Most cases on what was called government overreach of water rights had been settled in court.

But then the Biden administration quietly changed a "rule."

We are back to where we started.

Wait for the legal battles to begin again.

The Biden administration has revised the legal definition of the term “waters of the United States.”

This happens as an important case regarding the EPA and water is being heard by the Supreme Court.

The revised definition returns the language back to what is was in 2015, under the Obama administration. (New York Times).

That Obama-era rule brought a long list of lawsuits against the federal government by states and private landowners.

The new/revised EPA rule claims that the federal government has jurisdiction over water that is not given to them under the constitution.

The rule revokes past changes made by President Trump, which returned rights to water back to the states and private landowners.

attachment-WUW sticker

Outrage from various states was immediate.

“This rule is yet another bureaucratic attack on rural America,” said Caucus Chairman Dan Newhouse of Washington state. (Congressional Western Caucus). 

Vice Chair Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa stated, “The Obama WOTUS rule drastically expanded the jurisdiction over bodies of water like streams and ponds leaving large swaths of Iowa land in the hands of the federal government…I am extremely disappointed in the Biden Administration’s decision to finalize a similar version of this failed rule which will have terrible consequences, for our farmers, ranchers, and landowners in Iowa.”

“Today’s announcement by the Biden Administration on their new rule for Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) is disappointing. This rule is both poor policy and badly timed,” said David Rouzer of North Carolina.

This move by the Biden EPA is being seen by many as a preemptive measure due to a case being heard by the Supreme Court; Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, mentioned by Congressman Newhouse in his statement, according to The Western Journal.


This rule brings us back to the day that lawsuits were filed by landowners like Andy Jonson of Wyoming after the EPA showed up on his property and declared a stock pond to be in violation of EPA rules. The EPA agent on the scene then began inventing rules on the spot along with outrageous fines. Mr. Johnson was able to force the EPA to settle and back off.

Wyoming Mountain Man Convention

Wyoming Pickup Truck Office View

More From KOWB 1290