[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 103 (Monday, June 14, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Page S4508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for the past 41 years, I have toured 
our State to hear from Iowa workers, our community leaders, and our 
farmers at my annual 99 county meetings. So far this year, I have been 
in 71.
  As a farmer myself, I enjoy speaking with those involved in 
agriculture all across the State who tell me that they are third-, 
fourth-, fifth-generation farmers. These folks use the same soil and 
barns as their grandfathers before them. Everyone I speak with intends 
to leave their land to their children and leave it better than they 
found it. That goes way back to it being entrusted to their care. We 
all have that responsibility.
  Between the use of cover crops, buffer strips, no-till farming, and 
minimal-till farming, more conservation practices than ever before are 
being used on Iowa's 35 million acres of farmland. While Iowa farmers 
are continuing to feed our country and the world, they are also doing 
so with fewer inputs and better soil and water outcomes.
  Iowa farmers should be congratulated; however, it seems like there is 
always a target on the backs of Iowa farmers and I could say for maybe 
all American farmers. I want to get to that target, and that has 
something to do with this map that I have here of the State of Iowa.
  Last week, it was reported that the Biden administration is moving 
forward to add redtape to their operations by rewriting President 
Trump's navigable waters protection rule. In my first telephone 
conversation with then-EPA nominee Administrator Regan and now the 
confirmed Administrator--by the way, confirmed by a unanimous vote of 
this Senate--I warned Administrator Regan against moving back to the 
Obama-era waters of the U.S. rule, which we call WOTUS for short. That 
is a regulation they shouldn't move back to because of the burden it 
placed on rural areas, including Iowa farmers.
  In fact, under the old waters rule, 97 percent of Iowa's land would 
have been subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. In other 
words, all of the blue part of Iowa--with the exceptions of these areas 
that are white that adds up to the blue area--97 percent of this land 
mass of Iowa would be subject to Federal jurisdiction. Adding more 
Federal redtape to a farmer's day-to-day decisions on the farm is 
government overreach, plain and simple.
  But besides Iowa's 86,000 farmers, a change in the Trump navigable 
waters protection rule will also result in significant redtape and 
significant expense for, among others, homebuilders, golf course 
managers, and construction companies as they make very routine 
decisions about how best to use the land and run their businesses.
  Now, imagine that, not only have new home prices risen due to 
inflation and soaring lumber prices--and, by the way, lumber prices 
have added $36,000 to the price of a house just in the last year. Now, 
instead of that happening because lumber prices have gone up, now home 
prices, because of this proposed change in the regulation, will 
increase due to additional permitting that wasn't previously needed.
  To clear up common confusion, the Trump-era rule that is now the law 
of the land did not give polluters free rein to discharge pollutions 
with no regard to the health of our Nation's waterways. Regulating the 
discharge of pollution into waterways is important and is done through 
other parts of the Clean Water Act.
  The Trump rule made sure that where routine land use decisions were 
being made with little or no environmental impact, then those decisions 
would not be regulated by the Federal Government. EPA's release about 
its intention to overturn the navigable waters protection rule, which 
is the Trump rule, mentions that 333 projects would have required 
permits by the Obama waters rule that did not need government paperwork 
under the navigable waters protection rule of the Trump administration, 
and, of course, that is exactly the point--exactly the point of what 
was wrong with the WOTUS rule.
  If you are simply moving dirt to level off a low point in a field, 
should that need a Federal permit? If a golf course is fixing a bunker 
or flattening a green, should that need a Federal permit? The obvious 
commonsense answer to both of these questions and a lot of other 
questions that can be put out there for speculative purposes is, What 
good does this redtape do for anyone? I want to underline that point.
  My Republican colleagues and I want clean water and healthy soil for 
our families and our communities. This is important. But what I don't 
want is a Federal Government power grab that adds so much redtape to 
routine land use decisions that it slows our economy to a halt.
  If the Biden administration decides to go down this road of reverting 
to the old Obama-era WOTUS, they will be seriously misguided. Why 
should you put the farmers of Iowa, as well as the other people, with 
many even having to get a permit to do normal farming practices--it 
just doesn't make sense.
  For an administration that is so focused on updating our Nation's 
infrastructure, why does it make sense to propose a rule that only adds 
costs and delays construction with no identifiable benefit?
  I urge President Biden and EPA Administrator Regan to listen to the 
farmers and land owners across the country. Wave the WOTUS rule 
goodbye. Put away the redtape that is going to come around as a result 
of what you are planning to do.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________