On Thursday May 8 the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will hold their first D.C. hearing on the “Waters of the U.S.” proposed definition. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is opposed to this proposed rule and will submit a letter for the record as part of this hearing. Beefmaster Breeders United (BBU), along with several other state and national level agricultural organization signed this letter in opposition along with NCBA.

The letter, that is addressed to Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall, urged “Congress to stop the proposed expansion of federal authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and to limit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to unilaterally halt job-creating projects. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers’ recent activities will federalize our nation’s waters and public and private lands, resulting in dramatic impacts on job creation and economic investment and growth.”

The letter that was drafted and submitted by the NCBA Washington, D.C., office included the following excerpts…

“Nearly every sector of the economy – including agriculture, construction, housing, manufacturing, utilities, energy production, and transportation – requires Section 404 and other CWA permits to conduct their daily operations.  Just as importantly, private property owners who want to develop their own land, as well as state and local governments building critical infrastructure, must also frequently obtain 404 permits.  Twice the Supreme Court has affirmed that both the U.S. Constitution and the CWA place limits on federal authority over intrastate waters, and Congress has declined to alter that careful balance between federal and state regulation of waters.  Yet EPA and the Corps are now attempting to substitute their own judgment for that of Congress, and to unlawfully expand the scope of federal jurisdiction beyond anything that has ever existed under the CWA.”

“EPA has already provided two telling examples of what can happen to U.S. projects that require federal CWA permits.  Notably, EPA for the first time ever recently used Section 404 to retroactively veto a valid CWA permit, thereby halting an on-going lawful operation.  EPA then used Section 404 to prospectively veto another project before the companies involved could even apply for a permit, but after hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent in up-front capital expenditures.  If EPA is allowed to continue in this manner, and indeed to expand its authority over more land, it will have a devastating impact on U.S. investment and job creation, as companies will not be able to rely on the rule of law in the United States and will not invest in U.S. projects.”

“The undersigned organizations are committed to the protection and restoration of America’s water resources.  And while the environmental protections provided by the CWA are vital, so too is the rule of law and the ability of investors to rely on the U.S. permitting process.  Congress must act to protect both by requiring federal agencies to recognize the legal limits to CWA authority, and ensuring that EPA exercises its CWA authority in a manner consistent with due process and fundamental fairness.”

“It is critical that the federal government use the legally promulgated processes under the CWA and National Environmental Policy Act to make fair, informed decisions about job-creating projects.  It is likewise vital that, once companies receive their permits, the companies – as well as the investors and employees relying on them – can rely on those permits to not be revoked at any time for any reason.  Finally, it is extremely important that EPA and the Corps not be permitted to arrogate authority to themselves that Congress never intended.”

Through signing this letter, BBU asked that the committee “stop EPA and the Corps from finalizing their proposed rule defining their authority under the CWA, and limit EPA’s ability to act under Section 404 until after the NEPA and 404 environmental review processes are completed but before a permit is issued. Such limitations would provide for robust environmental protection, transparency and certainty for the regulated community, and economic investment and growth.”