Small Business Perspectives on the Impacts of the Biden Administration's Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule (House Small Business Committee hearing, March 8, 2023)
Summary
The printed record of a House Committee on Small Business hearing, Small Business Perspectives on the Impacts of the Biden Administration's Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule, held March 8, 2023, Small Business Committee Document Number 118–004. The committee met at 2:10 p.m. in Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building with Chairman Roger Williams presiding; Williams and Ranking Member Nydia Velázquez gave opening statements. Three witnesses testified: Frank Murphy, Senior Vice President, CFO and COO of Wynne Jackson, Inc.; Katherine R. English, Owner of English Family Limited Partnership; and Rick Baumann, Founder of Murrells Inlet Seafood. The appendix carries their prepared statements and material from NFIB, a Statement of Clean Water-Dependent Businesses and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The committee adjourned at 3:43 p.m.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Small Business Perspectives on the Impacts of the Biden Administration's Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule (House Small Business Committee hearing, March 8, 2023).”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/small-business-perspectives-on-the-impacts-of-the-biden-administration-8ce471d34c/
, SHA-256 2a21952cad0984e314011185b376507f9376cf864eb405f5997264a85859e609.Full text
SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPACTS
OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S WATERS
OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS) RULE
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
HEARING HELD
MARCH 8, 2023
Small Business Committee Document Number 118–004
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51–287 WASHINGTON : 2023
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
TRACEY MANN, Kansas
JACK ELLZEY, Texas
MARC MOLINARO, New York
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
ELI CRANE, Arizona
AARON BEAN, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
NICK LALOTA, New York
NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington
HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JUDY CHU, California
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
BEN JOHNSON, Majority Staff Director
MELISSA JUNG, Minority Staff Director
(II)
CONTENTS
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Roger Williams ................................................................................................ 1
Hon. Nydia Velázquez ............................................................................................. 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Frank Murphy, Senior Vice President/CFO/COO, Wynne Jackson, Inc. ..... 5
Ms. Katherine R. English, Owner, English Family Limited Partnership ........... 7
Mr. Rick Baumann, Founder, Murrells Inlet Seafood .......................................... 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Mr. Frank Murphy, Senior Vice President/CFO/COO, Wynne Jackson
Inc. ................................................................................................................. 30
Ms. Katherine R. English, Owner, English Family Limited Partnership ... 44
Mr. Rick Baumann, Founder, Murrells Inlet Seafood ................................... 57
Questions for the Record:
None.
Answers for the Record:
None.
Additional Material for the Record:
NFIB .................................................................................................................. 60
Statement of Clean Water-Dependent Businesses ........................................ 63
U.S. Chamber of Commerce ............................................................................. 78
(III)
SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES ON THE
IMPACTS OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)
RULE
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2023
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams [chair-
man of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Williams, Luetkemeyer, Alford,
Stauber, Crane, Meuser, Bean, Van Duyne, Ellzey, Mann, LaLota,
Velázquez, Scholten, Thanedat, Davids, McGarvey, and
Gluesenkamp Perez.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Before we get started, I want to ask Mr.
Mann to lead us in prayer.
Please stand.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of Amer-
ica, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Mr. MANN. Bow your heads with me.
Thank you, Dear God, that we get to live in the greatest country
in the history in the world. Thank you for all the small businesses
that provide work and goods and services all over our great land.
We pray for the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
And give us wisdom and continue to bless our great country.
In the name of Jesus. Amen.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Good afternoon, everyone.
I now call the Committee on Small Business to order.
I will turn my mike on.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of
the Committee at any time.
The Committee is here today to hear testimony about the harm-
ful impact of the Biden administration’s Waters of the United
States Rule on small businesses.
I now recognize myself for my opening statement.
And first I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. I
understand that all of you have traveled a long way to be here, and
we appreciate it. I know how hard it is to step away from your day-
to-day operations, and I am extremely grateful that you chose to
give us your time today.
(1)
2
Since President Biden was sworn into office, the regulatory ac-
tions of this administration has cost the private sector nearly $360
billion in compliance costs, an estimated 220 million hours in our
new paperwork requirements to meet those compliance costs.
Later this month, the Biden administration will increase these
costs by finalizing the new Waters of the United States Rule. For
any business, certainty is key, and enforcing the rule is leaving
many people in the dark on if they will be in compliance with the
new regulations.
For the last decade, small businesses have hoped for clarity
around what is the definition of a waterway that is subject to regu-
lations by the federal government. Unfortunately, this rule fails to
resolve these issues and will leave business owners wondering if
they need to get permission from the federal government before
they make even minor adjustments on their private property.
There are laws on the books that are supposed to protect small
businesses from regulatory overreach from the federal government.
Specifically, the Regulatory Flexibility Act is in place to ensure
agencies are conducting analysis on how their actions will affect
small entities and propose alternatives.
However, the EPA certified that this rule would not have any im-
pact on small businesses and, therefore, unilaterally decided that
they do not need to conduct any further analysis on the rule.
According to the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, which is charged with
speaking out against overly burdensome regulations, this deter-
mination by the EPA was not based on any factual analysis.
Today we listen to the small businesses whose opinions have
been disregarded by agencies far too long, and we will hear how
this rule will have a significant impact on many types of small
businesses, such as farming, ranching, mining, and real estate de-
velopment, just to name a few.
The past several years have caused tremendous hardship for
Main Street America. Whether it be the COVID-19 pandemic, out-
of-control inflation, broken supply chains, high interest rates, or a
national labor shortage, the federal government should not be giv-
ing small businesses yet another challenge to overcome.
I want to thank you all again for being here with us today, and
I’m looking forward to today’s conversation.
And lastly, without objection, I would like to submit letters for
the record from the National Federation of Independent Business
and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
So with that, I will yield to our distinguished and my friend the
Ranking Member from New York, Ms. Velázquez.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’d like to welcome all of the witnesses. Thank you for being here.
Clean water is an essential building block of any functioning
economy. We depend on it for drinking, bathing, cooking, farming,
fishing, manufacturing, tourism, recreation, and many other activi-
ties. Without clean water, our health, environment, and economy
will be at serious risk.
For the past 50 years, the Clean Water Act has safeguarded our
rivers, streams, and wetlands from pollution and degradation.
Since its inception, it has prevented billions of pounds of pollutants
3
from entering our waters and restored thousands of miles of im-
paired rivers and streams.
This environmental benefit has saved billions of dollars in health
care costs by reducing water-borne diseases and supported millions
of jobs in industries that rely on clean water. Whether it is our
growing craft beer industry, which brings investment to commu-
nities across the country, or our behemoth outdoor recreation econ-
omy, which provides $862 billion in economic output, robust federal
protection for clean water is a prerequisite for the success of a vari-
ety of industries.
Unfortunately, the 2006 Supreme Court ruling in the Rapanos
case upended longstanding protections for many of our nation’s pre-
cious rivers, streams, and wetlands. As a result, many stakeholders
have faced confusion and uncertainty as industries seeking to pol-
lute have attacked the scope of the Clean Water Act.
In 2020, the Trump administration imposed the Navigable
Waters Protection Rule, which significantly limited federal protec-
tion for clean water by excluding safeguards for many wetlands
and streams. This rule allowed industries to pollute our waters,
and was shifting the cost of pollution to the families, businesses,
and communities downstream.
Fortunately, this rule was struck down by courts as it largely
failed to recognize the scientific evidence on the interconnectedness
of our water systems. As a result, the Biden administration has
worked to revise the WOTUS rule and provide greater clarity to
stakeholders while codifying important exclusions for prior con-
verted cropland, ditches, and artificial ponds.
Over the past two years, the EPA has conducted extensive meet-
ings with stakeholders, including many small businesses, and I be-
lieve the final product adequately reflects that.
This rule demonstrates a clear middle ground between the 2015
clean water rule and the 2020 rule. It makes clear that we cannot
sacrifice the economy for environmental protection, nor sacrifice the
environment for economic growth. As you will hear from our wit-
ness today, those two things go hand in hand.
Nobody here wants small businesses to deal with excessive, bur-
densome regulations. However, we must recognize that many regu-
lations, especially those safeguarding our waters, serve an essential
purpose in protecting families, communities, and entrepreneurs. In
fact, a national survey of small businesses found that 80 percent
of small business owners favor federal rules to protect upstream
headwaters and wetland.
To that end, I want to take this opportunity to announce my op-
position to the resolution of this approval filed by Republicans
under the Congressional Review Act. Not only will this resolution
not achieve the outcome Republicans seek, but it could also actively
harm the exclusions they are seeking to protect. It only adds to the
confusion and uncertainty that stakeholders are currently experi-
encing.
I advise my colleagues to carefully consider the costs that blan-
ket deregulation could have on businesses that rely on clean water
to function.
With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
this letter in support of the new revised definition of Waters of the
4
U.S., signed by over 400 businesses that are dependent on clean
water, be submitted to the record.
