U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–604 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–292 

EROSION OF EXEMPTIONS AND EXPANSION OF 

FEDERAL CONTROL—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED 

STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

WATER, AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 24, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 24, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ................................ 1 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 3 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 203 

WITNESSES 

Parrish, Don, Senior Director, Regulatory Relations, American Farm Bureau 

Federation, accompanied by: Jody Gallaway ..................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse ...................... 36 

Schiff, Damien M., Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation ....................... 148 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 150 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 159 

Wilkinson, Valerie L., Chief Financial Officer, ESG Companies ......................... 164 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 166 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 174 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 176 

Buzbee, William W., Professor of Law, Georgetown University .......................... 178 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 180 

Kovarovics, Scott, Executive Director, Izaak Walton League of America ........... 194 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 196 

(1) 

EROSION OF EXEMPTIONS AND EXPANSION 

OF FEDERAL CONTROL—IMPLEMENTATION 

OF THE DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WATER, AND WILDLIFE, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Sullivan, Whitehouse, Barrasso, Capito, 

Boozman, Fischer, Rounds, Inhofe, Cardin, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Senator SULLIVAN. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and 

Wildlife will now come to order. 

Good afternoon. I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. 

I want to thank the members for coming out to this important 

hearing. 

The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the implementation of 

the Waters of the United States and the expansion of Federal control that has come with it. Again, I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. We have a distinguished panel of witnesses today, and it is very important for this subcommittee and 

for all of Congress to hear what is really happening on the ground 

when our constituents try to develop projects on their private property or build homes or expand economic opportunity in their States. 

Erosion of property rights, that I think we are going to hear 

about today, has been happening for years, not just this Administration. But it has been happening without any change in the Federal Clean Water Act and without any change in the regulatory 

definition of waters of the U.S. In fact, based on testimony we will 

hear today, it is clear that the purpose of the Obama administration’s WOTUS rule was to paper over the gross expansion of Federal control that the Corps and the EPA have been trying and focusing on expanding for years. 

I want to take a minute to talk about what has been happening 

in my State, in Alaska. These are really important issues for Alaskans. 
2 

Already a huge percentage of Alaska falls under the Federal 

Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Alaska has 43,000 miles of coastline, 

millions of lakes, and more than 43 percent of our State’s surface 

area is composed to wetlands, which accounts for 65 percent of all 

the wetlands in the United States. Let me say that again. Sixtyfive percent of all wetlands in the United States of America are in 

one State. This is why this is such an important issue for us. 

Now the Corps and the EPA are trying to expand their reach in 

terms of what constitutes a wetland by claiming that land with 

permafrost, a layer of frozen soil, is also within their jurisdiction, 

although there is no statutory or regulatory authority to grant 

them that jurisdictional expansion. 

Permafrost can be found beneath 80 percent of the State of Alaska. Alaska is 663,300 square miles. That means over 530,000 

square miles of Alaska overlays permafrost. That area, in case you 

are wondering, is twice the size of Texas and larger than three 

times the size of California. 

Currently, permafrost does not meet the regulatory definition of 

a wetland, which has not changed in decades. To change the definition to include permafrost, the Corps would have to revise their 

1987 manual following notice and comment and rulemaking, which 

they have not done. But they have expanded the definition anyways. 

For example, the Corps is now telling constituents of mine, like 

the Schok family of North Pole, Alaska, that they cannot build on 

their land because of frozen soil. I want to thank the Pacific Legal 

Foundation for fighting for the Schoks and Damien Schiff for being 

here today to share their stories and other stories of landowners 

around the country who are experiencing similar Federal overreach. 

The stories in the written testimony of today’s witnesses are incredible, and in many ways shocking. Not only do the EPA and the 

Corps think frozen ground in Alaska is waters of the United States, 

but Federal agencies are asserting authority over even more features, such as previously converted crop land, stock ponds, water 

and soil far beneath the surface, puddles in dirt roads, tire ruts, 

and depressions in gravel parking lots, and on activities in adjacent 

lands such as plowing and changing crops. 

Now, one of the things that I have tried to emphasize and seen 

in this committee is we all believe in the need for clean water, and 

we all believe in the need for clean air. And certainly there is no 

monopoly on the truth of that issue. Sometimes my colleagues on 

one side want to say it is only Democrats who believe in these 

things. We all believe in it. 

