WASHINGTON D.C. — The public has an extra 30 days to comment on a proposal to rescind the existing Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule hotly contested by farmers.

 

The public comment period has been extended to Sept. 27 by the U.S EPA and the Army Corps. of Engineers.

According to EPA, the extension was granted at the request of stakeholders.

The original public comment period of August 28 was set after EPA and the Corps approved moving forward on rescinding the current WOTUS rule at the request of the Trump administration, and put back into place the WOTUS definition prior to the new one being adopted in 2015 – until a more acceptable definition is ironed out and put into the books.

The administration has gone on record saying the current rule is too restrictive and gives federal regulators too much authority over private landowners.

“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said.

The former WOTUS definition gave EPA authority over navigable waters and waters with a significant connection to navigable waters.

The current rule challenged in federal court expands that authority to streams and, in some cases, standing water in areas prone to flooding along with lands adjacent to such waters. Farmers also felt the current definition is confusing, from too many factors having to be weighed in deciding proper land use.

According to EPA, reverting back to the old WOTUS rule while a new one is being crafted will provide landowners with clarity during the process of crafting a new definition.

“This is great news for America’s pork producers,” said National Pork Producers Council President Ken Maschhoff, a pork producer from Carlyle, Ill. “The WOTUS rule was a dramatic government overreach and an unprecedented expansion of federal authority over private lands.”

“We salute the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers for their efforts. We stand committed to working with these agencies as they develop a new rule that defines jurisdictional boundaries in clear terms that are inclusive of the realities of farming,” Wesley Spurlock, president of the National Corn Growers Assoc., added.

Support for change was also expressed by Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). “EPA should ditch this rule  once and for all, go back to the drawing board and write a new rule that protects water quality without trampling the rights of businesses and the states.”

The Obama-era rule – because of the court challenge by dozens of state, municipal, industry and environmental organizations – was never implemented. (Pruitt, as former attorney general for Oklahoma, was one of those who filed suit against WOTUS before his current appointment.)

 

Among the legal arguments, AFBF alleged the EPA failed to listen to concerned farmers, ranchers and business owners around the country in crafting the new rule, and it vastly expanded regulatory authority beyond the limits approved by Congress and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Specifically, AFBF said regulatory control over virtually any waters, including many land areas that only temporarily hold water, assumed a scope of authority Congress never authorized and few, if any, waters would fall outside of federal control.