Water Rights

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:44 GMT

Farmers and ranchers could soon face fewer regulatory hurdles when working near waterways, as EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released a new proposal on Nov. 17 to redefine “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The agencies say the proposed rule is designed to bring long-requested clarity to what features fall under federal jurisdiction potentially reducing permitting uncertainty for agriculture, landowners and rural businesses.

The proposed rule can be found on the Federal Register . The public can submit comments online there or via Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. During the announcement event on Nov. 17, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin urged the public to submit comments.

The definition of WOTUS determines when producers must secure permits for projects that could affect surface water quality, including common activities such as building terraces, installing drainage or expanding livestock operations. EPA officials say the new proposal aims to align fully with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision and prevent farmers from needing lawyers or consultants simply to determine whether a water feature on their land is federally regulated.

The proposal follows Zeldin’s promise in March to launch the biggest deregulatory action in history and a series of listening sessions in April and May that asked states, tribes, industry and agriculture to weigh in on WOTUS needs.

Clearer Definition After Years of Confusion

Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle emphasize the rule is designed to be clear, durable and commonsense.

Key elements include:

Defined terms such as relatively permanent, continuous surface connection, and tributary to outline which waters qualify under the Clean Water Act.
A requirement that jurisdictional tributaries must have predictable, consistent flow to traditional navigable waters.
Wetlands protections are limited to wetlands that physically touch and are indistinguishable from regulated waters for a consistent duration each year.
Reaffirmed exclusions important to agriculture, including prior converted cropland, certain ditches and waste treatment systems.
A new exclusion for groundwater.
Locally-familiar terminology, such as “wet season,” to help determine whether water features meet regulatory thresholds.

EPA says these changes are intended to reduce uncertainty that has stemmed from years of shifting definitions across administrations.

Impact of WOTUS Proposal on Agriculture

For producers, the proposal could simplify compliance by narrowing which water features fall under federal oversight and confirming exclusions that many farm groups have long advocated.

Zeldin says the aim is “protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution” while preventing unnecessary burdens on farmers and ranchers. He criticizes past Democratic administrations for broad interpretations that, in his view, extended federal reach to features that did not warrant regulation.

Farm groups have argued for years that unclear or overly broad definitions can lead to significant costs, delays and legal risks when planning conservation work, drainage projects or infrastructure improvements. A more consistent rule could reduce project backlogs and limit case-by-case determinations that often slow progress during planting, construction or livestock expansion.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” said Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, during the May 1 EPA listening session for agriculture . He adds: “farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

Several of those who gave testimony and public comment during the ag listening session argued that farmers and ranchers, who already struggle with unpredictable markets and tight margins, shouldn’t have to hire experts to identify elements of their own land.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” says Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who also gave testimony in May.

Alignment With the Sackett Decision

After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA ruling , which restricted federal authority over many wetlands, the agencies say the previous WOTUS definition no longer aligned with the law. EPA already issued a memo earlier this year clarifying limits on jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands. The newly proposed rule is the next step in that process.

The proposed rule focuses on relatively permanent bodies of water — streams, rivers, lakes and oceans — and wetlands that are physically connected to those waters. Seasonal and regional variations are incorporated, including waters that flow consistently during the wetter months.

The current situation is a regulatory patchwork. Due to litigation that followed the January 2023 WOTUS rule, which was considered in the Sackett decision, different states are following different rules. Currently, 24 states, mostly the coastal and Great Lakes states, are operating on the 2023 rule, while the other 26 states, mostly those in center and in the Southeast, are operating on pre-2015 WOTUS rule.

Oversight Rests With State and Tribes

A major theme of the proposal is cooperative federalism, giving more authority to states and tribes to manage local land and water resources. EPA says the rule preserves necessary federal protections while recognizing states and tribal governments are best positioned to oversee many smaller or isolated water features.

Sections 101b and 510 of the CWA are key structural examples of the concept of cooperative federalism. The sections give states and tribes the right to set standards and issue permits for federal activities that could discharge pollutants into a water of the U.S. within the state or territory. The most common example of this are 404 dredge and fill permits.

This focus on cooperative federalism was the main chorus of the EPA’s listening session for states , held April 29, especially as it concerns wetlands.

“If more wetlands are excluded from WOTUS, then certain federal projects would not require a section 401 water quality certification by the states,” noted Jennifer Congdon, director of federal affairs for New York Department of Environmental Conservation, during the states’ listening session. She argues that such a situation could impair water quality within a state, thus violating states’ rights under the CWA.

What Happens Next

The proposed rule is available online for public comment on the Federal Register and Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will hold two hybrid public meetings, and details for submitting comments or registering to speak will be available on EPA’s website .

After the comment period, the agencies plan to move quickly toward a final rule.

“Once the rule is finalized, it typically takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to Congressional Review Act requirements,” the EPA press office told The Packer earlier this summer .

Based on these potential timelines, a new — potentially final — WOTUS rule could take effect as early as early March.

