Sen. Chuck Grassley released the following statement about the filibuster led by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to prevent a vote on overriding a presidential veto of the Senate resolution to disapprove the Waters of the U.S. rule. Grassley is a cosponsor of the resolution, which was introduced by Sen. Joni Ernst. A resolution of disapproval is a legislative procedure used to try to overturn regulations and rules put forth by the executive branch.
“The EPA has been trying for years to cement its power grab. And, time after time, the courts have slapped down the EPA and said that the agency is overstepping its bounds. The EPA has claimed that the Clean Water Act’s definition of its jurisdiction over waterways should be interpreted very broadly to give the EPA authority over virtually all of the land in the United States. The Supreme Court has twice ruled that rather than accept the legal limits on its authority as confirmed by the Supreme Court and focus its efforts on preventing pollution from being discharged into our nation’s waterways, the EPA has again tried to stretch the bounds of its authority. Temporarily, the agency has been stopped after the courts determined that the rulemaking by EPA was flawed. Unfortunately, political theater has ruled the day, and the Democrats filibustered a bipartisan resolution to override a presidential veto and end this massive power grab by the EPA.
“This isn’t about whether the Clean Water Act is beneficial. Of course it makes sense to require a permit to discharge potential pollutants into waterways, but when you define 97 percent of the land in Iowa as a waterway, you quickly lose sight of the law’s intended focus. For instance, it makes sense to regulate dumping dirt or rocks into a river, but what the EPA defines as a waterway could encompass everything from a small pond to trickling creek bed to land that is dry most of the year. Requiring a federal discharge permit for activities on dry land would not affect runoff, which is by definition a “nonpoint source”, but ironically, it would discourage many common sense projects to prevent erosion or control runoff that involve moving soil in areas now designated a “water of the United States”. That would hamper ongoing efforts in Iowa to improve water quality under the Iowa Water Quality Plan, which was required by the Clean Water Act to address nonpoint source pollution and approved by the EPA.
“The rulemaking was clearly an effort by the EPA to push its own agenda. The rule was crafted outside of the agency’s authority in a process that left out the states and other key parties that are affected by the rule. And, legitimate concerns raised during the public comment period were ignored. On top of it all, the independent investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, said that the agency used ‘covert propaganda’ to illegally promote its sweeping rule.
“The result of this rule is not cleaner water, but a bigger roll of red tape. It won’t make our water any cleaner, but it will limit the property rights of individual Americans and control over their own land. Under EPA’s definition, WOTUS affects everyone from farmers to construction companies to golf course managers in their day-to-day decision making. It’s an absurd use of power to further an agency’s own political agenda.”
-30-