Agricultural groups have been asking for a new WOTUS rule that eliminates red tape and clears up confusion for farmers and ranchers. As EPA unveiled its latest proposed Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule this week, Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi says the agency’s goal was simple: clarity, consistency and fewer regulatory headaches for farmers and ranchers.
Fotouhi joined “U.S. Farm Report” for an exclusive interview to break down what this new rule means and why EPA believes it hits the mark.
A Rule He Says Brings Clarity and Certainty
Fotouhi says the agency’s top priority is eliminating uncertainty farmers have faced under previous interpretations of WOTUS.
“We really emphasize the need for farmers, ranchers and all stakeholders to have clarity in terms of how broad or narrow federal regulation of waters is in this country,” he says. “From Day 1, we start working on a proposed rule to bring that clarity and certainty to landowners across the country. On Monday, we are able to announce a proposal that is consistent with the law, that provides needed clarity on the extent of federal regulation, and that recognizes the primary jurisdiction of states and localities because they know their resources best.”
He adds that the proposal strikes what he calls a good balance.
“We think we really strike a good balance between protecting our nation’s waters and making sure farmers and ranchers can do the work that feeds Americans and produces the fuel this country relies on — without adding unnecessary regulatory burden to their day-to-day life,” he says.
EPA Says Farmers “Won’t Need a Lawyer” to Understand the New Rule
Fotouhi stresses one of EPA’s biggest priorities in rewriting WOTUS was ensuring farmers no longer need legal help just to determine whether they can work their own ground. He says the agency intentionally crafted the language to be plain, practical and rooted in the realities producers face every day.
“We take a fresh look at the Supreme Court’s direction and try to apply that in language that is easily understandable. Producers should not need a lawyer to understand how this rule applies to their property. We write it in a way that lets farmers look at their land and have a clear sense of whether federal permits are required.”
Fotouhi explains past WOTUS rules often included terminology that was vague, overly technical or open to interpretation, something EPA heard repeatedly during outreach with farm groups.
He says the agency makes a conscious effort to eliminate that ambiguity.
“We listen to farmers tell us repeatedly that the rule has to be understandable,” he says. “So instead of broad definitions that leave too much room for interpretation, we focus on concrete, workable language. We take geographic differences into account, we remove subjective criteria and we make exclusions, like the groundwater exemption, explicit so there’s no second-guessing.”
Fotouhi says that level of clarity is a direct response to years of frustration in rural America.
“We know farmers need certainty,” he says. “They need to know what they can and can’t do without waiting months for an answer. That’s why we put so much effort into making this rule clear, transparent and grounded in what the Supreme Court actually tells us to do.”
EPA Pushes Back on Claims the Proposal Overpromises
Some critics argue the agency risks overpromising. Fotouhi strongly rejects that idea.
“We take a fresh look at all the critical issues the Supreme Court lays out in the Sackett decision,” he says. “We think the previous administration does not faithfully implement that decision when they revise the rule, so we come back, reassess everything and come up with a definition that fully implements what the Court tells EPA and the Army Corps to do.”
He notes the agency made readability a priority.
“We try to apply the Court’s direction in language that is easily understandable, that takes geographic differences into account, and that doesn’t impose unnecessary burdens on farmers when they’re trying to decide if they need a permit,” he says.
Groundwater Exclusion: “We Want It Crystal Clear”
One standout change is the explicit exclusion of groundwater — language EPA says is included to eliminate confusion.
“Groundwater has never been part of the Waters of the United States, but we think it is absolutely necessary to make that exemption clear as day so there is no confusion about whether someone would need a permit for a discharge that may impact groundwater,” Fotouhi says.
He says repeated questions from stakeholders and newer case law convinced the agency to spell it out directly.
“Based on the case law that’s come out in the last few years and the general confusion we hear from stakeholders, we think it is incumbent on us to clarify this as clearly as we can,” he adds.
Final Rule Expected in Early 2026
EPA filed the proposal with the Federal Register, which means the rule’s comment period is officially underway.
“We publish the rule today, and it will be out for public comment for 45 days,” he says. “We know there is an absolute need for certainty and clarity and one nationwide standard, so we move quickly. We are hopeful that in the first few months of 2026, we can have a final rule out for the public.”
RFS: EPA Reviewing Comments, Aims for Certainty
Fotouhi also discusses EPA’s proposed Renewable Fuel Standard volumes, including record-setting biomass-based diesel levels.
“We understand how important it is to get this exactly right. From day one, Administrator Zeldin is laser-focused on ensuring the RFS strikes the right balance,” he says. “We know farmers and all stakeholders implicated by this program need certainty. We are working as quickly as we can to take final action.”
EPA’s Deregulatory Push: More Actions to Come
Fotouhi says the agency’s deregulatory actions announced earlier this year will have significant impact on agriculture.
“Reducing the cost of energy is one of our biggest focuses,” he says. “Many of the actions we identify are aimed at reducing energy prices for farmers, ranchers and manufacturers so we can reduce input costs and ultimately reduce the cost of the products they produce.”
This is evident through their efforts on WOTUS.
“The WOTUS proposal is a prime example; it’s designed to reduce unnecessary and illegal regulatory burden, and we are undertaking a score of additional actions across offices, working with USDA, the Department of Energy and the Interior Department, to identify ways to reduce input costs for agriculture,” Fotouhi says. “A thriving agricultural sector is a priority for the president, and lowering consumer prices is something we have to achieve.”
