Why farmers and ranchers think the EPA Clean Water Rule goes too far

Farmers and ranchers have long been stewards of the land, cultivating crops and raising livestock to feed a growing population. Their relationship with the environment is deeply intertwined with their livelihoods, and any regulation affecting their operations is met with scrutiny. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water Rule, introduced in 2015, has been a point of contention among agricultural communities, who argue that it goes too far in its reach and impact.

At its core, the Clean Water Rule seeks to clarify which bodies of water fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Act itself was passed in 1972 with the noble intention of protecting the nation’s water resources from pollution, aiming to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of these waters. However, over the years, ambiguity arose regarding what exactly constituted “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Act’s jurisdiction.

The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed the Clean Water Rule to address this ambiguity. By defining WOTUS more precisely, the agencies sought to streamline regulatory processes and ensure comprehensive protection of water quality. However, farmers and ranchers saw it differently. Here’s why they believe the Clean Water Rule goes too far:

Overreach and Regulatory Burden: Farmers argue that the Clean Water Rule extends federal authority beyond its intended scope, intruding into what they consider traditionally state-regulated matters. They perceive it as regulatory overreach, leading to increased bureaucratic hurdles and compliance costs. The rule expands federal jurisdiction to include smaller bodies of water, such as streams and wetlands, that were previously regulated at the state level. This expansion translates to more permits, more paperwork, and more regulatory oversight, all of which burden farm operations.

Uncertainty and Confusion: Despite the EPA’s efforts to clarify which waters fall under federal jurisdiction, the Clean Water Rule has been criticized for its complexity and ambiguity. Farmers and ranchers express frustration over the difficulty of determining whether their land features, such as ditches or ephemeral streams, are subject to CWA regulations. This uncertainty creates legal and financial risks for agricultural producers, who may face penalties for unintentional non-compliance. Moreover, the inconsistency in regulatory interpretation across different regions exacerbates confusion and undermines the rule’s effectiveness.

Impediment to Land Use and Development: Agriculture relies heavily on land use, including irrigation, drainage, and land conversion for crop production. The Clean Water Rule’s expanded jurisdiction restricts farmers’ ability to modify their land for agricultural purposes without obtaining federal permits. This limitation can hinder farm productivity and innovation, as farmers may avoid making necessary land improvements due to regulatory constraints. Additionally, the rule may deter investment in rural development projects, such as infrastructure upgrades or expansion of agricultural operations, by adding layers of bureaucratic approval processes.

Property Rights and Individual Freedom: For many farmers and ranchers, land ownership is more than just a business asset—it’s a way of life rooted in principles of independence and self-sufficiency. They perceive the Clean Water Rule as an infringement on their property rights and individual freedoms, asserting that the federal government should not dictate how they manage their land. Concerns about government overreach and erosion of property rights resonate deeply within agricultural communities, fueling opposition to regulatory measures perceived as encroachments on private property.

Economic Impact and Competitiveness: Agriculture is a vital sector of the U.S. economy, contributing to food security, rural livelihoods, and export revenues. Farmers argue that the regulatory burdens imposed by the Clean Water Rule undermine the competitiveness of American agriculture in the global market. Compliance costs, permitting delays, and uncertainty surrounding land use regulations can place U.S. farmers at a disadvantage compared to their international counterparts with less stringent environmental regulations. This economic strain not only affects individual farm profitability but also has broader implications for rural communities dependent on agriculture for economic stability.

In summary, farmers and ranchers believe that the EPA’s Clean Water Rule goes too far in its regulatory reach and imposes undue burdens on agricultural operations. They argue that the rule’s expansion of federal jurisdiction, coupled with its complexity and ambiguity, stifles innovation, restricts land use, and undermines property rights. Furthermore, they highlight the economic repercussions of increased regulatory compliance, which threaten the competitiveness of American agriculture and the vitality of rural communities. As stakeholders in environmental stewardship and economic prosperity, farmers and ranchers advocate for regulatory approaches that balance conservation objectives with the practical realities of agricultural production.