WASHINGTON — Editor’s note: In Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers wrongfully claimed oversight on wetlands owned by Chantell and Michael Sackett. The decision will likely have far-reaching consequences for those in the agricultural industry. The following statements have been released by Glenn “GT” Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, The Fertilizer Institute, National Association of Wheat Growers, and the National Pork Producers Council concerning the Supreme Court’s decision.
Glenn “GT” Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture
Thompson Issues Statement on WOTUS Ruling
Following the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Michael and Chantell Sackett in the Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency case, Glenn “GT” Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, issued the following statement:
“Today’s unanimous ruling in Sackett v EPA is a victory for America’s farmers, ranchers, and land owners. The decision reaffirms the rights of property owners and provides long-needed clarity to rural America. In light of this decision, the Biden Administration should withdraw its flawed final WOTUS rule. It is time to finally put an end to the regulatory whiplash and create a workable rule that promotes clean water while protecting the rights of rural Americans.”
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
SCOTUS decision in Sackett v. EPA clarifies states’ authority and brings hope of regulatory certainty for farmers
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture CEO Ted McKinney shares its impact on states, farmers and NASDA’s next steps.
“The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Sackett v. EPA today comes as welcome news to farmers, landowners and state departments of agriculture who sought clarity on what has been an over-litigated issue for decades,” McKinney said. “We take relief in this decision as the justices clearly state the ‘significant nexus theory is particularly implausible’ and the EPA has no statutory basis to impose the standard.”
In his opinion, Justice Alito also recognizes the limits of federal jurisdiction, and in doing so, acknowledges “Regulation of land and water use lies at the core of traditional state authority.”
“Today’s ruling proves that protecting our nation’s waterways and growing food, fiber and fuel are two tandem efforts – not two competing interests,” McKinney said. “There is, however, still work to be done to ensure farmers and ranchers are equipped to best care for their land while following applicable federal or state requirements.”
NASDA turns to EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue a revised version of their prematurely released WOTUS rule. Going against volumes of stakeholder input, EPA and the Corps issued a WOTUS rulemaking before today’s SCOTUS decision, which now renders portions of the agency’s final WOTUS rule moot.
Looking forward, NASDA will continue to work with EPA, the Corps and NASDA members to update and implement a regulatory framework that better reflects the needs of state agriculture departments, farmers, ranchers and all the communities they serve.
American Farm Bureau Federation
Supreme Court Reaffirms Clean Water Rule
American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall commented today on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA.
“AFBF appreciates the Supreme Court justices for their careful consideration of the implications of Sackett v. EPA. The EPA clearly overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act by restricting private property owners from developing their land despite being far from the nearest navigable water.
“The justices respect private property rights. It’s now time for the Biden administration to do the same and rewrite the Waters of the United States Rule. Farmers and ranchers share the goal of protecting the resources they’re entrusted with, but they deserve a rule that provides clarity and doesn’t require a team of attorneys to properly care for their land.”
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Cattle Producers Rejoice in Supreme Court Ruling on WOTUS Case
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Sackett family in Sackett v. EPA – the court’s most recent consideration of which features are subject to federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. In its holding, the court soundly rejected the contentious “significant nexus” test. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) strongly supports this ruling and is currently engaged in a litigation against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the Biden Administration’s WOTUS definition.
“Cattle producers across the country can breathe a sigh of relief today. Since EPA’s adoption of the “significant nexus” test, cattle producers have had to retain costly legal services to determine if water features on their property are federally jurisdictional,” said Todd Wilkinson, South Dakota cattle producer and President of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “Today’s Supreme Court opinion refocuses the Clean Water Act on protecting our water resource through regulatory clarity. We look forward to working with the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as they implement the Court’s new Continuous Surface Connection standard.”
