CINCINNATI Ohio — The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals handed the EPA a setback as the three-judge panel ruled 2-1 the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule will be temporarily put on hold while they decide if the court has the jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Cincinnati-based court explained it is unclear whether the EPA has authority over the waters the WOTUS rule defines. The rule, which went into effect Aug. 28, broadens the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to include all "navigable waters."

Farming, industry and some environmental groups have filed lawsuits against the two entities tasked with developing and enforcing the rule – the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers – because they say that term is not clearly defined.

Judge David McKeague, joined by Judge Richard Allen Griffin, agreed, writing the rule definition of "navigable waters" and "waters of the U.S." are clouded by uncertainty, as was the adequate scientific evidence to support WOTUS.

"We conclude that petitioners have demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims," the judges wrote. "A stay allows for more deliberate determination whether this exercise of executive power is proper under the dictates of federal law.

"A stay temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of the new rule and whether they will survive legal testing."

The court’s ruling was praised by agricultural groups across the nation. WOTUS is estimated to put about 3 percent more waterways under the control of the EPA. That would mean farmers not currently required to obtain permits for activities such as spraying and spreading fertilizer would have to acquire them or face steep fines. The WOTUS rule would include the addition of most creeks and streams adjacent to traditionally jurisdictional waters that are within the 100-year floodplain to a maximum of 1,500 feet. In addition, it would include isolated water bodies, such as ponds, with a "significant nexus" to navigable waters within a 100-foot floodplain and within 4,000 feet of the navigable water body.

Major waterways, such as rivers and lakes, are currently under the protection of the CWA and are not affected.

The Agricultural Retailers Assoc. (ARA) was one group that applauded the measure. "ARA is pleased to see the Court act to protect agricultural interests from the immediate harm posed by this gross expansion of EPA authority," said President and CEO Daren Coppock. "Maps of WOTUS designations on existing farm fields show that very little is off-limits to the expanded jurisdiction on cultivated fields, rangeland or timberland."

Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation aimed at reversing the WOTUS rule. The House passed the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 and the Senate, the Federal Water Quality Protect Act.

"Farmers, small business owners and entrepreneurs across the country are already overwhelmed by the EPA’s heavy-handed regulations," said Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chair of the House Appropriations Committee. "This court’s decision is a step in the right direction, and I’ll continue to fight for legislation that reverses this rule and restores some sanity to the permitting process in this country."

The Sixth Circuit ruling comes on the heels of an Aug. 27 temporary injunction by the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota blocking the rule from taking effect in 13 states. The EPA says it will abide by the Sixth Circuit’s verdict; however, it believes the agency’s rule is legal and necessary to protect America’s waterways.

"The agencies respect the court’s decision to allow for more deliberate consideration of the issues in the case, and we look forward to litigating the merits of the Clean Water Rule," said EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison.

"The Clean Water Rule was developed by the agencies to respond to an urgent need to improve and simplify the process for identifying waters that are not protected under the Clean Water Act, and is based on the latest science and the law."

Any final verdict could be years off, said Colin Woodall, vice president of Government Affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. and farmers and ranchers need to contact their legislators to maintain pressure on the EPA.

"This is a huge win for us because now producers are not going to have to worry about the EPA showing up and knocking on their door," Woodall said in a "Beltway Beef" radio interview. "However, this is only temporary. This is not the end of the discussion. We need producers to remain engaged. We cannot just sit in limbo while the courts continue to look at this."