Sometimes one word can make a lot of difference. Take the bold step by the EPA and the Corp of Engineers to remove the word "navigable" from the Clean Waters Act (CWA). This seemingly simple change is being likened to the largest federal land grab in history. It could impact virtually every landowner whose property includes a body of water.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association president J.D. Alexander pointed out in comments on the issue that there have been three Supreme Court rulings, as well as a letter from 170 members of Congress opposing this guidance. Despite this, he said the EPA and the Corps have "crowned themselves kings" of every drop of water in the country, and adds this bill is the best path to keep the guidance from becoming a reality. They couldn't change this through Congress, so the administration is going to accomplish its agenda by just regulating it. The upcoming changes to the Clean Water Act, which are being issued in the form of a "guidance. The draft of this new guidance was proposed last year, but is expected to be finalized at any time.
Hopefully, there's time to put a stop to the change, this guidance as drafted by the agencies, would effectively remove the word 'navigable' from the Clean Water Act resulting in legislation by regulation -- or in this case not even regulation -- only guidance that has the force of law, but does not have to be vetted through standard rule making procedures.
In the CWA, the term "navigable" is used to define a body of water large enough for commerce to take place. "Navigable" is an important limiting factor within the CWA, seemingly limiting the federal government's authority to only those waters large enough for barges and other commercial vehicles to navigate through. Effectively removing this term by interpreting it to be so broad as to have little to no meaning leads many to believe the new guidance effectively makes it possible for the government to regulate all waters, both manmade and natural, of any size or type. And that, says Goicoechea, represents land control and a serious loss of property rights.
"We'd heard rumbles that this was coming for 2 or 3 years. They couldn't change this through Congress, so the administration is doing a run-around. The American people don't want this, and before they know what's happened they will have lost their property rights."
A group of U.S. Senators are trying to put a stop to the new guidance with The Preserve the Waters of the U.S. Act (S. 2245). This legislation would stop the EPA and the Corp of Engineers from issuing a final guidance that could expand the power of these two agencies.
The legislation, which originated from Senator John Barrasso, R-Wyo., is co-sponsored by Senators Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Dean Heller, R-Nev., Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., David Vitter, R-La., John Boozman, R-Ark., Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Pat Roberts, R-Kan., John Thune, R-S.D., Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Jim Risch, R-Idaho, John Cornyn, R-Texas, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Roy Blunt, R-Mo., Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., Dan Coats, R-Ind., Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Johanns, R-Neb., Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., John Hoeven, R-N.D., Jerry Moran, R-Kan., Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., Ron Johnson, R-Ohio, andThad Cochran, R-Miss.
A co-sponsor of the legislation Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., issued this statement regarding the reason for the bill: "The Obama-EPA's proposed water guidance greatly expands the Clean Water Act's scope through a slew of new and expanded definitions. This approach is so unpopular, however, that it was originally defeated in the previous Democratic controlled Congress.
"Nevertheless, the Obama administration continues to move these policies forward. In addition to an increase in Army Corps jurisdictional determinations of as much as 17%, this change in guidance will also result in a change in the responsibilities of states in executing their duties under the Clean Water Act and a change in how individual citizens are governed by the Clean Water Act. These kinds of changes, and passing along more unfunded mandates to state and local governments, should never be done via a guidance document. I call on my colleagues from both the Senate and the House to join us in stopping EPA and the Army Corps from making these unprecedented regulatory changes through a guidance document. I look forward to swift action on this bill."
When asked about a timeline for S. 2245, Senator Barrasso's office responded that a date for the hearing has not been set.
This is another example of how elections have consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment