several Clean Water Act exemptions for agriculture," it reads. "But, by broadening the definition of ‘waters of the U.S.,’ the rule works around those exemptions, making many more farmers vulnerable to enforcement lawsuits and liability under the Clean Water Act if they fail to get a permit for their farming."

AFBF President Bob Stallman said, "Our analysis shows yet again how unwise, extreme and unlawful this rule is. Our public affairs specialists and legal team have assembled the best analysis available anywhere, and their conclusions are sobering: Despite months of comments and innumerable complaints, the waters of the U.S. proposal is even worse than before."

A statement from McConnell’s office included remarks the senior senator made in an op-ed in April. He said, in part, "If the regulation takes effect, it would wreak havoc on the coal, agriculture, commercial development, real estate, construction and contracting industries statewide. It would be detrimental to traditional farming practices.

"And, it would trample the private property rights of individual Kentuckians. By expanding the definition of a wetland, the EPA aims to subject vast new areas in Kentucky to its will."

The EPA has released its own fact-check sheet; the document specifically lists several items the rule does not do, including not regulating most ditches, no changes to exemptions for agriculture, no regulation of groundwater, no regulation of farm ponds and no change in policy regarding irrigation. It can be read online at http://1.usa.gov/1RvNZfz

The AFB analysis and other documents related to the EPA rule can be viewed at http://bit.ly/1FViFP6