Western Caucuses Urge EPA to Halt “Waters of the US" Rule
May 8, 2014
WASHINGTON, D.C. –Today, Senator Mike Lee joined Senate Western Caucus Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) and Congressional Western Caucus co-chairs Stevan Pearce (R-NM) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and 42 other Caucus Members in sending a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy.
In their letter, the Caucus members call on the EPA to refrain from moving forward with their controversial “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) rule that will drastically expand federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. The members also highlight how this rule will negatively impact farms, small businesses, energy production, commercial development and substantially interfere with the ability of individual landowners to use their property.
“We urge you to change course by committing to operating under the limits established by Congress, recognizing the states’ primary role in regulating and protecting their streams, ponds, wetlands and other bodies of water. We also again ask that you consider the economic impacts of your policies knowing that your actions will have serious impacts on struggling families, seniors, low-income households and small business owners,”Caucus Members wrote.
In addition to Barrasso, Pearce and Lummis, the letter was signed by Senators David Vitter (R-LA), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Dean Heller (R-NV), Mike Lee (R-UT), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John Thune (R-SD), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Roy Blunt (R-AR), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Deb Fischer (R-NE), John Cornyn (R-TX), John Hoeven (R-ND), Mike Johanns (R-NE), James Risch (R-ID) and Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Representatives Rob Bishop (UT-01), Markwayne Mullin (OK-01), Jeff Denham (CA-10), Mike Simpson (ID-02), Don Young (AK-AL), Walter Jones (NC-03), Matt Salmon (AZ-05), Scott Tipton (CO-03), Mike Conaway (TX-11), Mark Amadei (NV-02), Cory Gardner (CO-04), Jeff Duncan (SC-03), Chris Stewart (UT-02), Paul Gosar (AZ-04), Tom McClintock (CA-04), Kevin Cramer (ND-AL), Devin Nunes (CA-22), David Schweikert (AZ-06), Randy Neugebaurer (TX-19), Raul Labrador (ID-01), Kristi Noem (SD-AL), Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Trent Franks (AZ-08), Paul Broun (GA-10), Mike Coffman (CO-06), Jason Chaffetz (UT-03).
The full text of the letter:
May 8, 2014
The Honorable Gina McCarthy
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Administrator McCarthy,
As members of the Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses, we are contacting you regarding our opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to significantly expand federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
We have reviewed the proposed rule that you signed on March 25th and have concluded that the rule provides essentially no limit to CWA jurisdiction. This is despite the Supreme Court consistently recognizing that Congress limited the authority of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers under the CWA.
There has been strong opposition to EPA’s approach due to the devastating economic impacts that a federal takeover of state waters would have. Additional and substantial regulatory costs associated with changes in jurisdiction and increased permitting requirements will result in bureaucratic barriers to economic growth, negatively impacting farms, small businesses, commercial development, road construction and energy production, to name a few.
The threat of ruinous penalties for alleged noncompliance with the CWA is also likely to become more common given the proposed rule’s expansive approach. For example, the EPA’s disputed classification of a small, local creek as a “water of the United States” could cost as much as $187,500 per day in civil penalties for Wyoming resident Andrew Johnson. Similar uncertainty established under the proposed rule will ensure that expanding federal control over intrastate waters will substantially interfere with the ability of individual landowners to use their property.
We share the concerns expressed by the Western Governors Association regarding the lack of meaningful state consultation in crafting this rule. The Western Governors stated in a letter to you on March 25th that they –
“are concerned that this rulemaking was developed without sufficient consultation with the states and that the rulemaking could impinge upon state authority in water management.”
We fail to understand why the EPA has not adequately consulted our Governors about a rule that has such a significant impact on the economy of our states. For example, rural states in the West have sizeable ranching and farming operations that will be seriously impacted by this rule. Despite the claim that the Army Corps will exempt 53 farming practices as established by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the list of 53 does not cover all existing agricultural practices. There are a number of farming and ranching practices, such as the application of pesticides, that are not covered on this list that occur every day in the West without penalty. Under this new proposed rule, it appears those farmers and ranchers will need to get a permit or be penalized if they continue to use those non-covered practices in new federal waters.
Congress has demonstrated strong opposition to past efforts to have the federal government control all wet areas of the states. During the recent consideration of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), a bipartisan group of Senators voted 52 to 44 to reject the EPA’s CWA Jurisdiction Guidance, which would have also resulted in effectively unlimited jurisdiction over intrastate water bodies. Efforts to pass legislation to have the federal government control all non-navigable waters have also failed in past Congresses.