Chairman WILLIAMS. So ordered.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. I will now introduce our witnesses.
It is my privilege to introduce a fellow Texan as our first witness,
Mr. Frank Murphy, for today’s hearing.
Mr. Murphy is the Senior Vice President and CFO and COO of
Wynne/Jackson, Inc., a real estate development firm and small
business based in Dallas that employs eight people.
Starting in the early 1970s, by its name sake, Clyde C. Jackson
and Toddie L. Wynne, Wynne/Jackson now has a presence through-
out Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. And since joining the com-
pany in 1985, Mr. Murphy has played a role in over $2 billion
worth of projects encompassing everything from apartments to re-
tail space to golf courses, hotels, marinas, and storage facilities.
These projects not only have helped spur economic development in
countless communities but have also served as the actual founda-
tions for where families live, work, and make lasting memories.
In addition to real estate development, Wynne/Jackson has also
a long history of participating in philanthropic initiatives, including
religious education centers, institutes promoting the responsible
use of land, and several international projects.
Mr. Murphy’s experience in all types of development make him
exceptionally qualified to speak about the regulatory burdens fac-
ing businesses, such as Wynne/Jackson. He understands the real-
world implications of what happens when vital projects that would
otherwise benefit whole communities cannot be started due to bu-
reaucratic uncertainty and red tape.
So, Mr. Murphy, thank you for joining the Committee today, and
I look forward to today’s conversation.
I now yield my time to Mr. Bean to introduce our next witness.
Mr. BEAN. A very good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, to you and the
Committee Members, everybody here, small business family. What
an honor it is to introduce a fellow Floridian, Ms. Katherine
English, for today’s hearing.
A native of Southwest Florida, Ms. English has worked at the
Pavese Law Firm since 1994 and became partner in the year 2000.
Her law practice focuses on agriculture, environmental, and land
use law, which should be no surprise considering her primary occu-
pation is overseeing her family farm, which has been in the
English family for over 100 years.
It is no exaggeration to say that Ms. English is one of the most
qualified people in America to speak with us today about the im-
pact that cumbersome and unclear regulations have on family
farms, such as her own.
Her legal work has been recognized by her being selected as one
of the—you ready for this, Committee Members?—best lawyers in
America for 2021 due to her expertise in land use and zoning law.
And in addition to family farming and law, it also should be no
surprise to any Committee Member here that Ms. English is a com-
munity superstar because she has served just so many: Chair of
the Farm Bureau Association, the Natural Resource Advisory Com-
mittee, a past Chair of the American Farm Bureau of Federation,
5
National Issue Advisory Committee, on Water and Water Quality.
And yes, the United Way is blessed with her presence on the Board
of Directors for Lee, Hendry, and Glades Counties.
Ms. English, welcome to Washington, D.C., the House of Rep-
resentatives, and to the Small Business Committee. Thank you for
joining us, and I’m looking forward to today’s conversation.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
And I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Velázquez, to in-
troduce her witness for today’s hearing.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our final witness today is Mr. Rick Baumann, a business leader,
veteran, and environmental advocate from Murrells Inlet, South
Carolina.
He was born in New York City in 1948 and went on to enlist in
the military in 1966. During his military service he studied at
American University. After his honorable discharge in 1969, he
founded the business he continues to run today, Murrells Inlet Sea-
food.
In 2012, he founded a non-profit, Trees For Tomorrow. In 2019,
he became a Riley Fellow at Furman University.
Throughout his career he has been a tireless advocate for wild-
life, the environment, and clean water.
Thank you for being here, and you are welcome.
I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ranking Member Velázquez.
And I want to say today we appreciate all of you being here
today, as I said earlier.
Before recognizing the witnesses, I would like to remind them
that their oral testimony is restricted to five minutes in length. If
you see the light in front of you turn red in front of you, it means
your five minutes has concluded, and you should wrap it up as
quickly as possible.
I now recognize Mr. Murphy for his 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENTS OF FRANK MURPHY, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVI-
RONMENTAL ISSUES COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF HOME BUILDERS; KATHERINE ENGLISH, ON BE-
HALF OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; AND
RICK BAUMANN. FOUNDER, MURRELLS INLET SEAFOOD,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SOUTH CAROLINA SMALL BUSINESS
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
STATEMENT OF FRANK MURPHY
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the kind introduc-
tion, sir.
Chairman Williams, Ranking Member Velázquez, and Members
of the Committee, on behalf of more than 140,000 Members of the
National Association of Home Builders, I appreciate the oppor-
tunity to testify today on the 2023 WOTUS rule’s impacts on small
businesses.
My name is Frank Murphy, and I am the Chief Operating Officer
at Wynne/Jackson, a small business in Dallas, Texas, with eight
employees. I have been employed in the real estate industry for
6
nearly 40 years and am currently honored to serve as the NAHB’s
Chairman of its Environmental Issues Committee.
As to the new WOTUS Rule, it is difficult to overstate the im-
pacts of regulations on small businesses and our ability to provide
affordable housing. An NAHB study found that governmental regu-
lations already account for up to 25 percent of the price of a new
single family home and over 40 percent of multi-family develop-
ment. So for every $1,000 of increase in a medium-priced home, it
will price out over of 117,000 households from being able to afford
such home.
EPA has indicated that the new 2023 rule will not have a signifi-
cant economic impact on small entities. In contrast, the Small
Business Administration determined just the exact opposite, ac-
knowledging that the rule would have significant direct impacts on
a substantial number of small entities.
As an example of this, the 2023 rule inappropriately expands fed-
eral authority by relying on undefined regulatory terms and con-
cepts, such as relatively permanent, material influence and its reli-
ance on a more stringent definition and nexus test to assert federal
control over otherwise isolated features.
This rule increases federal control in wetlands permitting re-
quirements over private property and, thus, increases delays to
small businesses awaiting jurisdictional determinations.
Ironically, the agencies rushed to finalize this rule before the
U.S. Supreme Court issues its Sackett v. EPA, which focuses on
the legality of the significant nexus test.
As to issues with the new rule itself, I have three main concerns.
First, the rule’s heavy reliance on the usage of the significant
nexus test will cause delays to small businesses awaiting jurisdic-
tional determinations. NAHB Members already report waiting for
a year or more for the Corps to to complete such determinations
today.
Further, under the significant nexus test, the rule authorizes the
agencies to base determinations of WOTUS on my property by con-
sidering isolated wetlands and tributaries outside the boundaries of
my land. Such an approach is just not feasible in practice because
I can normally not obtain legal access to the adjoining properties
in order to conduct such studies and determinations. I can’t do it.
I cannot afford the cost nor the time to hire third-party consult-
ants to analyze these waters similarly situated in the region to de-
termine if my property collectively has an impact on the Waters of
the U.S. as navigable waters out here.
Overall, as a result of the complexity and delays inherent in the
significant nexus test, many small businesses will simply give up.
Instead, they will opt for preliminary jurisdiction or determination,
which allows the agencies to assume a feature is WOTUS. This
would then allow a property owner to advance directly to the per-
mitting stages.
The usual result of this is that more land will then be classified
as WOTUS and reduce the amount of developable land associated
therewith.
Second, the rule includes many undefined concepts and lacks
clear guidance. Instead, small businesses and their consultants
must interpret conflicts within the final rule’s preamble, regulatory
7
text, and scientific technical documents. Such an approach by the
agencies ensures confusion and uncertainty for small businesses
seeking to comply with the law.
Third, the agencies have cast doubt by stating that determina-
tions issued under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule are no
longer valued. As a result, land owners are forced to start over if
they want a valid determination. These determinations are sup-
posed to be valid for five years.
Further, with the final rule’s preamble, the agencies state that
even when prior determination found that no permit was required,
land owners could now risk violations of the law if they move
ahead with a project without obtaining a new determination. This
is a clear example of moving the goalposts on small businesses.
In closing, I want to thank the Members of the T and I Com-
mittee for reporting out the CRA to rescind the Biden WOTUS rule
last week. I look forward to a swift passage on the House floor.
Until the CRA is passed or enacted, I encourage Congress to di-
rect the agencies to delay this rule until the Supreme Court decides
Sackett. NAHB believes there should be no WOTUS before
SCOTUS.
Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and Committee
Members, to testify before you, and I look forward to your ques-
tions.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
And now I recognize Ms. English for her 5-minute opening re-
marks.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE ENGLISH
Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Williams and Ranking Member Velázquez, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Katherine English, and I am a farmer, rancher,
small business owner, and environmental lawyer from Fort Myers,
Florida. It is an honor today for me to represent the American
Farm Bureau Federation, and I speak on behalf of the thousands
of hardworking farmers and ranchers who produce the food, fiber,
and renewable fuel that our nation and the world depend upon.
Farmers and ranchers’ livelihoods depend on healthy soil and
clean water. We support the Clean Water Act and its goals. What
we cannot support is a Waters of the United States rule that is so
ambiguous, it creates unmanageable risk and confusion for farm-
ers, farmers who struggled with uncertainty for decades with near
constant rulemaking in litigation regarding WOTUS.