California Ranchers Facing $1.50/Acre Water Assessment

Fri, 15 Aug 2025 15:16:41 GMT

Environmental preservation continues to take precedence over agricultural sustainability in California. Water rights and assessments are issues California farmers and ranchers are being challenged with today.

Jack Lavers, a California rancher, explains through the years there has been a shift in water allocation since environmental concerns became a factor around the 1970s. He discussed the water issues, as well as other challenges facing California ranchers, on AgriTalk with Chip Flory.

Original state and federal water projects moved water from Northern to Southern California. These enabled agricultural expansion in the Central Valley and initially satisfied farmers and urban populations. According to Lavers, farmers only get 25% of the water today while environmental groups receive approximately half.

“They give half the water now to the environmental groups, and the other half is then split between the farms and the people — and that really becomes the issue,” he says. “Now we have this big push happening because they want to bring back fish to these rivers, and so we’re actually removing dams, and that is a very, very big issue.”

Removing the dams will eliminate irrigation.

“You’re going to see a lot of this ground that’s been irrigated for 100 years disappear — and have no value — so we can have some fish,” he explains.

New Assessment

Lavers says one of the new challenges facing agriculture today in California is a new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) assessment.

“This is actually assessed on all rural ground — they call them the white areas,” Lavers explains. “This stems from the SGMA, which is the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, that our state passed, which is just insane in itself, but they assessed $1.50 per acre assessment on your ground.”

He says they have justified the assessment because, “these guys are pulling all this water out of the ground to farm.”

He adds, “They didn’t just do it on the farmers. They did it on livestock guys that are grazing ground. Well, that adds up really quickly. If you have a 2,000-acre ranch where you’re grazing your cattle now, you’re paying an extra $2,000 a year. Right now, that’s one of your steers is gone right there off the top, just to pay for an assessment that you don’t even use.”

Wildfires Affect Grazing Land

Lavers also discussed how wildfires continue to pose significant threats to California ranching. He says the Gifford fire is causing significant damage to ranchers, burning more than 122,000 acres and forcing some ranchers to lose everything.

As the cattle producers face reduced grazing lands due to the fires, he says progress has been made working with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management opening up grazing allotments that they have closed in the past. They are also working with California Department of Fish and Wildlife to allow grazing on ground it had purchased.

“We’re having a little bit of success with that, so we’re making progress,” he summarizes.

To learn more about the challenges facing California ranchers and farmers today, be sure to listen to the full conversation between Flory and Lavers. From devastating wildfires and water allocation issues to regulatory pressures and environmental constraints, the California agricultural community continues to demonstrate resilience and adaptability.

Ag on WOTUS: We Need Predictability, Dependability and Consistency

Thu, 01 May 2025 22:35:50 GMT

It was a full virtual house during the Waters of the U.S. listening session for industry and agriculture. The May 1 morning session was part of an ongoing outreach effort by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers in reworking WOTUS to bring it into alignment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision .

Over 40 speakers gave public comments and dozens more on the waiting list were left when the almost three-hour listening session ended.

The message from speakers — agricultural and industrial alike — was resounding: ‘We need clear, consistent, predictable and dependable definitions on WOTUS that everyday people can understand.’

Clear, consistent, predictable, dependable and understandable

“Agriculture bears the brunt of expansive and ambiguous WOTUS definitions,” said Norm Semanko, an environmental lawyer speaking for Family Farm Alliance. This perspective was echoed in dozens of ways by almost every agricultural voice at the hearing.

Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, put a fine point on the issue.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” he said, “and farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

“This uncertainty forces us to hire experts just to get guidance on whether we can use common agricultural practices on our farms,” he continued. Other speakers pointed out that getting it wrong is not an option for those in agriculture.

“The costs associated with non-compliance of the Clean Water Act are just simply too high for farmers,” said Jay Bragg, commodity and regulatory activities associate director for the Texas Farm Bureau. Instead, farmers “should be able to make these determinations without consultants or engineers.”

This was a theme repeated by speaker after speaker. Many quoted the direct text of the original Clean Water Act and its focus on “ordinary parlance” related to definitions of a water of the U.S.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature, and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” said Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Ditches, converted crop land and other categories

The hosts of the listening session called the issue of jurisdictional determinations on ditches one of critical importance. Agricultural commenters agreed and called for wide, if not complete, exemption of agricultural ditches under the WOTUS definition.

“No farm ditches should ever be included as a WOTUS. They should be excluded because they are neither streams, oceans, rivers or lakes,” said Michael Formica, chief legal strategist for the National Pork Producers Council, effectively summarizing the arguments of dozens of commenters.

Those who commented from outside the agricultural industry also stressed the importance of excluding most if not all ditches from jurisdictional waters definitions. Several representatives from building organizations cited concerns related to especially road-side ditches being considered jurisdictional.

Though fewer commenters spoke on the issue of prior converted cropland and its place in WOTUS, those who did made similar arguments appealing to common sense.

“Broadly speaking, land should not be classified as a jurisdictional water,” said Christina Gruenhagen, government relations counsel for the Iowa Farm Bureau. “Prior converted cropland should be considered land and not a jurisdictional water.”