We urge you to change course by committing to operating under the limits established by Congress, recognizing the states’ primary role in regulating and protecting their streams, ponds, wetlands and other bodies of water. We also again ask that you consider the economic impacts of your policies knowing that your actions will have serious impacts on struggling families, seniors, low-income households and small business owners.
In their letter, the Caucus members call on the EPA to refrain from moving forward with their controversial “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) rule that will drastically expand federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. The members also highlight how this rule will negatively impact farms, small businesses, energy production, commercial development and substantially interfere with the ability of individual landowners to use their property.
“We urge you to change course by committing to operating under the limits established by Congress, recognizing the states’ primary role in regulating and protecting their streams, ponds, wetlands and other bodies of water. We also again ask that you consider the economic impacts of your policies knowing that your actions will have serious impacts on struggling families, seniors, low-income households and small business owners,”Caucus Members wrote.
In addition to Barrasso, Pearce and Lummis, the letter was signed by Senators David Vitter (R-LA), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Dean Heller (R-NV), Mike Lee (R-UT), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John Thune (R-SD), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Roy Blunt (R-AR), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Deb Fischer (R-NE), John Cornyn (R-TX), John Hoeven (R-ND), Mike Johanns (R-NE), James Risch (R-ID) and Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Representatives Rob Bishop (UT-01), Markwayne Mullin (OK-01), Jeff Denham (CA-10), Mike Simpson (ID-02), Don Young (AK-AL), Walter Jones (NC-03), Matt Salmon (AZ-05), Scott Tipton (CO-03), Mike Conaway (TX-11), Mark Amadei (NV-02), Cory Gardner (CO-04), Jeff Duncan (SC-03), Chris Stewart (UT-02), Paul Gosar (AZ-04), Tom McClintock (CA-04), Kevin Cramer (ND-AL), Devin Nunes (CA-22), David Schweikert (AZ-06), Randy Neugebaurer (TX-19), Raul Labrador (ID-01), Kristi Noem (SD-AL), Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Trent Franks (AZ-08), Paul Broun (GA-10), Mike Coffman (CO-06), Jason Chaffetz (UT-03).
The full text of the letter:
May 8, 2014
The Honorable Gina McCarthy
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Administrator McCarthy,
As members of the Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses, we are contacting you regarding our opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to significantly expand federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
We have reviewed the proposed rule that you signed on March 25th and have concluded that the rule provides essentially no limit to CWA jurisdiction. This is despite the Supreme Court consistently recognizing that Congress limited the authority of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers under the CWA.
There has been strong opposition to EPA’s approach due to the devastating economic impacts that a federal takeover of state waters would have. Additional and substantial regulatory costs associated with changes in jurisdiction and increased permitting requirements will result in bureaucratic barriers to economic growth, negatively impacting farms, small businesses, commercial development, road construction and energy production, to name a few.
The threat of ruinous penalties for alleged noncompliance with the CWA is also likely to become more common given the proposed rule’s expansive approach. For example, the EPA’s disputed classification of a small, local creek as a “water of the United States” could cost as much as $187,500 per day in civil penalties for Wyoming resident Andrew Johnson. Similar uncertainty established under the proposed rule will ensure that expanding federal control over intrastate waters will substantially interfere with the ability of individual landowners to use their property.
We share the concerns expressed by the Western Governors Association regarding the lack of meaningful state consultation in crafting this rule. The Western Governors stated in a letter to you on March 25th that they –
“are concerned that this rulemaking was developed without sufficient consultation with the states and that the rulemaking could impinge upon state authority in water management.”
We fail to understand why the EPA has not adequately consulted our Governors about a rule that has such a significant impact on the economy of our states. For example, rural states in the West have sizeable ranching and farming operations that will be seriously impacted by this rule. Despite the claim that the Army Corps will exempt 53 farming practices as established by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the list of 53 does not cover all existing agricultural practices. There are a number of farming and ranching practices, such as the application of pesticides, that are not covered on this list that occur every day in the West without penalty. Under this new proposed rule, it appears those farmers and ranchers will need to get a permit or be penalized if they continue to use those non-covered practices in new federal waters.
Congress has demonstrated strong opposition to past efforts to have the federal government control all wet areas of the states. During the recent consideration of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), a bipartisan group of Senators voted 52 to 44 to reject the EPA’s CWA Jurisdiction Guidance, which would have also resulted in effectively unlimited jurisdiction over intrastate water bodies. Efforts to pass legislation to have the federal government control all non-navigable waters have also failed in past Congresses.
We urge you to change course by committing to operating under the limits established by Congress, recognizing the states’ primary role in regulating and protecting their streams, ponds, wetlands and other bodies of water. We also again ask that you consider the economic impacts of your policies knowing that your actions will have serious impacts on struggling families, seniors, low-income households and small business owners.