A workable definition of WOTUS is critically important to our
Members, and they are extremely disappointed that the Biden ad-
ministration’s new WOTUS rules fail to provide that. This new rule
greatly expands the federal government’s reach over private prop-
erty, asserting jurisdiction over ephemeral drainages, ditches,
swales, and low spots in farm fields and pastures.
The significant nexus test allows the agencies to aggregate and
regulate waters that would not otherwise be subject to permit, rely-
ing on vague language vulnerable to subjective interpretation to do
so. It is impossible with this new rule for any farmer or rancher
8
to know whether their irrigation and drainage infrastructure and
fields are jurisdictional waters requiring Clean Water Act permits.
Considering these features as jurisdictional waters risk federal
regulation of everyday farm and ranch activities that move dirt and
apply products to the land, such as planting, cultivating, fence
building, or ditch maintenance. Doing work in or near these fea-
tures without a jurisdictional determination or a permit risks trig-
gering the Clean Water Act’s harsh civil and even harsher criminal
penalties. This is the experience that farmers will have with this
new definition of WOTUS.
Before the 2020 WOTUS rule went into effect, I worked with a
Florida farmer seeking authorization to insert earth blocks totaling
less than a half an acre of fill into existing upland cut ditches on
a farm that had been in operation for decades. The ditch blocks
were needed to hydrate an existing wetland mitigation area.
The farmer waited for more than a year for a nationwide permit
only to be told an archeological study of the farm was needed to
comply with the federal historical preservation requirements for
the permit, even though the property had an archeological study
that had previously been completed, reviewed, and accepted by the
State’s historical preservation agency.
The Army Corps of Engineers’ archeologist decided the existing
study was insufficient and wanted a new study that would cost
tens of thousands of dollars and months of delays to resolve his
concerns. Shortly thereafter, the 2020 rule went into effect, and the
Corps’ staff determined that the project no longer required a permit
since the proposed work affected only upland cut ditches upstream
of the project’s State permanent outfall structure.
Also frustrating to our Members is the agency’s claim that the
costs associated with this rule are de minimis. The only way this
conclusion is possible is to ignore all the costs that farmers incur
to comply with the rule. The agencies ignore the cost of the team
of experts required to successfully navigate the permitting process,
biologists, hydrogeologists, attorneys, and engineers.
The agencies also ignore the cost of mitigating impacts and the
lost opportunity cost caused by years of delay. These permits are
beyond the means of many farmers who already operate on thin
margins and discourage the kinds of agricultural innovation we
need to remain competitive and sustainable.
A key factor in the WOTUS debate centers around the Supreme
Court’s consideration of the highly consequential Sackett v. EPA
case. This case should provide clarity regarding the appropriate
scope of a WOTUS definition. By finalizing this rule before the Su-
preme Court issues its decision, the agencies reinforce the percep-
tion that they want this rule in place before the court clarifies the
significant nexus test.
Farmers and ranchers are extremely frustrated that our concerns
were ignored in the final rule, as were our efforts at participation
in the process. This new rule creates confusion, more legal and fi-
nancial risk, discouraging the entrepreneurial spirit that small
family farms and ranchers rely on to survive.
This rule may well result in irreparable harm to our rural com-
munities who rely on these small businesses who are being dis-
proportionately burdened by this overreaching rule.
9
Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective on this
important issue, and I look forward to taking your questions.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ms. English.
And next I want to recognize Mr. Baumann for his 5-minute
opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF RICK BAUMANN
Mr. BAUMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I push my button, I just want to compliment the previous
speakers, and I respect their views very much, and I understand
them.
Here is my statement: Good afternoon, Chairman Williams, Ms.
Velázquez, and distinguished Committee Members.
I am Rick Baumann from the fishing village of Murrells Inlet in
the seafood capital of South Carolina.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.
I would like to begin with a very short dedication to the testi-
mony I am about to give to my late friend and mentor Dr. Ian W.
Marceau, Ph.D.
Ian was from Australia, but he spent many years of his life in
the United States, both in Washington and as an advisor to the
Governor of New York before he retired to South Carolina.
In his lifetime, Mr. Marceau did a lot of great work, both for the
environment and agriculture. He had a Ph.D. on either side there.
All over the world he worked, but his proudest days were spent
here in D.C. helping to write and negotiate the Clean Water Act
into law to fulfill President Nixon’s vision of clean air and water
for all Americans.
During our many days spent together enjoying the outdoors, Ian
and I talked a lot about clean water. He tempered his pride about
the Clean Water Act while lamenting the fact that so much more
had been learned since the Act was written that desperately need-
ed to be addressed.
So many new chemicals of convenience had come into existence:
Pesticides and fertilizers and so many others, and we were just be-
ginning to understand their negative impacts on land, water, wild-
life, and human beings. We were starting to learn the profound im-
pacts of non-point source pollution, how toxic man-made com-
pounds and chemicals spread on the land were ending up in the
wetlands, streams, and rivers, and how they were being found in
our drinking water.
In 2004, when I was appointed to my county’s Stormwater Advi-
sory Committee, I was fortunate to have two geniuses advising me
at every meeting, Dr. Marceau and Dr. Kraner, Ph.D., formerly of
Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island. And together,
using only the facts, we were easily able to make a very strong case
that our fast-developing area was threatening our small business
economy by failing to address non-point source pollution and its ef-
fects on that economy, which so specifically require clean water to
survive and thrive.
As those meetings progressed, we received a great deal of
pushback from the exact name special interest and industries that
we’ve heard from today. I have often seen this scenario play out in
many areas of the country.
10
When I was young, I worked on a Black Angus farm in Upstate
New York, and I have been a waterfowl hunting guide in many
areas of the country, in the agricultural Eastern Shore of Maryland
to the Rice Belt in Texas and everywhere in between. I am keenly
aware of the challenges facing today’s farmers. They are immense.
And I am a Member of the South Carolina Farm Bureau.
Like farmers, I am in the business of feeding people, too. Since
1967, I have fed many millions of folks with their seafood dinners,
but I am not just speaking for the seafood industry. I am speaking
for all the small businesses, which exist in the vicinity of water-
sheds all across America.
When we think of a recreational and commercial fishery, we need
to realize that there is a very large group of small businesses which
are intertwined with that fishery. We have ice companies, boat me-
chanics, dry docks, and marinas. Plus, there are assorted rental
businesses. We have boat companies, fiberglass works, tour guides,
bait shops, bait catchers, rig and tackle shops, crabbers, oystermen,
clammers, wholesale seafood processors, charter fishing guides,
commercial fishermen, retail stores like mine.
In the secondary market are the restaurants that purvey local
seafood and all of their employees, right down to the dishwashers.
Then you have the gift shops, cafes, breakfast houses, the Airbnb’s,
rental cottages and condos, convenience stores and more.
Also, in the secondary market requiring clean water are the
campers, hunters, birders, and recreational anglers who are part of
the $887 billion outdoor recreation economy. On and on I could go
with examples.
I can assure you folks, without a doubt, that anywhere in our
great country where there is navigable water, there is another
plethora of small businesses which relies on clean water for their
businesses to thrive. I can also assure you that wherever there is
navigable water, there are wetlands, sometimes isolated. There are
ditches, creeks, and ephemeral streams that flow into those navi-
gable waters at various times, if not perpetually.
The credible science speaks much louder than the fallacious
disinformation. These waters absolutely need CWA protection if we
are to ensure President Nixon’s vision of clean water, land, and air
for all Americans.
Thank you so much for your kind attention.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Well, I want to thank all of you. You all
hit your number right on, all three of you. You don’t see that too
often. Thank you.
We will now move to the Member questions and the 5-minute
rule.
And I now recognize myself for five minutes.
As a business owner of over 50 years, I know what happens
when uncertainty is added to a business, and I still own my busi-
nesses. Some of you might not know this, but I operate a small calf/
cow operation in Texas, Angus. And I remember when this rule ini-
tially came out under the Obama administration, people in the in-
dustry were asking me if a ditch on their property would now be
subject to EPA and regulations.
So Ms. English, you have been in the business for long enough
to know the legal battles with the different iterations of this rule.
11
So my question is: Can you describe how this new WOTUS rule
adds more uncertainty, and could it be even worse than the Obama
era rule?
Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I think I can
help with that.
The biggest problem that we have with this rule is its uncer-
tainty. The Obama rule was clear about what it covered, which was
essentially everything even though that is not what was con-
templated under the Clean Water Act. Specifically, 101(b) of the
Clean Water Act talks about the fact that this is an exercise in co-
operative federalism where some waters are protected by the fed-
eral government for those that are important to them, and the oth-
ers can be regulated by the States.
This rule is simply unknowable. Unless you have hired a lawyer,
a biologist, an engineer, and, in some instances, a geologist, you
have no idea of knowing what your jurisdiction is, and you won’t
know then until you actually file an authorized jurisdictional deter-
mination with the Army Corps of Engineers.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you for that.
