{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://web.archive.org/web/20141024000304/http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=70d359d3-c01c-f0ad-3d60-07df29046e81", "Obama Administration is Intentionally Misleading Americans on Proposed Water Rule", "2014-10-23", "2014", "2014-10", "Republican", "House", "WY", "John Barrasso", "B001261", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Obama Administration is Intentionally Misleading Americans on Proposed Water Rule  \n Senators respond to Administration\u2019s biased campaign to downplay negative impacts proposed rule will have on jobs, the economy and private landowners.    \n October 23, 2014   \nWASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013 Today, U.S. Senators John Barrasso (R-WY), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member David Vitter (R-LA) led a group of 24 senators in calling out the Obama Administration for intentionally misleading Americans about the negative impacts of the proposed \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d (WOTUS) rule. \n\u00a0\nWith few exceptions, this proposed rule would give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) virtually unlimited regulatory authority over all state and local waters, no matter how remote or isolated such waters may be from truly navigable waters. The Small Business Administration\u2019s Office of Advocacy (SBA) recently reported this rule will result in a \u201cdirect and potentially costly impact on small businesses.\u201d\n\u00a0\nIn a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh, the senators outline and respond to some of the Administration\u2019s misleading talking points about the rule. \n\u00a0\n\u201cUndoubtedly, there is a disconnect between regulatory reality and the Administration\u2019s utopian view of the proposed \u2018waters of the United States\u2019 rule. We believe this reflects the EPA\u2019s and the Corps\u2019 refusal to listen to the thousands of Americans who have asked that the proposed rule be immediately withdrawn. Indeed, there have been several examples of bias against the proposed rule\u2019s critics.\u00a0 For the record, we note here the ways in which the Administration has manipulated this rulemaking in ways that appear to be designed to prejudge the outcome:,\u201d the Senators wrote. \n\u00a0\nThe Senators respond in detail to:\n\u00a0\n\u2022\u00a0The Obama Administration claims that the proposed \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d rule responds to prior requests for a Clean Water Act rulemaking.\n\u2022\u00a0The Obama Administration insinuating that opposition to the proposed rule is equivalent to opposition to clean water.\n\u2022\u00a0EPA\u2019s attempt to delegitimize questions and concerns surrounding the proposed rule.\n\u2022\u00a0EPA and the Corps blatant misrepresentation of the impacts of\u00a0 increased Clean Water Act jurisdiction.\n\u2022\u00a0EPA\u2019s social media advocacy in favor of the proposed \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d rule prejudices the rulemaking process.\n\u00a0\nIn addition to Barrasso, Cruz, McConnell, and Vitter, the letter was signed by Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS), Mike Enzi (R-WY), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jim Risch (R-ID), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Tim Scott (R-SC), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Rand Paul (R-KY), Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Mike Lee (R-UT).\n\u00a0\nFull text of the letter below:\nOctober 23, 2014\n\u00a0\nThe Honorable Gina McCarthy\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Honorable John M. McHugh\nAdministrator\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Secretary of the Army\nEnvironmental Protection Agency\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 101 Army Pentagon\n1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Washington, D.C.\u00a0 20310-0101\nWashington, DC\u00a0 20460\n\u00a0\nRe:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Proposed Rule to Define \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Docket ID No. EPA-HW-OW-2011-0880\n\u00a0\nDear Administrator McCarthy and Secretary McHugh,\n\u00a0\nDespite numerous requests for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to withdraw the proposed \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule, the Administration has shown it intends to pursue this unprecedented executive overreach, regardless of the consequences to the economy and to Americans\u2019 property rights.\u00a0 The proposed rule would provide EPA and the Corps (as well as litigious environmental groups) with the power to dictate the land use decisions of homeowners, small businesses, and local communities throughout the United States.\u00a0 With few exceptions, it would give the agencies virtually unlimited regulatory authority over all state and local waters, no matter how remote or isolated such waters may be from truly navigable waters.\u00a0 The proposed rule thus usurps legislative authority and Congress\u2019s decision to predicate Clean Water Act jurisdiction on the law\u2019s foundational term, \u201cnavigable waters.\u201d\n\u00a0\nBecause the proposed \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule displaces state and local officials in their primary role in environmental protection, it is certain to have a damaging effect on economic growth.