Dan Sullivan

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

Just a couple of weeks ago, the Senate passed by a strong bipartisan vote an amendment that I co-sponsored with Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming that would rein in the scope of this rulemaking.

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.

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

Alaskans are no strangers to Federal regulations governing essential aspects of our lives.

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

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

When undertaking to formulate and implement policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall consult with appropriate State and local officials.

I don't see the EPA doing anything in terms of additional expenditures. They're just going to promulgate a reg that we pay for.

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

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

Advocacy, the SBA, and small businesses are extremely concerned about the rule as proposed.

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

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.

Let me be clear, there is no doubt that many of our wonderful lakes and rivers, such as the Yukon and Chena and their tributaries are jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act.

It will also disproportionately impact our ability to grow and prosper.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

We clearly, as Alaskans, believe in the importance of clean water.

The proposed rule will not only deprive Alaska of its traditional and sovereign powers.

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.

Instead, we are here to talk about the proposed rule and regulations of waters that I believe Congress never intended to be jurisdictional under the act.