- DTN Headline News
Final WOTUS Rule Released
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:25AM CDT

By Todd Neeley
DTN Staff Reporter

OMAHA (DTN) -- The final waters of the United States rule announced Wednesday was touted by federal officials as a scaled-down version of a proposed rule that drew opposition from agriculture and many other industry groups across the country as being too far-reaching and seemingly all inclusive of nearly every drop of water.

Three Obama administration officials told reporters Wednesday they read and responded to the concerns levied by some 1.2 million commenters on the rule.

Their message: Farmers have nothing to worry about with the new rule if they're not already required to have permits through the Clean Water Act.

Though farmers and landowners in the Prairie Pothole region of Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota repeatedly have said the proposed rule provided no certainty about which waters were jurisdictional, the final rule still provides no certainty.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the final rule singled out those land/water features considered to be "unique" including the Prairie Potholes and coastal waters in Texas, as still subject to case-by-case Clean Water Act determinations.

In addition, the final rule made an attempt to better define tributaries, she said, and to clear up confusion about category of "other" waters that has caused concern across the country. In addition, the final rule attempts to more clearly identify how ditches can be considered waters of the United States.

"We defined tributary much more clearly," McCarthy said. "We used science to identify physical features required and provide certainty on how safeguards are extended to waters. There is no open-ended 'other' waters category to make people think EPA and the Army Corps are looking at other waters. Now only those ditches that are covered are those that are tributaries. No ephemeral ditches. We've done a very good job taking a look at comments. We learned people had concerns about what we didn't say. That's no longer the case. We are not doing anything to add legal or permitting barriers to ag."

She said the final rule defines tributaries that would be "significant contributors" to downstream water quality.

"We have identified features," McCarthy said. "We have established boundaries. We have taken a look at unique features. Based on comments unique features are important to look at on a case-by-case basis. People will be able to read this rule. It is fairly short. I think it's going to be very clear to folks who don't generally read rules. We will work with farmers on this."


Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said in a statement that the group will be reading the final rule in detail to see if agriculture concerns raised were addressed.

"Based on EPA's aggressive advocacy campaign in support of its original proposed rule -- and the agency's numerous misstatements about the content and impact of that proposal -- we find little comfort in the agency's assurances that our concerns have been addressed in any meaningful way," he said.

"The process used to produce this rule was flawed. The EPA's proposal transgressed clear legal boundaries set for it by Congress and the courts and dealt more with regulating land use than protecting our nation's valuable water resources. EPA's decision to mount an aggressive advocacy campaign during the comment period has tainted what should have been an open and thoughtful deliberative process.

"While we know that farmers and ranchers were dedicated to calling for substantial changes to the rule, we have serious concerns about whether their comments were given full consideration."

Many agricultural commodity groups likewise commented in press statements immediately following the EPA announcement that they were withholding final judgment pending thorough review of the rules. Others, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, were critical of both the process and the rules.

"Under the guise of clarifying the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the Army Corps added ambiguous language to the law that leaves regulation up to the subjectivity of individual regulators across the country," NCBA said in a statement.

During the rulemaking process EPA estimated the proposed rule could increase the number of waters brought into jurisdiction by about 3%. On Wednesday, McCarthy said the rule could lead to an increase in the number of waters covered by 3% or "higher."


The final rule states, "Previous definitions of 'waters of the United States' regulated all tributaries without qualification. This final rule more precisely defines 'tributaries' as waters that are characterized by the presence of physical indicators of flow -- bed and banks and ordinary high water mark -- and that contribute flow directly or indirectly to a traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the territorial seas. The rule concludes that such tributaries are 'waters of the United States.'"

The final rule also addresses the question of what exactly are adjacent waters for the purpose of establishing a "significant nexus" to larger water bodies.

"The agencies determined that 'adjacent waters,' as defined in the rule, have a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas based upon their hydrological and ecological connections to, and interactions with, those waters. Under this final rule, 'adjacent' means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring, including waters separated from other 'waters of the United States' by constructed dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like," the final rule reads.

"Further, waters that connect segments of, or are at the head of, a stream or river are 'adjacent' to that stream or river. 'Adjacent waters' include wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar water features. However, it is important to note that 'adjacent waters' do not include waters that are subject to established normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities as those terms are used in Section 404(f) of the CWA."


Concerns have been raised as to how far EPA's regulatory reach can go in the new rule. The new rule specifically identifies a number of exclusions to the Clean Water Act.

Those include prior converted cropland and waste treatment systems; waters and features previously identified as generally exempt including certain ditches not located in or drain wetlands; certain ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary; and ditches with intermittent flow that are not a relocated tributary, or excavated in a tributary, or drain wetlands.