\u00a0 Increased permitting costs, abandoned development projects, and the prospect of litigation resulting from the proposed rule will slow job-creation across the country.\u00a0 Similar concerns led the Small Business Administration\u2019s Office of Advocacy (SBA) to recently call for the withdrawal of the proposed rule.\u00a0 As SBA observed, the proposed rule will result in a \u201cdirect and potentially costly impact on small businesses,\u201d and the \u201c[t]he limited economic analysis which [EPA and the Corps] submitted with the rule provides ample evidence of a potentially significant economic impact.\u201d[1]\u00a0 We join SBA and continue to urge EPA and the Corps to withdraw the proposed rule.\n\u00a0\nUndoubtedly, there is a disconnect between regulatory reality and the Administration\u2019s utopian view of the proposed \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule.\u00a0 We believe this reflects the EPA\u2019s and the Corps\u2019 refusal to listen to the thousands of Americans who have asked that the proposed rule be immediately withdrawn. Indeed, there have been several examples of bias against the proposed rule\u2019s critics.\u00a0 For the record, we note here the ways in which the Administration has manipulated this rulemaking in ways that appear to be designed to prejudge the outcome:\n\u00a0\nBias Factor #1:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Obama Administration Claims That the Proposed\n\u00a0\u201cWaters of the United States\u201d Rule Responds to Prior Requestsfor a Clean Water Act Rulemaking.\n\u00a0\nEPA has repeatedly claimed that the proposed \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule responds to various requests for the agency to clarify the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction.\u00a0 Likewise, the Administration stated last month that the proposed rule \u201cis responsive to calls for rulemaking from Congress, industry, and community stakeholders as well as decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.\u201d[2]\n\u00a0\nSuch assertions are wholly misleading.\u00a0 A request for a regulatory clarification does not provide a license to run roughshod over the property rights of millions of Americans. Yet the Obama Administration has used prior rulemaking requests as an excuse to unilaterally advance a regulatory agenda that defies the jurisdictional limits established by Congress when it enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972.\n\u00a0\nIn fact, the proposed rule would harm the very landowners, small businesses, and municipalities that expressed interest in working with EPA and the Corps to address Clean Water Act jurisdictional issues.\u00a0 Thus, rather than respond to requests for a rulemaking, the proposed rule serves as an example for why so few Americans trust EPA.\n\u00a0\nBias Factor #2:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Obama Administration Insinuates That Opposition to the Proposed Rule Is Equivalent to Opposition to Clean Water.\n\u00a0\nWhen EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy announced the proposed \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule last March, she professed that the proposed rule \u201cclarifies which waters are protected, and which waters are not.\u201d[3]\u00a0 Similarly, EPA\u2019s Office of Water has suggested that those who \u201cchoose clean water\u201d should support the proposed rule.[4]\n\u00a0\nThese statements insinuate that the proposed rule\u2019s critics oppose clean water.\u00a0 This is an insulting ploy that belies the numerous efforts made in recent years by agriculture, industry, and local officials to improve water quality throughout the country.\u00a0 It ignores the fact that nonfederal waterbodies are subject to local and state water quality regulations.\u00a0 Moreover, the Clean Water Act\u2019s emphasis that \u201c[i]t is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution\u201d negates the canard that choosing clean water requires acceding to unlimited federal regulatory authority.[5]\n\u00a0\nBias Factor #3:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 EPA Has Attempted to Delegitimize Questions and Concerns Surrounding the Proposed Rule.\n\u00a0\nAdministrator McCarthy has described certain questions regarding the proposed rule as \u201cludicrous\u201d and \u201csilly.\u201d[6]\u00a0 Stakeholders have also observed how EPA officials have responded to concerns over the proposed rule with misrepresentations and a \u201cknock on their intelligence.\u201d[7]\n\u00a0\nEPA\u2019s disparaging of the proposed rule\u2019s critics serves no one.\u00a0 If EPA believes concerns with the proposed rule are unwarranted, the appropriate course of action would be for the agency to respond formally in the context of the notice and comment procedures accompanying the current rulemaking.\u00a0 Belittling the proposal\u2019s critics only furthers the impression that EPA has predetermined the outcome of the \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rulemaking.\n\u00a0\nBias Factor #4:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 EPA and the Corps Have Blatantly Misrepresented the Impacts of\u00a0 Increased Clean Water Act Jurisdiction.\n\u00a0\nEPA and the Corps have attempted to downplay the substantial outcry over the proposed \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule as well as the prospect of federalizing thousands of ditches, ponds, streams, and other waterbodies.