The Swamp Stomp
Volume 15, Issue 47
The GOP has launched an effort in the Senate to repeal the “Waters of the United States Rule”in the Clean Water Act. On November 3, a GOP-backed bill sought to repeal the rule and was shot down. This was followed the next day by another bill that sought to make the rule have “no force or effect, according to Farm & Dairy.
The Wall Street Journal reported that 57 senators voted for the November 3 repeal attempt, just 3 votes shy of the required 60 needed to start debate on a bill. Every Republican senator voted for the bill, along with four Democrats.
According to The Hill, the bill was called the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. Its supporters argued that their bill would have achieved the EPA’s goal of protecting navigable waters while making a distinction between state and federal waters.
“It is possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways while respecting the difference between state waters and federal waters,” Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, said.
The bill’s supporters have also argued that the rule would give the EPA an enormous reach over what can be considered navigable waters, according to the Wall Street Journal. They said that this could create difficulties and confusion for many farmers as well.
“If you’re looking for an excuse to extend the reach of the federal bureaucracy as widely and intrusively as possible, why not just issue a regulation giving bureaucrats dominion over land that has touched a pothole, or a ditch, or a puddle at some point?” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Critics of the bill argued that it missed the point of the rule it was trying to change, reported The Hill. They also saw the bill as a step back into a less regulated time.
“What this [bill] would do today is takes us back…to the day when rivers caught on fire,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat.
The Obama administration had also threatened to veto the bill, should it have passed, according to The Hill. In a defense of the Waters of the United States rule, the Obama administration said that the new bill would make it so any new rules about water jurisdiction would have to be written in a way inconsistent with the Clean Water Act.
On November 4, Senator Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican, introduced Senate Joint Resolution 22, reported Farm and Dairy. The resolution passed 53-44 and needs to pass in the House before going into effect.
Ernst called the rule ill-conceived and stated that it threatens the livelihood of many people across the country, according to Farm & Dairy. Farmers, farmer groups and the American Farm Bureau Federation have already expressed concern over the vague wording of the rule and possible overreach by the EPA. The EPA, however, has stated that the rule merely clarifies existing rules and will not have an effect on what it considers “normal”farming practices.
Since the passage of the new bill in the Senate, other farming organizations have expressed their support of a repeal attempt. According to Hoosier Ag Today, these groups include the Indiana Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
“America’s cattlemen and women are drowning in federal regulation that adds burdens, costs and uncertainty to our businesses,” said Phillip Ellis, president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “The WOTUS regulation is the greatest overreach yet. If allowed to take effect, it would give EPA jurisdiction over millions of acres of state and private property.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, the rule would put about 3% more waterways under federal jurisdiction. The EPA claims that the rule is necessary to clarify which waters are under federal rule. The EPA also said that farmers would not need a permit due to an existing exemption.
The water rule was supposed to go into effect earlier this year, according to the Wall Street Journal. However, a U.S. appeals court blocked the implementation of the rule in October. Several states have been preparing legal challenges to that decision in the interim.