Almost every speaker referenced the need for WOTUS definitions to conform with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision . Most also called for the agencies to significantly reduce the categories of jurisdictional waters.

“The Sackett decision helps us to clarify that there are three — and only three — primary categories of WOTUS waters,” said Andy Rieber, public lands consultant for Humbolt County, Nev. These are the traditional interstate navigable waters, waters with a relatively permanent flow connected to them, and wetlands which are adjacent to either of those two prior categories.

“It is important for the EPA and the Army Corps of engineers to ensure that their definition of WOTUS reflects those three —and only those three — categories.”

Future engagement opportunities on WOTUS

The agency hosts of the May 1 morning listening session for industry and ag told attendees there is another listening session planned for the public. That listening session has not yet been scheduled, however. They urged those who were unable to give testimony to keep watch on the EPA’s WOTUS site .

Your next read:

Mexico Will Send More Water to Texas to Make Up Treaty Shortfall, USDA Says

Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:09:26 GMT

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Monday that Mexico would increase its water shipments to Texas to help make up a shortfall under a 1944 treaty that outlines water-sharing between the countries.

U.S. officials and lawmakers have complained that Mexico’s failure to meet its obligations under the treaty is harming Texas farmers.

Mexico has argued that it is under drought conditions that have strained the country’s water resources.

“After weeks of negotiations with Mexican cabinet officials alongside the Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, we secured an agreement to give Texas producers the water they need to thrive. While this is a significant step forward, we welcome Mexico’s continued cooperation to support the future of American agriculture,” Rollins said in a statement.

🚨In President Trump’s first 100 days, we have secured an agreement with Mexico alongside @DeputySecState for an immediate transfer of water from international reservoirs to Texas farmers.

This will meet the immediate needs of American farmers and ranchers, and sets the stage…
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 28, 2025

Earlier this month, Reuters reported that the water issue had emerged as a possible new front in trade negotiations between the two countries.

The water treaty requires Mexico to send 1.75 million acre-feet of water to the U.S. from the Rio Grande every five years.

Mexico will now “transfer water from international reservoirs and increase the U.S. share of the flow in six of Mexico’s Rio Grande tributaries through the end of the current five-year water cycle,” which ends in October, said a USDA statement.

My gratitude to President Trump and Secretary Rollins. They have delivered as promised for our farmers. Mexico will meet its treaty obligations and provide south Texas water as required.
— Sid Miller (@MillerForTexas) April 29, 2025

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce in a statement thanked Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum “for her personal involvement in facilitating cooperation across multiple levels of her government to establish a unified path to addressing this ongoing priority.”

Mexico’s government released its own statement later on Monday saying it would implement “a series of measures aimed at mitigating potential shortfalls in water deliveries” including immediate water transfers as well as during the upcoming rainy season.

“All of these actions have as their fundamental premise the assurance of water supplies for human consumption for the Mexican populations that depend on the waters of the Rio Grande,” the statement said.

Your Next Read:
Tiny Farm Town Defies Feds, Drains Water to Protect Citizens

Can Mexico Afford to Retaliate Against the U.S.?

TSCRA Submits Second Amicus Brief on Landowner Rights Court Case

Wed, 29 Jan 2025 18:18:29 GMT

The Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) submitted its second amicus brief supporting landowner ownership of groundwater in the Texas Supreme Court case Cactus Water Services LLC v. COG Operating LLC.

In the dispute, landowners contracted to sell produced water to a third party, but the oil and gas company argued they retained ownership under existing leases.

“For Texas landowners, ownership of groundwater is among the most essential private property rights,” said TSCRA President, Carl Ray Polk Jr. “Water makes ranching, agriculture and mineral production possible.”

The amicus brief urges the Court to uphold the longstanding principle in Texas that the landowner owns all the groundwater under their land, including groundwater brought to the surface through the oil and gas process.

“Texas courts have consistently agreed that groundwater ownership is tied to the landowner. Any effort to erode this fundamental principle endangers private property rights and Texas agriculture,” Polk said. “Our members — Texas landowners and agricultural operators — rely on the certainty of the law to protect and uphold their private property rights.”

Background of the case
Beginning in 2005, Collier and Balmorhea Ranches, Inc. entered certain oil and gas leases with COG Operating LLC. The oil and gas leases did not convey any rights of ownership to the groundwater underlying the property, allowing only the extraction of oil, gas, and hydrocarbons and limited rights to use groundwater from a newly drilled well to aid in the extraction and production process.

In 2019, Collier and Balmorhea Ranches leased the ownership rights to all water on and underlying the property to Cactus Water Services LLC. COG Operating LLC filed suit against Cactus Water, and both parties sought competing declaratory judgments regarding the ownership of the produced water.

In 2023, the El Paso Court of Appeals ruled that oil and gas producers have an ownership interest in produced water. As a result, Cactus Water Services LLC petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review of the prior ruling, which is the current standing of the legal battle.

Your next read: Choose Your Own Adventure: Online Tool Makes It Easier To Find Conservation Programs