NSSGA Agrees: U.S. Cannot Afford a Broad Federal Expansion of the Clean Water Act
America’s quality of life depends on stone, sand and gravel; for these simple ingredients are the building blocks of the nation’s built environment. There are 100,000 men and women working in more than 10,000 quarries nationwide to produce the aggregate American needs. In years past nearly 3 billion tons of crushed stone, sand and gravel were produced annually to meet the need of our customers across America.
Our industry digs holes. Big holes. When it rains, water will find a way into these holes and our members work hard to manage the water on our property and make use of it so as to be good stewards of the environment, a good neighbor and to meet the needs of our customers. We will construct temporary retention ponds in areas where they would not normally occur to collect rainwater. We recycle from these man-made ponds: we draw water to wet down the property to reduce dust and to wash truck wheels to get rid of pebbles before trucks leave our property and travel on community roads. We also use the water to wash rock so that the cement or asphalt will stick to it better. After all, 80% of concrete and 94% of asphalt is stone, sand and gravel. Unfortunately, the Clean Water Restoration Act would likely make these activities illegal unless we enter into an expensive and time-consuming permitting process.
Some in Congress are considering a radical plan that will expand the power of the Clean Water Act by removing the term ‘navigable’ from the landmark law and redefining federal jurisdiction as “all intrastate and interstate waters and their tributaries.” The key word is all. Unfortunately, this broad expansion of federal jurisdictiondoes not differentiate between a man-made rock-washing pond in the middle of an active quarry and a river or major waterbody that is scientifically beneficial to the environment, helps with flood control, or provides habitat for animals, fish, flora and fauna. Navigable rivers/waterbodies are the business of the federal government rather than state, local or private decision-makers.
Making a man-made rock-washing pond federal jurisdiction is an expensive proposition. In 2002, a study found that an average individual Section 404 permit that our members would need to continue operating costs over $270,000 and takes more than 2 years to obtain.
Simple math – 10,000 operations seeking just one $270,000 permit means the aggregate industry alone is facing a $2.7 billion fee to continue operating and years of delays. And, it is very likely that multiple permits would be necessary to continue operating under the proposed legislation. The only people served by this are the environmental lawyers necessary to fill out the confusing federal forms. Without the federal permits quarry operators could face jail time for washing rock in ponds they built by harnessing the rain.
Where do aggregates go?
Average home requires 400 tons
Average school requires 15,000 tons
One mile of highway requires 38,000 tons
Currently, aggregate operations are permitted by local and state governments and get their social license to operate from the surrounding community. If this legislation becomes law, however, quarry owners will likely be required to get multiple costly federal permits to simply continue operating, adding another layer of regulation on an industry already regulated at the local, state and federal level.
During this time of economic turmoil, the aggregate industry is on track to see a decrease in production of over 20% this year. That is on top of a decrease in production over the last two years. Our companies are struggling to hang onto their employees in hopes that the economy turns around soon. If additional expensive permits are required to continue operating, some quarries may end up shuttering for good. For employees of quarries and their families, the prospects are truly worrisome.
We all want cleaner water for the next generation. Let’s not act so hastily, however, that we inadvertently throw out a good lawand replace it with one that doesn’t differentiate between a man-made rock-washing pond and a navigable waterbody that is of national concern due to how it helps the environment, flood control, or the habitat it provides for animals, fish, flora or fauna.
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public Lands Council: America’s Farmers and Ranchers Oppose Federal Land Grab
The Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) would grant the federal government sweeping new regulatory authority to infringe on private-property rights. It amounts to nothing less than a giant federal land grab and would be disastrous to U.S. agriculture. A vote for this bill is a vote against agriculture.
This bill is unnecessary and unjustifiable, and sets a dangerous precedent towards the continuing erosion of our fundamental constitutional rights as American citizens. No compromise or exemption will cover all of the farm and ranch situations in the U.S. To protect agriculture, “navigable” must remain as the defining term for federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
Some environmentalists say that removing the word “navigable” would restore the original intent of Congress when it passed the Clean Water Act. This is far from the truth. The fact is, the word navigable is included in the CWA statute over 80 times. Since Congress does not usually include such important terms by accident, it is clear that navigability was the intended boundary of authority at the time of Clean Water Act passage. In addition, contrary to environmentalist claims, recent Supreme Court cases that define federal jurisdiction to include waters that are connected to navigable waters and those that have a “significant nexus” to navigable waters are an expansion of federal jurisdiction beyond the scope of Clean Water Act statutory authority to regulate navigable waters, not a contraction of that authority.
Under current law, the federal government has jurisdiction over ‘navigable waters of the United States.’ But by removing the word ‘navigable’ from the definition, the CWRA would expand federal regulatory control to unprecedented levels – essentially putting stock tanks, drainage ditches, and any puddle or water feature found on family farms and ranches across this country under the regulatory strong-arm of the federal government. This is an outright infringement on our Constitutional rights as Americans to own and manage property without undue interference from the government.
Ranchers appreciate the need to regulate navigable waters and wetlands that have true environmental value. We value clean water and depend on it for our livelihoods. The current Clean Water Act has been tremendously successful. In fact, it is arguably the most successful environmental law on the books. Millions of miles of rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, estuaries, ponds, and other waters are cleaner and functioning appropriately thanks to the strong partnership that exists between the federal and state levels of government which allows states essential flexibility to do their own land- and water- use planning in a way that makes sense. We cannot allow Congress to take this flexibility away from the states.
All waters are not the same in terms of their environmental function and value, and they should not be regulated in the same way. It makes no sense to require a family farmer or rancher to get a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before they can utilize their property or water their livestock. This is especially true given the fact the federal government is already struggling to handle a backlog of 15,000 to 20,000 existing permit requests.
Today, farmers and ranchers are using fewer natural resources to produce an abundant and affordable supply of safe, wholesome, nutritious food for our consumers, while working hard to protect the natural resources required to produce that food. As the world’s population increases require us to produce more and more food on less land, we need policies that protect farming and ranching. Needlessly imposing additional regulations and financial burdens on an already struggling farm economy makes no sense.
Clean Water Act ‘fix’ has major ramifications for Nevada
While the Congress continues to march forward with legislation to drastically change the Clean Water Act, many outside of Washington are sounding the alarm about the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA). Over the weekend, Liz Arnold of Eureka, Nevada wrote a column entitled “Clean Water Act ‘fix’ has major ramifications for state; Dropping one word could unleash the federal bureaucracy” in the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Arnold, who is a natural resources policy advocate involved in Western land and water issues, wrote this about the CWRA:
If signed into law, the Clean Water Act would be amended to exclude the term “navigable” from the line of the law that gives the EPA regulatory authority over all “navigable waters.” Take away that word and what is left is the EPA beginning to regulate all waters…Whether you are from north or south; for or against water pipelines to Las Vegas or other similar projects; a hay farmer, cattle rancher, casino owner, developer, small-business owner or a homeowner, your costs and regulatory headaches will rise.
But the impact that the EPA regulation over all waters of the United States will have on our state’s economy promises to be a lot more severe. A few thousand is a lot of money to farmers, ranchers, small businesses or miners given the already high cost of compliance and regulations of all sorts, especially in hard economic times.
As the Congress continues to debate the CWRA, Americans who are concerned about the CWRA and how it would institute sweeping new changes to the federal Clean Water Act should send a loud message to Congress that states and local authorities should continue to lead the regulation of land and water use, not the federal government.
