Skip to Content

Press Release

Drought of Support for Obama Administration’s Water Agenda as Criticism Pours During Natural Resources Subcommittee Hearing

Today, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans held an oversight hearing titled, “Proposed Federal Water Grabs and Their Potential Impacts on States, Water and Power Users, and Landowners.”  Witnesses testified on a range of Administration policies and regulatory actions, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) and the U.S. Forest Service’s “Groundwater Directive.”

“The Administration has a history of rolling out ill-explained and ill-informed Washington, DC-knows-best proposals in recent years only to stand down later after hearing backlash from the public.  The so-called Blueways program was the first, followed by the ski areas water clause, then followed by the Forest Service’s Groundwater Directive which could have impacted 155 National Forests, including the Kisatchie in Louisiana,” stated Subcommittee Chairman John Fleming. “The people who depend on multiple uses of our waters and public lands have felt they’ve played the Whack-a-Mole game with these Administration proposals.   There seems to be no end in sight. These proposals – and the Waters-of-the-US regulation sitting at the White House now – have been drafted under the guise of “clarifying” the authority of federal agencies. Only in Washington, DC would ‘clarification’ mean federal expansion.”

“The stringent existing requirements already make it difficult to build infrastructure to new commercial enterprises and adequately maintain right-of-way to ensure cost-effective service reliability for our members,” stated Michael J. Heinen, General Manager, Jefferson Davis Electric Cooperative, Inc., Jennings, Louisiana. “There is a tipping point where unnecessary mandates and restrictions intended to help our people become punitive and inhibit the ability of our economy to grow and our people to prosper.”  

“Regulations have a role in our society and when appropriately implement can be beneficial. However, if implemented in their current forms the pending WOTUS, Ski Area Water Rights Directive and Groundwater Directive will make it harder to meet current and future water needs for both agricultural and municipal water users,” stated Tom Myrum, President, Washington State Water Resources Association, Olympia Washington. “Meeting current and future water supply needs a major challenge. Meeting these needs will require collaboration, creativity and flexibility.”

“While the proposed rule from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to redefine the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is meant to clarify the scope of the regulation, the current proposal has, instead, created new points of ambiguity,” James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, Western Governors’ Association, Denver, Colorado. “…State authority is the cornerstone of effective water management in the West. This is not simply a matter of precedent; states are best situated to understand their own unique legal frameworks, local hydrology and citizen needs. Federal efforts to assume greater authority over water jeopardize the distinct advantages of having on-the-ground resource management.”

“We are partners with the federal government in providing this essential public service, and we need to be integrated into the decision-making process for policies that affect our mandate. When that process short-circuits local and state government involvement, the public suffers cost increases, bureaucratic delays, and ultimately a degraded, less efficient level of service to the public,” – Ron Sullivan, Board of Directors, Division 4, Eastern Municipal Water District, Perris, California. “The nature of groundwater varies significantly from one region of the country to another. Water rights and legal agreements affecting surface and groundwater can be complicated. The proposed Forest Service Groundwater Directive fails to recognize the nuances of geography and existing agreements and instead provides blank assumptions that may be detrimental to many long-standing water rights holders.”

Additional hearing information can be found here.