[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15807-15808]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1215
                    WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES RULE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, Friday, November 14, was 
the closing of the public comment period for the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' proposed 
``waters of the United States''--WOTUS, as it is known--rule under the 
Clean Water Act, which would dramatically expand the scope of Federal 
authority over water and land uses across the United States.
  Enacted in 1972, the Clean Water Act was created as a partnership 
between the States and the Federal EPA in order to better manage 
identified pollution sources through a range of pollution control 
programs.
  This new proposed rule is a direct threat to this longstanding 
federalist approach created by the law, which has been long supported 
by Republicans and Democrats alike for over four decades.
  It is through this federalist model, which enables regulators at the 
Federal, State, and local levels to provide adequate flexibility to 
address water quality while accounting for local and regional 
variations and conditions, that Pennsylvania has demonstrated a

[[Page 15808]]

track record of success in improving and protecting the ecological 
health of its waters. Unfortunately, the proposed rule would 
dramatically expand the Federal authority to the detriment of our 
economy and at the expense of existing State-Federal partnerships that 
have been effective in protecting and improving the biological 
integrity of our watersheds and waterways.
  For this reason, I along with Senator Pat Toomey and eight additional 
members of the Pennsylvania delegation in the U.S. House of 
Representatives voiced our strong opposition to this flawed policy. In 
comments submitted Friday to the agencies, we outlined concerns 
specific to our home State and those of our constituents, including 
private landowners, counties, municipalities, farmers, foresters, among 
so many who will be negatively impacted if this rule is allowed to be 
fully implemented.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a widespread agreement that the Clean Water Act 
has been a beneficial tool for the management and the health of our 
Nation's watersheds and water quality.
  While Congressional intent of the Clean Water Act has been limited to 
``navigable waters,'' the extent of the law's jurisdiction has been the 
subject of much litigation and regulatory action. Complicating the 
issue further are Supreme Court decisions that have not adequately 
described the scope of Federal authority under the law resulting, at 
times, in conflict.
  While the existing law and the Supreme Court have left uncertainty 
regarding what constitutes a ``water of the United States,'' previous 
holdings have made clear that the Federal Government's authority is not 
limitless. Unfortunately, the proposed rule assumes just that--
limitless Federal authority.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason this is so concerning is that many of these 
issues are best regulated at the State level in a manner that 
recognizes regional differences in geography, climate, geology, soils, 
hydrology, and rainfall, among other variables. Rather than strengthen 
the law, the rule creates more confusion--confusion that will most 
certainly delay permitting and will undermine strong water quality 
programs that exist in Pennsylvania and in other States. Moreover, this 
type of uncertainty is susceptible to inconsistent interpretation and 
application, which holds the potential for substantial implementation 
costs across the various Clean Water Act programs, and will likely 
invite more enforcement actions and third-party litigation.
  In addition to jeopardizing existing water quality control programs, 
the economic impact of the proposed rule will be far-reaching. 
Activities that drive economic development in Pennsylvania, such as 
highway and road construction, pipeline projects, energy production, 
infrastructure projects, farming, flood control, and public works 
projects will all be subject to Federal permitting if this proposal is 
finalized.
  For example, the rule would make most ditches into tributaries. 
Routine maintenance activities in ditches and on-site ponds and 
impoundments could trigger permits that can cost $100,000 or more. 
These permitting requirements would likely trigger additional 
environmental reviews which would add years to the completion time for 
ordinary projects, which means more costs for landowners and more 
regulatory burdens upon the States, all with no guarantee or measurable 
benefits to our waters.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree that managing the Nation's water is 
critically important, but in this case, the Federal Government has 
failed to recognize the fundamental role that States play in meeting 
our shared goals of clean watersheds and water resources. Mr. Speaker, 
it is time for EPA and the Corps to vacate this proposal, get back to 
the drawing board, and fix the fundamental flaws within this rule. The 
American people, including my constituents in Pennsylvania, deserve as 
much.

                          ____________________