[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


              SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPACTS 
                 OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S WATERS 
                 OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS) RULE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
                             UNITED STATES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             MARCH 8, 2023

                               __________

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                               

            Small Business Committee Document Number 118-004
             Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
             
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-287                        WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
            
                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

                    ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
                      BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
                        PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
                        DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
                         BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
                         MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
                          TRACEY MANN, Kansas
                           JACK ELLZEY, Texas
                        MARC MOLINARO, New York
                         MARK ALFORD, Missouri
                           ELI CRANE, Arizona
                          AARON BEAN, Florida
                           WESLEY HUNT, Texas
                         NICK LALOTA, New York
               NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
                          JARED GOLDEN, Maine
                         KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
                        DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
                          GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
                       MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
                  MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington
                       HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
                        SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
                          JUDY CHU, California
                         SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
                      CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire

                  Ben Johnson, Majority Staff Director
                 Melissa Jung, Minority Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Roger Williams..............................................     1
Hon. Nydia Velazquez.............................................     2

                               WITNESSES

Mr. Frank Murphy, Senior Vice President/CFO/COO, Wynne Jackson, 
  Inc............................................................     5
Ms. Katherine R. English, Owner, English Family Limited 
  Partnership....................................................     7
Mr. Rick Baumann, Founder, Murrells Inlet Seafood................     9

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:
    Mr. Frank Murphy, Senior Vice President/CFO/COO, Wynne 
      Jackson Inc................................................    30
    Ms. Katherine R. English, Owner, English Family Limited 
      Partnership................................................    44
    Mr. Rick Baumann, Founder, Murrells Inlet Seafood............    57
Questions for the Record:
    None.
Answers for the Record:
    None.
Additional Material for the Record:
    NFIB.........................................................    60
    Statement of Clean Water-Dependent Businesses................    63
    U.S. Chamber of Commerce.....................................    78

 
                  SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES ON THE 
   IMPACTS OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES 
                              (WOTUS) RULE

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
               Committee on Small Business,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in Room 
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams 
[chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Williams, Luetkemeyer, Alford, 
Stauber, Crane, Meuser, Bean, Van Duyne, Ellzey, Mann, LaLota, 
Velazquez, Scholten, Thanedat, Davids, McGarvey, and 
Gluesenkamp Perez.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Before we get started, I want to ask Mr. 
Mann to lead us in prayer.
    Please stand.
    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States 
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one 
nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 
all.
    Mr. MANN. Bow your heads with me.
    Thank you, Dear God, that we get to live in the greatest 
country in the history in the world. Thank you for all the 
small businesses that provide work and goods and services all 
over our great land. We pray for the ability to distinguish 
between right and wrong. And give us wisdom and continue to 
bless our great country.
    In the name of Jesus. Amen.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Good afternoon, everyone.
    I now call the Committee on Small Business to order.
    I will turn my mike on.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Committee at any time.
    The Committee is here today to hear testimony about the 
harmful impact of the Biden administration's Waters of the 
United States Rule on small businesses.
    I now recognize myself for my opening statement.
    And first I want to thank our witnesses for joining us 
today. I understand that all of you have traveled a long way to 
be here, and we appreciate it. I know how hard it is to step 
away from your day-to-day operations, and I am extremely 
grateful that you chose to give us your time today.
    Since President Biden was sworn into office, the regulatory 
actions of this administration has cost the private sector 
nearly $360 billion in compliance costs, an estimated 220 
million hours in our new paperwork requirements to meet those 
compliance costs.
    Later this month, the Biden administration will increase 
these costs by finalizing the new Waters of the United States 
Rule. For any business, certainty is key, and enforcing the 
rule is leaving many people in the dark on if they will be in 
compliance with the new regulations.
    For the last decade, small businesses have hoped for 
clarity around what is the definition of a waterway that is 
subject to regulations by the federal government. 
Unfortunately, this rule fails to resolve these issues and will 
leave business owners wondering if they need to get permission 
from the federal government before they make even minor 
adjustments on their private property.
    There are laws on the books that are supposed to protect 
small businesses from regulatory overreach from the federal 
government. Specifically, the Regulatory Flexibility Act is in 
place to ensure agencies are conducting analysis on how their 
actions will affect small entities and propose alternatives.
    However, the EPA certified that this rule would not have 
any impact on small businesses and, therefore, unilaterally 
decided that they do not need to conduct any further analysis 
on the rule.
    According to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, which is charged 
with speaking out against overly burdensome regulations, this 
determination by the EPA was not based on any factual analysis.
    Today we listen to the small businesses whose opinions have 
been disregarded by agencies far too long, and we will hear how 
this rule will have a significant impact on many types of small 
businesses, such as farming, ranching, mining, and real estate 
development, just to name a few.
    The past several years have caused tremendous hardship for 
Main Street America. Whether it be the COVID-19 pandemic, out-
of-control inflation, broken supply chains, high interest 
rates, or a national labor shortage, the federal government 
should not be giving small businesses yet another challenge to 
overcome.
    I want to thank you all again for being here with us today, 
and I'm looking forward to today's conversation.
    And lastly, without objection, I would like to submit 
letters for the record from the National Federation of 
Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
    So with that, I will yield to our distinguished and my 
friend the Ranking Member from New York, Ms. Velazquez.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'd like to welcome all of the witnesses. Thank you for 
being here.
    Clean water is an essential building block of any 
functioning economy. We depend on it for drinking, bathing, 
cooking, farming, fishing, manufacturing, tourism, recreation, 
and many other activities. Without clean water, our health, 
environment, and economy will be at serious risk.
    For the past 50 years, the Clean Water Act has safeguarded 
our rivers, streams, and wetlands from pollution and 
degradation. Since its inception, it has prevented billions of 
pounds of pollutants from entering our waters and restored 
thousands of miles of impaired rivers and streams.
    This environmental benefit has saved billions of dollars in 
health care costs by reducing water-borne diseases and 
supported millions of jobs in industries that rely on clean 
water. Whether it is our growing craft beer industry, which 
brings investment to communities across the country, or our 
behemoth outdoor recreation economy, which provides $862 
billion in economic output, robust federal protection for clean 
water is a prerequisite for the success of a variety of 
industries.
    Unfortunately, the 2006 Supreme Court ruling in the Rapanos 
case upended longstanding protections for many of our nation's 
precious rivers, streams, and wetlands. As a result, many 
stakeholders have faced confusion and uncertainty as industries 
seeking to pollute have attacked the scope of the Clean Water 
Act.
    In 2020, the Trump administration imposed the Navigable 
Waters Protection Rule, which significantly limited federal 
protection for clean water by excluding safeguards for many 
wetlands and streams. This rule allowed industries to pollute 
our waters, and was shifting the cost of pollution to the 
families, businesses, and communities downstream.
    Fortunately, this rule was struck down by courts as it 
largely failed to recognize the scientific evidence on the 
interconnectedness of our water systems. As a result, the Biden 
administration has worked to revise the WOTUS rule and provide 
greater clarity to stakeholders while codifying important 
exclusions for prior converted cropland, ditches, and 
artificial ponds.
    Over the past two years, the EPA has conducted extensive 
meetings with stakeholders, including many small businesses, 
and I believe the final product adequately reflects that.
    This rule demonstrates a clear middle ground between the 
2015 clean water rule and the 2020 rule. It makes clear that we 
cannot sacrifice the economy for environmental protection, nor 
sacrifice the environment for economic growth. As you will hear 
from our witness today, those two things go hand in hand.
    Nobody here wants small businesses to deal with excessive, 
burdensome regulations. However, we must recognize that many 
regulations, especially those safeguarding our waters, serve an 
essential purpose in protecting families, communities, and 
entrepreneurs. In fact, a national survey of small businesses 
found that 80 percent of small business owners favor federal 
rules to protect upstream headwaters and wetland.
    To that end, I want to take this opportunity to announce my 
opposition to the resolution of this approval filed by 
Republicans under the Congressional Review Act. Not only will 
this resolution not achieve the outcome Republicans seek, but 
it could also actively harm the exclusions they are seeking to 
protect. It only adds to the confusion and uncertainty that 
stakeholders are currently experiencing.
    I advise my colleagues to carefully consider the costs that 
blanket deregulation could have on businesses that rely on 
clean water to function.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent 
that this letter in support of the new revised definition of 
Waters of the U.S., signed by over 400 businesses that are 
dependent on clean water, be submitted to the record.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. So ordered.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. I will now introduce our witnesses.
    It is my privilege to introduce a fellow Texan as our first 
witness, Mr. Frank Murphy, for today's hearing.
    Mr. Murphy is the Senior Vice President and CFO and COO of 
Wynne/Jackson, Inc., a real estate development firm and small 
business based in Dallas that employs eight people.
    Starting in the early 1970s, by its name sake, Clyde C. 
Jackson and Toddie L. Wynne, Wynne/Jackson now has a presence 
throughout Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. And since joining 
the company in 1985, Mr. Murphy has played a role in over $2 
billion worth of projects encompassing everything from 
apartments to retail space to golf courses, hotels, marinas, 
and storage facilities. These projects not only have helped 
spur economic development in countless communities but have 
also served as the actual foundations for where families live, 
work, and make lasting memories.
    In addition to real estate development, Wynne/Jackson has 
also a long history of participating in philanthropic 
initiatives, including religious education centers, institutes 
promoting the responsible use of land, and several 
international projects.
    Mr. Murphy's experience in all types of development make 
him exceptionally qualified to speak about the regulatory 
burdens facing businesses, such as Wynne/Jackson. He 
understands the real-world implications of what happens when 
vital projects that would otherwise benefit whole communities 
cannot be started due to bureaucratic uncertainty and red tape.
    So, Mr. Murphy, thank you for joining the Committee today, 
and I look forward to today's conversation.
    I now yield my time to Mr. Bean to introduce our next 
witness.
    Mr. BEAN. A very good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, to you and 
the Committee Members, everybody here, small business family. 
What an honor it is to introduce a fellow Floridian, Ms. 
Katherine English, for today's hearing.
    A native of Southwest Florida, Ms. English has worked at 
the Pavese Law Firm since 1994 and became partner in the year 
2000. Her law practice focuses on agriculture, environmental, 
and land use law, which should be no surprise considering her 
primary occupation is overseeing her family farm, which has 
been in the English family for over 100 years.
    It is no exaggeration to say that Ms. English is one of the 
most qualified people in America to speak with us today about 
the impact that cumbersome and unclear regulations have on 
family farms, such as her own.
    Her legal work has been recognized by her being selected as 
one of the--you ready for this, Committee Members?--best 
lawyers in America for 2021 due to her expertise in land use 
and zoning law.
    And in addition to family farming and law, it also should 
be no surprise to any Committee Member here that Ms. English is 
a community superstar because she has served just so many: 
Chair of the Farm Bureau Association, the Natural Resource 
Advisory Committee, a past Chair of the American Farm Bureau of 
Federation, National Issue Advisory Committee, on Water and 
Water Quality. And yes, the United Way is blessed with her 
presence on the Board of Directors for Lee, Hendry, and Glades 
Counties.
    Ms. English, welcome to Washington, D.C., the House of 
Representatives, and to the Small Business Committee. Thank you 
for joining us, and I'm looking forward to today's 
conversation.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
    And I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Velazquez, to 
introduce her witness for today's hearing.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Our final witness today is Mr. Rick Baumann, a business 
leader, veteran, and environmental advocate from Murrells 
Inlet, South Carolina.
    He was born in New York City in 1948 and went on to enlist 
in the military in 1966. During his military service he studied 
at American University. After his honorable discharge in 1969, 
he founded the business he continues to run today, Murrells 
Inlet Seafood.
    In 2012, he founded a non-profit, Trees For Tomorrow. In 
2019, he became a Riley Fellow at Furman University.
    Throughout his career he has been a tireless advocate for 
wildlife, the environment, and clean water.
    Thank you for being here, and you are welcome.
    I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ranking Member Velazquez.
    And I want to say today we appreciate all of you being here 
today, as I said earlier.
    Before recognizing the witnesses, I would like to remind 
them that their oral testimony is restricted to five minutes in 
length. If you see the light in front of you turn red in front 
of you, it means your five minutes has concluded, and you 
should wrap it up as quickly as possible.
    I now recognize Mr. Murphy for his 5-minute opening 
remarks.

