By Todd Neeley
DTN Staff Reporter
OMAHA (DTN) -- At first read, the passage of a U.S. Senate resolution Wednesday gives hope to farmers and ranchers across the country who fear the potential consequences of the waters of the United States rule.
The Senate passed a resolution of disapproval of the rule by a 53-44 vote, largely along party lines. However, the resolution already faces a veto threat from the Obama administration. The resolution is designed to stop the rule in its tracks and force a review by Congress under the Congressional Review Act.
Because the Senate does not have a veto-proof majority, it is more likely the fate of the rule will play out in federal courts. In addition, even if the resolution was signed by the president, the Congressional Review Act can be invoked only before a federal rule takes effect. The waters of the United States rule already has taken effect but now is not being implemented because of a national injunction issued by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A resolution of disapproval, if signed, would result in the waters of the U.S. rule having no force or effect. The CRA requires an agency such as the EPA to submit the rule to Congress and the Government Accountability Office before it can take effect.
The resolution introduced by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, was the second action taken by the Senate in the past two days aimed at turning back the rule. A bill sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., was defeated Tuesday.
"We have a choice today," Ernst said Wednesday from the floor of the Senate. "We can stand with farmers and ranchers ... or with a federal agency greatly expanding its power. Rolling back this WOTUS rule is especially important to my state. This is what the American people expect -- to take a vote on issues today."
Iowa is not among the 31 states that have sued to stop the rule.
Ernst and other Senate Republicans made the case during debate that the rule likely will be struck down by federal courts. They cited internal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers memorandums that show the Corps questioned the legality of the rule days before it was finalized. EPA largely ignored those concerns in the final rule.
"I grew up on well water, and I understand clean water is essential," Ernst said. "But that is not what this vote is about."
EPA, Democrats and others who support the rule continue to say those who oppose the rule are wrong in their assumptions about what it will mean to farmers and ranchers, she said.
"To suggest we're all wrong is absolutely insulting," Ernst said. "This administration continues to unilaterally enforce its agenda on the American people. It's time to put politics and ideology aside and listen to the common sense voices of the American people."
SENATOR SAYS CONCERNS UNFOUNDED
Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said concerns levied by agriculture and other industries are unfounded. That's because the rule maintains many of the same exemptions for agriculture that are already in effect, he said.
"Look at the rule, it doesn't regulate new activities in agriculture," Cardin said. "It deals with waters that affect our water supply."
Late on Tuesday, a group of 11 Senate Democrats sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Jo-Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works, asking the agencies to clarify parts of the rule through the guidance process.
The letter was signed by Sens. Angus King, I-Maine; Bill Nelson, D-Fla.; Tim Kaine, D-Va.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Chris Coons, D-Del.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; Jon Tester, D-Mont.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
In the letter, the lawmakers said they couldn't support the Barrasso bill that would have required EPA to start from scratch.
"However, while we cannot currently support the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, we believe the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers can and must do better to address the legitimate issues that have been raised in regards to the implementation of this rule," they said in the letter. "We call on the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to provide clearer and concise implementation guidance to ensure that the rule is effectively and consistently interpreted.
"Farmers, ranchers, water utilities, local governments, and contractors deserve this clarity and certainty. Should the EPA not provide this clarity or enforce this rule in a way that erodes traditional exemptions, we reserve the right to support efforts in the future to revise the rule."
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, lashed out against the Democrats in a statement.
"It is extremely disappointing that after failing to do their job to provide legislative clarity to the EPA on the regulation of our nation's waters, Senate Democrats are writing a letter to the administration saying they reserve the right to do their jobs, simply at a later time," he said.
"Proceeding to S. 1140 provided all senators, including the 11 senators authoring this letter, the opportunity to amend S. 1140 in an open process. They then could have given EPA necessary direction on how to implement the Clean Water Act and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Legislating provides the legal clarity for the EPA to implement rules."
Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com
Follow him on Twitter @ToddNeeleyDTN
(AG/CZ)
© Copyright 2015 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.