[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S760-S761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Waters of the United States

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, almost 20 years ago, a family in Idaho 
purchased a lot in a residential area near Priest Lake.
  They were looking to build a home. They obtained county building 
permits and started placing sand and gravel on their property to get it 
ready for the build. But shortly after the family began preparing their 
lot, the Environmental Protection Agency told them to stop. There was 
water on their building plot with no surface water connection to any 
body of water. But because of its proximity to Priest Lake, the EPA 
said that placing sand and gravel on the property violated the Clean 
Water Act.
  The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants, such as 
the rocks and sand used to prepare a building plot into navigable 
waters.
  Navigable waters are ambiguously defined by the Clean Water Act as 
``waters of the United States.'' That is more commonly known as WOTUS.
  Normally, navigable waters are defined as waters that are deep; they 
are wide; and they are calm enough for boats or ships to go across. The 
surface water on the Idaho family's lot certainly doesn't fit that 
bill.
  The Idaho family tried to challenge the EPA. They sought a hearing, 
but the EPA chose not to grant them one and, instead, continued to 
assert the Clean Water Act jurisdiction against their land. So Michael 
and Chantell Sackett sued.
  They had been to the Supreme Court once, and they are back again this 
year. They still haven't been able to build on the property that they 
first acquired in 2004.
  The Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court case centers on interpretation of 
the Clean Water Act. What counts as waters of the United States?
  In 2015, the Obama administration published an unprecedented 
expansion of the definition of WOTUS, giving the Federal Government 
jurisdiction over a State resource--that is, Nebraska's water. It 
doesn't belong to the Federal Government.

  I fought former President Obama's WOTUS rule since my very first term 
here in the U.S. Senate. The rule was the Federal Government at its 
worst. It encroached on families, on communities, and on businesses by 
its brazen intrusion into the precious water resource of my home State 
of Nebraska--and all the rest of our States as well.
  The Trump administration rescinded Obama's WOTUS rule, but when 
President Biden took office, he reversed that. The President issued a 
new rule allowing EPA officials in Washington, DC, to make case-by-case 
determinations of what should be considered water of the United States. 
Privately owned land containing ponds, puddles, and even dry ditches 
can now be regulated by the Federal Government. This

[[Page S761]]

needless power grab only places more people under restrictive 
regulations and rules.
  The Federal Government should not have the power to regulate 
Nebraska's water; Nebraskans should. Nebraska has a special system of 
natural resource districts that empower locally elected community 
members to manage water resources based on river basin boundaries. 
Regular people living their lives at home know better than DC 
bureaucrats how to use and how to manage their State's natural 
resources.
  That is why I have partnered with my colleague Senator Capito in 
introducing legislation to overturn President Biden's WOTUS rule. The 
Biden administration is determined to impose an overly restrictive rule 
right now, and that is before the Supreme Court has an opportunity to 
decide the Sackett case. We cannot let that happen.
  In the past, I have cosponsored a bill targeting the flawed science 
used by the EPA to expand its definition of WOTUS. I have also helped 
to introduce legislation that would require Presidential 
administrations to consult with States and to consult with stakeholders 
before they impose these restrictions on our State-owned natural 
resources. This is essential. States understand the complex geological 
and hydrological factors that affect their own water resources. There 
is no way that the Federal Government can take all of that into account 
with its one-size-fits-all regulations.
  I dealt with these issues during my time in the Nebraska Legislature, 
and I know that there are not benefits when the Federal Government 
tries to take control of State resources through these onerous 
regulations.
  Leave water management to the experts. The States know their own 
water. The Federal Government needs to stay out of issues that are 
handled much better under State jurisdiction.
  WOTUS is not the issue that everyone wants to talk about, but it is 
important to regular Americans in Nebraska, in Idaho, and in many other 
States, and those Americans--well, they are who we are here to 
represent.
  WOTUS has a real, tangible impact on American lives. So let's come 
together. We can solve this problem that was created by the 
administration's rash and reckless regulating.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.