But we also all believe, I hope, that agencies have to abide by 

Federal regulations and by statutes, and they cannot expand their 

jurisdiction on their own. The expansion of the jurisdiction of the 

Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act belong in one realm in our 

Federal Government, and that is the Congress of the United 

States. 

One of my biggest surprises on this committee is how often we 

are not conducting oversight for this kind of Federal overreach. The 

EPA and the Corps are bypassing Congress and ducking Supreme 

Court rulings to get to their jurisdictional conclusions, and this is 
3 

happening all over the United States, and even though the WOTUS 

rule has been stayed by a Federal Court of Appeals. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here this morning. I look 

forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. 

Now I would like to provide the Ranking Member, Senator 

Whitehouse, with his opportunity for opening comments. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get to 

my opening comments for this particular hearing, let me thank you 

again for the, I thought, terrific bipartisan hearing that you led on 

marine debris. It was a terrific opportunity, I think, for both sides 

of the aisle to come together on an issue where we have significant 

common cause in your very large ocean State and my much smaller 

ocean State. 

Today, however, we have a rather different agenda. The subcommittee meets again to paint the Environmental Protection 

Agency and Army Corps of Engineers’ implementation of the Clean 

Water Act as an overreach of Government authority and a minefield of regulations aimed at taking down the little guy. 

In reality, for over 40 years the Clean Water Act, passed in a bipartisan manner, has strengthened the health of our waterways. 

Rivers and wetlands that were once unusable due to pollution are 

again swimmable and fishable. 

Just last week the Providence Journal ran a column from its nature columnist, Scott Turner, called Savoring the Smell of Salt 

Water. He wrote, ‘‘When we moved to Providence in 1996, the smell 

of oil and sewage or rotting algae and shellfish signified the arrival 

of warm air. That was because the first southern air of the spring 

season showed up after passing over polluted Narragansett Bay. 

My, how things have changed,’’ he continued. ‘‘On May 11th this 

year, for example, the first sustained southern winds of the season 

puffed into Providence. That warm welcomed air did not stink. Instead, those breezes conveyed the salty smell of the sea from the 

reaches of upper Narragansett Bay. Hallelujah!’’ 

[The referenced article follows:] 
4 
5 
6 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That’s Rhode Island’s story. 

Last October I traveled to Ohio, and there I went out fishing 

with charter boat captains on Lake Erie. Significant rains last 

summer washed fertilizer and manure into Lake Erie, turning the 

lake thick as soup with algae and bacteria, requiring a drinking 

water advisory and ruining fishing grounds. 

I would like to submit for the record the September 2015 article 

from the New York Times that highlights one of the most toxic 

blooms in recent history, as well as the piece from the Providence 

Journal. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Without objection. 

[The referenced article follows:] 
7 
8 
9 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Lake Erie has seen similar events over and over again in recent 

years. Large rain bursts—expected more often due to climate 

change—pour agricultural runoff through the Clean Water Act’s 

blanket loophole for agriculture. 

If you are an upstream State, you may say the Clean Water Act 

is too strong. Downstream States may have a different view. 

As a downstream State, Rhode Island understands the importance of headwaters and the influence of upstream pollution. Our 

streams and wetlands are vital for fish and wildlife and for Rhode 

Island’s vibrant recreational industry. What enters waters upstream affects our Narragansett Bay, our ocean, our beachgoers, 

and our fishermen. Rhode Islanders love fishing. People come from 

everywhere to fish our waters. It is an important business. 

Strong enforcement of the Clean Water Act is our best defense 

against the upstream pollution that is marring our streams, rivers, 

lakes, and oceans. The jurisdictional confusion left in the wake of 

the Supreme Court’s decisions in this area weakened the efficacy 

of the Clean Water Act and created uncertainty for both regulators 

and the regulated, which is why in 2014 the EPA and Army Corps 

promulgated the new Clean Water rule to provide brighter line 

rules for jurisdiction and add clarity to a blurred world. 

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily stayed the 

rule nationwide, forcing the EPA and Army Corps to continue to 

rely on the guidance they developed before the Supreme Court decisions. 

Whether my colleagues are willing to accept it or not, the reality 

is that the Clean Water Rule is an important regulation. It will 

clear up years of uncertainty about protecting water resources. It 

has broad support from businesses and sportsmen alike, and it 

should have the support of my colleagues on the subcommittee. Attacks on this rule have been often based more on Government conspiracy theories than on the actual rule itself. 

