EPA Clarifies Proposed Water Rule for Committee
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing to examine the rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers to define the term the “waters of the United States” as it relates to the Clean Water Act (CWA). Testifying before the Committee was Mr. Robert Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator of the EPA.
In March 2014, due to confusion after Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 on the scope of the CWA and at the urging of stakeholders, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule to revise the definition of “waters of the United States.” By defining what is considered a “water of the U.S.”, the agencies are determining what waters are subject to the jurisdiction of the CWA, i.e. the permit, standards, discharge, and enforcement requirements of the law.
Ranking Member of the Environment Subcommittee Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) emphasized the importance of clean water in her opening statement. She said, “Access to clean water is essential to economic growth. A study by the World Health Organization found that every $1 invested in water and sanitation yields economic benefits of between $7 and $12. Most Americans are lucky enough to be able to simply turn on the tap and have water that is safe to drink. Unfortunately, this is not the case everywhere. Although it is difficult to put a specific figure on the value of water to the U.S. economy, studies have shown that clean water is a prerequisite for nearly every industry from agriculture and manufacturing to commercial fisheries to tourism.”
She continued, “With 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams, more than 100 million acres of wetlands, and 39.9 million acres of lakes and reservoirs in the United States, managing the availability and quality of this finite resource can be a challenge. Though it may be a challenge, it is one that we must accept. These streams, lakes, and wetlands offer a wide variety of benefits to our constituents. For example, wetlands can reduce the possibility of flooding by storing excess water after a heavy rain; they can also be a source of water during times of drought. Wetlands and streams improve water quality by trapping sediments and filtering out pollutants and they serve as critical habitat for fish and other aquatic life, increasing biological diversity.”
Mr. Perciasepe said of the proposed rule, “In adherence with the Supreme Court decision, it would reduce the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act compared to the existing regulations that it replaces. It would not assert jurisdiction over any type of waters not previously protected over the last forty years. The rule does not apply to lands, whole flood plains, backyards, wet spots, or puddles. It will increase transparency, consistency, and predictability in making jurisdictional determinations, and reduce existing costs and confusion and delays.”
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said in her statement for the record, “For nearly a decade, stakeholders ranging from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to the Environmental Defense Fund to the American Petroleum Institute have been calling on EPA and the Army Corps to provide clarity about what is and what is not a ‘water of the United States.’ And while there may be differences in opinion about the proposed rule, I applaud the agencies for addressing this need and working to provide ‘greater clarity, certainty, and predictability’ to the regulated community and state and local governments that share the task of implementing and enforcing the Clean Water Act.”
Democratic Members on the Committee discussed a number of issues related to the proposed rule including the variability that exists in the interpretation of the CWA; the time it takes to make a jurisdictional determination; the cost-benefit analysis of the rule; the impact of the rule on agriculture; the impact of the rule on green infrastructure such as vegetated swales; and how ditches are regulated under the rule.
Mr. Perciasepe emphasized that the proposed rule has not been finalized. He said, “I look forward to robust public input on the agencies’ proposed rule to ensure that it achieves the goal of providing greater predictability, consistency, and clarity in the process of identifying waters that are, and are not, covered by the CWA.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article