EPA Ignores Ag and Business Objections, Goes Full Steam with ‘Waters’ Rule

The Obama administration on Monday moved ahead with the EPA’s sweeping WOTUS measure to control the nation’s waterways and every imaginable point of connection to those waterways. The initiative has drawn strong opposition from almost every agriculture interest in the nation.

In November of 2014 the Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association joined chambers of commerce from 50 states and 375 trade associations from a wide range of industries to voice our opposition to this proposal and call for its withdrawal.

The rule seeks to dramatically expand the scope of federal authority over water and land uses across the U.S. It is ambiguous, over-reaching, and impossible to fairly enforce.

Vernon Schmidt, the Association’s Executive Vice President, called the proposal an “unlawful power grab by the EPA to assert federal jurisdiction over local water and land use.”

Today Schmidt added, “This decision by the Administration shows a continued pattern of disregard for business, industry, and farm and ranch families. Given the opportunity to reach a reasonable solution, EPA has chosen to ignore millions of Americans, extending its control over private land. The EPA should not be in the business of regulating irrigation ditches, isolated ponds and other ‘non-navigable’ waters as waters of the United States.”

Politico reports that Brian Deese, a senior adviser at the White House, told reporters on a call announcing the rule. “The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who threaten our clean water.”

While the EPA spent public funds on social media claiming the rule had nothing to do with ditches on farms and ranches, Assistant Army Secretary Jo-Ellen Darcy told reporters during the announcement call that the final rule ensures protections for tributaries that have physical signs of flowing water, even if they don’t run year-round, and ditches that “look and act” like tributaries.

While officials told reporters they have finalized the measure, the text was not made available at the announcement.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), chair of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, criticized the rule: “Despite their assurances, it appears that the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have failed to keep their promises to Congress and the American people. In fact, instead of fixing the overreach in the proposed rule, remarkably, EPA has made it even broader.”

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) had this to say: “I am disappointed at the lack of consideration for the law and procedure. The Administration ignored requests to consult with states and develop a rule that complies with the law and protects water.”

In other reaction, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) said in a statement: “The Administration’s cavalier attitude toward expanding the federal government’s authority into our backyards is absolutely outrageous. Not only were small businesses—who will be dramatically impacted by the expanding of the definition of ‘waters of the United States’—inappropriately excluded from the rule-making process, but the federal government shouldn’t be regulating puddles on private property in the first place.”

Without the votes needed to override a presidential veto, most agree it is likely the rule will be mired in legal battles for years, leaving the courts to decide if any limits on executive powers remain. S