Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chair, as allowed under the Clean Water Act, Michigan, my home State, and many other States have successfully attained permitting responsibility for pollutant discharges into their waters through their State environmental departments, as we do in Michigan. These programs have been long a very successful Federal-State partnership, allowing States, who know their lands and waters better than anyone, to be able to keep local control of their permitting program to ensure protection of their waters in compliance with Federal law in their States. The scope and structure of these programs, of course, are determined by the definition of waters of the U.S.

So when the EPA comes out with a new definition of waters of the U.S., every State's program would go under review to ensure that it is compliant with that new definition. Though Michigan has had its authority to operate its own permitting program from the 1970s, its program has been under review by the EPA for several years. So, in response to the EPA's review of Michigan's program, Michigan passed a bipartisan law in 2013 to improve its State-run program to align with Federal law.

Maintaining these current State permitting programs--it is interesting--is supported in my State and other places both by environmental and agricultural interests, something that we don't often see. So it is really important to maintain these successful programs.

Interestingly enough, since the enactment of its 2013 law, Michigan has not lost any of our precious wetlands.

What my amendment would do is ensure that States that do this will be able to continue to control their State permitting program so that the people who know the States and its waters best can comply with their unique application of the law. Particularly in places like Michigan where we have the Great Lakes, that is important.

So here is what my amendment would do:

First, once a rule under this bill would be finalized, the EPA would have 90 days to determine if a State's program is still compliant under the new rule.

Second, the EPA would have a further 10 days to notify a State in writing if its permitting programs are compliant under that new rule.

And finally, if a State is not compliant, the EPA must allow States 2 years to comply with the new rule before they federalize a State's permitting program.

When a new rule for definition of waters of the U.S. comes out, it will automatically place every State's permitting program under review, running the risk of ending these successful partnerships. I believe, and I think others agree, we have to maintain the flexibility so that States can comply with the new rule before the EPA would remove a State's program.

Depending on the State, of course, statutory changes might be required. So we believe that 2 years would be a sufficient period of time for States like Michigan to work through the legislative process. It took Michigan over a year in 2013 to come to a conclusion of that reform.

In practice, to be fair, the EPA has granted broad discretion when reviewing a State's programs. What this amendment would do is simply codify into law that process so that States have the ability to come into compliance and maintain this important partnership. It is really important to the underlying purpose of the act.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and his support. I do think it is important that whenever we can agree, we do express that agreement. I think this amendment is a good example.

I know we all support the underlying purpose of the act. This particular amendment would ensure that, when there is a rule, States that do operate under delegated authority would be able to continue to protect the waters of the U.S. and the waters within their own States with the best knowledge on the ground. It has been a good experience in the State of Michigan. I think it is good for other States as well. I think that this amendment would help to ensure that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source