WOTUS: Your Comments Needed to Help EPA DITCH the RULE!


Farmers support clean water and work hard to protect our natural resources. The WOTUS rule had more to do with land than water. It was a land grab, pure and simple, that:

· Created a huge regulatory burden for farmers, ranchers, and others who depend on their ability to work the land;
· Increased costs for farmers, ranchers and others; and
· Produced confusion and uncertainty.

We need you to send comments to EPA to support the repeal of the illegal WOTUS rule.

Comments have to be made by Wednesday, September 27! Make your comments by clicking below:

Agriculture has the unique opportunity to have its collective voice heard by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has specifically asked for and wants to hear from farmers on the proposal to withdraw the previous Clean Water – WOTUS Rule. Farm Bureau has worked since the rule was proposed in 2015 to stop this effort. We are asking county Farm Bureaus to make comments to the EPA in support of the current effort to rescind the rule.

Under the guidance of the new administration and the EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, EPA has published in the Federal Register a proposal to withdraw the previous Clean Water – WOTUS Rule that has created so much controversy over the past two years. The Federal Register notice recodifies the pre-existing rule until a new and revised rule is proposed.

Farm Bureau policy supports the proposal by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ to rescind the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054 (June 29, 2015) (“WOTUS Rule”). The WOTUS Rule has been under temporary suspension by court order for the past two years.

Farm Bureau supports rescinding the WOTUS Rule because it:

· Exceeds the Agencies’ power under the Clean Water Act by asserting federal jurisdiction over remote, isolated wetlands and land where water only flows when it rains,
· Improperly reads the word “navigable” out of the statute,
· Creates enormous uncertainty and confusion for both regulators and the public,
· Is so vague that it raises significant constitutional concerns, and
· Is contrary to the policies of the Clean Water Act, including the Act’s policy to “recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution,” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b).