Ding dong the ditch rule is dead!

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have officially begun the process to withdraw the highly controversial Waters of the United States (WOTUS) final rule and begin a replacement rulemaking process to gather input and re-evaluate the definition of WOTUS, to cheers from farmers and ranchers nationwide.

American Farm Bureau – “Today’s announcement shows EPA Administrator Pruitt recognizes the WOTUS rule for what it is—an illegal and dangerous mistake that needs to be corrected. Farm Bureau looks forward to supporting Administrator Pruitt’s proposal. EPA should ditch this rule once and for all, go back to the drawing board, and write a new rule that protects water quality without trampling the rights of businesses and the states.”

National Corn Growers – “We are thankful this Administration is working to draw clear lines in terms of what is and what is not jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. In doing so, they will enable farmers to implement best management practices such as grass waterways and buffer strips without the burden of bureaucratic red tape or fear of legal action. These types of land improvements have enormous water quality benefits, such as reducing sediment and nutrient runoff—a win for farmers and the environment.”

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association – “This is another great step in the right direction, and the Administration deserves a great deal of credit for injecting some much-needed common sense into our nation’s environmental policies. It’s important to remember, though, that this rule isn’t dead yet. The rulemaking process continues, and NCBA will submit and solicit additional comments on behalf of America’s cattle producers so that they finally get the sanity and clarity they need on land use policy.”

National Pork Producers – “The WOTUS rule was a dramatic government overreach and an unprecedented expansion of federal authority over private lands. It was the product of a flawed regulatory process that lacked transparency and likely would have been used by trial lawyers and environmental activists to attack farmers.”