Waters of the U.S.

Floor Speech

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory attack on our economy and way of life in central and northwestern Pennsylvania has been growing for some time.

In recent months, the EPA moved forward with an egregious power grab to redefine the Agency's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act through a new proposed rule commonly known as the Waters of the United States.

In Pennsylvania, agriculture is our number one industry. As in other parts of the country, our farmers and ranchers know that clean air, clean water, and being good stewards of the environment in which they live and work is of fundamental importance to their livelihoods.

Despite local prerogatives and successful State and regional initiatives to protect our natural resources, the Federal Government, once again, has chosen to undercut these efforts with punitive Federal regulations.

In March, the EPA issued the Waters of the U.S. proposal, explaining that the rule expands neither Federal authorities, nor the amount of water or land under the Agency's jurisdiction.

Well, the EPA has argued the action is necessary to eliminate ambiguity over which bodies of water are jurisdictional under the law. Unfortunately, this is a far cry from the truth. In reality, the EPA's plan represents an unprecedented expansion of Federal power that will harm our economy and erode the rights of both States and private landowners.

Enacted in 1972, the Clean Water Act was created as a partnership between the States and the EPA in order to better manage identified pollution sources through a range of pollution control programs, such as setting wastewater standards.

The scope of the law is limited to navigable waters, and for the first time, it made it unlawful to discharge any pollutants into these bodies, unless a permit was obtained.

The law was never intended to impinge upon States' authority as the primary managers of water resources within their borders. The law was never intended to regulate small, noncontiguous bodies of water, such as streams, ditches, ponds, and creek beds, which would impose unnecessary burdens on economic activity. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the EPA has proposed.

Despite Supreme Court rulings interpreting the regulatory scope of the Clean Water Act more narrowly than what the Federal Government has asserted, the EPA's new rule moves in the opposite direction.

In fact, essentially all waters in the country under the EPA's proposed rule could potentially be subject to regulation and permitting approval by the Federal Government.

The Obama administration and the EPA have argued the rule is intended to eliminate ambiguity and offer greater protections for States, farmers, and landowners when, in fact, it will create new regulatory burdens, more ambiguity, and less certainty.

EPA Chief Gina McCarthy earlier this month characterized the growing opposition to the Waters of the U.S. rule--which has come from both Republicans and Democrats--as ``ludicrous'' and ``silly'' and recently summarized the backlash as a ``growing list of misunderstandings.''

Madam Speaker, it is no misunderstanding. EPA's new Waters of the U.S. rule is a historic power grab that poses a fundamental threat to our economy and way of life in Pennsylvania and for communities across the country.

Unfortunately, the only thing ludicrous is how the EPA continues to believe a punitive one-size-fits-all approach to environmental stewardship is the only way forward.

Source