Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The bill amends the Clean Water Act definition of “navigable waters” to explicitly exclude prior converted cropland. It defines terms (prior converted cropland, abandoned, agricultural purpose, wetlands) and prohibits EPA and Army Corps from applying the January 18, 2023 “change in use” policy (or similar) to prior converted cropland.
Progressives emphasize environmental and water-quality harm risks
Narrow, constituency-visible deregulatory change could attract support, but organized environmental opposition and regional differences create friction.
The bill amends the Clean Water Act definition of “navigable waters” to explicitly exclude prior converted cropland.
It defines terms (prior converted cropland, abandoned, agricultural purpose, wetlands) and prohibits EPA and Army Corps from applying the January 18, 2023 “change in use” policy (or similar) to prior converted cropland.
Areas that have reverted to wetlands after being abandoned are not excluded.
Content is narrow and administrable, improving prospects in a deregulatory context, but Senate procedure, stakeholder opposition, and litigation risk reduce overall odds.
How solid the drafting looks.
Progressives emphasize environmental and water-quality harm risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize environmental and water-quality harm risks
Likely to view the bill as a rollback of Clean Water Act protections for agricultural lands and nearby wetlands.
Sees increased risk to water quality, wildlife habitat, and climate resilience.
Concerned the exclusion could encourage conversion or degradation of marginal wetlands.
A pragmatic view weighing reduced regulatory burden for farmers against potential environmental costs.
Sees value in clarifying longstanding jurisdictional ambiguity, but worries about downstream water impacts and administrative definitions.
Would want guardrails and data-driven review.
Likely to support the bill as restoring property rights and limiting federal overreach on agricultural land.
Views the explicit exclusion and bar on applying the 2023 change-in-use policy as restoring regulatory certainty to farmers and rural landowners.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and administrable, improving prospects in a deregulatory context, but Senate procedure, stakeholder opposition, and litigation risk reduce overall odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize environmental and water-quality harm risks
Content is narrow and administrable, improving prospects in a deregulatory context, but Senate procedure, stakeholder opposition, and litig…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Farmers Freedom Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.