   STATEMENTS OF FRANK MURPHY, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
ISSUES COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS; 
   KATHERINE ENGLISH, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU 
FEDERATION; AND RICK BAUMANN. FOUNDER, MURRELLS INLET SEAFOOD, 
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SOUTH CAROLINA SMALL BUSINESS CHAMBER OF 
                            COMMERCE

                   STATEMENT OF FRANK MURPHY

    Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the kind 
introduction, sir.
    Chairman Williams, Ranking Member Velazquez, and Members of 
the Committee, on behalf of more than 140,000 Members of the 
National Association of Home Builders, I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify today on the 2023 WOTUS rule's impacts 
on small businesses.
    My name is Frank Murphy, and I am the Chief Operating 
Officer at Wynne/Jackson, a small business in Dallas, Texas, 
with eight employees. I have been employed in the real estate 
industry for nearly 40 years and am currently honored to serve 
as the NAHB's Chairman of its Environmental Issues Committee.
    As to the new WOTUS Rule, it is difficult to overstate the 
impacts of regulations on small businesses and our ability to 
provide affordable housing. An NAHB study found that 
governmental regulations already account for up to 25 percent 
of the price of a new single family home and over 40 percent of 
multi-family development. So for every $1,000 of increase in a 
medium-priced home, it will price out over of 117,000 
households from being able to afford such home.
    EPA has indicated that the new 2023 rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on small entities. In contrast, the 
Small Business Administration determined just the exact 
opposite, acknowledging that the rule would have significant 
direct impacts on a substantial number of small entities.
    As an example of this, the 2023 rule inappropriately 
expands federal authority by relying on undefined regulatory 
terms and concepts, such as relatively permanent, material 
influence and its reliance on a more stringent definition and 
nexus test to assert federal control over otherwise isolated 
features.
    This rule increases federal control in wetlands permitting 
requirements over private property and, thus, increases delays 
to small businesses awaiting jurisdictional determinations.
    Ironically, the agencies rushed to finalize this rule 
before the U.S. Supreme Court issues its Sackett v. EPA, which 
focuses on the legality of the significant nexus test.
    As to issues with the new rule itself, I have three main 
concerns. First, the rule's heavy reliance on the usage of the 
significant nexus test will cause delays to small businesses 
awaiting jurisdictional determinations. NAHB Members already 
report waiting for a year or more for the Corps to to complete 
such determinations today.
    Further, under the significant nexus test, the rule 
authorizes the agencies to base determinations of WOTUS on my 
property by considering isolated wetlands and tributaries 
outside the boundaries of my land. Such an approach is just not 
feasible in practice because I can normally not obtain legal 
access to the adjoining properties in order to conduct such 
studies and determinations. I can't do it.
    I cannot afford the cost nor the time to hire third-party 
consultants to analyze these waters similarly situated in the 
region to determine if my property collectively has an impact 
on the Waters of the U.S. as navigable waters out here.
    Overall, as a result of the complexity and delays inherent 
in the significant nexus test, many small businesses will 
simply give up. Instead, they will opt for preliminary 
jurisdiction or determination, which allows the agencies to 
assume a feature is WOTUS. This would then allow a property 
owner to advance directly to the permitting stages.
    The usual result of this is that more land will then be 
classified as WOTUS and reduce the amount of developable land 
associated therewith.
    Second, the rule includes many undefined concepts and lacks 
clear guidance. Instead, small businesses and their consultants 
must interpret conflicts within the final rule's preamble, 
regulatory text, and scientific technical documents. Such an 
approach by the agencies ensures confusion and uncertainty for 
small businesses seeking to comply with the law.
    Third, the agencies have cast doubt by stating that 
determinations issued under the Navigable Waters Protection 
Rule are no longer valued. As a result, land owners are forced 
to start over if they want a valid determination. These 
determinations are supposed to be valid for five years.
    Further, with the final rule's preamble, the agencies state 
that even when prior determination found that no permit was 
required, land owners could now risk violations of the law if 
they move ahead with a project without obtaining a new 
determination. This is a clear example of moving the goalposts 
on small businesses.
    In closing, I want to thank the Members of the T and I 
Committee for reporting out the CRA to rescind the Biden WOTUS 
rule last week. I look forward to a swift passage on the House 
floor.
    Until the CRA is passed or enacted, I encourage Congress to 
direct the agencies to delay this rule until the Supreme Court 
decides Sackett. NAHB believes there should be no WOTUS before 
SCOTUS.
    Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and Committee 
Members, to testify before you, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
    And now I recognize Ms. English for her 5-minute opening 
remarks.

