The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“Waters of the United States (Executive Session)” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the in the Senate section section on pages S760-S761 on March 14.
More than half of the Agency's employees are engineers, scientists and protection specialists. The Climate Reality Project, a global climate activist organization, accused Agency leadership in the last five years of undermining its main mission.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
Waters of the United States
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, almost 20 years ago, a family in Idaho purchased a lot in a residential area near Priest Lake.
They were looking to build a home. They obtained county building permits and started placing sand and gravel on their property to get it ready for the build. But shortly after the family began preparing their lot, the Environmental Protection Agency told them to stop. There was water on their building plot with no surface water connection to any body of water. But because of its proximity to Priest Lake, the EPA said that placing sand and gravel on the property violated the Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants, such as the rocks and sand used to prepare a building plot into navigable waters.
Navigable waters are ambiguously defined by the Clean Water Act as
``waters of the United States.'' That is more commonly known as WOTUS.
Normally, navigable waters are defined as waters that are deep; they are wide; and they are calm enough for boats or ships to go across. The surface water on the Idaho family's lot certainly doesn't fit that bill.
The Idaho family tried to challenge the EPA. They sought a hearing, but the EPA chose not to grant them one and, instead, continued to assert the Clean Water Act jurisdiction against their land. So Michael and Chantell Sackett sued.
They had been to the Supreme Court once, and they are back again this year. They still haven't been able to build on the property that they first acquired in 2004.
The Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court case centers on interpretation of the Clean Water Act. What counts as waters of the United States?
In 2015, the Obama administration published an unprecedented expansion of the definition of WOTUS, giving the Federal Government jurisdiction over a State resource--that is, Nebraska's water. It doesn't belong to the Federal Government.
I fought former President Obama's WOTUS rule since my very first term here in the U.S. Senate. The rule was the Federal Government at its worst. It encroached on families, on communities, and on businesses by its brazen intrusion into the precious water resource of my home State of Nebraska--and all the rest of our States as well.
The Trump administration rescinded Obama's WOTUS rule, but when President Biden took office, he reversed that. The President issued a new rule allowing EPA officials in Washington, DC, to make case-by-case determinations of what should be considered water of the United States. Privately owned land containing ponds, puddles, and even dry ditches can now be regulated by the Federal Government. This needless power grab only places more people under restrictive regulations and rules.
The Federal Government should not have the power to regulate Nebraska's water; Nebraskans should. Nebraska has a special system of natural resource districts that empower locally elected community members to manage water resources based on river basin boundaries. Regular people living their lives at home know better than DC bureaucrats how to use and how to manage their State's natural resources.
That is why I have partnered with my colleague Senator Capito in introducing legislation to overturn President Biden's WOTUS rule. The Biden administration is determined to impose an overly restrictive rule right now, and that is before the Supreme Court has an opportunity to decide the Sackett case. We cannot let that happen.
In the past, I have cosponsored a bill targeting the flawed science used by the EPA to expand its definition of WOTUS. I have also helped to introduce legislation that would require Presidential administrations to consult with States and to consult with stakeholders before they impose these restrictions on our State-owned natural resources. This is essential. States understand the complex geological and hydrological factors that affect their own water resources. There is no way that the Federal Government can take all of that into account with its one-size-fits-all regulations.
I dealt with these issues during my time in the Nebraska Legislature, and I know that there are not benefits when the Federal Government tries to take control of State resources through these onerous regulations.
Leave water management to the experts. The States know their own water. The Federal Government needs to stay out of issues that are handled much better under State jurisdiction.
WOTUS is not the issue that everyone wants to talk about, but it is important to regular Americans in Nebraska, in Idaho, and in many other States, and those Americans--well, they are who we are here to represent.
WOTUS has a real, tangible impact on American lives. So let's come together. We can solve this problem that was created by the administration's rash and reckless regulating.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.