Farmers Freedom Act of 2025
SB 795, the “Farmers Freedom Act of 2025,” would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act) to exclude prior converted cropland from the statutory definition of “navigable waters” or “waters of the United States.” In practical terms, the bill would remove these lands from federal water jurisdiction, meaning they would generally not be regulated as waters or wetlands under that definition. The bill also defines key terms such as “prior converted cropland,” “abandoned,” “agricultural purpose,” and “wetlands” to clarify when land remains excluded and when it may lose that status.
The bill specifies that prior converted cropland includes land drained or otherwise manipulated before December 23, 1985, to make agricultural production possible, including land designated that way by the Secretary of Agriculture. It also provides that such land is not excluded if it has been abandoned and reverted to wetlands. In addition, the bill bars the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers from applying the “change in use” policy from the 2023 WOTUS rule, or any substantially similar policy, with respect to prior converted cropland. The measure would therefore limit federal agency authority over certain agricultural lands and constrain future regulatory interpretations affecting those lands.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s title and sponsors suggest a pro-agriculture, deregulatory intent, and the framing indicates an effort to provide certainty for farmers and landowners. Because there are no transcripts or vote tallies, the overall sentiment can only be inferred as likely favorable among agricultural interests and skeptical of federal wetland regulation.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between agricultural land use and federal wetland protections. Supporters would likely argue that the bill prevents overreach and protects farmers from shifting federal jurisdiction, especially where land has long been used for agriculture. Opponents would likely be concerned that excluding prior converted cropland from the Clean Water Act could weaken wetland conservation, reduce EPA and Corps oversight, and make it harder to address lands that have reverted to wetland conditions. The bill’s prohibition on the agencies’ change-in-use policy is also likely to be controversial because it limits administrative flexibility in defining regulated waters.
The bill would amend 33 U.S.C. 1362 to redefine “navigable waters” so that prior converted cropland is expressly excluded from the Clean Water Act’s jurisdictional scope. It would also add statutory definitions governing when land qualifies as prior converted cropland, when it is considered abandoned, and what counts as agricultural purpose, while preserving federal treatment of areas that have reverted to wetlands after abandonment. The bill further restricts EPA and Army Corps implementation by prohibiting use of the 2023 WOTUS change-in-use policy or a substantially similar policy for prior converted cropland.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text and title, the measure appears intended to be supportive of farmers and landowners by limiting federal regulation of agricultural lands, suggesting likely support from agricultural stakeholders and deregulatory advocates. Potential opposition would likely come from environmental and wetland-protection interests concerned about reduced federal oversight.
The central controversy is whether prior converted cropland should remain outside federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction even when land use changes or when land has characteristics of wetlands. Supporters are likely to argue the bill protects agricultural certainty, prevents regulatory expansion, and preserves long-standing farm uses such as grazing, haying, irrigation storage, and conservation idling. Opponents are likely to argue that the bill could narrow wetland protections, constrain EPA and Corps authority, and make it harder to regulate lands that have reverted to wetlands or are ecologically sensitive.