EPA Overregulation

Floor Speech

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as I mentioned previously, my colleagues and I intend to enter into a colloquy on the floor of the Senate to talk about an issue that is important to many of our States. The Senator from Wyoming, the Senator from North Dakota, and the Senator from Kansas are all very much impacted, as are our constituents, by the EPA's pursuing and being particularly active in issuing misguided and ill-conceived proposals that will do little more than overregulate and burden hard-working Americans, businesses, and families. One of the worst of these overreaches is the Obama EPA's proposal to significantly expand its authority to regulate small wetlands, creeks, stock ponds, and ditches under the Clean Water Act.

If the EPA's proposal goes through, the Federal Government could expand its regulatory authority from navigable waters such as lakes and rivers to the ditches on your grandfather's property or the dry creek bed behind your house. That is what we are talking about. This could lead to untold compliance costs and bureaucratic wrangling for ordinary families and literally cripple farmers and businesses.

The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule seeks to redefine ``waters of the United States'' which would effectively eliminate the Clean Water Act's ``navigable waters'' provision. Congress specifically referenced ``navigable waters'' in the Clean Water Act to guarantee limits to Federal authority.

Bodies of water currently deemed ``waters of the United States'' are subject to multiple regulatory requirements under the Clean Water Act, including permitting and reporting, enforcement, mitigation, and citizen suits. Despite strong bipartisan opposition in Congress, the EPA and the Corps have relentlessly pursued an expansion of the definition of ``waters of the United States.''

Additionally, the EPA is pressing forward despite two recent Supreme Court cases that expressly rejected the Agency's broad assertions of regulatory authority and made it clear that not all bodies of water are subject to Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

If the EPA's power grab is left unchecked, few bodies of water will be able to escape the regulatory reach of the Obama EPA.

This proposed new definition could apply to a countless number of small wetlands and creeks that are typically regulated at the State level. More specifically, the proposed rule extends the reach of Federal regulatory authority by adding ``interstate wetlands'' and all ``adjacent waters'' to the definition of ``Waters of the United States.''

It also deems all tributaries to be categorically jurisdictional, and for the first time ever ditches--ditches--are defined as jurisdictional tributaries. This is cause for concern. This should be disturbing and troubling to all Americans--subjecting roadside, irrigation, and storm water ditches to regulation under the Clean Water Act, which would have practical consequences not fully evaluated by the EPA.

These bodies of water are hardly navigable and are, in many cases, seasonal or sporadic depending on the weather. The proposal also states that the EPA could regulate water on a case-by-case basis--dangerous development for a regulatory agency. The American public is right to be wary of the EPA granting itself such discretion. A case-by-case approach is confusing and will inevitably lead to even more litigation.

This proposal exceeds the established authority of the EPA by infringing upon what has long been a State responsibility under the Clean Water Act. All States--my State of South Dakota, Senator Roberts' State of Kansas, Senator Hoeven's State of North Dakota--have an inherent interest in providing for the well-being of their citizens and businesses and ensuring safe and enduring water resources that play a large role in achieving that end.

My home State of South Dakota's No. 1 industry is agriculture. We help to feed the world. This cannot be done without clean and dependable sources of water for our farmers and ranchers. This expansion of the EPA's regulatory authority would have significant economic impact for property owners who would likely be hit with new Federal permits, compliance costs, and threats of significant fines.

Agriculture is a time-sensitive business, and the burdens this proposal would place on South Dakota farmers would strain the ability of producers to fertilize, to plant, and to irrigate when the seasons and weather conditions dictate. Rather, permits and regulations would bind the ability of producers to get their crops in when they need to and limit what they could do to ensure successful yields.

Tourism is also a vital industry in my State of South Dakota. The Black Hills, which are home to Mount Rushmore, draw nearly 3 million visitors each year. The rugged beauty of the Black Hills depends upon the responsible water management of the State and county governments. According to a letter I just received from the Pennington County Board of Commissioners, which includes much of the Black Hills, their ability to manage the water resources in the Black Hills area is greatly threatened by the EPA's proposed rule.

Similarly, South Dakota's thriving hunting industry is sustained in part by practical and responsible water management, allowing ducks and pheasants to thrive in prairie potholes and creeks. These are connected to waters already responsibly managed by the State of South Dakota. Another layer of Federal regulation will only add needless costs to protecting these waters.

Additionally, cities in my State are already struggling to grow under new taxes and regulations imposed by the Obama administration. The EPA's latest overreach would provide environmental groups with yet another powerful tool to delay and prevent development and interfere with land use activities on property owned by homeowners, small businesses, and municipalities.

I have heard from South Dakotans in nearly every industry, and the common consensus is this: This rule is bad for business--certainly in places such as South Dakota and Kansas and North Dakota and Wyoming but, I would argue, all across this country.

So I am proud to stand with my colleagues on the floor today in support of legislation that would stop the EPA's proposed Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule and protect farmers, ranchers, and homeowners across the country from the latest regulatory overreach by the Obama administration.

Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota, I think, will carry on with the colloquy between our colleagues from the Midwestern part of the country and speak to the impacts of this ill-proposed rule on the people they represent in their respective States.

I yield for the Senator from North Dakota.

Source