Last week we held a hearing with small business owners from
a wide variety of industries, from different corners of the country,
and every one of our witnesses discussed how inflation is affecting
their operations. Something that I am very concerned about is how
this rule could add fuel to the fire and make inflation even worse
for all Americans.
Many business owners have no choice but to pass the high cost
of compliance with new rules like WOTUS on to their consumers,
but in many cases you can’t do that.
So Mr. Murphy, in your testimony, you discussed how this new
rule could force you to hire more environmental compliance officers,
and it could lead to permitting delays for projects. So the question
would be: Can you discuss your business’ ability to absorb these
costs and some of the changes that you are considering making in
order to comply with the confusing new EPA guidelines?
Mr. MURPHY. That is a very detailed question. So I am going
to try to keep it very simple in deference to time, Mr. Chairman.
Yes. First off, it will have significant impact because we have to
go through the additional determinations on already existing juris-
dictional JDs to have them redone and validated. We presently
have projects that are in the development pipeline that have exist-
ing JDs. We have to stop the process now, as we are going through
the engineering, construction, and permitting process, while we re-
determine under the new WOTUS rules whether those projects are
subject to WOTUS or not. We don’t know.
Now, consultants may not know it either, based upon some of the
criteria set forth. So what do we do? We stop; we pause; we recon-
sider, which has the impact of delaying projects.
We are already facing inflationary issues, as you have already
addressed here, which leads to compounding of affordability, hous-
ing shortages, and so forth.
So by delaying this while we reconsider the impacts associated,
and we receive new JDs, we are going to shut projects down, and
that will lead directly to increased housing costs, increased lack of
affordability, and shortages of homes and lots.
12
Chairman WILLIAMS. And jobs, too.
Mr. MURPHY. And jobs, too, sir, yes. Good point.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
There are always laws in the books that are supposed to protect
small businesses from some of the worst regulations coming out of
Washington. Unfortunately, it appears many of these required
checks against regulatory overreach are not being taken seriously
by the agencies, and I am proud to say this Committee sent out 25
letters seeking more information on how they are complying with
the laws in the books. We want to know how they are helping us.
Now, Ms. English, I want to ask you about any suggestions you
might have to force these agencies that we are talking about to se-
riously consider small business interests as they make these large
rules.
Ms. ENGLISH. The Small Business Administration has already
sent a scathing letter exercising its concern with EPA about their
failure to comply with your rules. I would suggest to you that, per-
haps, at this point, the most effective tool is the pocketbook. I
would consider removing authorization for expending funds for en-
forcement of this rule or, in the alternative, remove appropriations
that were intended for the enforcement of this rule.
I am not sure that anything else would help.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
With that, I yield my time back.
And I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Velázquez, for 5
minutes of questions.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you.
This question I will ask each Member of the panel to please an-
swer yes or no.
Tomorrow the House is scheduled to vote on a CRA resolution to
block implementation of the 2023 revised WOTUS rule. Do you be-
lieve that enactment of this CRA will reinstate the Trump adminis-
tration’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule that was vacated by a
federal district court in 2021?
Mr. MURPHY. I assume you want me to answer first.
I hate to say yes but good chance, yes.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Ms. English?
Ms. ENGLISH. The House resolution will not re-implement the
notice of the Trump era rule.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Baumann?
Mr. BAUMANN. As I understand it, the new rule, the Biden rule
will pretty much mirror what was on the books prior to 2015. What
I would like to point out is that from 1986 until 2015, there were
no lawsuits. There was no arguing. There was no hearing. Every-
body got along. I don’t understand what the big deal is, but I am
being enlightened somewhat.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. When the court vacated the Trump rule in
2021, the federal agencies reverted back to using the pre-2015 rule
approved by former President Reagan and later defined by Presi-
dent Bush.
If this resolution is enacted it will not only do away with the
Biden rule, it will also prevent agencies from interpreting any new
rule that is substantially the same meaning that this will likely tie
13
the hands of the Corps and EPA from further clarifying the scope
of WOTUS unless Congress enacts some additional law.
Do you believe that indefinitely tying the hands of the agencies
to further clarify the WOTUS issue is good for small businesses’
clarity and certainty?
Mr. Murphy?
Mr. MURPHY. We need clarity at the end of the day. The new
Biden rule basically expands the definition of significant nexus
test, which is much more cumbersome than the pre-2015 rule.
Do I believe it should bind the hands of the Corps ultimately?
No. But we need some guidance by which to establish the certainty
of the rule and not be subject to continual changes every time a
new administration comes in and takes issues with the existing
rule.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Ms. English, do you believe that indefinitely
tying the hands of the agencies to further clarify the WOTUS issue
is good for small businesses’ clarity and certainty?
Ms. ENGLISH. I don’t believe that the resolution will tie the
hands of the Corps and EPA.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Okay.
Ms. ENGLISH. Frequently, in dealing with the Corps staff now,
I am struggling with being back in the 1980s.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you.
And Mr. Baumann?
Mr. BAUMANN. You know, lawyerese is not my forte, but I am
concerned about the drinking water and the fishing water and so
forth for my grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Baumann.
I would like to ask another follow-up question. Under the Trump
WOTUS rule, EPA estimated 50 percent of wetlands and up to 70
percent of rivers, lakes, and streams lost protection under the
Clean Water Act. How did this impact your business?
Mr. BAUMANN. Honestly, until it was struck down, it didn’t
have a profound impact, but it had a lot of impact from Mr. Mur-
phy’s business in my area because so much land that was under
water, so much land that was swampland was filled and built with
very small lots and houses close together, taking natural ground
that absorbs the water and looks after our drinking water and ab-
sorbs rainwater, trees, and so forth that sequester rainwater and
pollutants. Okay?
These were—clearcut houses were built, and, you know, the
swamps were filled. And when it rained, when we had a tropical
storm or a hurricane or even just a hard summer thunderstorm, we
had profound runoff and flooding.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ms. Velázquez.
I now recognize Mr. Luetkemeyer.
Before I do that, reminding myself and all of you, make sure
your button is on when you speak. Okay?
Mr. Luetkemeyer from Missouri.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, yes, I have heard from a lot of my constituents from Mis-
souri with regards to the Navigable Waters Protection Rule of the
14
Trump administration, and they believed that it gave certainty and
predictable, at least more than what we have now.
Ms. English, could you compare that rule with what is being pro-
posed today? Just give me three or four differences that you can
point to that are problematic.
Ms. ENGLISH. Certainly.
Under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, it was clear that
upland cut ditches were not included in the rule in places where
a permanent outfall structure and a surface water management
system was authorized behind that structure. It was clear that
there was no intention for the Clean Water Act to apply to that;
that that was an area that had already been permitted and mainte-
nance in that area, and that is the example that I gave you specifi-
cally.
Under the present rule, the proposed rule, all of that would be
jurisdictional, and I would be going through the entire process.
What I think is important to remember is the uncertainty of this
rule drives the fact that I can’t ever look at something with cer-
tainty and tell my family or tell a client or tell a friend that I know
for certain they are not dealing with Waters of the United States.
The benefit of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule was I could
answer that question straight.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. One of the things that is concerning to me
is I come from Missouri, and the Farm Bureau there in Missouri
says that this rule would affect 99.9 percent of the land in our
State. That means the federal government has control over what-
ever you want to do on 99.9 percent of the land in my State. That
is unconscionable. That can’t happen.
You know, I understand. I am not against clean water. I am not
against clear air, but there is a limit to the Government’s over-
reach and authority to be able to come out and control what goes
on.
You know, Mr. Murphy, you talked about the cost. Have you
looked at this rule itself and what the average cost per home that
you would build would be incurred by you as a builder or the per-
son who purchased the home from you? What percentage of the
cost would increase as a result of that?
Mr. MURPHY. I can’t give you the percentage or the cost per in-
dividual home because it varies based upon the individual projects,
but I can tell you what we looked at, potential price impact or cost
impact in total.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay.
Mr. MURPHY. So for existing jurisdictions that we have, we
have to go redo those, and the cost of a new jurisdictional study
itself is usually $10 to $20,000 just for the study. Then if we have
to go through the individual permitting process, not even talking
about time delays but the individual permitting process is usually
50 to 75,000.
Then if we wish to proceed with development impacting the
Waters of the U.S. with the mitigation, mitigation costs on two
projects we studied recently of our own could be upwards of $600
to $1.5 million per project.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. That is per home?
Mr. MURPHY. Per project.
15
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Per project.
Mr. MURPHY. One of these is a 500-acre project, and the other
one is about a 300-acre project. So a significant cost.
So we then have to take that cost, mark it up by interest and
debt, carry cost, and associated delay factors, and then pass it
through. Ultimately, what we are limited to passing through cost-
wise is what the market will accept.
We can’t just unilaterally increase the price of the lot, increase
the price of the home $10,000, because it may not be marketable.
