On the recordJune 25, 2014
Reclaiming the floor, let me say that--first, a little bit of history as to how we got here because I think that bears very much on the Senator's questions. We had quite a clear set of regulations under the Clean Water Act. Most everybody understood them. There was a standard operating practice that had developed, and into that relatively stable situation came these two Supreme Court decisions that Senator Cardin referred to, and they cast a constitutional and statutory pall over the scope of the EPA's authority for nonnavigable waters. But--and the Supreme Court gets to do this if they want--they provided very little clarity. So there was vast uncertainty about what was going on now in the wake of these decisions. So Members of Congress, businesses, agricultural groups, environmental groups, and many other stakeholders asked for this rulemaking. They asked for this rulemaking so that the administrative agency that was going to enforce these provisions could be given the first cut at figuring out how they apply. That is what they did in this rulemaking. They answered the call that came from Congress, agricultural interests, environmental interests, and they came up with a proposed rule. The rule preserves and reiterates all of the current water exemptions and exclusions that preexisted, and it adds even new clarification that excludes certain water features--as Senator Cardin pointed out--and excludes them outright. This is the clarification that Congress asked for.…





