By STAN MADDUX

Indiana Correspondent

WASHINGTON D.C. — A permanent repeal of land use restrictions that agriculture has hotly contested from the beginning may or may not go forward because of the proposed 2018 farm bill’s failure to pass a U.S. House vote May 18.

An immediate repeal offered by Republican Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana was added to the federal bill before the vote. It would have guaranteed the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule adopted by the Obama administration cannot go into effect before the Trump administration offers a replacement.

The bill could come back up for a vote soon, but whether it will still contain the WOTUS repeal provision is uncertain. Andrea Palermo, press secretary for Banks, said republican leadership the House has indicated the farm bill could come back up for a vote in late June.

“Our expectation is that the Banks amendment will be included,” Palermo said.

On Jan. 31, the Trump administration moved back implementation of the Obama-era rule by two years to allow time for coming up with a replacement. That decision came one year after the President said the rule infringed on the rights of private landowners.

The EPA and U.S Army Corps of Engineers is working on drafting a revised rule under the Clean Water Act.

In 2015, a federal appeals court blocked WOTUS from going into effect in response to a legal challenge from agriculture and various other groups including the mining industry and municipal governments. The U.S Supreme Court later overturned that decision, ruling the appellate court had no authority to issue a nationwide stay of WOTUS.

That opened the door for WOTUS to take effect until the delay was imposed by the Trump administration. Under the old rule that remains in effect for now, EPA has authority over navigable waters and waters with a significant connection to navigable waters.

The new rule expands EPA authority to areas like streams and standing water in flood-prone areas, which farmers claim handcuffs their ability as rightful property owners to make a living. They have also called the new rule not specific in its definition of proper land use – something that could leave them vulnerable to penalties for actions they believe were compliant with the guidelines.

In his presentation to Congress, Banks said the Obama-era rule was “one of the worst examples of runaway government and unaccountable bureaucracy.

“Even a puddle can be considered a navigable waterway subject to federal regulation,” he added.

He also said the 2015 rule is harmful to farmers nationwide, particularly now with falling commodity prices. “The last thing Hoosier farmers need is an ambiguous, broad and costly government decree that seeks to regulate nearly every aspect of their operation.”

Experts have commented in news reports the defeat of the farm bill had more to do with opponents of immigration reform trying to gain leverage in their fight against President Trump’s supported border security measures that they believe are extreme.