Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, Mr. Moran and I have had this discussion six or seven times on this very amendment over the past few years; and, once again, I rise to oppose it. Contrary to what the gentleman from Michigan just said, I do understand the issue; and, frankly, understanding it is why I am opposed to it.

In 2006, the Supreme Court determined that the EPA and the Corps of Engineers did not have the authority to regulate nonnavigable waters under the Clean Water Act. Now, you might disagree with that Supreme Court decision. Tough luck. They made the decision, and we follow the decisions of the Supreme Court.

In accordance with this decision, the term ``navigable waters'' has long been the phrase used to limit Federal intrusion with regard to the Clean Water Act's authority. Nonnavigable waters are currently regulated by the States. Everybody who stands up and talks assumes that if it is a nonnavigable water that nobody is regulating it. In fact, the States are regulating those things.

However, last year the Corps of Engineers and the EPA issued guidance that would expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to nonnavigable, intrastate waters, effectively resulting in a massive expansion of the Federal Government's authority to increase the number of waters subject to the water quality standards--including irrigation canals, ponds, drainage ditches, and other things.

Deciding how water is used should be the responsibility of State and local officials who are familiar with the people and local issues. If all intrastate waters are regulated by the Federal Government, the language could be broadly interpreted to include everything within a State, including groundwater.

As a result, the reach of the Federal jurisdiction would be so broad that it could significantly restrict landowners' ability to make decisions about their own property and local government's ability to plan for their own development.

The language in the bill protects the authority of the States to prevent the Army Corps from expanding its regulations to include intrastate bodies of water under the Clean Water Act for any reason other than drinking water standards.

Clarity is needed on this issue, and the gentleman from Michigan mentioned clarity. But I will tell you, clarity simply for clarity's sake is not an answer. Death is a clarity. It's not necessarily the outcome you want, though.

So doing this just so you have clarity in it is not the right direction to go. Congress does need to provide that clarity, but not the agencies through the regulatory process. The Supreme Court has already determined that the Army Corps does not have the authority to do what it is proposing, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source