For the record, let me emphasize first that the rule has substantive legal support, which was well documented by EPA and the 

Army Corps. The agencies included an entire chapter in their response to public comments on the legal grounding of the rule and 

published a technical support document entitled Statute, Regulations, and Case Law Legal Issues. 

Second, EPA and the Army Corps did not develop this rule in 

some secret lair in the base of a volcano. In promulgating the rule, 

the Corps and EPA compiled over 1,200 peer-reviewed scientific 

publications, held over 400 public meetings with stakeholders 

around the country, and considered over 1 million public comments, nearly 90 percent of which were in support of the rule. 

Third, and most important for this hearing, the rule does not 

represent an expansive power grab by the Federal Government, nor 

does it eliminate exemptions under the Clean Water Act. It simply 

aims to restore what was protected before Supreme Court decisions 

in 2001 and 2006. 

All previous exemptions and exclusions were maintained, and the 

rule went so far as to explicitly label some specific waters as nonjurisdictional for the first time. The rule actually reduces coverage 

of total waters protected by the Clean Water Act, and according to 
10 

the Corps and EPA, would only lead to around 3 to 5 percent more 

assertions of jurisdiction over U.S. waters as compared to before 

the rule. 

And for those of us downstream, we like, Mr. Chairman, this protection. Thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

I do want to comment on our hearing from last week. I agree 

fully with you, I think there is a lot of opportunity for bipartisan 

support to move forward on the issue of ocean debris, and I look 

forward to working with you on that. 

I will also mention, with regard to broad support, there are 34 

States that have now sued to stop the Waters of the U.S., so in my 

view there is not that much broad support. 

But what I want to do right now is turn to the witnesses. Each 

witness will have 5 minutes for their opening statements, and we 

will provide any other additional written material for the record as 

you wish. 

We will begin with Mr. Don Parrish, the Senior Director of Regulatory Relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation. 

Mr. Parrish, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DON PARRISH, SENIOR DIRECTOR, REGULATORY RELATIONS, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, ACCOMPANIED BY: JODY GALLAWAY 

Mr. PARRISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 

Member. 

My name is Don Parrish, and I appreciate the opportunity to 

share with you what our members are already experiencing with 

the regulation of low spots and ephemeral drains. What I will describe are real on-the-ground experiences for farmers who are facing the consequences of this regulation. We are going to draw from 

information provided by a Farm Bureau member, a farmer, a biologist, a senior consultant in Northern California, Ms. Jody 

Gallaway. Ms. Gallaway is sitting behind me here today. Her experiences are provided for the committee in more detail in the attachment to my testimony. 

But I want to be clear. This regulation is a growing disaster for 

farmers and ranchers. Farm Bureau and others have testified before this committee and other committees regarding what we believe is the real scope of the WOTUS rule. The reality, despite testimony from top Corps and EPA officials, contrary to what they are 

saying, normal farming exemptions will not protect commonplace 

farming and ranching practices from burdensome Federal regulation. 

Before the rule was finalized, and despite a nationwide stay by 

the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, we began hearing from our 

members that California Corps districts were already implementing some of the rule’s most controversial provisions, such as 

asserting jurisdiction based on features that are not visible to the 

human eye. The Corps is making jurisdictional determinations and 

tracking farming activities based solely on imagery that is not publicly available, such as classified or proprietary aerial photography 

and LIDAR imagery. 
11 

The Corps has used historical aerial photographs dating back to 

unknown periods of time to determine historical landscape conditions and evaluate changes in agricultural activities and farming 

practices. For example, two farmers invested tens of thousands of 

dollars to proactively map their private property to ensure that 

their farming activities would avoid WOTUS and any impacts to 

WOTUS only to have the Corps threaten enforcement proceedings 

for activities related to road building and the construction of stock 

ponds, both—both—exempt activities conducted years before these 

landowners actually owned the property. 

EPA Administrator McCarthy assured Congress that farmers 

would not be impacted because of the agricultural exemptions. 

Farm Bureau has been telling Congress that is not true. In practice, the Corps routinely narrows the farming exemptions and interprets the recapture provision too broadly. For example, in California, any plowing—any plowing, no matter how shallow—in or 

near a WOTUS draws threats or permit requirements. The Corps 

routinely sends threatening letters to farmers if they plow their 

fields, if they change from growing alfalfa hay to cattle grazing and 

then back to alfalfa hay growing. The California districts routinely 

require wetland delineations to include puddles in dirt roads, puddles in tire racks, and depressions, depressions in parking lots, 

gravel parking lots, claiming they provide habitat for endangered 

species. 

