The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a $35.4 billion spending
bill for water and energy on Thursday, after Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND)
introduced -- but then withdrew, at the urging of his colleagues -- a
controversial amendment that would have blocked the Obama administration
from modifying the Clean Water Act (CWA). The bill now heads to the
Senate floor. The bill includes $10.5 billion for energy programs, $610 million for
energy research and development, $6 billion for environmental management
activities at the Department of Energy (DOE), and $5.5 billion for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). It also allocates funds for
nuclear and science programs. Republicans and some supporters of the oil and natural gas industry
believe efforts by USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to adopt a new Clean Water Rule (CWR) amount to an overreach by
the federal government. They claim that the rule -- which is currently
under review by the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
with final authorization expected later this spring (see
Shale Daily,
April 7) -- would harm domestic oil and gas production, increase permitting delays for wells and increase drilling costs. Hoeven introduced an amendment to the FY16 Energy & Water
Development Appropriations Bill that called for defunding a proposal by
USACE and the EPA to redefine the "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS)
rule. "For our farmers and ranchers, this is a huge problem," Hoeven said.
"The EPA has gone beyond the statutory authority it has, and instead of
limiting its regulation to navigable bodies of water, it now says that
it can, in essence, regulate any water. They argue that under the legal
theory of 'significant nexus' that they can go from navigable bodies of
water to regulating any water. "It's clear infringement of private property rights, creates tremendous
uncertainty for our farmers and ranchers...it does exceed their
authority and it is problematic not for just for agriculture but across
virtually every industry sector." Hoeven touched on
S 1140,
a separate bill that calls for USACE and EPA to issue a revised WOTUS
rule and would limit the scope of federal oversight. Specifically, it
would include traditional navigable waters, interstate waters and
certain streams and wetlands, but it would exclude groundwater and
isolated ponds, among other things. "I think there's a good chance that we may be able to get 60 votes to
de-authorize WOTUS on the Senate floor, but at the same time I think
that we have to work to defund it," Hoeven said. But Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said that while he also wants to block
USACE and EPA from finalizing the rule -- quipping "I don't think we
should be regulating mud puddles from Washington, DC," -- he urged
Hoeven to "exercise some restraint." Alexander chairs the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, which
passed the appropriations bill on Tuesday (see
Shale Daily,
May 20). "There are other ways to deal with this issue," Alexander said. "The
energy and water appropriations bill in the House contains the language
that you're suggesting. The Interior appropriations bill might be able
to contain that language. Or we may be deal with it in conference. So I
wonder, even though I agree with the senator and will vote with him, if
he might be willing to withdraw his amendment in the committee and
either offer it on the floor or bring it up in any of these other forums
where we might be able to act on it. That way we may be able to get a
result on this very important bill." Hoeven relented and agreed to withdraw the amendment "on the basis that
I believe we have strong support to bring it back and work further when
we address the EPA budget. But I think it's very important that we do
defund this rule...
more
This is Senator Alexander up to his tricks again. He wants Hoeven to withdraw the amendment because Alexander 1) has long been in the environmental camp, and 2) doesn't want anything to jeopardize or complicate his ability to spend money. After all, $35 billion dollars is at stake. Can't risk that over a piddly little water and property rights issue, now can we. Hoeven complies because he doesn't want to jeopardize any of that spending in his state. No, he will amend the EPA budget. EPA doesn't spend much in North Dakota, you see.
And so goes things in DC, and in the Republican Senate.
No comments:
Post a Comment