[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13680-13681]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                      CLEAN WATER RESTORATION ACT

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, we all know that one word can make a

[[Page 13681]]

world of a difference, especially in Washington. Some are advocating 
for the removal of the word ``navigable'' from the Clean Water 
Restoration Act. Doing so would give the government control over all 
wet areas in the country. In this case, one word will send common sense 
soaring out the window.
  It snows in Wyoming. When the snow melts, it often leaves large 
puddles on ranches and farms across the State.
  The Federal Government should not be regulating mud puddles.
  This proposal will be detrimental to Wyoming's farmers and ranchers. 
We have been living out here for a long time quite successfully without 
the ``helpful hand'' of Washington.
  A recent article printed in the June edition of the Wyoming Farm 
Bureau Federation's newspaper, ``Wyoming Agriculture'' really hit home. 
I recommend my colleagues read the article by Kerin Clark. I believe it 
is an accurate reflection of the feelings of Wyoming farmers and 
ranchers on this issue. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       What's in one word?
       Deletion of ``navigable'' from CWA would have far-reaching 
     consequences
       Federal control of a ditch or grass waterway that is only 
     filled with water after a rainstorm. Sound outlandish? Not, 
     if the term ``navigable'' is deleted from the Clean Water Act 
     and that is just what proponents of the Clean Water 
     Restoration Act (CWRA) are pushing to do.
       ``This proposal, if passed, would clearly define intrastate 
     waters as waters of the United States and give control to 
     areas that only have water during rainfall events,'' Don 
     Parrish, American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) Senior 
     Director, Regulatory Relations, stated. ``It is clearly the 
     largest expansion of the Clean Water Act since it was passed 
     in 1972.''
       The deletion of the term ``navigable'' from the Clean Water 
     Act could have grave consequences for Wyoming water.
       ``Under both proposals the sponsors make it explicit they 
     intend to roll-back the Supreme Court decision in SWANCC 
     which gives the opportunity for agencies to regulate 
     intrastate water,'' Parrish continued.
       ``Both bills also intend to roll-back the Supreme Court 
     decision in Rapanos,'' He explained. ``This was about 
     ephemerals a loosely defined set of waters, what the Corp of 
     Engineers and EPA define as only having water in them during 
     and after a precipitation event.''
       ``What is water and what is a ditch is hard to ascertain,'' 
     He continued. ``It is extremely broad and goes beyond what 
     the Supreme Court has allowed.''
       According to Parrish, the implications of rolling back 
     these two Supreme Court rulings are many including: 1) All 
     intrastate waters and all water confined and retained 
     completely on the property of a single owner would be 
     federalized; 2) the use of all water, if linked to economic 
     and commerce would be federalized; 3) Any areas that have 
     flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, 
     precipitation events would be treated as ``waters of the 
     U.S.''; 4) the agencies would be allowed to use any and all 
     economic activity involving water, including the production 
     of agricultural and forestry products, as the hook for 
     federal regulatory reach; and 5) environmental activists 
     would have the ability to sue landowners or the agencies to 
     expand Federal jurisdiction.
       The proposals would allow the Corp of Engineers and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to use the broadest possible 
     regulatory reach of federal waters. ``It probably even 
     reaches the preverbal western water hole'' Parrish stated. 
     ``If cattle drink from the water hole and then rancher sell 
     those cattle out-of-state to be finished and that could be an 
     economic hook for federal regulation of that water.''
       In a May 2009 Field and Stream article, passage of the 
     Clean Water Restoration Act is listed as one of the five 
     crucial goals sportsmen must work toward right now. 
     ``Sportsmen need to understand what the implications are for 
     landowning and not just shooting ducks,'' Parrish continued. 
     ``Farmers and ranchers have to make a living working the land 
     and this legislation will make it harder to do that. Thus, 
     keeping the land in open spaces and providing habitat for 
     wildlife and birds would be even harder.''
       The American Farm Bureau Federation opposes the Clean Water 
     Restoration Act because it is an expansion of federal 
     jurisdiction.
       ``Farmers and ranchers do good things for the environment, 
     we support the Clean Water Act,'' Parrish concluded. ``But 
     removing the term ``navigable'' from the CWA gives total 
     control to the federal government and leaves little or no 
     authority for the states and owners of private property.''

                          ____________________