If that is the case, we have to simply shut down and stop develop-
ment on that project.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Wow! That is mind-blowing.
Ms. English, you talked a little bit about the cost to farmers to
be able to comply. You know, Mr. Murphy just blew a hole in all
of the trying to build new homes here and develop a whole new
subdivision.
If a farmer is wanting to do something on his ground or they
come out and say that there is some navigable waters on his prop-
erty and he has to comply, it would seem to me that it would hurt
the value of his property, hurt his ability to market and sell that
property. Is that a fair assessment?
Ms. ENGLISH. That is absolutely the case. I’m sorry. That is ab-
solutely the case. If you fail to resolve that issue, it will affect the
value of your property.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. So what we are looking at here is devalu-
ing farmers’ property, raising the cost to individuals who want to
purchase a home or rent an apartment from a multi-family unit de-
velopment perhaps out of their price range.
Right now we already have a problem with affordability. I mean,
I sat on another committee and that is all we talk about all the
time is the unaffordability of housing today. And now we are going
to add this as one more cost to drive people away from being able
to buy their dream home.
Thank you so much for your testimony today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
And next I would like to recognize Congressman Thanedar of
Michigan for five minutes.
Mr. THANEDAR. Chairman Williams and Ranking Member
Velázquez, thank you for convening this hearing on the Waters of
the United States.
I want to thank everyone who came to testify before our Com-
mittee. Your firsthand knowledge of our country’s environment en-
ables our body to contribute more to the work we do in Congress.
There is no doubt of the importance of Clean Water Act. In
Michigan, our citizens rely on clean water to protect public health.
It has been critical to the significant progress we have made as a
State in improving the quality and health of our rivers, streams,
lakes, wetlands, and watersheds.
Furthermore, clean water is a basic need for families and busi-
nesses across the United States, particularly in Michigan. The
Great Lakes support over 1.3 million jobs generating 82 billion in
wages annually. It is critical to discuss the importance of Great
16
Lakes as a water source and the worlds most extensive fresh water
system, which extends to the Detroit River.
As a result, it is vital to ensure the safety and quality of waters
that are the lifeblood of our district. Any repeal of the Clean Water
Act would represent a step back in protecting our water resources.
Wetlands and other critical habitats could be destroyed, affecting
human health and the environment. This is a disaster for small
businesses, as 80 percent of owners support federal regulations to
protect upstream headwaters and wetlands. Our companies rely on
the Clean Water Act.
Now, I do appreciate your viewpoints, every one of you. I am a
former small business owner, and we have small businesses on
both sides of this debate. Quite frankly, I am sympathetic to poten-
tial regulatory burden, but I am also struggling to see how we can
protect our clean waters while also being mindful of additional cost.
Does anyone on the panel have any proposals on how to help
fishermen and oyster farmers like Mr. Baumann and farmers and
builders like Mr. Murphy and Ms. English? I’m willing to listen,
and I am interested in finding some sort of middle ground and
hope today we can help lead to that.
A specific question, Mr. Baumann, to you is: How is this reduced
regulation affecting our tourism, say, for example, or recreation?
Mr. BAUMANN. It can be profound at times.
But I would like to, if you don’t mind, address the general state-
ment you made and some of the remarks that were recently made
about cost to farms and to developers.
The EPI was promulgated a few years ago when our illustrious
President appointed a coal lobbyist to head the EPA, a coal lob-
byist, and they started the environmental integrity think tank and
watchdog. And the EPI has tested 700,000 miles of river in
realtime. The EPA, on the other hand, hasn’t—and they are re-
quired to by the Clean Water Act, has not upgraded their evalua-
tion of our waters in over 30 years.
Can you imagine how much has changed in that much time?
And it is important to know that the Mississippi River alone car-
ries an estimated 1.5 metric tons of nitrogen pollution from agri-
culture into the Gulf, nearly creating a dead zone each summer the
size of New Jersey.
Now, you want to talk about cost? Gulf shrimp? Oysters? Let’s
think also parallel to that. The BP oil spill and the dreaded Corps
exit that they used before they tested. That is what a lot of our
problem is. We get out ahead of the science with some human ac-
tivity. We get out ahead of the science. They used the Corps exit
before they found out there was 30 carcinogens in it. All right?
And the agricultural—I mean, the farmers don’t mean to do this,
but it is a consequence of feeding America. But they are not as
careful as they claim to be. It is just that simple. And they are
quick to portray a pastoral image of the family farmer. And God
bless the family farmer. I have worked for them.
But our problem in our area that is affecting the waters that flow
through our State and the conditions of those waters and the cost
of cleaning up such things is the fact that we have these big mega
farms.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Mr. Baumann, your time has expired.
17
Mr. BAUMANN. Excuse me.
Mr. THANEDAR. Thank you, Mr. Baumann.
I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Next I would like to recognize Mr.
Meuser from Pennsylvania for five minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all of our witnesses. Mr. Murphy, Ms. English, and
Mr. Baumann, we appreciate your passion on this issue very, very
much, actually.
In eastern Central Pennsylvania, we have thousands of family
farms. Every one of them that I speak to, and I speak to a lot of
them, is very, very concerned about this new Biden WOTUS regu-
lation going back to what existed before. They were generally
pleased with the Clean Water Act prior because there was a certain
level of certainty.
But when you start talking about this WOTUS, where there are
no nexus limits set, no distance limits set, what is considered navi-
gable, what isn’t, removing the word navigable. So does that mean
heavy rains create new requirements? And then when the rains
aren’t there, it doesn’t so much?
You know, most family farms have their creeks and streams lead
into other family farms, particularly up in my neck of the woods.
So there are great conservationists.
Now, being a great conservationist and being an environ-
mentalist, as I certainly classify myself, doesn’t necessarily mean
you are going to always follow the most—the rules established, but
when you have a family farm for 100 years, it tends to do that.
So, you know, when you are dealing with a WOTUS rule like
that, as Vice Chair Luetkemeyer brought up, where 99.8 percent of
the private property is going to come under federal jurisdiction, I
agree with my colleague who was just speaking that, boy, there
needs to be a middle ground here.
And just the fact that this is going to be overturned by SCOTUS,
because it can’t possibly. I mean, I have more notes here of what
I can talk about on all the legal problems that exist with Attorney
English. I am sure you could go on, and I would yield to you, and
we would hear a lot of that.
So it is going to be overturned and for a good reason, that it is
a profound overreach. I mean, I have more quotes from farmers. I
couldn’t get them off the phone when I asked them to comment on
this hearing, as well as all these other quotes from people from
Zippy Duvall, to the NFIB, to the president of the Pennsylvania
Farm Bureau, home builders. I mean, it just goes on that it is way
too nebulous and troubling and potential high levels of costs and
unnecessary regulations.
So we need to come up with a fix, and we are the body. You
know, the Small Business Committee is the only Committee in the
old Congress that is here advocating for small business. So that is
what we have to do.
So I will just ask a question. I will go to Ms. English first. Where
do you see—we just go back to what we currently have. What do
you see as a solution that we should try to focus on?
Ms. ENGLISH. I would encourage Congress to look to the con-
gressional intent that is already expressed in the Clean Water Act.
18
The fact that this was intended to be an exercise of federalism,
that there is responsibility, and there are spaces that require the
attention and focus and the power of the federal government to
protect. But that is not all the waters in the United States. It was
not intended to be all of the water bodies that existed in the United
States.
The States, many States have vigorous regulatory programs to
protect what they see as State waters that encompass everything
from the interior to the isolated to the coastal.
The EPA has been very successful in using the Clean Water Act
to encourage States to adopt reasonable water quality standards to
protect the water uses in that State. I would suggest gently that
Congress has told EPA how to do this and that, perhaps, EPA
needs to re-focus on the language in the statute that Congress has
given it.
Mr. MEUSER. Excellent.
Mr. Murphy, and then if I have time, I will go to Mr. Baumann.
Mr. MURPHY. Same question, sir?
Mr. MEUSER. Same question.
Mr. MURPHY. I am not an expert in legal affairs, especially re-
garding Congress.
Mr. MEUSER. You are on the ground field for it.
Mr. MURPHY. We need certainty. Interact directly with the
Corps, EPA, to establish a level of certainty that is not going to be
subject to change upon each administration’s change. We can’t af-
ford to change every four years or some other time because that
forces us to go back to the JD process and start over.
Mr. MEUSER. I appreciate that.
I am going to have to yield back. But thank you.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. [Presiding.] The gentlemen yields back.
I am glad you are trying to minimize your concern there.
With that, we go to—I now recognize the gentleman from Ken-
tucky, Mr. McGarvey, for five minutes.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
I appreciate the panel for being here and telling us about your
experiences.
And the Chairman mentioned, I am from Kentucky. You all
might not know too much about our State but might have heard
a little bit about one of our products that we make there, and I can
tell you that the four sort of core ingredients of bourbon are corn,
yeast. You have to have a new charred white oak barrel and, of
course, water.
