American Farm Bureau Says New WOTUS Proposal Gives Farmers Greater Certainty

The American Farm Bureau Federation welcomed a proposed Waters of the United States (WOTUS) definition from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, saying the action should give farmers clearer guidance about when federal water-permitting rules apply.

What the Farm Bureau said

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall issued a statement responding to the agencies’ proposed WOTUS rule. Duvall said farmers “share the goal of protecting the nation’s natural resources” and expressed approval that the new proposal “respects farmers’ ability to responsibly use their land while ensuring regulations align with the framework established by the Supreme Court’s Sackett ruling.”

Duvall added that the rule “provides a clear understanding of federal jurisdiction,” which he described as “critical for farmers who may face severe penalties or even jail time for unknowingly violating the law.” He said the Farm Bureau was still reviewing details but hoped the final rule would be durable and end the regulatory back-and-forth experienced over the past decade. “America’s families deserve clean water and clear rules, as do the farmers who work to grow the food those families rely on,” Duvall said.

Where this proposal comes from

The EPA and Army Corps issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to gather additional public input on regulatory language to define WOTUS. The agencies framed the action as part of an effort to craft a lasting definition that follows the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision, reduces regulatory uncertainty, and coordinates with states and Tribes.

According to the agencies, the supplemental proposal is intended to be considered alongside a 2025 proposed rule. The agencies said they would accept public comments for 30 days after the supplemental proposal is published in the Federal Register.

Agencies’ stated goals and process

The EPA and Army Corps characterize public engagement as integral to the rulemaking. They said earlier steps included a public recommendations docket, listening sessions, consultations with Tribes, states and local governments, and multiple public meetings that together generated a large volume of feedback. The agencies said these engagements informed the 2025 proposal and that the supplemental notice would present additional regulatory alternatives for further comment.

What supporters say the rule would do

Agency statements, cited by reporting on the supplemental notice, say a final WOTUS definition would clarify where federal Clean Water Act permits are required, while leaving waters outside federal jurisdiction subject to state, Tribal or local law. The agencies framed the effort as strengthening “cooperative federalism” and providing predictability for landowners, farmers, ranchers, energy producers, developers and small businesses.

Ongoing disagreements and legal backdrop

The agencies tied the rulemaking to the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision, saying the proposed definition aims to implement that ruling. Commentary from other sources in the evidence packet shows the contentious and evolving history of WOTUS definitions: some policymakers and stakeholders have previously argued that earlier WOTUS rules expanded federal jurisdiction and created uncertainty for agriculture and other industries.

For example, a 2023 account by a U.S. senator described the Supreme Court decision as limiting EPA authority and as a win for farmers and ranchers; that account characterized prior WOTUS rules as broader in scope. The Farm Bureau’s statement in response to the current proposal reflects an interest in a durable, predictable federal standard that minimizes unexpected federal oversight of routine farming activities.

What remains unresolved

• The Farm Bureau said it was “still reviewing the details of the final rule,” so its full view on specific regulatory language, exclusions, or clarifications is not yet public.
• The agencies are soliciting more public input; the final content of the rule will depend on responses to the supplemental notice and the earlier 2025 proposal.
• How the new definition will interact with state and Tribal authorities in specific cases will be determined through the final rule and future implementation actions by the agencies and, potentially, courts.

Timeline and next steps

1. 2023 — The Supreme Court issued the Sackett decision referenced by the agencies as guiding the rulemaking.
2. 2025 — The EPA and Army Corps published a proposed WOTUS rule (agencies’ materials indicate a 2025 proposed rule has been part of this process).
3. 2026 — The agencies published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to gather additional public input; once that notice appears in the Federal Register, they will accept comments for 30 days.
4. Following the comment period — The agencies will consider the supplemental feedback alongside earlier comments as they develop a final rule; implementation and any legal challenges may follow.

Practical implications for U.S. farmers

Farm Bureau leadership framed the proposed rule as offering operational clarity: if it narrows or more clearly defines federal jurisdiction in line with the Sackett decision, farmers could face fewer instances where routine field activities might trigger federal permitting requirements. At the same time, the Farm Bureau emphasized the shared interest in protecting water quality, indicating support for a rule that balances clarity with environmental protections.

Why this matters in the United States

The scope of WOTUS determines where federal Clean Water Act permits and enforcement apply — a matter with direct consequences for agricultural operations across the country. Changes to that scope affect compliance obligations, potential penalties for violations, and how farmers plan field operations and land management. Because the EPA and Army Corps are pursuing additional public input and emphasizing a rule tied to a Supreme Court decision, stakeholders should expect continued debate and possible litigation even after a final rule is issued.

Bottom line

The American Farm Bureau Federation responded positively to the EPA and Army Corps’ supplemental WOTUS proposal, praising its potential to provide greater certainty for farmers and to align federal jurisdiction with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision. The agencies are seeking further public input; the final rule, details of its legal scope, and how it will be implemented remain to be determined.