David Rouzer

I am particularly disappointed they forced it on the public before the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision.

This new definition, once again, places unnecessary burdens on the communities, farmers, businesses, and industries who rely on clean water and clarity of the law.

There's no greater example of bureaucratic overreach under the Clean Water Act than with the regulatory nightmare of complying with and understanding the definition of a 'water of the United States.'

This new definition once again places unnecessary burdens on the communities, farmers, businesses, and industries who rely on clean water and clarity of the law.

I was heartened in 2020 when the Trump administration released the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which finally brought some clarity and predictability to the nagging question of what a WOTUS should be.

The WOTUS question has been debated for decades in court, and varying Presidential administrations have issued regulatory definitions of WOTUS that are quite expansive and subjective.

Importantly, this definition is used for determining who must obtain a Clean Water Act section 404 'dredge and fill' permit, which is well known for being a costly and time-consuming process.

Unfortunately, that is not the case here. As I have said before, there is no greater example of bureaucratic overreach under the Clean Water Act than the regulatory nightmare of complying with and understanding the definition of a 'water…

Regulations of any type should be simple and easy to follow.

However, sweeping legislation like the Clean Water Act, while certainly beneficial, can lead to bureaucratic overreach and regulatory headaches that often don't make sense to regulated communities.

For more than a half century, the Clean Water Act has functioned to improve the quality of our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams, and we should be proud of what we have done and acknowledge its success in protecting waters all around the…

It would be common sense to pause and wait to see what the Supreme Court decides before jamming this through now.

I am confident the House will pass the resolution.

We write in opposition to your rule regarding the Clean Water Act and the revised definition of 'Waters of the United States'.

The reason that we have the PFAS problem is because they are so biopersistent.

We must recognize that to move forward in achieving this goal, it is vital for Congress and the federal government to modernize and update the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act has had great success in its 50 years protecting these waters in North Carolina and around the country.

The Biden Administration has largely relied on executive action to advance its radical agenda.

I am very concerned that this Administration plans to issue a similar rule that would once again place unnecessary burdens on the communities, farmers, businesses, and industries who rely on clean water.

There's also no greater example of overreach under the Clean Water Act than with the regulatory nightmare of complying with and understanding the definition of a 'water of the United States' or 'WOTUS'.

Some States have used this authority to block meaningful infrastructure projects they are politically opposed to for reasons beyond Clean Water Act goals of water quality.

I appreciate your holding this hearing today.

We all understand that you need to have rules for the road, but you don't necessarily need a stoplight every 10 feet.

We need to be working together and coming together with new solutions for all of agriculture.

The longer you pick at a scab, it never heals.