Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this resolution of disapproval.

Clean water was not always a partisan issue, and no issue has more support among American families than the protection of our Nation's waters. Now is the worst time to lower our guard on protecting clean water as over half of the United States is experiencing drought conditions. Even though we have had rain, we are still in drought conditions. We need to be doing everything to ensure our cities, our businesses, and our farmers have sufficient, safe, and sustainable supplies of water to meet our economic and agricultural needs, our quality-of-life needs, and our day-to-day survival.

This is especially true in my home State of California. As the Metropolitan Water District, the biggest in the area, commented at our subcommittee last month, the definition of WOTUS is central to the Clean Water Act's implementation and has significant implications for water agencies' day-to-day operations and for water source protection efforts.

That is why I support the efforts of the Biden administration to permanently repeal the previous administration's dirty water rule, a rule that eliminated Federal protections on a minimum of 75 percent of streams and wetlands that have been protected by the act since its inception.

These waters and the wetlands are critical to capturing and storing rain and snowmelt to ensure the long-term supply of water and recharge our underground water aquifers.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how this resolution, which seeks to undermine and confuse agency efforts to protect our clean water, makes any sense to my constituents who are already making sacrifices to protect our local waters.

This resolution would increase levels of pollution in our waterbodies, increase risk of downstream flooding, and make it harder for communities like mine to maintain sustainable sources of drinking water.

Worst of all, hardworking American families would have to pay for the horrible impacts of this resolution. The Biden rule provided the best available option to balance the need for protection of waters with the desire for familiarity and workability within the constraints of the law and interpretations of the Supreme Court. This resolution achieves none of those outcomes and is only more likely to make it worse, not better.

Mr. Speaker, I very strongly oppose the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the President on H.J. Res. 27, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States.' '' Statement of Administration Policy H.J. Res. 27--Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the

Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States' ''--Rep. Graves, R-MO, and 170 cosponsors

The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.J. Res. 27, a joint resolution to disapprove ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' (``final rule''). The final rule's definition of ``waters of the United States'' carefully sets the bounds for what activities are regulated by the federal government under the Clean Water Act. The final rule provides clear rules of the road that will help advance infrastructure projects, economic investments, and agricultural activities--all while protecting water quality. The rule reestablishes critical protections for the nation's vital water resources by returning to the longstanding 1986 regulations with appropriate updates, exclusions, and streamlining clarifications. This pre-2015 approach to ``waters of the United States'' provides regulatory certainty and reflects the agencies' long experience, the best available science, and extensive stakeholder engagement. In comparison, H.J. Res. 27 would leave Americans without a clear ``waters of the United States'' definition. The increased uncertainty would threaten economic growth, including for agriculture, local economies, and downstream communities. Farmers would be left wondering whether artificially irrigated areas remain exempt or not. Construction crews would be left wondering whether their waterfilled gravel pits remain exempt or not. Compared to the kind of uncertain, fragmented, and watered-down regulatory system that H.J. Res. 27 might compel, the final rule will secure substantial and valuable benefits each year in critical flood protections, enhanced water quality, and the treasured recreational activities--fishing, swimming, boating, and more--that fill the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of U.S. households that depend on healthy wetlands and streams.

If Congress were to pass H.J. Res. 27, the President would veto it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source