By BRENT MARTIN
St. Joseph Post
New rules issued by the Biden administration in wake of a United States Supreme Court defeat have done little to calm the criticism of its “Waters of the United States” rule.
In fact, northern Missouri Congressman Sam Graves, a Republican, accuses the Biden administration of barely paying lip service to the Supreme Court ruling, claiming the revised rule is just as vague as the previous rule.
“We have gone round and round and round on this thing and they refuse to work with farmers,” Graves tells KFEQ/St. Joseph Post. “They just completely turn their back on landowners.”
The revised rule issued by the EPA removes the “significant nexus” test so despised by its critics. A news release from the EPA states, “This action provides the clarity that is needed to advance these goals, while moving forward with infrastructure projects, economic opportunities, and agricultural activities.”
“While I am disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Sackett case, EPA and Army have an obligation to apply this decision alongside our state co-regulators, Tribes, and partners," EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said in a written statement issued by the agency. “We’ve moved quickly to finalize amendments to the definition of ‘waters of the United States’ to provide a clear path forward that adheres to the Supreme Court’s ruling. EPA will never waver from our responsibility to ensure clean water for all. Moving forward, we will do everything we can with our existing authorities and resources to help communities, states, and Tribes protect the clean water upon which we all depend.”
Critics dispute the statement by Regan. They contend the EPA’s revision of the Waters of the United States rule fails to adhere to the Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency and lacks clarity.
Graves claims the EPA revised rule does nothing to resolve the problems farmers see with WOTUS.
“I guarantee you this is going to be back in the courts once again and litigated,” according to Graves.
Graves predicts this latest round in the ongoing fight against WOTUS will eventually end up back in court with a dispute over agricultural land becoming the latest test case.
“They like to say that farmers are exempt, yet it’s farmers that are the ones in lawsuits with the EPA and being fined millions of dollars for the use of their property,” Graves claims. “But there will be a case brought and then it will ultimately be litigated and it will bounce through the courts and I think it will end up back in the Supreme Court and they are going to have to clarify even further.”
Graves accuses the Biden administration of purposely keeping WOTUS wording vague, giving the EPA the discretion necessary to interfere with the decisions of landowners. Graves says clarity is necessary so landowners know whether their actions are in compliance, something Graves says the Supreme Court decision requires.
Graves says it appears the issue has reverted back to square one.
“It’s just frustrating. It’s government overreach. It’s pure government overreach and it has to stop.”
Graves succeeded in passing a revision of WOTUS through Congress earlier this year; 227-198 in the House and 53-43 in the Senate. Those margins were not wide enough to overcome a veto by President Joe Biden.