                 STATEMENT OF KATHERINE ENGLISH

    Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Williams and Ranking Member Velazquez, thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Katherine English, and I am a farmer, rancher, 
small business owner, and environmental lawyer from Fort Myers, 
Florida. It is an honor today for me to represent the American 
Farm Bureau Federation, and I speak on behalf of the thousands 
of hardworking farmers and ranchers who produce the food, 
fiber, and renewable fuel that our nation and the world depend 
upon.
    Farmers and ranchers' livelihoods depend on healthy soil 
and clean water. We support the Clean Water Act and its goals. 
What we cannot support is a Waters of the United States rule 
that is so ambiguous, it creates unmanageable risk and 
confusion for farmers, farmers who struggled with uncertainty 
for decades with near constant rulemaking in litigation 
regarding WOTUS.
    A workable definition of WOTUS is critically important to 
our Members, and they are extremely disappointed that the Biden 
administration's new WOTUS rules fail to provide that. This new 
rule greatly expands the federal government's reach over 
private property, asserting jurisdiction over ephemeral 
drainages, ditches, swales, and low spots in farm fields and 
pastures.
    The significant nexus test allows the agencies to aggregate 
and regulate waters that would not otherwise be subject to 
permit, relying on vague language vulnerable to subjective 
interpretation to do so. It is impossible with this new rule 
for any farmer or rancher to know whether their irrigation and 
drainage infrastructure and fields are jurisdictional waters 
requiring Clean Water Act permits.
    Considering these features as jurisdictional waters risk 
federal regulation of everyday farm and ranch activities that 
move dirt and apply products to the land, such as planting, 
cultivating, fence building, or ditch maintenance. Doing work 
in or near these features without a jurisdictional 
determination or a permit risks triggering the Clean Water 
Act's harsh civil and even harsher criminal penalties. This is 
the experience that farmers will have with this new definition 
of WOTUS.
    Before the 2020 WOTUS rule went into effect, I worked with 
a Florida farmer seeking authorization to insert earth blocks 
totaling less than a half an acre of fill into existing upland 
cut ditches on a farm that had been in operation for decades. 
The ditch blocks were needed to hydrate an existing wetland 
mitigation area.
    The farmer waited for more than a year for a nationwide 
permit only to be told an archeological study of the farm was 
needed to comply with the federal historical preservation 
requirements for the permit, even though the property had an 
archeological study that had previously been completed, 
reviewed, and accepted by the State's historical preservation 
agency.
    The Army Corps of Engineers' archeologist decided the 
existing study was insufficient and wanted a new study that 
would cost tens of thousands of dollars and months of delays to 
resolve his concerns. Shortly thereafter, the 2020 rule went 
into effect, and the Corps' staff determined that the project 
no longer required a permit since the proposed work affected 
only upland cut ditches upstream of the project's State 
permanent outfall structure.
    Also frustrating to our Members is the agency's claim that 
the costs associated with this rule are de minimis. The only 
way this conclusion is possible is to ignore all the costs that 
farmers incur to comply with the rule. The agencies ignore the 
cost of the team of experts required to successfully navigate 
the permitting process, biologists, hydrogeologists, attorneys, 
and engineers.
    The agencies also ignore the cost of mitigating impacts and 
the lost opportunity cost caused by years of delay. These 
permits are beyond the means of many farmers who already 
operate on thin margins and discourage the kinds of 
agricultural innovation we need to remain competitive and 
sustainable.
    A key factor in the WOTUS debate centers around the Supreme 
Court's consideration of the highly consequential Sackett v. 
EPA case. This case should provide clarity regarding the 
appropriate scope of a WOTUS definition. By finalizing this 
rule before the Supreme Court issues its decision, the agencies 
reinforce the perception that they want this rule in place 
before the court clarifies the significant nexus test.
    Farmers and ranchers are extremely frustrated that our 
concerns were ignored in the final rule, as were our efforts at 
participation in the process. This new rule creates confusion, 
more legal and financial risk, discouraging the entrepreneurial 
spirit that small family farms and ranchers rely on to survive.
    This rule may well result in irreparable harm to our rural 
communities who rely on these small businesses who are being 
disproportionately burdened by this overreaching rule.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective on 
this important issue, and I look forward to taking your 
questions.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ms. English.
    And next I want to recognize Mr. Baumann for his 5-minute 
opening remarks.

