HELENA — The Trump administration is proposing changes to the definition of what bodies of water are considered “the waters of the United States.” While it may seem like an obscure or even irrelevant question, Montana agricultural organizations say it’s not just academic for farmers and ranchers.
The Clean Water Act gives the federal government the authority to address pollution in “waters of the United States.” That means a wide variety of land use activities may require a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency if it’s determined they would affect those waters.
(Watch the video to hear more on the possible impacts of a change to WOTUS.)
Over the last decade, different federal administrations have tried to establish different standards for when a body of water qualifies as a water of the U.S.
“WOTUS really did put ranchers and agricultural producers in a very difficult position,” said Raylee Honeycutt, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association. “It was kind of like a pingpong game: We kept seeing rules changing and going back and forth, expansion, reduction.”
The Stockgrowers and other agricultural groups celebrated in 2023, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett v. EPA narrowed the definition of “waters of the U.S.” The Trump administration says its proposed new rules are intended to implement the Sackett decision.
Honeycutt says she’s hopeful these rule changes will bring more stability for agriculture.
“Really what Montana Stockgrowers was asking for – as well as the larger livestock community – was some certainty and clarity in the rules, so that people could continue to plan and make business decisions based off those rules,” she said.
She says one of the major concerns for farmers and ranchers was whether federal regulations extended to “ephemeral” bodies of water – those that don’t have water for the entire year.
“At one point in time, we were talking about puddles of water that had standing water on it being navigable and being under the authority of the EPA,” she said. “So what we're really seeing is some commonsense approach to, when there's water standing because it's rained a lot, that isn't necessarily a body of water that should be regulated by the EPA.”
The EPA says the new definitions would focus enforcement on “relatively permanent” bodies of water. In the Sackett case, the court majority ruled that the waters of the U.S. shouldn’t include wetlands unless they have a direct “continuous surface connection” to another body of water. The new rule would define that by saying a wetland must border a body of water under federal jurisdiction and have surface water at least during a “wet season.”
The agency also says it’s planning to make changes specifically with agricultural producers in mind, including expanding exclusions to limit the number of ditches that would fall under federal jurisdiction and reinstating a specific exemption for groundwater.
Not everyone is happy with what the administration is proposing.
“This narrow interpretation isn't based on science; it's based on essentially a wish list of, ‘How can we do as much as we want everywhere?’” said Guy Alsentzer, executive director of the environmental group Upper Missouri Waterkeeper.
While Alsentzer wasn’t happy with the Sackett decision, he argues the new proposed rules curtail federal clean water protections even more.
“If you care about clean and healthy water, you can't just care about the river – you’ve got to care about all its arteries, which is to say its headwaters and its wetlands,” he said. “This is an unscientific rule.”
He argues development and other actions taken on lands that only have water for part of the year can still have significant downstream impacts.
Alsentzer believes the concerns about how a stricter WOTUS rule would affect farms and ranches are overstated.
“Federal law has never said a family farmer can't do what they need to do to support ag on their land,” he said. “What federal law has said is, the big industrial-scale operators, you've got to take responsibility for your pollution.”
Honeycutt said, regardless of these changes, there are still going to be federal environmental protections in place, as well as protections at the state level.
“Montana and our ranching community works very hard, is very much a steward of the environment,” she said. “We want the world and the earth to be thriving. We are just one component in making that a success.”
Alsentzer said Montana does have state protections, but he questioned whether the state would have sufficient funding to fill the gap if federal oversight is cut back.
The EPA will be accepting public comment on the changes to the WOTUS rule through Jan. 5, 2026. Both Honeycutt and Alsentzer said their groups are encouraging their allies to submit input.
“We're working with our members as well as our national partners to make sure that ranching and the agricultural community is very represented,” said Honeycutt.
“We need to, at minimum, let them know that we care, we're watching and we're upset with the decisions they make,” Alsentzer said. “And then to the extent that they still make a bad decision, then it's incumbent on us to stand up for our rights.”