So bourbon. I won’t go into a dissertation on bourbon today for
the small business community. It gets its flavor from a lot of
things, including the barrel, including the corn, including the prod-
ucts that go into it. But a lot of it does come from the water and
from Kentucky’s limestone water and from a lot of the properties
we possess in our clean water.
We have heard today a lot about the negative impacts that these
regulations can have on farmers, on developers, on communities.
And I agree. We deserve a clear and straightforward framework.
But I think it is also important to acknowledge the negative im-
pacts that weak water standards have and how they would dev-
astate some industries. Whether it is breweries, whether it is fish-
19
ing, whether it is my State’s home industry of bourbon, these are
entries that rely on clean water.
And so, Mr. Baumann, I just wanted to hear from you a little bit
about those kinds of benefits that those businesses that benefit
from the regulations that we have ensure clean, safe water, and
what kinds of small businesses are harmed when these water
standards are relaxed.
Mr. BAUMANN. There is so much I can answer that with. I will
begin by telling you that we have a lot of beautiful rivers in South
Carolina. We have a multi-billion dollar tourist industry. We have
billions of dollars in the fisheries and in the outdoor recreation, and
all that gets hurt.
I will give you an example. We have polluters. We have coal fired
power plants. We have agriculture. We have the aforementioned
situations with the fill and build, fill in the wetlands and building
on it and causing runoff and flooding and non-point source solution
to our estuaries, which are the nursery grounds for everything we
catch, you know. So it is really profound.
And in South Carolina, to give you an idea about our recreational
fishing and our ocean fishing and commercial fishing, there are
health advisories now and have been for years during the EPA and
the clean water rule in my view that is just not being addressed
properly because we have health advisories telling us that we can’t
eat the fish we catch.
I mean, that has got to—people go fishing to filet the fish and
fry it for dinner. And when you can’t eat the fish you catch because
of mercury poisoning or some other heavy metal or whatever, it has
to have profound impact on how many people go fishing, the money
they spend in the community, in restaurants and hotels and every-
thing else like that. It is an economic wheel that is being disrupted
by a lack of good water quality.
Our estuary now is an impaired estuary according to the EPA.
The reason is non-point source pollution. It is just a small inlet.
There is no major fresh water creeks going into it. It is from rain
runoff, all of it.
Mr. MCGARVEY. And you bring up something I think is worth
noting in this hearing. I think this is something we all inherently
know, but I think it is worth pointing out, our waters are con-
nected.
Mr. BAUMANN. All water is connected.
Mr. MCGARVEY. You can’t pollute water in one place and not
feel the effects somewhere else. We are low on time, Mr. Baumann.
I appreciate your testimony.
But, Ms. English and Mr. Murphy, I would like to give you a
chance to chime in. I am sympathetic, again, to needing a clear,
straightforward framework and the real-life impacts of regulations.
What kind of middle ground do you think we can pursue that
would address your concerns and those of Mr. Baumann about the
need for clean water?
Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you.
Again, I think the idea that the only solution here is at a federal
level is very concerning to me. I think a bright line test for where
the federal interest stops and where the State responsibility begins
would be an important step, because it would then allow the dis-
20
cussion to take place about the kinds of protections that need to
take place locally. It is with that local knowledge I think the mid-
dle ground can be found.
Mr. MCGARVEY. And unfortunately, we are out of time, so I am
going to yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Alford from Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this important hearing about how the Biden administration’s
WOTUS rule really impacts small businesses. That is why we are
here today.
Uncertainty is not a part of the equation for success for small
businesses. That is exactly what this WOTUS rule has created for
small business. This backwards rule would force family farmers to
jump through hoops and likely retain legal counsel before devel-
oping or farming their land. I guess, the Biden administration for-
got that most small business owners—most farmers are small busi-
ness owners.
What also concerns me about this haphazard policy is that the
EPA and Army Corps have said that the WOTUS rule would not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,
despite the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy
sending a letter to the EPA and Army Corps last February stating
the exact opposite.
The decision was a calculated attempt by these groups to cir-
cumvent their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act so
that they did not have to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis, which would prove just how dangerous this policy is for
small businesses across the country.
The Biden administration’s failure to look at this rule and how
it affects small businesses is just another shameful example that
this administration will push its agenda at all costs, including at
the cost of our small businesses and hardworking Americans.
I want to begin my questions with you, Ms. English, because we
have 95,000 farms in the State of Missouri. I, too, like our Vice
Chairman, am from Missouri, and I am honored to represent those,
not just here but on the Ag Committee as well.
This has been a large focus that I have heard from farmers for
the last 2 years in the 24 counties that I represent. One farmer in
Cass County told me this incredulous story, but it is true, that he
had to shut down part of his farm because they found the water
standing in his cornfield. And until he could prove that it was not
a navigable waterway, it turned out to be ruts from his combine
and farming equipment that had filled in with water. Where is the
commonsense in this ruling?
I want to know from your standpoint, do you have any stories
like that that you could share with us of the lack of commonsense
of this, and what economic impact has it had on your family farm
so far?
Ms. ENGLISH. In regard to a story that is very similar to this,
I practice a great deal with the Army Corps of Engineers, and I
know the reviewers there. There is one who lives in a home that
is not far from our family farm, and he called me to tell me that
21
I needed to make sure that I filled in a bull hole. For those of you
who don’t know, bulls like to roll in dirt and get dirty.
And we had a bull hole in front of a gate that was near the road,
and he noticed that it was puddling during our rainy season in
Florida, which is between May and September-October. And he
warned me that I needed to backfill my bull hole before it became
a jurisdictional wetland, and that if anything came up that that
would be a concern. When an agency staff person uses my personal
cell phone and does not send an email to tell me I need to backfill
a bull hole, that should tell you that there is a concern in this
space.
The only reason I went to law school was having worked for a
citrus growers co-op for 5 years—4 years, and watching what had
happened with the regulatory creep in that timeframe. I became
convinced that the only way my family could continue to farm, to
continue to be the good stewards of the land and have the legacy
of handing this property down to my children and grandchildren
was for us to have a lawyer who understood it. It defined my entire
professional life.
Mr. ALFORD. I would submit to you that we don’t need to be
backfilling bull holes. We need to backfill the BS in WOTUS. And
we need to come to the aid of farmers who are conservationists,
who are doing everything they can to protect their farms.
And, Mr. Baumann, I agree, you know, I try to listen to people
I agree with. I really try to hear people I disagree with. I hear you,
brother. I understand, we want clean water. I used to be an envi-
ronmental reporter in south Florida. I know that pollution does
cause bad effects on our seafood and our fishing industries, but we
have got to find a way to work together in America that we can
have great fisheries, great farms, and be a productive society that
has commonsense.
And with that, I yield.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
Next, we recognize Mr. Ellzey from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. ELLZEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks, everybody, for coming in today.
One of the benefits of being very junior is to get to hear some
of the arguments before you get to ask a question, and this is really
a fascinating discussion. And as it comes down to it, as I see in my
three witnesses here, not a single one of them wants dirty water.
We all want clean water. We all depend on clean water. We all de-
pend on it for our food.
Mr. Baumann, I look forward to eating at your place sometime
and sampling some of that fine seafood.
And, Mr. Murphy, you build homes in my area.
So I think what it comes down to at the end of the day, the re-
ality is this is about power from agencies that don’t answer to any-
body else and the agenda of individual administrations. I didn’t say
what party they were from. Everybody has got their own agenda.
Mr. Baumann, I do have a—this isn’t a ‘‘stump the chump,’’ and
I don’t mean it as such. Can you define for me—since we have got
some land folks here and then a water guy, can you define for me,
in your opinion, what a navigable waterway is?
22
Mr. BAUMANN. Let me answer that by something that has been
left out by everybody who has brought up navigable water, and the
phrasing is something to the effect of ‘‘or substantially affects navi-
gable waters.’’ Water moves. It don’t stay where it is at. It is either
going to go down into the aquifer, or it is going to, you know, move
with environmental conditions or with weather and so forth like
that.
So I don’t have the exact definition of navigable water. I have
read a few—like you say, it has changed over the years, and I do
think it needs to be adopted at a certain level where everybody can
count on it, you know. Mr. Murphy, Ms. English, myself, we need
to know what the parameters are, but we are getting the short end
of the stick in my business, I can tell you.
And it is not just my business. I am speaking for that myriad,
that plethora of people who I spoke about that rely on the fishing
industry. Our whole town relies on the fishing industry and vir-
tually every business in it. 99.9 percent of the businesses in this
country are small businesses. And polluted water, regardless of
how it happens, it has consequences for everybody except the peo-
ple that cause the pollution. Nobody is getting accountability, you
know, especially, with all due respect, the big mega farms, you
know.
Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. Let me ask you—in my time left, let me ask
you another question. In your opinion, who should define navigable
waterway? Is it the Congress or is it the EPA and the Corps? Real
quick. Real quick.