                   STATEMENT OF RICK BAUMANN

    Mr. BAUMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I push my button, I just want to compliment the 
previous speakers, and I respect their views very much, and I 
understand them.
    Here is my statement: Good afternoon, Chairman Williams, 
Ms. Velazquez, and distinguished Committee Members.
    I am Rick Baumann from the fishing village of Murrells 
Inlet in the seafood capital of South Carolina.
    Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.
    I would like to begin with a very short dedication to the 
testimony I am about to give to my late friend and mentor Dr. 
Ian W. Marceau, Ph.D.
    Ian was from Australia, but he spent many years of his life 
in the United States, both in Washington and as an advisor to 
the Governor of New York before he retired to South Carolina.
    In his lifetime, Mr. Marceau did a lot of great work, both 
for the environment and agriculture. He had a Ph.D. on either 
side there. All over the world he worked, but his proudest days 
were spent here in D.C. helping to write and negotiate the 
Clean Water Act into law to fulfill President Nixon's vision of 
clean air and water for all Americans.
    During our many days spent together enjoying the outdoors, 
Ian and I talked a lot about clean water. He tempered his pride 
about the Clean Water Act while lamenting the fact that so much 
more had been learned since the Act was written that 
desperately needed to be addressed.
    So many new chemicals of convenience had come into 
existence: Pesticides and fertilizers and so many others, and 
we were just beginning to understand their negative impacts on 
land, water, wildlife, and human beings. We were starting to 
learn the profound impacts of non-point source pollution, how 
toxic man-made compounds and chemicals spread on the land were 
ending up in the wetlands, streams, and rivers, and how they 
were being found in our drinking water.
    In 2004, when I was appointed to my county's Stormwater 
Advisory Committee, I was fortunate to have two geniuses 
advising me at every meeting, Dr. Marceau and Dr. Kraner, 
Ph.D., formerly of Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long 
Island. And together, using only the facts, we were easily able 
to make a very strong case that our fast-developing area was 
threatening our small business economy by failing to address 
non-point source pollution and its effects on that economy, 
which so specifically require clean water to survive and 
thrive.
    As those meetings progressed, we received a great deal of 
pushback from the exact name special interest and industries 
that we've heard from today. I have often seen this scenario 
play out in many areas of the country.
    When I was young, I worked on a Black Angus farm in Upstate 
New York, and I have been a waterfowl hunting guide in many 
areas of the country, in the agricultural Eastern Shore of 
Maryland to the Rice Belt in Texas and everywhere in between. I 
am keenly aware of the challenges facing today's farmers. They 
are immense. And I am a Member of the South Carolina Farm 
Bureau.
    Like farmers, I am in the business of feeding people, too. 
Since 1967, I have fed many millions of folks with their 
seafood dinners, but I am not just speaking for the seafood 
industry. I am speaking for all the small businesses, which 
exist in the vicinity of watersheds all across America.
    When we think of a recreational and commercial fishery, we 
need to realize that there is a very large group of small 
businesses which are intertwined with that fishery. We have ice 
companies, boat mechanics, dry docks, and marinas. Plus, there 
are assorted rental businesses. We have boat companies, 
fiberglass works, tour guides, bait shops, bait catchers, rig 
and tackle shops, crabbers, oystermen, clammers, wholesale 
seafood processors, charter fishing guides, commercial 
fishermen, retail stores like mine.
    In the secondary market are the restaurants that purvey 
local seafood and all of their employees, right down to the 
dishwashers. Then you have the gift shops, cafes, breakfast 
houses, the Airbnb's, rental cottages and condos, convenience 
stores and more.
    Also, in the secondary market requiring clean water are the 
campers, hunters, birders, and recreational anglers who are 
part of the $887 billion outdoor recreation economy. On and on 
I could go with examples.
    I can assure you folks, without a doubt, that anywhere in 
our great country where there is navigable water, there is 
another plethora of small businesses which relies on clean 
water for their businesses to thrive. I can also assure you 
that wherever there is navigable water, there are wetlands, 
sometimes isolated. There are ditches, creeks, and ephemeral 
streams that flow into those navigable waters at various times, 
if not perpetually.
    The credible science speaks much louder than the fallacious 
disinformation. These waters absolutely need CWA protection if 
we are to ensure President Nixon's vision of clean water, land, 
and air for all Americans.
    Thank you so much for your kind attention.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Well, I want to thank all of you. You 
all hit your number right on, all three of you. You don't see 
that too often. Thank you.
    We will now move to the Member questions and the 5-minute 
rule.
    And I now recognize myself for five minutes.
    As a business owner of over 50 years, I know what happens 
when uncertainty is added to a business, and I still own my 
businesses. Some of you might not know this, but I operate a 
small calf/cow operation in Texas, Angus. And I remember when 
this rule initially came out under the Obama administration, 
people in the industry were asking me if a ditch on their 
property would now be subject to EPA and regulations.
    So Ms. English, you have been in the business for long 
enough to know the legal battles with the different iterations 
of this rule. So my question is: Can you describe how this new 
WOTUS rule adds more uncertainty, and could it be even worse 
than the Obama era rule?
    Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I think I can 
help with that.
    The biggest problem that we have with this rule is its 
uncertainty. The Obama rule was clear about what it covered, 
which was essentially everything even though that is not what 
was contemplated under the Clean Water Act. Specifically, 
101(b) of the Clean Water Act talks about the fact that this is 
an exercise in cooperative federalism where some waters are 
protected by the federal government for those that are 
important to them, and the others can be regulated by the 
States.
    This rule is simply unknowable. Unless you have hired a 
lawyer, a biologist, an engineer, and, in some instances, a 
geologist, you have no idea of knowing what your jurisdiction 
is, and you won't know then until you actually file an 
authorized jurisdictional determination with the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you for that.
    Last week we held a hearing with small business owners from 
a wide variety of industries, from different corners of the 
country, and every one of our witnesses discussed how inflation 
is affecting their operations. Something that I am very 
concerned about is how this rule could add fuel to the fire and 
make inflation even worse for all Americans.
    Many business owners have no choice but to pass the high 
cost of compliance with new rules like WOTUS on to their 
consumers, but in many cases you can't do that.
    So Mr. Murphy, in your testimony, you discussed how this 
new rule could force you to hire more environmental compliance 
officers, and it could lead to permitting delays for projects. 
So the question would be: Can you discuss your business' 
ability to absorb these costs and some of the changes that you 
are considering making in order to comply with the confusing 
new EPA guidelines?
    Mr. MURPHY. That is a very detailed question. So I am going 
to try to keep it very simple in deference to time, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Yes. First off, it will have significant impact because we 
have to go through the additional determinations on already 
existing jurisdictional JDs to have them redone and validated. 
We presently have projects that are in the development pipeline 
that have existing JDs. We have to stop the process now, as we 
are going through the engineering, construction, and permitting 
process, while we re-determine under the new WOTUS rules 
whether those projects are subject to WOTUS or not. We don't 
know.
    Now, consultants may not know it either, based upon some of 
the criteria set forth. So what do we do? We stop; we pause; we 
reconsider, which has the impact of delaying projects.
    We are already facing inflationary issues, as you have 
already addressed here, which leads to compounding of 
affordability, housing shortages, and so forth.
    So by delaying this while we reconsider the impacts 
associated, and we receive new JDs, we are going to shut 
projects down, and that will lead directly to increased housing 
costs, increased lack of affordability, and shortages of homes 
and lots.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. And jobs, too.
    Mr. MURPHY. And jobs, too, sir, yes. Good point.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
    There are always laws in the books that are supposed to 
protect small businesses from some of the worst regulations 
coming out of Washington. Unfortunately, it appears many of 
these required checks against regulatory overreach are not 
being taken seriously by the agencies, and I am proud to say 
this Committee sent out 25 letters seeking more information on 
how they are complying with the laws in the books. We want to 
know how they are helping us.
    Now, Ms. English, I want to ask you about any suggestions 
you might have to force these agencies that we are talking 
about to seriously consider small business interests as they 
make these large rules.
    Ms. ENGLISH. The Small Business Administration has already 
sent a scathing letter exercising its concern with EPA about 
their failure to comply with your rules. I would suggest to you 
that, perhaps, at this point, the most effective tool is the 
pocketbook. I would consider removing authorization for 
expending funds for enforcement of this rule or, in the 
alternative, remove appropriations that were intended for the 
enforcement of this rule.
    I am not sure that anything else would help.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
    With that, I yield my time back.
    And I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Velazquez, for 
5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you.
    This question I will ask each Member of the panel to please 
answer yes or no.
    Tomorrow the House is scheduled to vote on a CRA resolution 
to block implementation of the 2023 revised WOTUS rule. Do you 
believe that enactment of this CRA will reinstate the Trump 
administration's Navigable Waters Protection Rule that was 
vacated by a federal district court in 2021?
    Mr. MURPHY. I assume you want me to answer first.
    I hate to say yes but good chance, yes.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. English?
    Ms. ENGLISH. The House resolution will not re-implement the 
notice of the Trump era rule.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Baumann?
    Mr. BAUMANN. As I understand it, the new rule, the Biden 
rule will pretty much mirror what was on the books prior to 
2015. What I would like to point out is that from 1986 until 
2015, there were no lawsuits. There was no arguing. There was 
no hearing. Everybody got along. I don't understand what the 
big deal is, but I am being enlightened somewhat.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. When the court vacated the Trump rule in 
2021, the federal agencies reverted back to using the pre-2015 
rule approved by former President Reagan and later defined by 
President Bush.
    If this resolution is enacted it will not only do away with 
the Biden rule, it will also prevent agencies from interpreting 
any new rule that is substantially the same meaning that this 
will likely tie the hands of the Corps and EPA from further 
clarifying the scope of WOTUS unless Congress enacts some 
additional law.
    Do you believe that indefinitely tying the hands of the 
agencies to further clarify the WOTUS issue is good for small 
businesses' clarity and certainty?
    Mr. Murphy?
    Mr. MURPHY. We need clarity at the end of the day. The new 
Biden rule basically expands the definition of significant 
nexus test, which is much more cumbersome than the pre-2015 
rule.
    Do I believe it should bind the hands of the Corps 
ultimately? No. But we need some guidance by which to establish 
