When Congress overrode President Richard Nixon’s veto in 1972 to enact the Clean Water Act (CWA), it did so with the support of the entire Kansas delegation. Support for the CWA was driven by a common goal of ensuring the waters of the United States were usable and safe from pollutants. Importantly, Congress included permitting exemptions for agriculture in the legislation, recognizing the costly and burdensome effect overregulation would have on agriculture and non-point source pollution landscapes. While the effectiveness of the CWA is debated, a fundamental question continues to be passed from court to court and administration to administration: What exactly are the waters of the United States (WOTUS)? 

U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Rapanos v. United States (2006) and Sackett v. EPA (2023) have cast aside previous definitions while providing some guidance on how to proceed. Under varying interpretations of that guidance, the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations have consecutively repealed and proposed varying WOTUS definitions.  

American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) policy 547 addresses the CWA. AFBF’s positions include: 

3.1: Limiting CWA jurisdiction to navigable streams and flowing waterways with year-round continuous flow. 

3.1.1 Maintaining state primacy over local land and water decisions. 

3.1.3 Promoting a clear distinction between waters subject to federal versus state jurisdiction. 

3.1.5 Excluding privately owned waters used exclusively for farm purposes from regulation. 

3.2 Supporting fishable and swimmable standards, rather than zero pollution, while not infringing property rights, not pushing unfunded mandates, and being accountable to cost/benefit and risk analysis. 

3.8 Opposing the EPA’s 2023 WOTUS Rule and any future rule that undermines the intent of the Sackett v. EPA ruling. 

Recently, the second Trump administration released its updated rule for public comments. Under the proposed rule, a waterway would fall under CWA jurisdiction if it was relatively permanent, meaning it had standing or flowing water for the entirety of its “wet period.” Wet periods and water presence would be based on regional climate conditions and hydrological modeling tools.  

The proposed rule requires wetlands to have continuous surface connection with another WOTUS and be relatively permanent to be jurisdictional. The proposed rule also shifts the burden of proving CWA jurisdiction back to the federal government and provides exemptions for prior converted cropland and dry land ditches. 

Additional details on the proposed rule can be found here. 

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment and the Kansas Department of Agriculture have statutory duties to regulate the waters and streams of the state (KSA 61-161(a) and KSA 82a-301 respectively). Hence, waters not jurisdictionally WOTUS, are classified as waters or streams of the state of Kansas and regulated by state entities. Kansas Farm Bureau does not have a policy on these state definitions. The waters definition impacts public water supply entities or others discharging sewage. The definition of streams concerns all dams, obstructions, levees or alterations to a qualified channel.