[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 64 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2570-S2571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. 
        Heitkamp, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Rounds, 
        Mr. Blunt, Mr. McConnell, Mrs. Capito, Mrs. Fischer, and Mr. 
        Hoeven):
  S. 1140. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army and the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to propose a 
regulation revising the definition of the term ``waters of the United 
States'', and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week, I spoke on the floor about a 
new report by the Bipartisan Policy Center. This report talked about 
the great progress we have made so far in this Congress, as far as 
getting things done in a bipartisan way. I believe that is good news. 
Republicans in the Senate are committed to continuing our progress and 
to holding more votes on areas of bipartisan agreement. So I want to 
speak about something Senators on both sides of the aisle agree we can 
do to protect America's navigable waters.
  Our rivers, lakes and other waterways are among America's most 
treasured resources. In my home State of Wyoming, we have some of the 
most beautiful rivers in the world: the Snake River, the Wind River, 
dozens of others.
  The people of Wyoming are devoted to keeping these waterways safe and 
pristine for our children and our grandchildren. They understand there 
is a right way and a wrong way to do that. It is possible to have 
reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways, while at the 
same time allowing it to be used as natural resources.
  We have done it for years under the Clean Water Act. That is the 
right way to do it. The wrong way to do it is for Washington 
bureaucrats--bureaucrats--unelectable, unaccountable, to write harsh 
and inflexible rules that could block any use of water or even use of 
land in much of the country. The Environmental Protection Agency and 
the Army Corps of Engineers have proposed a new rule, a new rule that 
would expand the Clean Water Act in what I believe is a dangerous new 
direction.
  The rule is an attempt to change the definition of what the law calls 
waters of the United States. Under the rule, this term could include 
ditches, it would include dry areas where water only flows for a short 
time after it rains. Federal regulations have never before listed 
ditches and other manmade features as waters of the United States.
  What the administration is proposing now simply makes no sense. Under 
this new rule, the new rule they are proposing, isolated ponds could be 
regulated as waters of the United States. This is the kind of pond that 
might form in a low-lying piece of land with no connection to a river 
or a stream. It could be in someone's back yard.
  An isolated pond is not navigable water. That is not what the law was 
designed to protect. This is bipartisan, and there is bipartisan 
agreement that Washington bureaucrats have no business, none at all, 
regulating an isolated pond as a water of the United States. Under this 
newly proposed rule, agriculture water management systems could be 
regulated as waters of the United States.
  We are talking about irrigation ditches. An irrigation ditch is not 
navigable water. These are manmade ditches that people dig to move 
water from one place to another to grow crops. This kind of agriculture 
water is not what the law was designed to protect. There is bipartisan 
agreement that Washington bureaucrats have no business regulating an 
irrigation ditch as waters of the United States.
  Under this outrageously broad new rule, Washington bureaucrats would 
now have a say in how farmers and ranchers and families use their own 
property. It would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to 
regulate private property just based on things such as whether it is 
used by animals or birds or even insects. It could regulate any water 
that moves over land or infiltrates into the ground.
  Well, this is an ominously far-reaching definition. It is the wrong 
way--the wrong way--to protect America 's precious water resources. 
This rule is not designed to protect the traditional waters of the 
United States, it is designed to expand the power of Washington 
bureaucrats.
  Now, there is a better way to protect America's water, and there is 
bipartisan support for it in this body. Today, I have introduced the 
Federal Water Quality Protection Act, along with Senators Donnelly, 
Inhofe, Heitkamp, Roberts, Manchin, Sullivan, Rounds,

[[Page S2571]]

Blunt, McConnell, Capito, and Fischer. That is bipartisan. It is a 
bipartisan agreement that says we need a different approach.
  This bill says yes to clean water and no to extreme bureaucracy. It 
will give the Environmental Protection Agency the direction it needs, 
the direction to write a strong and reasonable rule that truly protects 
America's waterways, one that keeps Washington's hands off things such 
as irrigation ditches, isolated ponds, and groundwater, one that does 
not allow the determination to be based on plants and insects, one that 
protects streams that could carry dangerous pollutants to navigable 
waters or wetlands that protect those waters from pollutants.
  It would make sure Washington bureaucrats comply, comply with other 
laws and Executive orders that, well, they have been avoiding. They 
would have to do an economic analysis and conduct reviews to protect 
small businesses, to protect ranchers, to protect farmers. They would 
have to consult with the States. They have to make sure, by consulting 
with the States, that we have the approach that works best everywhere, 
not just the approach Washington likes best.
  The Environmental Protection Agency says our concerns are overblown. 
The administration says there is a lot of misunderstanding about what 
their regulation covers. It says the Agency has no intention of 
regulating things like I have just described. The key word there is 
``intention.'' This bill would help to make sure the rules are crystal 
clear.
  It gives certainty and clarity to farmers, to ranchers, and to small 
business owners and their families. People would be able to use their 
property without fear of Washington bureaucrats knocking on their door. 
We would also be able to enjoy the beautiful rivers and the lakes that 
should be preserved and protected. This bipartisan bill does nothing to 
block legitimate protection of the true waters of the United States. It 
simply restores Washington's attention to the traditional waters that 
were always the focus before.
  That is what this law should protect. This bill is one easy thing we 
can do to protect Americans from runaway bureaucracy. The Senate has 
been very productive so far this year. We are going to keep going. We 
are going to go with more ideas that have bipartisan support. The 
Federal Water Quality Protection Act is one of them. I want to thank 
some of the many cosponsors.
                                 ______