the certainty of the rule and not be subject to continual 
changes every time a new administration comes in and takes 
issues with the existing rule.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. English, do you believe that 
indefinitely tying the hands of the agencies to further clarify 
the WOTUS issue is good for small businesses' clarity and 
certainty?
    Ms. ENGLISH. I don't believe that the resolution will tie 
the hands of the Corps and EPA.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay.
    Ms. ENGLISH. Frequently, in dealing with the Corps staff 
now, I am struggling with being back in the 1980s.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you.
    And Mr. Baumann?
    Mr. BAUMANN. You know, lawyerese is not my forte, but I am 
concerned about the drinking water and the fishing water and so 
forth for my grandchildren and great grandchildren.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Baumann.
    I would like to ask another follow-up question. Under the 
Trump WOTUS rule, EPA estimated 50 percent of wetlands and up 
to 70 percent of rivers, lakes, and streams lost protection 
under the Clean Water Act. How did this impact your business?
    Mr. BAUMANN. Honestly, until it was struck down, it didn't 
have a profound impact, but it had a lot of impact from Mr. 
Murphy's business in my area because so much land that was 
under water, so much land that was swampland was filled and 
built with very small lots and houses close together, taking 
natural ground that absorbs the water and looks after our 
drinking water and absorbs rainwater, trees, and so forth that 
sequester rainwater and pollutants. Okay?
    These were--clearcut houses were built, and, you know, the 
swamps were filled. And when it rained, when we had a tropical 
storm or a hurricane or even just a hard summer thunderstorm, 
we had profound runoff and flooding.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ms. Velazquez.
    I now recognize Mr. Luetkemeyer.
    Before I do that, reminding myself and all of you, make 
sure your button is on when you speak. Okay?
    Mr. Luetkemeyer from Missouri.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, yes, I have heard from a lot of my constituents from 
Missouri with regards to the Navigable Waters Protection Rule 
of the Trump administration, and they believed that it gave 
certainty and predictable, at least more than what we have now.
    Ms. English, could you compare that rule with what is being 
proposed today? Just give me three or four differences that you 
can point to that are problematic.
    Ms. ENGLISH. Certainly.
    Under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, it was clear 
that upland cut ditches were not included in the rule in places 
where a permanent outfall structure and a surface water 
management system was authorized behind that structure. It was 
clear that there was no intention for the Clean Water Act to 
apply to that; that that was an area that had already been 
permitted and maintenance in that area, and that is the example 
that I gave you specifically.
    Under the present rule, the proposed rule, all of that 
would be jurisdictional, and I would be going through the 
entire process.
    What I think is important to remember is the uncertainty of 
this rule drives the fact that I can't ever look at something 
with certainty and tell my family or tell a client or tell a 
friend that I know for certain they are not dealing with Waters 
of the United States.
    The benefit of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule was I 
could answer that question straight.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. One of the things that is concerning to me 
is I come from Missouri, and the Farm Bureau there in Missouri 
says that this rule would affect 99.9 percent of the land in 
our State. That means the federal government has control over 
whatever you want to do on 99.9 percent of the land in my 
State. That is unconscionable. That can't happen.
    You know, I understand. I am not against clean water. I am 
not against clear air, but there is a limit to the Government's 
overreach and authority to be able to come out and control what 
goes on.
    You know, Mr. Murphy, you talked about the cost. Have you 
looked at this rule itself and what the average cost per home 
that you would build would be incurred by you as a builder or 
the person who purchased the home from you? What percentage of 
the cost would increase as a result of that?
    Mr. MURPHY. I can't give you the percentage or the cost per 
individual home because it varies based upon the individual 
projects, but I can tell you what we looked at, potential price 
impact or cost impact in total.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay.
    Mr. MURPHY. So for existing jurisdictions that we have, we 
have to go redo those, and the cost of a new jurisdictional 
study itself is usually $10 to $20,000 just for the study. Then 
if we have to go through the individual permitting process, not 
even talking about time delays but the individual permitting 
process is usually 50 to 75,000.
    Then if we wish to proceed with development impacting the 
Waters of the U.S. with the mitigation, mitigation costs on two 
projects we studied recently of our own could be upwards of 
$600 to $1.5 million per project.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. That is per home?
    Mr. MURPHY. Per project.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Per project.
    Mr. MURPHY. One of these is a 500-acre project, and the 
other one is about a 300-acre project. So a significant cost.
    So we then have to take that cost, mark it up by interest 
and debt, carry cost, and associated delay factors, and then 
pass it through. Ultimately, what we are limited to passing 
through cost-wise is what the market will accept.
    We can't just unilaterally increase the price of the lot, 
increase the price of the home $10,000, because it may not be 
marketable. If that is the case, we have to simply shut down 
and stop development on that project.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Wow! That is mind-blowing.
    Ms. English, you talked a little bit about the cost to 
farmers to be able to comply. You know, Mr. Murphy just blew a 
hole in all of the trying to build new homes here and develop a 
whole new subdivision.
    If a farmer is wanting to do something on his ground or 
they come out and say that there is some navigable waters on 
his property and he has to comply, it would seem to me that it 
would hurt the value of his property, hurt his ability to 
market and sell that property. Is that a fair assessment?
    Ms. ENGLISH. That is absolutely the case. I'm sorry. That 
is absolutely the case. If you fail to resolve that issue, it 
will affect the value of your property.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. So what we are looking at here is 
devaluing farmers' property, raising the cost to individuals 
who want to purchase a home or rent an apartment from a multi-
family unit development perhaps out of their price range.
    Right now we already have a problem with affordability. I 
mean, I sat on another committee and that is all we talk about 
all the time is the unaffordability of housing today. And now 
we are going to add this as one more cost to drive people away 
from being able to buy their dream home.
    Thank you so much for your testimony today.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
    And next I would like to recognize Congressman Thanedar of 
Michigan for five minutes.
    Mr. THANEDAR. Chairman Williams and Ranking Member 
Velazquez, thank you for convening this hearing on the Waters 
of the United States.
    I want to thank everyone who came to testify before our 
Committee. Your firsthand knowledge of our country's 
environment enables our body to contribute more to the work we 
do in Congress.
    There is no doubt of the importance of Clean Water Act. In 
Michigan, our citizens rely on clean water to protect public 
health. It has been critical to the significant progress we 
have made as a State in improving the quality and health of our 
rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, and watersheds.
    Furthermore, clean water is a basic need for families and 
businesses across the United States, particularly in Michigan. 
The Great Lakes support over 1.3 million jobs generating 82 
billion in wages annually. It is critical to discuss the 
importance of Great Lakes as a water source and the worlds most 
extensive fresh water system, which extends to the Detroit 
River.
    As a result, it is vital to ensure the safety and quality 
of waters that are the lifeblood of our district. Any repeal of 
the Clean Water Act would represent a step back in protecting 
our water resources.
    Wetlands and other critical habitats could be destroyed, 
affecting human health and the environment. This is a disaster 
for small businesses, as 80 percent of owners support federal 
regulations to protect upstream headwaters and wetlands. Our 
companies rely on the Clean Water Act.
    Now, I do appreciate your viewpoints, every one of you. I 
am a former small business owner, and we have small businesses 
on both sides of this debate. Quite frankly, I am sympathetic 
to potential regulatory burden, but I am also struggling to see 
how we can protect our clean waters while also being mindful of 
additional cost.
    Does anyone on the panel have any proposals on how to help 
fishermen and oyster farmers like Mr. Baumann and farmers and 
builders like Mr. Murphy and Ms. English? I'm willing to 
listen, and I am interested in finding some sort of middle 
ground and hope today we can help lead to that.
    A specific question, Mr. Baumann, to you is: How is this 
reduced regulation affecting our tourism, say, for example, or 
recreation?
    Mr. BAUMANN. It can be profound at times.
    But I would like to, if you don't mind, address the general 
statement you made and some of the remarks that were recently 
made about cost to farms and to developers.
    The EPI was promulgated a few years ago when our 
illustrious President appointed a coal lobbyist to head the 
EPA, a coal lobbyist, and they started the environmental 
integrity think tank and watchdog. And the EPI has tested 
700,000 miles of river in realtime. The EPA, on the other hand, 
hasn't--and they are required to by the Clean Water Act, has 
not upgraded their evaluation of our waters in over 30 years.
    Can you imagine how much has changed in that much time?
    And it is important to know that the Mississippi River 
alone carries an estimated 1.5 metric tons of nitrogen 
pollution from agriculture into the Gulf, nearly creating a 
dead zone each summer the size of New Jersey.
    Now, you want to talk about cost? Gulf shrimp? Oysters? 
Let's think also parallel to that. The BP oil spill and the 
dreaded Corps exit that they used before they tested. That is 
what a lot of our problem is. We get out ahead of the science 
with some human activity. We get out ahead of the science. They 
used the Corps exit before they found out there was 30 
carcinogens in it. All right?
    And the agricultural--I mean, the farmers don't mean to do 
this, but it is a consequence of feeding America. But they are 
not as careful as they claim to be. It is just that simple. And 
they are quick to portray a pastoral image of the family 
farmer. And God bless the family farmer. I have worked for 
them.
    But our problem in our area that is affecting the waters 
that flow through our State and the conditions of those waters 
and the cost of cleaning up such things is the fact that we 
have these big mega farms.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Mr. Baumann, your time has expired.
    Mr. BAUMANN. Excuse me.
    Mr. THANEDAR. Thank you, Mr. Baumann.
    I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Next I would like to recognize Mr. 
Meuser from Pennsylvania for five minutes.
    Mr. MEUSER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to all of our witnesses. Mr. Murphy, Ms. English, 
and Mr. Baumann, we appreciate your passion on this issue very, 
very much, actually.
    In eastern Central Pennsylvania, we have thousands of 
family farms. Every one of them that I speak to, and I speak to 
a lot of them, is very, very concerned about this new Biden 
WOTUS regulation going back to what existed before. They were 
generally pleased with the Clean Water Act prior because there 
was a certain level of certainty.
    But when you start talking about this WOTUS, where there 
are no nexus limits set, no distance limits set, what is 
considered navigable, what isn't, removing the word navigable. 
So does that mean heavy rains create new requirements? And then 
when the rains aren't there, it doesn't so much?
    You know, most family farms have their creeks and streams 
