National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, the EPA recently released its final water
rule, claiming much greater power for the administration to oversee the
land use decisions of homeowners, small businesses, and family farms
throughout our country. This mandate is full of problems, and the
American people are being sold a false bill of goods.

Just look at the potential impact to my home State of Arkansas. As
you can see, the entire State will come under this jurisdiction. The
red on this map, compiled by Agriculture's Waters of the United States
Mapping Initiative, highlights the extent to which this EPA rule would
impact Arkansas. As you can see, the Obama administration wants to give
bureaucrats in Washington control of almost all of the water in
Arkansas. They are deceiving the American people in order to justify
this power grab. First, they imply that unless Washington is in
control, water is simply not protected.

This is not true. Clean water protection involves our local
communities. Private land owners, conservation districts, States, and
local communities protect non-Federal waters all of the time. Second,
the Agency claims this rule is designed to protect drinking water.

Again, this is an attempt to scare the American people. It is
dishonest.

We all want to protect our water resources, and clean drinking water
is certainly a priority. I support the Safe Drinking Water Act. For
more than 40 years the Safe Drinking Water Act has encouraged Federal-
State cooperation in improving safe drinking water. That work has made
tremendous progress, which we can all be proud of. This law has been
strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. It has been
reauthorized and extended by Republican-controlled Congresses, and it
will continue to improve safe drinking water whether or not this
Federal power grab continues.

This administration says one thing about safe drinking water, and
then it does another. For example, in 2013 and 2014, the Obama
administration cut funding for the Safe Drinking Water Grant Program.
This program, which is a Federal-State partnership, does far more to
protect safe drinking water than anything in the EPA's new power grab.

Third, we hear rhetoric about rivers catching on fire and toxic
pollution. Once again, this is an attempt to scare the American people.
Major rivers will continue to receive Federal and State protection just
as they have for decades. Isolated non-navigable waters will continue
to be protected by State and local efforts as they are now. Let's not
forget that farmers and landowners care about clean water.

Northeast Arkansas farmer Joe Christian told the Jonesboro Sun after
the EPA finalized the rule: I am not going to do something detrimental
to the land I work and live on.

There is no greater environmentalist than a farmer. For the past
year, Arkansas farmers and ranchers have shared with me their concerns
over this EPA overreach. I want to share some of the comments that I
recently received. Fred in Trumann wrote:

Like every other person in America, I favor clean water.
However, there appears to be a grab for power or control
related to water. I fail to see how a low spot in a field or
yard or ditch that I create on my own land should be
included. We are being over-regulated by Washington--please
continue to limit intrusion into our lives where none is
needed.

Rodney in Lonsdale sent me an email saying:

The EPA doesn't need to be monitoring my pond and streams,
telling me what to do or how to use them. This is an
overreach.

These frustrations are the result of an agency that often abuses its
authority, creating unnecessary and costly mandates. It is not just
Arkansans. Across the country, people are sounding the alarm on this
power grab.

``Extreme'' and ``unlawful'' are two words the American Farm Bureau
used to describe the rule. An analysis of the finalized rule by the
organization determined that the ambiguity of the rule will give the
Agency ``broad discretion to identify waters and to limit the scope of
most of the exclusions.'' The good news is that we have a bipartisan
agreement that this EPA rule is a problem.

After EPA finalized this rule, the Wall Street Journal published an
editorial calling this rule by EPA an ``amphibious attack'' and urged
Congress to overturn the rule and force ``Members to show whose side
they're on--the average landowners or the Washington water police.''

That is why I joined the Senate's efforts to protect property owners
and keep Washington's hands off of private lands. The Federal Water
Quality Protection Act safeguards Americans from this overreach. It
sends EPA back to the drawing board to craft a proposal that encourages
true cooperation. It will keep the hands of Washington's politicians
out of the decisions that have been made in the States and local
communities for generations.

Under this modest, bipartisan legislation, the EPA will be able to
protect Federal waters without expanding its power. I appreciate
Senator Barrasso, the bill's author, for his continued leadership in
holding EPA accountable. Last week, my colleagues and I who serve on
the Environment and Public Works Committee moved this legislation
forward. This is a step in the right direction to protecting the rights
of landowners while protecting our Nation's waters.

I look forward to supporting this commonsense legislation on the
Senate floor and encouraging my colleagues to do the same. Congress
must build on the progress that we have made toward better water
quality. We can do this best by protecting the role of States, local
communities, and private citizens to be a part of the process.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source