\u00a0 They have done so by claiming that the impacts associated with increased Clean Water Act jurisdiction are insignificant.\n\u00a0\nFor example, EPA claims the proposed rule \u201cwould not infringe on private property rights,\u201d and that the Clean Water Act \u201cis not a barrier to economic development.\u201d[8]\u00a0 The Corps has also stated that \u201cwhen privately-owned aquatic areas are subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction . . . [that] results in little or no interference with the landowner\u2019s use of his or her land.\u201d[9]\n\u00a0\nThese assertions strain credulity.\u00a0 Given the history of regulatory and land use issues associated with the Clean Water Act (including numerous congressional hearings, Supreme Court cases, and real world examples of costs and hardship resulting from affirmative jurisdictional determinations), it is astonishing that any federal agency would claim that a designation of private property as \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d does not affect the landowner\u2019s property rights.\n\u00a0\nThat such statements have come from EPA and the Corps suggests that the agencies either don\u2019t appreciate the real-world impacts of the law they\u2019re charged with administering, or they are intentionally trying to minimize the effect of the proposed rule.\u00a0 It is likewise not surprising that SBA, an expert agency charged with representing the views of small entities before federal agencies and Congress, has also critiqued the manner in which EPA and the Corps have estimated the proposed rule\u2019s impacts.[10]\n\u00a0\nBias Factor #5:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 EPA\u2019s Social Media Advocacy in Favor of the Proposed \u201cWatersof the United States\u201d Rule Prejudices the Rulemaking Process.\n\u00a0\nEPA staff are asking the public to influence the agency\u2019s view of the proposed \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule.\u00a0 In fact, the Twitter account for EPA\u2019s Office of Water is now essentially a lobbyist for the proposed rule.\u00a0 A few months ago, EPA established a website called \u201cDitch the Myth,\u201d which declares that the proposed rule \u201cclarifies protection under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation\u2019s water resources.\u201d[11]\u00a0 The agency has now gone so far as to solicit others to seek to influence EPA regarding the proposed rule, urging social media users to \u201cshow their support for clean water and the agency\u2019s proposal to protect it.\u201d[12]\u00a0 These actions raise serious questions about compliance with the Anti-Lobbying Act.[13]\n\u00a0\nThe integrity of the rulemaking process is in jeopardy, if not already tainted.\u00a0 EPA\u2019s social media advocacy removes any pretense that the agency will act as a fair and neutral arbiter during the rulemaking.\u00a0 Why should any landowner believe that EPA will seriously and meaningfully examine adverse comments regarding the proposed rule\u2019s impact on ditches, for example, when the agency has already pronounced that the proposed rule \u201creduces regulation of ditches\u201d?[14]\u00a0 Why should state officials believe that their concerns with the proposed rule will be fully considered, when EPA has already determined that the proposed rule \u201cfully preserves and respects the effective federal-state partnership . . . under the Clean Water Act\u201d?[15]\n\u00a0\nEPA\u2019s social media advocacy is a firm indicator that adverse comments will receive scant attention during the rulemaking period.\u00a0 We question whether the \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rulemaking can be conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and its objective that agencies \u201cbenefit from the expertise and input of the parties who file comments with regard to [a] proposed rule\u201d and \u201cmaintain a flexible and open minded attitude towards its own rules.\u201d [16]\n\u00a0\nWe are dismayed that the Administration has failed to adhere to its impartial obligations\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 under the law.\u00a0 Moreover, this bias has been reflected in comments from NGOs as well.\u00a0 Based on similar statements from groups such as Organizing for Action, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Clean Water Action, it is as though the Administration and its environmentalist allies are of one mindset, eager to paint the proposed rule\u2019s critics as anything other than concerned citizens.\n\u00a0\nAt the same time, although the above groups are entitled to have a misguided and flawed perspective on the proposed \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule, the Administration owes the American people a higher level of discourse.\u00a0 To date, however, this rulemaking has been plagued by administrative bias and prejudicial grandstanding.\u00a0\u00a0 It is therefore incumbent on EPA and Corps to reverse course, withdraw the proposed rule, and commit to working more cooperatively with interested stakeholders in future regulatory proceedings.\n\u00a0\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://web.archive.org/web/20141024000304/http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=70d359d3-c01c-f0ad-3d60-07df29046e81"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 3.90267139300704, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}