lead into other family farms, particularly up in my neck of the 
woods. So there are great conservationists.
    Now, being a great conservationist and being an 
environmentalist, as I certainly classify myself, doesn't 
necessarily mean you are going to always follow the most--the 
rules established, but when you have a family farm for 100 
years, it tends to do that.
    So, you know, when you are dealing with a WOTUS rule like 
that, as Vice Chair Luetkemeyer brought up, where 99.8 percent 
of the private property is going to come under federal 
jurisdiction, I agree with my colleague who was just speaking 
that, boy, there needs to be a middle ground here.
    And just the fact that this is going to be overturned by 
SCOTUS, because it can't possibly. I mean, I have more notes 
here of what I can talk about on all the legal problems that 
exist with Attorney English. I am sure you could go on, and I 
would yield to you, and we would hear a lot of that.
    So it is going to be overturned and for a good reason, that 
it is a profound overreach. I mean, I have more quotes from 
farmers. I couldn't get them off the phone when I asked them to 
comment on this hearing, as well as all these other quotes from 
people from Zippy Duvall, to the NFIB, to the president of the 
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, home builders. I mean, it just goes 
on that it is way too nebulous and troubling and potential high 
levels of costs and unnecessary regulations.
    So we need to come up with a fix, and we are the body. You 
know, the Small Business Committee is the only Committee in the 
old Congress that is here advocating for small business. So 
that is what we have to do.
    So I will just ask a question. I will go to Ms. English 
first. Where do you see--we just go back to what we currently 
have. What do you see as a solution that we should try to focus 
on?
    Ms. ENGLISH. I would encourage Congress to look to the 
congressional intent that is already expressed in the Clean 
Water Act. The fact that this was intended to be an exercise of 
federalism, that there is responsibility, and there are spaces 
that require the attention and focus and the power of the 
federal government to protect. But that is not all the waters 
in the United States. It was not intended to be all of the 
water bodies that existed in the United States.
    The States, many States have vigorous regulatory programs 
to protect what they see as State waters that encompass 
everything from the interior to the isolated to the coastal.
    The EPA has been very successful in using the Clean Water 
Act to encourage States to adopt reasonable water quality 
standards to protect the water uses in that State. I would 
suggest gently that Congress has told EPA how to do this and 
that, perhaps, EPA needs to re-focus on the language in the 
statute that Congress has given it.
    Mr. MEUSER. Excellent.
    Mr. Murphy, and then if I have time, I will go to Mr. 
Baumann.
    Mr. MURPHY. Same question, sir?
    Mr. MEUSER. Same question.
    Mr. MURPHY. I am not an expert in legal affairs, especially 
regarding Congress.
    Mr. MEUSER. You are on the ground field for it.
    Mr. MURPHY. We need certainty. Interact directly with the 
Corps, EPA, to establish a level of certainty that is not going 
to be subject to change upon each administration's change. We 
can't afford to change every four years or some other time 
because that forces us to go back to the JD process and start 
over.
    Mr. MEUSER. I appreciate that.
    I am going to have to yield back. But thank you.
    Mr. LUETKEMEYER. [Presiding.] The gentlemen yields back.
    I am glad you are trying to minimize your concern there.
    With that, we go to--I now recognize the gentleman from 
Kentucky, Mr. McGarvey, for five minutes.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
    I appreciate the panel for being here and telling us about 
your experiences.
    And the Chairman mentioned, I am from Kentucky. You all 
might not know too much about our State but might have heard a 
little bit about one of our products that we make there, and I 
can tell you that the four sort of core ingredients of bourbon 
are corn, yeast. You have to have a new charred white oak 
barrel and, of course, water.
    So bourbon. I won't go into a dissertation on bourbon today 
for the small business community. It gets its flavor from a lot 
of things, including the barrel, including the corn, including 
the products that go into it. But a lot of it does come from 
the water and from Kentucky's limestone water and from a lot of 
the properties we possess in our clean water.
    We have heard today a lot about the negative impacts that 
these regulations can have on farmers, on developers, on 
communities. And I agree. We deserve a clear and 
straightforward framework.
    But I think it is also important to acknowledge the 
negative impacts that weak water standards have and how they 
would devastate some industries. Whether it is breweries, 
whether it is fishing, whether it is my State's home industry 
of bourbon, these are entries that rely on clean water.
    And so, Mr. Baumann, I just wanted to hear from you a 
little bit about those kinds of benefits that those businesses 
that benefit from the regulations that we have ensure clean, 
safe water, and what kinds of small businesses are harmed when 
these water standards are relaxed.
    Mr. BAUMANN. There is so much I can answer that with. I 
will begin by telling you that we have a lot of beautiful 
rivers in South Carolina. We have a multi-billion dollar 
tourist industry. We have billions of dollars in the fisheries 
and in the outdoor recreation, and all that gets hurt.
    I will give you an example. We have polluters. We have coal 
fired power plants. We have agriculture. We have the 
aforementioned situations with the fill and build, fill in the 
wetlands and building on it and causing runoff and flooding and 
non-point source solution to our estuaries, which are the 
nursery grounds for everything we catch, you know. So it is 
really profound.
    And in South Carolina, to give you an idea about our 
recreational fishing and our ocean fishing and commercial 
fishing, there are health advisories now and have been for 
years during the EPA and the clean water rule in my view that 
is just not being addressed properly because we have health 
advisories telling us that we can't eat the fish we catch.
    I mean, that has got to--people go fishing to filet the 
fish and fry it for dinner. And when you can't eat the fish you 
catch because of mercury poisoning or some other heavy metal or 
whatever, it has to have profound impact on how many people go 
fishing, the money they spend in the community, in restaurants 
and hotels and everything else like that. It is an economic 
wheel that is being disrupted by a lack of good water quality.
    Our estuary now is an impaired estuary according to the 
EPA. The reason is non-point source pollution. It is just a 
small inlet. There is no major fresh water creeks going into 
it. It is from rain runoff, all of it.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. And you bring up something I think is worth 
noting in this hearing. I think this is something we all 
inherently know, but I think it is worth pointing out, our 
waters are connected.
    Mr. BAUMANN. All water is connected.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. You can't pollute water in one place and not 
feel the effects somewhere else. We are low on time, Mr. 
Baumann. I appreciate your testimony.
    But, Ms. English and Mr. Murphy, I would like to give you a 
chance to chime in. I am sympathetic, again, to needing a 
clear, straightforward framework and the real-life impacts of 
regulations. What kind of middle ground do you think we can 
pursue that would address your concerns and those of Mr. 
Baumann about the need for clean water?
    Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you.
    Again, I think the idea that the only solution here is at a 
federal level is very concerning to me. I think a bright line 
test for where the federal interest stops and where the State 
responsibility begins would be an important step, because it 
would then allow the discussion to take place about the kinds 
of protections that need to take place locally. It is with that 
local knowledge I think the middle ground can be found.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. And unfortunately, we are out of time, so I 
am going to yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Alford from Missouri for 5 minutes.
    Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 
this important hearing about how the Biden administration's 
WOTUS rule really impacts small businesses. That is why we are 
here today.
    Uncertainty is not a part of the equation for success for 
small businesses. That is exactly what this WOTUS rule has 
created for small business. This backwards rule would force 
family farmers to jump through hoops and likely retain legal 
counsel before developing or farming their land. I guess, the 
Biden administration forgot that most small business owners--
most farmers are small business owners.
    What also concerns me about this haphazard policy is that 
the EPA and Army Corps have said that the WOTUS rule would not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, despite the Small Business Administration's Office of 
Advocacy sending a letter to the EPA and Army Corps last 
February stating the exact opposite.
    The decision was a calculated attempt by these groups to 
circumvent their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act so that they did not have to conduct an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis, which would prove just how dangerous this 
policy is for small businesses across the country.
    The Biden administration's failure to look at this rule and 
how it affects small businesses is just another shameful 
example that this administration will push its agenda at all 
costs, including at the cost of our small businesses and 
hardworking Americans.
    I want to begin my questions with you, Ms. English, because 
we have 95,000 farms in the State of Missouri. I, too, like our 
Vice Chairman, am from Missouri, and I am honored to represent 
those, not just here but on the Ag Committee as well.
    This has been a large focus that I have heard from farmers 
for the last 2 years in the 24 counties that I represent. One 
farmer in Cass County told me this incredulous story, but it is 
true, that he had to shut down part of his farm because they 
found the water standing in his cornfield. And until he could 
prove that it was not a navigable waterway, it turned out to be 
ruts from his combine and farming equipment that had filled in 
with water. Where is the commonsense in this ruling?
    I want to know from your standpoint, do you have any 
stories like that that you could share with us of the lack of 
commonsense of this, and what economic impact has it had on 
your family farm so far?
    Ms. ENGLISH. In regard to a story that is very similar to 
this, I practice a great deal with the Army Corps of Engineers, 
and I know the reviewers there. There is one who lives in a 
home that is not far from our family farm, and he called me to 
tell me that I needed to make sure that I filled in a bull 
hole. For those of you who don't know, bulls like to roll in 
dirt and get dirty.
    And we had a bull hole in front of a gate that was near the 
road, and he noticed that it was puddling during our rainy 
season in Florida, which is between May and September-October. 
And he warned me that I needed to backfill my bull hole before 
it became a jurisdictional wetland, and that if anything came 
up that that would be a concern. When an agency staff person 
uses my personal cell phone and does not send an email to tell 
me I need to backfill a bull hole, that should tell you that 
there is a concern in this space.
    The only reason I went to law school was having worked for 
a citrus growers co-op for 5 years--4 years, and watching what 
had happened with the regulatory creep in that timeframe. I 
became convinced that the only way my family could continue to 
farm, to continue to be the good stewards of the land and have 
the legacy of handing this property down to my children and 
grandchildren was for us to have a lawyer who understood it. It 
defined my entire professional life.
    Mr. ALFORD. I would submit to you that we don't need to be 
backfilling bull holes. We need to backfill the BS in WOTUS. 
And we need to come to the aid of farmers who are 
conservationists, who are doing everything they can to protect 
their farms.
    And, Mr. Baumann, I agree, you know, I try to listen to 
people I agree with. I really try to hear people I disagree 