Mr. BAUMANN. Is it one of those three, who should define?
Mr. ELLZEY. Who should, in your opinion? Real quick. 15 sec-
onds.
Mr. BAUMANN. You can’t do it by the States because the States
don’t have the money or the purview.
Mr. ELLZEY. All right.
Mr. BAUMANN. That has been proven.
Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. All right.
Mr. Murphy, every administration has done its own thing. What
would the homebuilders like to see in predictability, and who
should define navigable waterway? Who should define these rules,
Congress or an agency?
Mr. MURPHY. We need certainty. Homebuilders and developers
are adaptable, but we can’t adapt to something we don’t know. If
you provide us certainty, we will deal with it somehow, some way.
But as we go to contract to purchase land today, we cannot ascer-
tain with any level of certainty whether we have WOTUS in or not,
which forces us to either drop contracts, delay them, or incur the
additional cost I testified to earlier.
What is the solution? Give us certainty. Put it in the hands of
an independent body. The Corps and the EPA, in my position, have
more of a different take on it because they have been dealing with
this for years. Put it with Congress, is my suggestion. Put it into
an independent body, a committee of Congress, to study it and
come up with some type of rule that will provide certainty beyond
this single administration. That would be my recommendation, sir.
Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. Ms. English?
23
Ms. ENGLISH. I am always wary of a special study group. I be-
lieve that we need to honor the Constitution and the commerce
clause. I believe that we need to honor the concept that was origi-
nally written into the Clean Water Act about the separation and
the cooperative nature of our governmental associations between
the federal government and States.
I think that we need to have a bright line test. Just exactly what
Mr. Murphy said, we need certainty and clarity. But by the same
token, you are overlooking the power and responsibility of local
governments and local States to protect their citizens, and they
have the most direct knowledge.
Mr. ELLZEY. Thank you all very much for your testimony.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
And now I recognize Ms. Van Duyne from Texas for 5 minutes.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you for holding this important hearing on the persistent
threat Waters of the U.S. poses to small businesses across the na-
tion.
I have heard from many small businesses just about how start-
ing—they are just starting to now bounce back from government
and post lockdowns and closures, and now this administration is
reviving a threat of a vague and very confusing, as we have heard
today, regulation that grants the federal government broad author-
ity to regulate nearly every stream, pond, wetland.
I mean, I think, Ms. English, you said it perfectly: Anything that
comes on the land is basically—is how they are defining it. And
even worse, the agency charged with enforcing this regulation
doesn’t even understand what they are executing, which in turn
causes small businesses and farmers to be susceptible to fines and
legal action even if they unknowingly violate these regulations.
And honestly, the renewed approach to WOTUS seems designed
not to protect the environment but really only to satisfy the admin-
istration’s unending desire to regulate our job creators out of busi-
ness.
In the 117th Congress, I, along with all of my Republican Com-
mittee Members, sent a letter requesting that the Army Corps of
Engineers and the EPA look at how this role will be determined
and how it will be detrimental to small businesses. And while all
of those questions remain unanswered, I look forward to holding
the Biden administration accountable and working to ensure that
this harmful rule does not go into effect.
Mr. Murphy, you have provided some great testimony today. You
had said—when asked by the Chairman and others what impact
this is going to have, you said that basically you are going to have
to abandon some projects. You have already had to abandon some
projects. You said that as costs increase, and this does add addi-
tional cost, that the cost not only increases for the building for your
company but that is having to be passed along——
Mr. MURPHY. Right.
Ms. VAN DUYNE.—to your customers as well. Have you had to
hire any additional staff? Have you had to hire consultants to help
with this compliance?
24
Mr. MURPHY. Not yet. We have not, because this is brand new.
I was speaking to one of our consultants, a third party that we en-
gage, just the other day. And I asked him, under the new 2023
WOTUS rule, how would you interpret this, especially regarding
the significant nexus test, which now takes the combination of
chemical, physical, and biological tests, along with the culmination
of all upstream, i.e., catchment basin, similarly situated properties.
How do you calculate that? This is a gentleman who used to be in
the Corps office himself. He told me, I don’t know.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yeah, that is a problem.
Mr. MURPHY. So if our investigative experts can’t tell us, how
can we understand what to do going forward on projects? We just
basically shut projects down. We haven’t yet, because everything
we have under construction was basically permitted before. This
only pertains to projects that haven’t yet started construction.
So we are dealing with shutdown on these. This is the first time
in my career, not just related to WOTUS, but overall economic situ-
ation that we do not have any properties to acquire under contract
right now. To sit here today and be faced with compounding the
cost and delays associated with this may just force us to dis-
continue development for some period of time. How long, I don’t
know.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. I mean, that is a grim look. If you had to esti-
mate—I know you said, you know, this hasn’t happened yet, but if
you had to estimate, how much time do you think is going to be
spent on working on compliance?
Mr. MURPHY. Oh, Lordy.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Taking away from actually what you do do as
part of your business model.
Mr. MURPHY. Yes. We hired third-party consultants to advise
us. We also engage third-party engineering, investigative firms to
prepare the plans and items associated with it. Let me give you an
example of a jurisdictional permit we have. Once we have that ju-
risdictional determination, that gives us the clarity and the cer-
tainty that we can proceed ahead with the development on that
project without risk of intruding into WOTUS and incurring civil
and criminal penalties. So we rely upon that.
Under the new rule, they basically have noticed us that they will
no longer consider existing JDs. That forces us to stop our engi-
neering process, reconsider the impacts of the new WOTUS rule on
that particular phase of development or the new development.
That, in itself could result in months of delay, redoing the engi-
neering plans, loss of land that we could otherwise develop because
we can no longer wait for the timeframe for the agencies to deter-
mine jurisdictional determination, which could be, you know, 2, 3,
5 years. We don’t know. So it is a significant impact to us.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Can you tell me—and this is just another—
another problem being dumped onto an industry that is already
suffering from a whole list of issues.
Mr. MURPHY. Yes.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Can you tell me the context now in which you
guys are working, everything that is like building up. And really,
we talk about the importance of having affordable housing.
Mr. MURPHY. Yes.
25
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Tell me what is happening in your district.
Mr. MURPHY. In just a few seconds, you have got inflation; you
have got interest rates; you have got electrification; you have got
the shortages of transformers, which are going to be compounded
by additional items out there; you have got shortages of houses al-
ready; you have got the overall issues with inflation and cost.
There is no lack of demand. It is a lack of availability and cost.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. I appreciate that very much and yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. Bean from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, a very good afternoon once again.
And thank you so much. I am still learning. I am still learning
how vastly it affects a small business. We already know in this
committee how hard it is to run a small business already without
government interference. But then when you throw government in-
terference, uncertainty, a cloudy future, then it is really hard, espe-
cially if you own a family farm for over 100 years, as the English
family has.
Ms. English, what is it going to mean should this go forward?
And you are an attorney, so you are used to understanding complex
things. I understand this rule is hazy and complex, but what does
it mean to your family having to deal with another rule such as
this?
Ms. ENGLISH. Well, you may be familiar with citrus greening,
which has affected citrus groves across the State of Florida deci-
mating the industry. We have pushed the groves on our property,
and we are preparing to go back with varieties that are more toler-
ant of the disease. For those of you that don’t know, citrus greening
is sort of an autoimmune disease for orange trees. It is deadly. It
has decimated the industry.
Under the new rule, I don’t know that the groves that we had
planted for 140 years aren’t actually jurisdictional to the Corps,
that I am not going to be required to go get a permit for them, and
mitigate if we are going to plant. We are a small family farm. None
of us rely entirely on the farm income.
Again, my husband teases me that I farm to support—or I prac-
tice law to support my farming habit. But the issue here is it is
hundreds of thousands of dollars and it is years. We would be look-
ing—if this is jurisdictional, and it appears to me from the rule
that maybe it might be, we would be looking at hiring engineers—
I would, of course, be the lawyer, but all of the other consultants
that Mr. Murphy needs in order to successfully proceed through a
permit or a jurisdictional determination so that we had that protec-
tion. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of delay, I don’t
know that we can withstand that.
Mr. BEAN. Has your farm shrunk over the years, the 100 years?
Has it grown or has it shrunk or stayed the same?
Ms. ENGLISH. No. We last acquired a piece of property from a
cousin, I believe, in the mid 1980s. But since that time, it has been
relatively stable at about 880 acres.
Mr. BEAN. I gotcha. But you have seen it—because we are both
from the free State of Florida. You have seen the massive influx
of people who have voted with their feet, they are coming to Flor-
26
ida. But you have seen farming threatened in Florida. Is that cor-
rect? Have you said you have seen farms close or sell out?
Ms. ENGLISH. Absolutely. And any farm that is within an hour
or an hour and a half of an urban area in Florida is under dire
threat of development, simply because farmers are price takers not
price makers. We compete in a global market. We produce commod-
ities that we can’t raise the price on.
So when you reach a point where you can no longer be economi-
cally viable, the hard choices for legacy farm families have to be
are you selling this to the government or are you selling it to Mr.
