releases: https://web.archive.org/web/20141114192303/http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.NewsClips&ContentRecord_id=b0a9e120-db73-8b3f-011c-27ae2998b82a
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20141114192303/http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.NewsClips&ContentRecord_id=b0a9e120-db73-8b3f-011c-27ae2998b82a | Congressional delegation: Farmers, ranchers right to distrust the EPA | 2014-11-01 | 2014 | 2014-11 | Republican | House | WY | John Barrasso | B001261 | web.archive.org | legacy | Congressional delegation: Farmers, ranchers right to distrust the EPA November 1, 2014 Casper Star Tribune: Congressional delegation: Farmers, ranchers right to distrust the EPA November 01, 2014 11:45 am By: Sens. Mike Enzi, John Barrasso and Rep. Cynthia Lummis Environmental Protection Agency officials want to put a good face on their recently proposed water rule that would give the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers virtually unlimited regulatory authority over state and local waters. We recently read an opinion piece from a deputy assistant administrator in this very publication ("Clean water proposal aims to help farmers," Oct. 21) who sought to convince people that this EPA proposal is harmless. The fact is, the EPA under this administration is following a pattern of saying a proposal has very limited effects when it really has far reaching and potentially devastating impacts, especially to states’ rights and family businesses. Even if the EPA doesn’t intend to obstruct farming and ranching, this proposal opens the door for it and other federal regulators to do just that. Federal agencies under this Administration have operated under the assumption that the only way to do their job is to have absolute power over everything, regardless of what local government and those closest to the problem have done to address an issue. They would have us believe that Washington knows best and we should trust them implicitly. Instead of giving even more power to the EPA, we believe we should protect and reinforce states’ and private land owners’ jurisdiction over their water and land. After all, the EPA’s record of extreme actions and excessive regulation shows that we cannot trust it to act responsibly. The EPA has been in the business of putting coal out of business. It has fought our state’s regional haze plan that was developed with input from all stakeholders. It has sought the power to garnish private citizens’ wages without first obtaining a court order. It has even interjected itself into long-established tribal boundaries. We aren’t willing to take the EPA’s assurances that it won’t use the Clean Water Act to tell private land owners what they can or cannot do on their property just because water ran through their property at some point. The American Farm Bureau called these recently proposed water regulations “…a serious threat to farmers ranchers, and landowners” that would cause a “tremendous new roadblock to ordinary land use activities.” The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said, “An expansion of jurisdiction would actually hamper the ability to maintain clean waters. Federal agencies are already struggling to handle a backlog of tens of thousands of water permit requests.” They support maintaining the appropriate federal-state balance. When asked to explain its regulatory actions or account for the economic costs of its regulations the EPA refuses to answer with real data. People in Wyoming and across the country deserve to hear an honest and up front analysis from the administration on how this rule could impact their jobs, property and livelihoods. Until the administration commits to leveling with the American people and working with the folks on the ground most affected by this rule, we will continue to call on the EPA to withdraw this flawed and misguided rule. | 1 | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z |