with. I hear you, brother. I understand, we want clean water. I 
used to be an environmental reporter in south Florida. I know 
that pollution does cause bad effects on our seafood and our 
fishing industries, but we have got to find a way to work 
together in America that we can have great fisheries, great 
farms, and be a productive society that has commonsense.
    And with that, I yield.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
    Next, we recognize Mr. Ellzey from Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. ELLZEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks, everybody, for coming in today.
    One of the benefits of being very junior is to get to hear 
some of the arguments before you get to ask a question, and 
this is really a fascinating discussion. And as it comes down 
to it, as I see in my three witnesses here, not a single one of 
them wants dirty water. We all want clean water. We all depend 
on clean water. We all depend on it for our food.
    Mr. Baumann, I look forward to eating at your place 
sometime and sampling some of that fine seafood.
    And, Mr. Murphy, you build homes in my area.
    So I think what it comes down to at the end of the day, the 
reality is this is about power from agencies that don't answer 
to anybody else and the agenda of individual administrations. I 
didn't say what party they were from. Everybody has got their 
own agenda.
    Mr. Baumann, I do have a--this isn't a ``stump the chump,'' 
and I don't mean it as such. Can you define for me--since we 
have got some land folks here and then a water guy, can you 
define for me, in your opinion, what a navigable waterway is?
    Mr. BAUMANN. Let me answer that by something that has been 
left out by everybody who has brought up navigable water, and 
the phrasing is something to the effect of ``or substantially 
affects navigable waters.'' Water moves. It don't stay where it 
is at. It is either going to go down into the aquifer, or it is 
going to, you know, move with environmental conditions or with 
weather and so forth like that.
    So I don't have the exact definition of navigable water. I 
have read a few--like you say, it has changed over the years, 
and I do think it needs to be adopted at a certain level where 
everybody can count on it, you know. Mr. Murphy, Ms. English, 
myself, we need to know what the parameters are, but we are 
getting the short end of the stick in my business, I can tell 
you.
    And it is not just my business. I am speaking for that 
myriad, that plethora of people who I spoke about that rely on 
the fishing industry. Our whole town relies on the fishing 
industry and virtually every business in it. 99.9 percent of 
the businesses in this country are small businesses. And 
polluted water, regardless of how it happens, it has 
consequences for everybody except the people that cause the 
pollution. Nobody is getting accountability, you know, 
especially, with all due respect, the big mega farms, you know.
    Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. Let me ask you--in my time left, let me 
ask you another question. In your opinion, who should define 
navigable waterway? Is it the Congress or is it the EPA and the 
Corps? Real quick. Real quick.
    Mr. BAUMANN. Is it one of those three, who should define?
    Mr. ELLZEY. Who should, in your opinion? Real quick. 15 
seconds.
    Mr. BAUMANN. You can't do it by the States because the 
States don't have the money or the purview.
    Mr. ELLZEY. All right.
    Mr. BAUMANN. That has been proven.
    Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. All right.
    Mr. Murphy, every administration has done its own thing. 
What would the homebuilders like to see in predictability, and 
who should define navigable waterway? Who should define these 
rules, Congress or an agency?
    Mr. MURPHY. We need certainty. Homebuilders and developers 
are adaptable, but we can't adapt to something we don't know. 
If you provide us certainty, we will deal with it somehow, some 
way. But as we go to contract to purchase land today, we cannot 
ascertain with any level of certainty whether we have WOTUS in 
or not, which forces us to either drop contracts, delay them, 
or incur the additional cost I testified to earlier.
    What is the solution? Give us certainty. Put it in the 
hands of an independent body. The Corps and the EPA, in my 
position, have more of a different take on it because they have 
been dealing with this for years. Put it with Congress, is my 
suggestion. Put it into an independent body, a committee of 
Congress, to study it and come up with some type of rule that 
will provide certainty beyond this single administration. That 
would be my recommendation, sir.
    Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. Ms. English?
    Ms. ENGLISH. I am always wary of a special study group. I 
believe that we need to honor the Constitution and the commerce 
clause. I believe that we need to honor the concept that was 
originally written into the Clean Water Act about the 
separation and the cooperative nature of our governmental 
associations between the federal government and States.
    I think that we need to have a bright line test. Just 
exactly what Mr. Murphy said, we need certainty and clarity. 
But by the same token, you are overlooking the power and 
responsibility of local governments and local States to protect 
their citizens, and they have the most direct knowledge.
    Mr. ELLZEY. Thank you all very much for your testimony.
    I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
    And now I recognize Ms. Van Duyne from Texas for 5 minutes.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 
you for holding this important hearing on the persistent threat 
Waters of the U.S. poses to small businesses across the nation.
    I have heard from many small businesses just about how 
starting--they are just starting to now bounce back from 
government and post lockdowns and closures, and now this 
administration is reviving a threat of a vague and very 
confusing, as we have heard today, regulation that grants the 
federal government broad authority to regulate nearly every 
stream, pond, wetland.
    I mean, I think, Ms. English, you said it perfectly: 
Anything that comes on the land is basically--is how they are 
defining it. And even worse, the agency charged with enforcing 
this regulation doesn't even understand what they are 
executing, which in turn causes small businesses and farmers to 
be susceptible to fines and legal action even if they 
unknowingly violate these regulations. And honestly, the 
renewed approach to WOTUS seems designed not to protect the 
environment but really only to satisfy the administration's 
unending desire to regulate our job creators out of business.
    In the 117th Congress, I, along with all of my Republican 
Committee Members, sent a letter requesting that the Army Corps 
of Engineers and the EPA look at how this role will be 
determined and how it will be detrimental to small businesses. 
And while all of those questions remain unanswered, I look 
forward to holding the Biden administration accountable and 
working to ensure that this harmful rule does not go into 
effect.
    Mr. Murphy, you have provided some great testimony today. 
You had said--when asked by the Chairman and others what impact 
this is going to have, you said that basically you are going to 
have to abandon some projects. You have already had to abandon 
some projects. You said that as costs increase, and this does 
add additional cost, that the cost not only increases for the 
building for your company but that is having to be passed 
along----
    Mr. MURPHY. Right.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE.--to your customers as well. Have you had to 
hire any additional staff? Have you had to hire consultants to 
help with this compliance?
    Mr. MURPHY. Not yet. We have not, because this is brand 
new. I was speaking to one of our consultants, a third party 
that we engage, just the other day. And I asked him, under the 
new 2023 WOTUS rule, how would you interpret this, especially 
regarding the significant nexus test, which now takes the 
combination of chemical, physical, and biological tests, along 
with the culmination of all upstream, i.e., catchment basin, 
similarly situated properties. How do you calculate that? This 
is a gentleman who used to be in the Corps office himself. He 
told me, I don't know.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yeah, that is a problem.
    Mr. MURPHY. So if our investigative experts can't tell us, 
how can we understand what to do going forward on projects? We 
just basically shut projects down. We haven't yet, because 
everything we have under construction was basically permitted 
before. This only pertains to projects that haven't yet started 
construction.
    So we are dealing with shutdown on these. This is the first 
time in my career, not just related to WOTUS, but overall 
economic situation that we do not have any properties to 
acquire under contract right now. To sit here today and be 
faced with compounding the cost and delays associated with this 
may just force us to discontinue development for some period of 
time. How long, I don't know.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. I mean, that is a grim look. If you had to 
estimate--I know you said, you know, this hasn't happened yet, 
but if you had to estimate, how much time do you think is going 
to be spent on working on compliance?
    Mr. MURPHY. Oh, Lordy.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Taking away from actually what you do do as 
part of your business model.
    Mr. MURPHY. Yes. We hired third-party consultants to advise 
us. We also engage third-party engineering, investigative firms 
to prepare the plans and items associated with it. Let me give 
you an example of a jurisdictional permit we have. Once we have 
that jurisdictional determination, that gives us the clarity 
and the certainty that we can proceed ahead with the 
development on that project without risk of intruding into 
WOTUS and incurring civil and criminal penalties. So we rely 
upon that.
    Under the new rule, they basically have noticed us that 
they will no longer consider existing JDs. That forces us to 
stop our engineering process, reconsider the impacts of the new 
WOTUS rule on that particular phase of development or the new 
development. That, in itself could result in months of delay, 
redoing the engineering plans, loss of land that we could 
otherwise develop because we can no longer wait for the 
timeframe for the agencies to determine jurisdictional 
determination, which could be, you know, 2, 3, 5 years. We 
don't know. So it is a significant impact to us.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Can you tell me--and this is just another--
another problem being dumped onto an industry that is already 
suffering from a whole list of issues.
    Mr. MURPHY. Yes.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Can you tell me the context now in which you 
guys are working, everything that is like building up. And 
really, we talk about the importance of having affordable 
housing.
    Mr. MURPHY. Yes.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Tell me what is happening in your district.
    Mr. MURPHY. In just a few seconds, you have got inflation; 
you have got interest rates; you have got electrification; you 
have got the shortages of transformers, which are going to be 
compounded by additional items out there; you have got 
shortages of houses already; you have got the overall issues 
with inflation and cost. There is no lack of demand. It is a 
lack of availability and cost.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. I appreciate that very much and yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
    I now recognize Mr. Bean from Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, a very good afternoon once again.
    And thank you so much. I am still learning. I am still 
learning how vastly it affects a small business. We already 
know in this committee how hard it is to run a small business 
already without government interference. But then when you 
throw government interference, uncertainty, a cloudy future, 
then it is really hard, especially if you own a family farm for 
over 100 years, as the English family has.
    Ms. English, what is it going to mean should this go 
forward? And you are an attorney, so you are used to 
understanding complex things. I understand this rule is hazy 
and complex, but what does it mean to your family having to 
deal with another rule such as this?
    Ms. ENGLISH. Well, you may be familiar with citrus 
greening, which has affected citrus groves across the State of 
Florida decimating the industry. We have pushed the groves on 
our property, and we are preparing to go back with varieties 