Murphy’s friends, because those are our options. Case in point, I
have lost probably 10 percent of my clients over the last year, and
how I lost them was I helped them sell their property.
Mr. BEAN. Gotcha. Would you say—some say that growing a na-
tion’s—feeding a nation, feeding a nation and for a nation to be
able to grow its own food is national security. Would you agree
with that statement?
Ms. ENGLISH. I would agree with that 100 percent. I just object
to the fact that I have to have an entire herd of consultants in
order to successfully do that.
Mr. BEAN. How would a small business—how would a small
farmer navigate the waters of running a farm with this new envi-
ronment of uncertainty, of regulations from the current administra-
tion?
Ms. ENGLISH. With great respect, Congressman, I don’t think
they can.
Mr. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you so much.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Next, we have—I want to recognize Mr.
Stauber from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And to the witnesses, thanks for your testimony.
We have a big fight on our hands. As a former small business
owner of 31 years, this WOTUS rule, our small businesses, our
farmers are against it, and this administration just pushes it and
tries to push it upon the American people.
Mr. Murphy, what is the cost of—what does it cost you to hire
these consultants to figure out this WOTUS rule and what goes
with it? What is the cost for your company?
Mr. MURPHY. The initial cost for a study depending upon the
size and complexity of the individual project will usually range
from $10,000, $15,000, maybe $20,000. That is the initial study.
Then if you have to go through a formal submission to the Corps
for a jurisdictional determination, that cost is being priced right
now to us between $50,000 to $75,000. And this is under the exist-
ing rule, not the new rule.
We don’t have the ability to project what the increase in cost
may be, because my consultants are telling me they don’t know
how to enforce it yet or do the inspection. And that is just the cost
to do the determination and jurisdictional. If you go through the in-
dividual permitting, you have got significant additional costs be-
yond that.
Mr. STAUBER. So in 30 seconds, you just said that these rules
that the government put forward have cost you a minimum of
$100,000. In just 30 seconds, that is the minimum. So my question
27
to you is, let’s say it is $300,000, and I don’t think that is out of
the question once push comes to shove with this ridiculous ruling,
who do you pass that onto?
Mr. MURPHY. Well, if we can pass it on, it is to the ultimate
home buyer through purchases of the homes from the individual
homebuilder. If we can’t pass it on——
Mr. STAUBER. So if you pass it on to the home——
Mr. MURPHY. If we could——
Mr. STAUBER. If you could.
Mr. MURPHY. Subject to market acceptability.
Mr. STAUBER. Right. Okay.
Mr. MURPHY. That is who it would go to. But in many cases we
can’t. So we are forced then to pretty much just mothball this par-
ticular development because we can’t recover the cost through in-
creases in housing prices, or we have to resize the project, which
basically means shrinking the developable land to stay way away
from what may be considered significant nexus under the WOTUS
test to basically proceed ahead and not run the civil and liability
risk associated with it.
So that would allow us to proceed ahead without incurring sig-
nificant costs, but what it does is have the same effect. It increases
the cost of the remaining land and lots and therefore has a direct
increase on the remaining homes to be built.
Mr. STAUBER. If it wasn’t so devastating, I would find it laugh-
able that the EPA and the Army Corps claim that the WOTUS rule
won’t significantly impact our American small businesses. That is
just simply not true. It is just simply not true. I think it is dis-
ingenuous for them to tell the American people. I know the farm-
ers, manufacturers, miners, and homebuilders in northern Min-
nesota would have had a different story to tell if they were asked.
Ms. English, I have heard from farmers in my great State of
Minnesota that are struggling to comply with the strict water regu-
lations already in place in our State. Can you tell me more about
the jobs and projects that this rule will make harder for farmers
to get done?
Ms. ENGLISH. And I actually have talked with some of my cous-
ins who farm in and around Hawley, Minnesota.
Mr. STAUBER. Yeah.
Ms. ENGLISH. So we have compared notes and cried in each
other’s beer over some of these issues.
Mr. STAUBER. Yes.
Ms. ENGLISH. But here is what doesn’t happen, you can’t—you
begin not to maintain portions of the systems that need to be main-
tained because you are afraid of incurring jurisdiction. Catchment
basins that you use to capture soils or to treat for water quality
don’t happen. The improvement projects, like the one I referred to
in my testimony, where you are trying to do something that is
going to improve the water quality, ultimately being discharged
from the property, aren’t being addressed and aren’t being done.
It is one thing to make a rule to protect water quality; it is an-
other thing if that rule cuts both ways and actually impairs water
quality because you could no longer repair the infrastructure or
maintain it that treats water quality.
28
Mr. STAUBER. I will just tell you, in my last 30 seconds, this
rule is devastating. I will tell you that the Obama administration,
when Joe Biden was Vice President, they allowed a water permit
in a mine in Minnesota. The water came out more pure. They had
to add sediments to it. And this administration just remanded that
same water permit to stop mining. You can’t make this up. You
just can’t make it up.
And I think this WOTUS rule is going to be devastating for small
businesses and farmers. And those—the bureaucrats that are get-
ting paid to do this, like your EPA neighbor who calls you and says
the bull hole needs to be filled or changed, or my colleague over
here who says that the tractor tires—the water and the tractor tire
and the groove and the dirt needs to be—something needs to be
dealt with, can you imagine?
Ms. ENGLISH. Uh-huh.
Mr. STAUBER. I mean, can you imagine this?
Ms. ENGLISH. Yes.
Mr. STAUBER. And by the way, $320 billion—that is with a
‘‘B’’—$320 billion of additional regulations this administration has
put on our small businesses in just 2 years. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
Now, I recognize Mr. Crane from Arizona for 5 minutes.
Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Thank you to the witnesses for showing up today. I appreciate
it. Sorry I was tardy. We were in a Homeland Security meeting.
It is one of the tough things about this town is you just get thrown
around all over the place.
But real quick, I wanted to start with you, Mr. Murphy, have you
ever voted for an official at the EPA in your life that you can re-
member?
Mr. MURPHY. Voted for an official at the EPA, no, sir.
Mr. CRANE. Okay. Let’s see, Ms. English, have you ever voted
for an official at the EPA?
Ms. ENGLISH. No, sir.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Baumann, have you ever voted for an official
at the EPA?
Ms. ENGLISH. No, sir.
Mr. CRANE. No, sir. All three of them, no, no, no. Does that
bother you guys? Follow-on question to all three of you: Does it
bother you that unelected bureaucrats are making rulings and
judgments that are affecting your business and lifestyle? We will
start with you, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. MURPHY. I would prefer to have a say in that, yes. But I
also look to my elected Congressman to help enforce the Clean
Water Act and provide the regulatory guidance that provides clar-
ity to what we do.
Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. And you just made a key word there,
‘‘elected.’’ My point was, right now, you guys, your lifestyle, your
businesses, and many others across this country are being affected
because of unelected bureaucrats, and therefore you have no re-
course, right? You can’t go—take me, for example. I am a freshman
here in Congress. If I screw up really bad, and some of the folks
in my district would probably, you know, say that I am, but if I
screwed up really bad, they have a recourse. They can get rid of
29
me in 2 years, right? But you guys can’t go and fire somebody at
the EPA, can you?
Mr. MURPHY. That is correct. We have recourse, not under
what is called a preliminary jurisdiction because that is non-con-
testable, but there is a jurisdictional determination out that we
may have recourse——
Mr. CRANE. Okay.
Mr. MURPHY.—so contested. But directly to answer your ques-
tion, no, we don’t have any authority to approve, vote, or try to
oust Members of the EPA or the Corps.
Mr. CRANE. Thank you.
Ms. Bau—or, excuse me, Ms. English, does that bother you?
Ms. ENGLISH. It is a terrible concern when it appears that the
agency perspective appears to deviate substantially from the law
that has been handed down by Congress and signed by a President.
Mr. CRANE. Thank you.
And the last thing I have to say is just a statement real quick,
because I know we are never—we are all never going to agree on,
you know, everything that goes on here. But I am just going to tell
you guys, my vote will be cast in a manner that acknowledges your
private property and keeps unelected bureaucrats and government
officials out of your lives as much as possible. And I want to see
local officials making these rules and regulations, because I think
that they have the best eyes on and the best capability of making
sound judgments that are the best for your lives. Okay?
Thank you guys again for coming. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
And I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony
today and for appearing before us.
Without objection, Members have 5 legislative days to submit ad-
ditional materials and written questions for the witnesses to the
Chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses. I would ask the
witnesses to please respond promptly if that happens.
There being no further business, without objection, the com-
mittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
30
APPENDIX
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Æ
File and source
- File
- CHRG-118hhrg51287.pdf
- Size
- 4,798,197 bytes
- SHA-256
- 2a21952cad0984e314011185b376507f9376cf864eb405f5997264a85859e609
- Our copy
- CHRG-118hhrg51287.pdf
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov