Groups write guidance can't fix WOTUS

Senators pressed to not rely on EPA guidance to correct WOTUS and asked for support in future legislative attempts to fix water rule.

Jacqui Fatka, Policy editor

November 18, 2015

4 Min Read
Groups write guidance can't fix WOTUS

If federal agencies are left the task of developing implementation guidance for the Waters of the U.S. rule, the result will be a continuation of the rule’s “liabilities, confusion and chaos.” Issuing guidance can’t fix a broken rule, according to a letter farm groups sent to members of the Senate who voted to oppose bipartisan legislation (S. 1140) seeking to revise the rule.


The groups encouraged the Senators to support any new effort in the Senate “to direct the agencies not to implement this rule and initiate a new, more responsible, balanced and lawful rulemaking.”


Rather than voting to proceed to legislation that would dismantle the rule in its entirety and undermine key environmental protections earlier in November, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), led 10 of his colleagues in calling on the EPA to work with farmers to get the rule right.


“I believe it is the responsibility of the EPA to provide more clear and concise guidance on how this rule will work in the real world,” he stated. King said although he didn’t support the bill on the Senate floor if EPA fails to offer farmers guidance, “I will not hesitate to support a bill that will amend or change the rule so that it does.”


The agricultural groups hope to provide the needed pressure to get those votes to rethink their position on S. 1140 or other efforts like it should it present themselves. The Senate fell three votes short of the 60-threshold needed to advance debate on the bill and prevent cloture.


Major commodity groups who signed onto the letter include the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn., National Corn Growers Assn., National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, United Egg Producers and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Assn. A total of 35 groups total signed on to the letter.


According to the letter, if the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers are allowed to issue guidance for the implementation of the WOTUS rule, such guidance will be of no assistance to address the rules flaws, since many stem directly from the language used by the agencies in the final rule.



The final WOTUS rule contains “flaws and ambiguities that create confusion and uncertainty rather than provide clarity,” according to the letter. The rule also includes “vague terms and concepts, despite the numerous comments received” and fails to define a number of key terms that are “critical for determining whether a feature is a regulated ‘water of the United States.’”


The letter pointed out that the confusion and inconsistencies will produce similar results in the field and the nation’s courts. Already, the rule is has been challenged in multiple district and appeals courts in lawsuits brought by many dozens of states and stakeholders across the country.


The final rule’s issues are not superficial, interpretational matters that can be corrected through guidance, the letter states. Guidance “will not stop agency overreach as the rule language itself is what matters; agency personnel now and in the future and the legal system will ultimately rely on what the law says, as it is now stated in the final rule.”


In an interview with Sen. Pat Roberts (R, Kan.) he referenced the EPA’s ability to call on environmental organizations to support their rulemaking. EPA administrator Gina McCarthy’s claim of 90% of comments being “supportive” of the rule “influenced an awful lot of votes,” Roberts said. But the 10% of comments were from stakeholders who identified the implications the rule could have.


In the end, the Senate’s failed vote on sending WOTUS back to the drawing board was a vote against production agriculture. “We have to work as hard as we can to tell our side of the story,” Roberts said. But as for the last round, it wasn’t enough in regards to what EPA has already cooked up.

About the Author(s)

Jacqui Fatka

Policy editor, Farm Futures

Jacqui Fatka grew up on a diversified livestock and grain farm in southwest Iowa and graduated from Iowa State University with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and mass communications, with a minor in agriculture education, in 2003. She’s been writing for agricultural audiences ever since. In college, she interned with Wallaces Farmer and cultivated her love of ag policy during an internship with the Iowa Pork Producers Association, working in Sen. Chuck Grassley’s Capitol Hill press office. In 2003, she started full time for Farm Progress companies’ state and regional publications as the e-content editor, and became Farm Futures’ policy editor in 2004. A few years later, she began covering grain and biofuels markets for the weekly newspaper Feedstuffs. As the current policy editor for Farm Progress, she covers the ongoing developments in ag policy, trade, regulations and court rulings. Fatka also serves as the interim executive secretary-treasurer for the North American Agricultural Journalists. She lives on a small acreage in central Ohio with her husband and three children.

Subscribe to Our Newsletters
Feedstuffs is the news source for animal agriculture

You May Also Like