The new rule allows the Corps to broadly assert jurisdiction 

based on indicators, not actual ordinary high water mark. Ms. 

Gallaway, who sits behind me, has seen the Corps regulators make 

ordinary high water mark determinations that differ by as much 

as 50 feet. That has huge implications for on-the-ground projects. 

I will conclude with this example. A farmer requested an official 

jurisdictional determination, but the Corps ignored it, ignored it. 

After the farmer expressed frustration, the Corps assigned a new 

regulator. He promptly rejected Ms. Gallaway’s delineation and requested more information. 

Ms. Gallaway completed an ordinary high water mark datasheet 

at significant cost to the landowner. The regulator, without collecting any field data—any field data—rejected the field data; instead, identified the ordinary high water mark based on an interpretation of an aerial photograph. When Ms. Gallaway asked to see 

the aerial photograph, she was denied. The Corps district said it 

was proprietary information. 

Based on what we see in California, red tape, the use of secret 

information, and delays are going to be enormous problems for 

farmers and ranchers, and they are only going to get worse. Importantly, normal farming exemptions are going to be further narrowed, and we are going to see more and more permit requirements for normal farming practices. Congress has to step in. 

I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parrish follows:] 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Parrish. 

The next witness is Mr. Damien Schiff, the principal attorney for 

the Pacific Legal Foundation. 

Mr. Schiff, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAMIEN M. SCHIFF, PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY, 

PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you also to 

the Ranking Member, Senator Whitehouse, for the opportunity to 

talk today about this critically important issue of the scope of the 

Clean Water Act. 

The Clean Water Act is a law that has been controversial for 

many decades. The Foundation and its attorneys have participated 

in many cases concerning the scope of the Clean Water Act, including the Supreme Court’s two most recent cases addressing that 

statute, Rapanos v. United States and Sackett v. EPA. 

The recent controversy has focused, of course, on the scope of the 

WOTUS rule, but in my testimony this afternoon I would like to 

draw the committee’s attention to issues that are not directly 

raised by the WOTUS rule but nevertheless, in my view, represent 

the extravagance with which the EPA and the Corps view their authority under the Clean Water Act. 

And I would like to begin with a case that, Mr. Chairman, you 

mentioned in your opening remarks, concerning the Schok family 

in Alaska. The Schoks own a pipe fabrication business, and they 

want to expand their business and acquire a new location for that 

purpose. But the Corps has intervened and asserted jurisdiction 

over approximately 200 acres of that property, calling it permafrost 

that is subject to the Clean Water Act. 

Now, no one disputes that determining whether a site contains 

wetlands can be exceptionally difficult. And to provide some measure of predictability, Congress in 1992 mandated that the Corps 

use its 1987 wetlands manual for delineating wetlands until a final 

manual would be adopted. 

Now, under the manual it is clear that permafrost does not qualify as a wetland. But to get around that obstacle, the Army Corps, 

in 2007, promulgated a so-called Alaska supplement. This supplement changes a key criterion for wetlands delineation which allows 

the agency to regulate permafrost. Again, that is a result that 

could not be reached under the congressionally mandated, nationally applicable 1987 wetlands manual. 

Now, although permafrost is not that common in the lower 48, 

the principal raised by the Schok family’s case pertains throughout 

the country. Should a Federal agency be allowed to deviate from 

its published, nationally applicable rules just to expand its power? 

The answer clearly is no. 

Another example of agency excess under the Clean Water Act 

comes out of Andy Johnson’s battle with EPA over his stock pond. 

Johnson owns an 8-acre parcel in Fort Bridger, Wyoming. The 

rural property contains both his home as well as some surrounding 

land which he uses to raise various farm animals, including horses 

and cattle. Johnson obtained a permit from the State of Wyoming 

to construct a stock pond in order to improve the water quality on 

his property. 
149 

Unfortunately, EPA didn’t care for that, and in January 2014 

issued a compliance order against Mr. Johnson, saying that his 

construction of the stock pond violated the Clean Water Act, this 

notwithstanding the fact that the Clean Water Act, since the late 

1970s, has clearly exempted the construction and maintenance of 

farm and stock ponds from Clean Water Act regulation. 

