Huffman Offers Motion to Prevent Republican Bill from Threatening Clean Water Supplies

September 10, 2014

WASHINGTON­—Congressman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) took to the House floor last night in an attempt to improve the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act (H.R. 5078), a Republican bill that would make it harder for the Army Corps and the EPA to clarify the jurisdictional coverage of the Clean Water Act, and would leave watersheds across the country in legal limbo. 

Huffman’s Motion to Recommit would have immediately amended the underlying bill to ensure that it protects the quality of water for safe drinking for municipalities; for agriculture uses, including irrigation; and to reduce vulnerability from drought. The Motion to Recommit failed 177-235, but the White House indicated that President Obama would veto H.R. 5078 if it were presented to him.

Huffman spoke on the House Floor in favor of the Motion to Recommit, which can be viewed HERE:

[[{"fid":"396","view_mode":"full","fields":{"format":"full"},"type":"media","attributes":{"alt":"Huffman on the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act","height":"380","width":"640","class":"media-element file-full"}}]]

A transcript of Huffman’s remarks can be found below:

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

The bill before us today will make it harder for the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA to clarify the jurisdictional coverage of the Clean Water Act, leaving watersheds across the country in continued legal limbo.

Now, I have visited with ranchers and landowners from my district. I understand the anxieties that many have expressed today about what the “Waters of the United States” rulemaking means. But the solution to this situation is to seek tighter definitions and clearer rules, not to prohibit the agencies from further developing an important proposal.

In particular, I’m very concerned that H.R. 5078 could have unintended consequences for those who rely on healthy watersheds. We need clarity in the law so that we can protect water quality for drinking water supplies and for agricultural uses.

We are suffering from a historic drought in California. The current legal mess, the ambiguity of what qualifies as waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act actually makes it harder to know which water bodies are covered by the law. It makes it harder to protect upstream wetlands that recharge groundwater supplies.

The importance of these intermittent streams and wetlands is most notable during extreme weather events, like torrential rains or drought, when wetlands and streams can absorb and then release water gradually to surrounding streams and aquifers.

This underlying bill would keep regulatory uncertainty in place, and it could leave upstream water sources subject to expensive and long-lasting litigation. That situation isn’t good for the communities in my district who need clean drinking water and clean water for their businesses. It’s not good for my downstream ranchers who are already facing water shortages and hurting from rising feed prices.

Remember, Mr. Speaker and colleagues that the current proposal from the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers is actually very narrowly targeted. Under President Reagan, the Clean Water Act covered any water body that could serve as habitat for migrating birds, a much more far-reaching standard than the Obama administration is considering.

The GAO determined in 2004 that the Reagan rule allowed the Army Corps to “regulate almost any body of water or wetland.” Let’s remember that when we hear the characterizations of the Obama administration’s proposal as some vast overreach. It’s far more narrowly-tailored than what existed under President Reagan.

Right now, the federal agencies have a proposal — again, much less expansive than President Reagan’s — that they are reviewing with ranchers, water utilities, and states.

It should be, it can be, and I believe it will be a workable proposal. We should let that process play out. Let’s not make the current situation worse.

Let’s ensure that this bill doesn’t harm drinking water quality or water supplies for irrigation needs, and let’s ensure that we aren’t making it harder to respond to an extreme drought.

I ask my colleagues to support this Motion to Recommit."