Bill Text: IA HR112 | 2015-2016 | 86th General Assembly | Introduced

---

Bill Title: A resolution regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of "waters of the United States".

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)

Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2016-04-25 - Resolution filed, laid over under Rule 25. H.J. 752. [HR112 Detail]

Download: Iowa-2015-HR112-Introduced.html

---

House Resolution 112 - Introduced

PAG LIN




                    HOUSE RESOLUTION NO.    
                              BY  WILLS
  1  1 A Resolution regarding the Environmental Protection
  1  2    Agency's definition of "waters of the United
  1  3    States".
  1  4    WHEREAS, the federal Clean Water Act and
  1  5 implementing regulations of the past four decades
  1  6 recognize the partnership between federal, state, and
  1  7 local governments to achieve the objectives of the
  1  8 Act; and
  1  9    WHEREAS, section 101(g) of the Clean Water Act
  1 10 expressly states that "the authority of each state to
  1 11 allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction
  1 12 shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise
  1 13 impaired by this Act"; and
  1 14    WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection
  1 15 Agency and United States Army Corps of Engineers have
  1 16 proposed a rule to redefine "waters of the United
  1 17 States" that could significantly increase the costs and
  1 18 regulatory requirements for state and local governments
  1 19 and ultimately the costs for state and local residents
  1 20 and businesses; and
  1 21    WHEREAS, the proposed rule provides almost unlimited
  1 22 federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, impairs
  1 23 state authority and therefore contravenes congressional
  1 24 intent, and is not consistent with three distinct
  1 25 rulings by the Supreme Court regarding the limits of
  1 26 federal jurisdiction; and
  1 27    WHEREAS, the proposed rule will apply to all
  1 28 programs of the Clean Water Act and therefore
  2  1 subject more activities to Clean Water Act permitting
  2  2 requirements, National Environmental Policy Act
  2  3 analyses, mitigation requirements, and citizen suits
  2  4 challenging local actions based on the applicability
  2  5 and interpretation of newfound authorities; and
  2  6    WHEREAS, the proposing agencies' economic analysis
  2  7 for this rule did not consider impacts for the full
  2  8 range of Clean Water Act programs affected or the
  2  9 economic impacts to small businesses, and the analysis
  2 10 relied on outdated cost data; and
  2 11    WHEREAS, the justification for the scope of the
  2 12 proposed rule rests on a scientific analysis that is
  2 13 still under review and the proposing agencies proceeded
  2 14 with development of a proposed rule addressing issues
  2 15 associated with the connectivity of waters prior to
  2 16 being informed by the Science Advisory Board review and
  2 17 the implications of its findings; and
  2 18    WHEREAS, the proposed rule does not provide an
  2 19 explanation or clear understanding about how the
  2 20 proposed expansion of Clean Water Act jurisdiction and
  2 21 transfer of ultimate authority might affect other Clean
  2 22 Water Act programs, state laws and responsibilities,
  2 23 water rights, land use, governances, and regulated
  2 24 parties; and
  2 25    WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
  2 26 Army Corps of Engineers have not fully consulted the
  2 27 states and have undermined the cooperative federalism
  2 28 asserted in the Clean Water Act; NOW THEREFORE,
  2 29    BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, That
  2 30 the House of Representatives urges the Environmental
  3  1 Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to
  3  2 fully consult and engage states in any process that
  3  3 may affect the management of their waters and to defer
  3  4 redefining "waters of the United States" until the
  3  5 Science Advisory Board concludes its review and the
  3  6 Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of
  3  7 Engineers incorporate the conclusions of such review,
  3  8 an economic analysis is completed that fully identifies
  3  9 impacts of the proposal and any revised proposal on
  3 10 economic development, and the redefinition provides
  3 11 clarity on definitions and federal jurisdiction
  3 12 consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings to
  3 13 affirm that there is a limit to federal jurisdiction
  3 14 under the Clean Water Act.
       LSB 5781YH (2) 86
       tr/nh