Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I am opposed in its current form.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill before us today will make it harder for the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA to clarify the jurisdictional coverage of the Clean Water Act, leaving watersheds across the country in continued legal limbo.

Now, I have visited with ranchers, landowners, and folks from around my district. I understand the anxieties that have been expressed about what the Waters of the United States rulemaking means, but the solution to this situation is to seek tighter definitions and clearer rules, not to prohibit agencies from further developing an important proposal.

In particular, I am concerned that H.R. 5078 could have unintended consequences for those who rely on healthy watersheds. We need clarity in the law, so that we can protect water quality for drinking water supplies and for agricultural uses.

We are suffering from a historic drought in California, and the current legal mess--the ambiguity of what qualifies as waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act--actually makes it harder to know which water bodies are covered by the law.

It makes it harder to protect upstream wetlands that reach our groundwater supplies. The importance of these intermittent streams and wetlands is most notable during extreme weather events like torrential rains or droughts because wetlands and streams can absorb and then release water gradually to surrounding streams and aquifers.

This underlying bill would keep regulatory uncertainty in place, and it could leave upstream water sources subject to expensive and long-lasting litigation. That situation is not good for the communities in my district who need clean drinking water and clean water for their businesses. It is not good for my downstream ranchers who are already facing water shortages and are hurting from rising feed prices.

Now, remember, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, that the current proposal from the EPA and the Army Corps is actually very narrowly targeted.

Under President Reagan, the Clean Water Act covered any body of water that could serve as habitat for migratory birds, a much more far-reaching standard than the one the Obama administration is considering.

The GAO determined in 2004 that the Reagan rule would have allowed the Army Corps to regulate almost any body of water or wetland. Let's remember that when we hear the characterizations of the Obama administration's proposal as some vast overreach, it is far more narrowly tailored than what existed under President Reagan.

Right now, the Federal agencies have a proposal--again, much less expansive than President Reagan's--that they are reviewing with ranchers, with water utilities, and with States. It should be, it can be, and I believe it will be a workable proposal. We should let that process play out.

Let's not make the current situation worse. Let's ensure that this bill doesn't harm drinking water or water supplies for irrigation needs. Let's ensure that we aren't making it harder to respond to an extreme drought. I ask my colleagues to support this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source