The Senate’s environment chief wants to hold Democrats accountable for blocking a bill that could have led to bipartisan agreement on how to deal with the Obama administration’s controversial water regulations.
Instead of working with Republicans, Democrats blocked legislation Tuesday that would have directed the Environmental Protection Agency to redo its regulations, to address concerns that both Democrats and the GOP have over the Waters of the United States rule, according to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Inhofe learned that 11 of the Democrats who blocked the bill harbor serious concerns about the water rules, but were too concerned with supporting the administration to support the bill. Instead, they sent a letter to the EPA stating their concerns, asking the agency to proceed with the rules in a way that ensures farmers and ranchers will be protected from strict enforcement action.
“In this letter, 11 Democrats agreed that EPA did not provide clarity in its final WOTUS rule to protect American land owners,” Inhofe said on the floor Wednesday. “But instead of voting to debate a bipartisan bill that would have forced EPA to provide that clarity, and offer perfecting amendments if they wished, they wrote a letter.”
Later Wednesday, the Senate approved a much stronger resolution of the disapproval that would have nullified the water rule without debate. Inhofe said the original bill from his committee, introduced by Wyoming Republican John Barrasso, would have offered a way to reach agreement that may have worked out for both parties.
The resolution would be vetoed by the president if it reaches his desk, the White House threatened earlier this week.
Inhofe said the Democrats in the letter ask the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to address the concerns they have over the rule through the development of a “guidance” document.
He said such a document is not permitted under the law, which Democrats should know.
“Instead of doing their jobs, 11 senators asked EPA to change the final rule through guidance. Well, that can’t happen,” Inhofe said. “EPA can’t change a regulation with a guidance document. That would be a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.”
The letter “also asked EPA to enforce the rule in a way that will protect people who are not regulated today,” Inhofe said. “That also won’t happen,” he said, because the “rule is on the books.”
“Even if EPA doesn’t bring an enforcement action against someone, activist environmental groups can bring a lawsuit themselves, and use this rule to stop economic activity in your states and mine,” Inhofe said.
Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has placed the rule on hold, while it decides if it has jurisdiction to decide on whether it overextends the agency’s authority. Critics of the rule say it oversteps EPA’s authority by designating bodies of water such as ditches and small streams as “waterways,” making private landowners subject to federal enforcement authority.
