The U.S. EPA has extended the public comment period for the proposed repeal of the Waters of the United States rule to Sept. 27. The proposed repeal is the first step in EPA’s plan to rework WOTUS.

Once all public comments on the repeal proposal are reviewed by EPA, the agency is expected to propose a new definition of what constitutes a federal waterbody or stream, so that it can be regulated on private land.

Iowa Farm Bureau and other ag groups are urging farmers to send comments to EPA in support of ditching the WOTUS rule, which they say is flawed. Comments can be submitted directly to EPA. Farm Bureau is also encouraging its members to sign a petition supporting repeal of the rule.

Obama-era water quality legislation under review
The WOTUS rule defines which rivers, streams, lakes and marshes fall under the jurisdiction of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Earlier this year the Trump administration ordered a review of the WOTUS rule.

When it was originally proposed by the Obama administration in 2015, the rule was immediately opposed by a number of agricultural organizations. They said WOTUS would give the federal government control over most of the nation’s farmland and would create confusion about what farming practices would be allowed on the land.

The Obama administration was pushed to implement some type of rule by various lawsuits that had been brought against EPA to get the agency to enforce the federal Clean Water Act.

Iowa leaders call WOTUS ‘unfriendly to farmers’
The WOTUS rule went into effect and it broadened EPA’s regulatory authority over waterways to include, among other waterbodies, upstream waters and intermittent and ephemeral streams such as those farmers use for drainage and irrigation. The rule also expanded EPA’s authority to include farmlands adjacent to such waters.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds and other top Republicans in the state met with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Aug. 8 in Des Moines. The group included Iowa Ag Secretary Bill Northey, U.S. Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst, and leaders of Farm Bureau, along with other farmers and business representatives.

They gave their full support for efforts by the Trump administration to change the controversial WOTUS rule. They also gave their opinions on what a replacement rule should look like. Pruitt laid out an aggressive timeline for drawing up and implementing a new rule for WOTUS.

EPA needs to get the new rule right this time
At a press conference after the meeting, Reynolds called the WOTUS rule a “massive land grab” that would hamper farmers through its definition of federal waters that she considers excessively broad. The governor said she is thankful to President Donald Trump for expressing a willingness to work with states on revising the rules. She also said the Obama administration’s language, if the rule isn’t changed, could hurt Iowa’s ability to implement the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy to improve water quality. “We need to get the rule right this time around,” said Reynolds.

The problem with the Obama administration’s version of the WOTUS rule, said Iowa Farm Bureau President Craig Hill, is that it was large and complicated and added numerous new definitions to the process, adding to the confusion and uncertainty. “Farmers had no clarity, no understanding of what the rule meant,” said Hill.

Water rules need clarity, direction
Bob Hemesath, a northeast Iowa farmer who serves on the board of directors of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, was one of the Iowans who met with Pruitt. Hemesath said farmers were concerned because they didn’t know what farming practices would be allowed or required by the WOTUS rule. That confusion has slowed some conservation work on the land as farmers weren’t sure if they might need a permit.

If you see something that needs fixing, you want to fix it instead of waiting for a permit, he said. Another drawback with WOTUS is a rigid rule inhibits innovation as farmers try to use practices that work best on their own farming operations. Echoing the other farmers who spoke to Pruitt, Hemesath is glad the Trump administration is rescinding the rule and is in the process of revising it.

“The WOTUS rule extends protections of waterways beyond what Congress intended when it passed the federal Clean Water Act,” said Sen. Grassley. “There’s never been a more consequential rule than WOTUS. It defies congressional intent and court opinions.” WOTUS was a hot issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, especially in farm states such as Iowa. Opponents maintain the rule is an extreme government overreach. Supporters maintain the rule helps protect water quality.