It?s one of those things that never seems to go away completely. The Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule was put in place by the Obama Administration. Farmers, landowners, and other stakeholders argued that it was too overreaching by the Federal Government and gave them control over land that in no way is part of interstate commerce.
The Trump Administration did away with the WOTUS and implemented the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. Supporters say this is more common sense for what the Clean Water Act gives the Federal government jurisdiction over. Environmentalists clapped back that it was not tough enough.
Now the Biden Administration overturned the Trump Rule and put its own version of WOTUS back in place. They say is more common sense than the Obama-Era rule. Opponents say it?s the same thing with very few changes.
After years of bickering, the Supreme Court is finally going to take up the matter once and for all.
The Sackett vs. EPA case will be heard by SCOTUS later this year. This will finally decide the debate on who has jurisdiction where. The NCBA decided to join a large group of farmers and Ag organizations that have filed briefs in support of the Sacketts in this case. This will be a strong message to the high court that landowners don?t want government control of their private land.
In the early 2000s, the Rapanos decision gave a muddled interpretation of who has jurisdiction over commerce waters, and what the definition is. In the end, there were competing tests on what is federal waters.
Mary-Thomas Hart is NCBA?s environmental counsel. She talks about these tests and explains their differences.
NCBA is advocating for the inclusion of both tests, not one or the other.
