I see no evidence that the agencies will accommodate our unique features such as permafrost, a pervasive feature found in 63 percent of the State, yet unacknowledged in the new proposed regulatory scheme.

If you look up the definition of 'Federal overreach' in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of the EPA.

I've also told the EPA administrator we probably care about that living here more than any EPA official in Washington, DC, does.

Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, and furthermore I just--you know, what really floors me about this whole process is they have not done a cost-benefit analysis on what the impact is to the United States economy or the Alaskan economy.

The limited economic analysis... provides ample evidence of a potentially significant economic impact.

It would--I would say it would be in the millions of dollars and put--you know, it has the potential to put 360 to 460 small placer miners out of business.

If it is, if it's a major expansion, it is clear, it is clear, it's abundantly clear that the power to dramatically expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act does not reside with the EPA. It resides with the Congress of the United…

this is definitely, definitely a grab to include all waters, everything they can get their hands on.

As chair of the subcommittee, I am requesting to keep the record of this hearing open for the next 10 days for all additional written testimony from any Alaskan.

There was a senior executive from Arctic Slope Regional Corporation who testified and they were very opposed.

Just from my perspective, I think that's something that needs a lot more congressional oversight because in my experience in Alaska, it seems completely random and prohibitive in terms of some of the value that they've put on some of these…

Fishing isn't just part of the Alaska way of life, it's also big business.

It's clear to me the EPA in lockstep with the Corps view it as their mission to control every human activity within the water column, from the moment the raindrop hits the earth until it diffuses into the ocean.

We sent a strong bipartisan message that the Clean Water Act should not be transformed into a tool to expand the authority of the EPA without congressional authority.

Those that claim the sky is falling with regard to the cost of complying with the proposed rule... fail to recognize that even greater value, clean water and the fish and wildlife it supports, provides to Alaskans.

My view is it hurts us. It hurts our future. It hurts my kids' future. It hurts your kids' future.

If it is an expansion, they have to go to Congress to get that permission, period.

This rulemaking process was very rushed and, indeed, it was very rushed.

So you think it's not only within the realm of the EPA's because they're a--remember, they're a Federal agency that has to get its authority from Congress.

This demand mischaracterizes the state of the law and unconstitutionally interferes with our authorities.

It is important for the Federal Government to recognize the role that the State and local municipalities can play in the permitting process.

Our efforts are about clarifying jurisdiction and, if it's a major expansion of Federal jurisdiction, pushing back on Federal agencies that are asserting such authority.

So, again, just so everybody's clear, for the record: The Connectivity Study, upon which the rule is based, came out several months after the rule was proposed, correct?

I'm Senator Dan Sullivan, junior Senator from Alaska. I want to welcome everybody to this important hearing.

This amendment was an important, bipartisan step as we craft legislation to ensure that the Clean Water Act is focused on maintaining water quality.