NCBA submitted an amicus brief in the Sackett case, encouraging elimination of the Significant Nexus test in exchange for a more practical standard. “In its brief to the Court, NCBA highlighted the unconstitutionality of imposing criminal penalties for violations of vague standards under the Clean Water Act. The Court recognized and reversed the Significant Nexus test, in part due to the constitutional due process risk that it created,” said Mary-Thomas Hart, Chief Counsel for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
NCBA has been heavily involved in litigation surrounding the WOTUS rule since 2015. NCBA filed suit against the Obama-era WOTUS definition, defended the Trump-era definition that brought more clarity to what water features are included under WOTUS, and filed suit against the Biden administration’s WOTUS rule that did not include critical agricultural exemptions.
The Fertilizer Institute
TFI Statement on SCOTUS WOTUS Decision
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) president and CEO Corey Rosenbusch today issued the below statement following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency, a case central to Waters of the United States (WOTUS) policy.
“The Fertilizer Institute welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA. The decision, which strikes down the “significant nexus” test in determining what is considered a Waters of the United States, is a win for agriculture. While regulatory interpretation from the EPA will take time, the SCOTUS decision is a great first step in providing the clarity that the fertilizer industry needs for long-term planning and capital investments that will allow us to continue providing the critical nutrients that feed the crops that feed our communities.”
National Association of Wheat Growers
NAWG Responds to SCOTUS Ruling in Sackett v. EPA Case
Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Sackett v. EPA that narrows the extent of federal jurisdiction over bodies of water under the Clean Water Act.
“NAWG is pleased with the rule the Supreme Court issued today that rejected the confusing and expansive “significant nexus” test that broadened the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act,” said NAWG CEO Chandler Goule. “The Supreme Court ruling sided with a narrower definition of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction and limited the number of wetlands that would come under the regulation of the Clean Water Act.”
Last year, NAWG joined several other agriculture groups in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court stating the complexity of the definitions and impact on agriculture. NAWG will continue to advocate that any regulation is limited in scope to navigable waters and provides farmers clarity on which waters are jurisdictional.
National Pork Producers Council
Pork Producers Celebrate SCOTUS Ruling on WOTUS
“The Supreme Court’s historical decision to define the limits of EPA authority under the Clean Water Act is a tremendous victory for America’s pork producers who have played a leading role for almost two decades in opposing the agency’s heavy-handed efforts to micromanage our farms,” stated Duane Stateler, NPPC vice president and Ohio pork producer. “This ruling is a clear punctuation point after decades of attempts by activists and the EPA to expand the federal government’s power and control over private land. Farmers are the originators of conservation and are taught the key to preservation is to protect our natural resources. We can now proceed with certainty to use all our conservation assets to best farm our land so we can deliver healthy food to our customers for generations to come.”
RECOMMENDED ARTICLES
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The United States Supreme Court began its new term last October with the now famous wetlands case of Sackett v. U.S. EPA. The case is one in a long line of legal battles over how to define which waters are “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) that are subject to federal jurisdiction under […]
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a big splash when it released its final rule for defining “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) on Dec. 30. Immediate criticism and support for the new rule surfaced as many undertook the unenviable task of interpreting the rule’s 514 pages of text. Perhaps some enjoyed the […]
WASHINGTON — Editor’s note: Several agricultural organizations have commented on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s and U.S. Department of the Army’s announcement of a final rule on Waters of the United States. Statements from the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, American Farm Bureau Federation, The Fertilizer Institute, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and National […]
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The first two weeks of the U.S. Supreme Court’s new term are important ones for agriculture. The Court will hear arguments in two critical cases: the “Sackett” wetlands case and a challenge to California’s animal welfare law, Proposition 12. The new term for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) begins October 3, with the […]
OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma Farm Bureau Legal Foundation recently joined 20 other state Farm Bureaus to file an amicus curiae – or “friend of the court” – brief in support of the petitioner in the Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency United States Supreme Court case review. Background Now spanning more than a decade, Sackett v. EPA focuses […]