Energy Tour of Utah
May 5, 2014
On April 15 and 16, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce organized a tour for my staff of various energy facilities across the state. The following is a list of the facilities that were visited:
Intermountain Power Plant (Delta, UT) - Intermountain Power Plant in Delta, Utah is a large coal-fire power plant with an installed capacity of 1,900 MW. This plant, owned by Intermountain Power Agency and operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, generates power for thousands of homes in California and is transmitted there by way of the HVDC Intermountain transmission line. While the generated power ultimately leaves Utah, Intermountain Power Plant provides a very healthy property tax base for Millard County. A member of my staff enjoyed a toured the facility on Tuesday, April 15 with various energy industry leaders, government officials, and interested citizens.
First Wind Wind Farm (Milford, UT) - First Wind, a renewable energy company based in Massachusetts, has invested millions of dollars into Millard and Beaver counties by building 165 wind turbines with a combined maximum capacity of 306 MW. The project was completed in two phases; the first phase in 2009 and the second phase in 2011. To get the power to First Wind's customers in California, the company built an 88-mile transmission line and connected it to the already-existing Intermountain transmission line. A member of my staff visited this wind farm to learn more about this project and it's positive impact on the Milford City.
Beaver City Hydro Power Plant (Beaver, UT) - On Wednesday, April 16, a member of my staff visited and toured two of Beaver City's three Hydro Power Plant locations just east of the city. The first location became operational in 1904 after Beaver City residents approved a $10,000 bond to build the plant. The second location began generating power in 1942 and the third power plant was added in 1992. The three stations combined produce approximately 9,200,000 KWH per year. It is refreshing to see a great self-sustaining rural Utah community. Well done, Beaver City!
Cove Fort Geothermal Power Plant (Millard County, UT) - Cove Fort Geothermal Power Plant, owned by Enel Green Power North America, was constructed with a total investment of $126 million and opened in October 2013. Located in Beaver County, Utah, this geothermal plant is expected to produce up to 160 GWH of power per year. A member of my staff toured the exterior as well as the interior of the newly-built plant on Wednesday, April 16.
It is clear from the reports from my staff who participated in these visits, that Utah is home to a diverse range of energy resources and a home to many innovators and risk-takers. It is for this reason that I introduced the Energy Freedom and Prosperity Act to eliminate all energy subsidies from the federal government while also lowering the overall corporate tax rate. Instead of relying on a system where Washington chooses an industry's winners and losers, we should be protecting a free enterprise system where success is measured by the extent to which a product meets the demands of consumers. This the best way to ensure that we are all winners.
Ending our Opportunity Crisis by Developing our Abundant Natural Resources
Apr 4, 2014
A vote to confirm Rhea Suh is a vote against energy production. A vote against energy production is also a vote against increased energy exports, because you can’t export natural gas that is still in the ground.
The farm bill vs. America
Feb 7, 2014
The farm bill Congress just passed Tuesday is a monument to Washington dysfunction, and an insult to taxpayers, consumers and citizens.
Fighting for PILT
Jan 21, 2014
After I learned that the recent omnibus spending bill didn't include funding for PILT, I held a conference call with several of Utah's county commissioners. It is clearly a problem that a 1,500 page spending bill that spends over $1 trillion dollars doesn't provide funding to offset the financial burdens that are faced by states with high amounts of public land owned by the federal government.
Here are some highlights from the conference call:
This power might be used to enslave any particular state Spending bill that doesn't fund PILT spends $160 million for new land Those burdens remain there regardless How Senator Reid is Obstructing the Funding of PILT
Lee, Hatch Push to Restore Funding for PILT program
Jan 16, 2014
Utah’s U.S. Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch are supporting an amendment to the Omnibus government funding bill introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that would fully fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program.
Reducing the Burdens of Public Land
Jan 15, 2014
Beside me is a map of the United States. In red, you can see all the land that is owned by the federal government. As you can see by looking at the map, most of the land west of the Rocky Mountains, more than 50% in fact, is owned by the federal government.
Utah Public Land, PILT, Dry Washes, and Navigable Waterways
Jan 2, 2014
On December 17, I appeared on The County Seat. Chad Booth and I had a great discussion about HB 148, and the fight to reduce excessive federal government ownership of public land in Utah.
Lee: Utah to Lose $32 Million in Budget Deal
Dec 16, 2013
Under the Mineral Leasing Act, the federal government leases federal land for the development of energy, minerals and other materials, and shares the revenue with the states in which the leases are held. The revenue is currently split evenly between the states and the federal government. Section 302 of the budget deal would only decrease what the states receive, leaving the federal portion intact. That would mean a total reduction of $415 million for the states, with roughly $32 million coming from Utah.