In addition, the rule also excludes "groundwater and erosional features, as well as exclusions for some waters that were identified in public comments as possibly being found jurisdictional under proposed rule language where this was never the agencies' intent, such as storm water control features constructed to convey, treat, or store storm water, and cooling ponds that are created in dry land. These exclusions reflect the agencies' current practice, and their inclusion in the rule as specifically excluded furthers the agencies' goal of providing greater clarity over what waters are and are not protected under the CWA."


The final rule identifies three circumstances where waters would be "neighboring," making them waters of the United States.

"Waters located in whole or in part within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas, an impoundment of a jurisdictional water, or a tributary, as defined in the rule," the rule reads.

"Waters located in whole or in part in the 100-year floodplain and that are within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas, an impoundment, or a tributary, as defined in the rule ('floodplain waters').

"Waters located in whole or in part within 1,500 feet of the high tide line of a traditional navigable water or the territorial seas and waters located within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Great Lakes."

Assistant Secretary for the Army Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy said the new rule makes it clear that tributaries have to show "physical signs of flowing water" to be jurisdictional.

"Erosional features such as gullies and rills are not covered," she said. "Only ditches that act as tributaries are covered."

McCarthy said farmers will not be required to obtain Clean Water Act permits if they don't already have them.

"The rule does not add any new requirements for agriculture," she said. "It does not interfere with private property rights. It does not cover tile drains, irrigation or water transfers. It specifically recognizes the crucial role farmers play. Water-filled depressions from construction are not covered. All agriculture exemptions stay in place."

White House Senior Adviser Brian Deese said the new rule is "based on common sense"

"The rule is about certainty," he said. "The status quo is ripe with confusion. It does it in a way without getting in the way of farmers or forestry. The rule is about clarity. We're going to work to try to be as clear as possible about how this rule is implemented. The only people to oppose rule are polluters who are threatened by the rule."

Read the final rule here: http://tinyurl.com/…

Todd Neeley can be contacted at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on Twitter @toddneeleyDTN


blog iconDTN Blogs & Forums
DTN Market Matters Blog
Katie Micik
Markets Editor
Monday, May 18, 2015 5:23PM CDT
Monday, May 11, 2015 3:56PM CDT
Monday, May 4, 2015 4:59PM CDT
Technically Speaking
Darin Newsom
DTN Senior Analyst
Tuesday, May 26, 2015 12:57PM CDT
Sunday, May 24, 2015 12:29PM CDT
Sunday, May 24, 2015 11:48AM CDT
Fundamentally Speaking
Joel Karlin
DTN Contributing Analyst
Tuesday, May 19, 2015 2:28PM CDT
Monday, May 18, 2015 4:01PM CDT
Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:49PM CDT
DTN Ag Policy Blog
Chris Clayton
DTN Ag Policy Editor
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:52PM CDT
Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:06AM CDT
Saturday, May 23, 2015 1:11PM CDT
Minding Ag's Business
Marcia Taylor
DTN Executive Editor
Monday, May 18, 2015 6:44PM CDT
Friday, May 15, 2015 6:53PM CDT
Tuesday, May 5, 2015 9:25PM CDT
DTN Ag Weather Forum
Bryce Anderson
DTN Ag Meteorologist and DTN Analyst
Thursday, May 28, 2015 3:11PM CDT
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:38PM CDT
Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:14PM CDT
Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:57PM CDT
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:16PM CDT
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:24PM CDT
DTN Production Blog
Pam Smith
Crops Technology Editor
Friday, May 22, 2015 7:23PM CDT
Friday, May 15, 2015 4:39PM CDT
Thursday, May 7, 2015 7:29PM CDT
Harrington's Sort & Cull
John Harrington
DTN Livestock Analyst
Friday, May 22, 2015 8:42PM CDT
Friday, May 15, 2015 8:47PM CDT
Thursday, May 7, 2015 8:53PM CDT
South America Calling
Alastair Stewart
South America Correspondent
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:11PM CDT
Tuesday, May 26, 2015 6:33PM CDT
Monday, May 25, 2015 10:24PM CDT
An Urban’s Rural View
Urban Lehner
Editor Emeritus
Monday, May 25, 2015 9:57PM CDT
Monday, May 18, 2015 11:18AM CDT
Monday, May 11, 2015 11:06AM CDT
Machinery Chatter
Jim Patrico
Progressive Farmer Senior Editor
Wednesday, May 20, 2015 3:53PM CDT
Friday, May 15, 2015 4:27PM CDT
Wednesday, May 6, 2015 9:14PM CDT
Canadian Markets
Cliff Jamieson
Canadian Grains Analyst
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:00PM CDT
Tuesday, May 26, 2015 9:37PM CDT
Monday, May 25, 2015 9:29PM CDT
Editor’s Notebook
Greg D. Horstmeier
DTN Editor-in-Chief
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 5:48PM CDT
Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:09PM CDT
Tuesday, May 19, 2015 8:59PM CDT
Copyright DTN. All rights reserved. Disclaimer.
Powered By DTN