that are more tolerant of the disease. For those of you that 
don't know, citrus greening is sort of an autoimmune disease 
for orange trees. It is deadly. It has decimated the industry.
    Under the new rule, I don't know that the groves that we 
had planted for 140 years aren't actually jurisdictional to the 
Corps, that I am not going to be required to go get a permit 
for them, and mitigate if we are going to plant. We are a small 
family farm. None of us rely entirely on the farm income.
    Again, my husband teases me that I farm to support--or I 
practice law to support my farming habit. But the issue here is 
it is hundreds of thousands of dollars and it is years. We 
would be looking--if this is jurisdictional, and it appears to 
me from the rule that maybe it might be, we would be looking at 
hiring engineers--I would, of course, be the lawyer, but all of 
the other consultants that Mr. Murphy needs in order to 
successfully proceed through a permit or a jurisdictional 
determination so that we had that protection. Hundreds of 
thousands of dollars and years of delay, I don't know that we 
can withstand that.
    Mr. BEAN. Has your farm shrunk over the years, the 100 
years? Has it grown or has it shrunk or stayed the same?
    Ms. ENGLISH. No. We last acquired a piece of property from 
a cousin, I believe, in the mid 1980s. But since that time, it 
has been relatively stable at about 880 acres.
    Mr. BEAN. I gotcha. But you have seen it--because we are 
both from the free State of Florida. You have seen the massive 
influx of people who have voted with their feet, they are 
coming to Florida. But you have seen farming threatened in 
Florida. Is that correct? Have you said you have seen farms 
close or sell out?
    Ms. ENGLISH. Absolutely. And any farm that is within an 
hour or an hour and a half of an urban area in Florida is under 
dire threat of development, simply because farmers are price 
takers not price makers. We compete in a global market. We 
produce commodities that we can't raise the price on.
    So when you reach a point where you can no longer be 
economically viable, the hard choices for legacy farm families 
have to be are you selling this to the government or are you 
selling it to Mr. Murphy's friends, because those are our 
options. Case in point, I have lost probably 10 percent of my 
clients over the last year, and how I lost them was I helped 
them sell their property.
    Mr. BEAN. Gotcha. Would you say--some say that growing a 
nation's--feeding a nation, feeding a nation and for a nation 
to be able to grow its own food is national security. Would you 
agree with that statement?
    Ms. ENGLISH. I would agree with that 100 percent. I just 
object to the fact that I have to have an entire herd of 
consultants in order to successfully do that.
    Mr. BEAN. How would a small business--how would a small 
farmer navigate the waters of running a farm with this new 
environment of uncertainty, of regulations from the current 
administration?
    Ms. ENGLISH. With great respect, Congressman, I don't think 
they can.
    Mr. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you so much.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Next, we have--I want to recognize Mr. 
Stauber from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
    Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    And to the witnesses, thanks for your testimony.
    We have a big fight on our hands. As a former small 
business owner of 31 years, this WOTUS rule, our small 
businesses, our farmers are against it, and this administration 
just pushes it and tries to push it upon the American people.
    Mr. Murphy, what is the cost of--what does it cost you to 
hire these consultants to figure out this WOTUS rule and what 
goes with it? What is the cost for your company?
    Mr. MURPHY. The initial cost for a study depending upon the 
size and complexity of the individual project will usually 
range from $10,000, $15,000, maybe $20,000. That is the initial 
study. Then if you have to go through a formal submission to 
the Corps for a jurisdictional determination, that cost is 
being priced right now to us between $50,000 to $75,000. And 
this is under the existing rule, not the new rule.
    We don't have the ability to project what the increase in 
cost may be, because my consultants are telling me they don't 
know how to enforce it yet or do the inspection. And that is 
just the cost to do the determination and jurisdictional. If 
you go through the individual permitting, you have got 
significant additional costs beyond that.
    Mr. STAUBER. So in 30 seconds, you just said that these 
rules that the government put forward have cost you a minimum 
of $100,000. In just 30 seconds, that is the minimum. So my 
question to you is, let's say it is $300,000, and I don't think 
that is out of the question once push comes to shove with this 
ridiculous ruling, who do you pass that onto?
    Mr. MURPHY. Well, if we can pass it on, it is to the 
ultimate home buyer through purchases of the homes from the 
individual homebuilder. If we can't pass it on----
    Mr. STAUBER. So if you pass it on to the home----
    Mr. MURPHY. If we could----
    Mr. STAUBER. If you could.
    Mr. MURPHY. Subject to market acceptability.
    Mr. STAUBER. Right. Okay.
    Mr. MURPHY. That is who it would go to. But in many cases 
we can't. So we are forced then to pretty much just mothball 
this particular development because we can't recover the cost 
through increases in housing prices, or we have to resize the 
project, which basically means shrinking the developable land 
to stay way away from what may be considered significant nexus 
under the WOTUS test to basically proceed ahead and not run the 
civil and liability risk associated with it.
    So that would allow us to proceed ahead without incurring 
significant costs, but what it does is have the same effect. It 
increases the cost of the remaining land and lots and therefore 
has a direct increase on the remaining homes to be built.
    Mr. STAUBER. If it wasn't so devastating, I would find it 
laughable that the EPA and the Army Corps claim that the WOTUS 
rule won't significantly impact our American small businesses. 
That is just simply not true. It is just simply not true. I 
think it is disingenuous for them to tell the American people. 
I know the farmers, manufacturers, miners, and homebuilders in 
northern Minnesota would have had a different story to tell if 
they were asked.
    Ms. English, I have heard from farmers in my great State of 
Minnesota that are struggling to comply with the strict water 
regulations already in place in our State. Can you tell me more 
about the jobs and projects that this rule will make harder for 
farmers to get done?
    Ms. ENGLISH. And I actually have talked with some of my 
cousins who farm in and around Hawley, Minnesota.
    Mr. STAUBER. Yeah.
    Ms. ENGLISH. So we have compared notes and cried in each 
other's beer over some of these issues.
    Mr. STAUBER. Yes.
    Ms. ENGLISH. But here is what doesn't happen, you can't--
you begin not to maintain portions of the systems that need to 
be maintained because you are afraid of incurring jurisdiction. 
Catchment basins that you use to capture soils or to treat for 
water quality don't happen. The improvement projects, like the 
one I referred to in my testimony, where you are trying to do 
something that is going to improve the water quality, 
ultimately being discharged from the property, aren't being 
addressed and aren't being done.
    It is one thing to make a rule to protect water quality; it 
is another thing if that rule cuts both ways and actually 
impairs water quality because you could no longer repair the 
infrastructure or maintain it that treats water quality.
    Mr. STAUBER. I will just tell you, in my last 30 seconds, 
this rule is devastating. I will tell you that the Obama 
administration, when Joe Biden was Vice President, they allowed 
a water permit in a mine in Minnesota. The water came out more 
pure. They had to add sediments to it. And this administration 
just remanded that same water permit to stop mining. You can't 
make this up. You just can't make it up.
    And I think this WOTUS rule is going to be devastating for 
small businesses and farmers. And those--the bureaucrats that 
are getting paid to do this, like your EPA neighbor who calls 
you and says the bull hole needs to be filled or changed, or my 
colleague over here who says that the tractor tires--the water 
and the tractor tire and the groove and the dirt needs to be--
something needs to be dealt with, can you imagine?
    Ms. ENGLISH. Uh-huh.
    Mr. STAUBER. I mean, can you imagine this?
    Ms. ENGLISH. Yes.
    Mr. STAUBER. And by the way, $320 billion--that is with a 
``B''--$320 billion of additional regulations this 
administration has put on our small businesses in just 2 years. 
I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
    Now, I recognize Mr. Crane from Arizona for 5 minutes.
    Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Thank you to the witnesses for showing up today. I 
appreciate it. Sorry I was tardy. We were in a Homeland 
Security meeting. It is one of the tough things about this town 
is you just get thrown around all over the place.
    But real quick, I wanted to start with you, Mr. Murphy, 
have you ever voted for an official at the EPA in your life 
that you can remember?
    Mr. MURPHY. Voted for an official at the EPA, no, sir.
    Mr. CRANE. Okay. Let's see, Ms. English, have you ever 
voted for an official at the EPA?
    Ms. ENGLISH. No, sir.
    Mr. CRANE. Mr. Baumann, have you ever voted for an official 
at the EPA?
    Ms. ENGLISH. No, sir.
    Mr. CRANE. No, sir. All three of them, no, no, no. Does 
that bother you guys? Follow-on question to all three of you: 
Does it bother you that unelected bureaucrats are making 
rulings and judgments that are affecting your business and 
lifestyle? We will start with you, Mr. Murphy.
    Mr. MURPHY. I would prefer to have a say in that, yes. But 
I also look to my elected Congressman to help enforce the Clean 
Water Act and provide the regulatory guidance that provides 
clarity to what we do.
    Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. And you just made a key word there, 
``elected.'' My point was, right now, you guys, your lifestyle, 
your businesses, and many others across this country are being 
affected because of unelected bureaucrats, and therefore you 
have no recourse, right? You can't go--take me, for example. I 
am a freshman here in Congress. If I screw up really bad, and 
some of the folks in my district would probably, you know, say 
that I am, but if I screwed up really bad, they have a 
recourse. They can get rid of me in 2 years, right? But you 
guys can't go and fire somebody at the EPA, can you?
    Mr. MURPHY. That is correct. We have recourse, not under 
what is called a preliminary jurisdiction because that is non-
contestable, but there is a jurisdictional determination out 
that we may have recourse----
    Mr. CRANE. Okay.
    Mr. MURPHY.--so contested. But directly to answer your 
question, no, we don't have any authority to approve, vote, or 
try to oust Members of the EPA or the Corps.
    Mr. CRANE. Thank you.
    Ms. Bau--or, excuse me, Ms. English, does that bother you?
    Ms. ENGLISH. It is a terrible concern when it appears that 
the agency perspective appears to deviate substantially from 
the law that has been handed down by Congress and signed by a 
President.
    Mr. CRANE. Thank you.
    And the last thing I have to say is just a statement real 
quick, because I know we are never--we are all never going to 
agree on, you know, everything that goes on here. But I am just 
going to tell you guys, my vote will be cast in a manner that 
acknowledges your private property and keeps unelected 
bureaucrats and government officials out of your lives as much 
as possible. And I want to see local officials making these 
rules and regulations, because I think that they have the best 
eyes on and the best capability of making sound judgments that 
are the best for your lives. Okay?
    Thank you guys again for coming. I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
    And I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony 
today and for appearing before us.
    Without objection, Members have 5 legislative days to 
submit additional materials and written questions for the 
witnesses to the Chair, which will be forwarded to the 
witnesses. I would ask the witnesses to please respond promptly 
if that happens.
    There being no further business, without objection, the 
committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
                           
                           
                           A P P E N D I X

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]