House Amendment to Interior Bill Could Affect Growers, NCGA Notes (5-22-06)

The House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Interior and Environmental appropriations bill that negatively impacts the nation’s waterways and creates more confusion regarding agency practice over regulated waters, notes the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA). 

The amendment, introduced by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Jim Leach (R-Iowa) and James Oberstar (D-Minn.), passed 222-198 and concerns federal jurisdiction over waters and wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA). In 2001, the Supreme Court limited federal jurisdiction over isolated, intrastate and non-navigable waterways in its ruling of the case: Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2003 issued guidance to comply with the court ruling, and the guidance has served the environment and rural areas appropriately.

“We are disappointed the House of Representatives voted to pass this amendment,” said Lisa Kelley, NCGA Director of Public Policy. “This will hurt the farmer’s ability to use the land they work and live on. Through our environmental practices, growers work to ensure the quality of the water near our lands. Corn growers are good stewards of the land they use every day. NCGA fully supports environmental protection of this country’s waterways; however, legislation like this could negatively impact the growth of rural communities across the nation.” 
 
While this case has generated extensive debate over what is or is not “navigable waters” in the courts, Congress and various federal agencies, it is the only guidance with any measure of clarity in this area of the Clean Water Act. NCGA believes this amendment undermines the Supreme Court decision and creates more confusion regarding agency practice over regulated waters. As a result, isolated, non-navigable waters such as small erosion impressions in fields could fall under the Clean Water Act and place undue burdens on U.S. farmers and ranchers.

In an article in energy & Environment, EPA Assistant Administrator Ben Grumbles said the amendment will hamper agency efforts to protect wetlands.

"While well intentioned, the amendment proponents are acting on a fundamental misreading of the ... memorandum, and the loss of the guidance will make it more difficult, not easier, to accomplish our shared commitment to wetlands protection,” said Grumbles. "We will continue to use all appropriate tools under the Clean Water Act and cooperative conservation to restore, improve and protect wetlands," Grumbles said. "We look forward to working with Congress and others in advancing the president's goals consistent with rulings by the Supreme Court."
 
NCGA, as part of a broad coalition, took action early to oppose the amendment. In addition to raising further questions about the Clean Water Act’s regulatory reach, the coalition reminded Congress there are currently two cases pending before the Supreme Court that will address the scope of the SWANCC decision. NCGA believes it is inappropriate for Congress to use the appropriations process to influence any future ruling by the court. 
   
“This amendment was ill-timed and skirts a pending decision by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Kelley said.

To view the coalition’s letter to Congress, click here.