Alan Simpson: “Mr. Moran and I have had this discussion six or seven times on this very amendment over the past few years; and, once…”

“Mr. Moran and I have had this discussion six or seven times on this very amendment over the past few years; and, once again, I rise to oppose it. Contrary to what the gentleman from Michigan just said, I do understand the issue; and, frankly, understanding it is why I am opposed to it. In 2006, the Supreme Court determined that the EPA and the Corps of Engineers did not have the authority to regulate nonnavigable waters under the Clean Water Act. Now, you might disagree with that Supreme Court decision. Tough luck. They made the decision, and we follow the decisions of the Supreme Court. In accordance with this decision, the term ``navigable waters'' has long been the phrase used to limit Federal intrusion with regard to the Clean Water Act's authority. Nonnavigable waters are currently regulated by the States. Everybody who stands up and talks assumes that if it is a nonnavigable water that nobody is regulating it. In fact, the States are regulating those things. However, last year the Corps of Engineers and the EPA issued guidance that would expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to nonnavigable, intrastate waters, effectively resulting in a massive expansion of the Federal Government's authority to increase the number of waters subject to the water quality standards--including irrigation canals, ponds, drainage ditches, and other things.…”