Nevertheless, the EPA said that the Clean Water Act applied to 

Mr. Johnson’s stock pond because he did not construct it simply for 

the use of his livestock but also for the aesthetic pleasure that it 

might give himself and his family; and therefore, because his intent 

was not limited to simply providing water for his livestock, the exemption did not apply. And the compliance order that was issued 

against Mr. Johnson not only told him that he had to undo everything that he had done, but also threatened tens of thousands of 

dollars per day in civil penalties if he did not immediately respond 

to the compliance order. 

Now, thankfully, following a lawsuit brought by Pacific Legal 

Foundation attorneys, EPA agreed to a reasonable settlement with 

Mr. Johnson, allowing him to keep his stock pond without having 

to obtain a permit. But there is no reason to think that the Agency 

will not continue to enforce its very narrow interpretation of the 

stock pond exemption to farmers and landowners throughout the 

country. 

So, in closing, I would just like to emphasize that regardless of 

the WOTUS rule’s fate, the history of the enforcement of the Clean 

Water Act by the Army Corps of Engineers as well as the EPA 

demonstrates that, frankly, all too often these agencies allow a misguided zeal for protecting the environment to override key constitutional and statutory protections for the Nation’s farmers and landowners throughout the country. 

I thank you again for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and I look 

forward to answering any questions the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:] 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. 

Our next witness is Ms. Valerie Wilkinson. She is the Chief Financial Officer of the ESG Companies, on behalf of the National 

Association of Homebuilders. 

Ms. Wilkinson, you have 5 minutes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF VALERIE L. WILKINSON, CHIEF FINANCIAL 

OFFICER, ESG COMPANIES 

Ms. WILKINSON. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, members of the 

committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. My name is Valerie Wilkinson. I am a CPA and the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the ESG Companies, a small business based in 

Virginia Beach, Virginia. 

Homebuilders have become frustrated with the expansion of Federal authority over private property and believe the current permitting process is broken. For almost three decades we have been held 

hostage by the EPA and the Corps, who have continually altered 

the Clean Water Act 404 permit requirements. This is perplexing, 

as irrelevant sections of the Act have not changed since 1972. 

Our nightmare began when our company proposed plans for a 

multiuse community to address local housing demand. While we 

were clearing our land in 1989, the Corps asserted that our property contained jurisdictional wetlands and that a wetland delineation was required. This surprised us, as we had developed land 

with identical characteristics for years. Clearly, the rules had 

changed. 

We hired environmental experts to survey the land; however, the 

Corps dismissed their assessments. The delineation took years to 

complete because Corps officials disagreed on the criteria for determining wetlands. The regulatory environment changed again in 

1999, when Virginia adopted the Federal 404 regulations to create 

an expedited one-stop permitting system and required a permit to 

excavate the land. We hired more experts to complete another wetland delineation for the Virginia DEQ wetland permit. 

DEQ staff confirmed our expert’s delineation, and we submitted 

our State permit request. We agreed to revise our plan to further 

avoid and minimize impacts, and provided mitigation so that for 

every one acre impacted, two acres of wetlands would be restored 

and another acre placed in preservation, resulting in no net loss of 

wetland acreage or functions. The DEQ applauded the fact of our 

exceeding the typical protective measures and issued a 15-year permit. 

Since the State and Federal requirements are the same, we were 

stunned when the Corps disregarded DEQ’s delineation and added 

36.7 acres of impacted wetlands to the project. The basis of their 

decision for this 25 percent increase was vague and unsubstantiated. And although we strongly disagreed, we tried to move the 

permit forward by offering a number of amendments to our proposal that further lessened the environmental impact and provided 

an extensive alternatives analysis which proved the other options 

unfeasible. 

Five years after we received the State permit, the Corps, utilizing the same regulations, denied our request. The Corps wrongly 

claimed that we had not adequately addressed information re-
165 

quests even though we had replied to every one, provided offsite 

analysis, as well as 17 onsite alternatives, and addressed every 

public comment to multiple public notices. 

Frustrated, we modified our project again in an effort to stay out 

of court and salvage some of our extensive investment. The significantly reduced plan decreased wetland impacts by 84 percent and 

the Corps accepted this as a modification to our original application. However, the Corps adopted a new regional supplement which 

expanded the definition of a wetland, and we were forced to start 

over again with a new set of rules. 

It has been 11 years since filing our Federal application. We 

have responded to countless requests for information, studies, and 

data, only to be met with more delays and requests to update and 

revise the information. We have hired consultants and experts for 

an additional delineation, and although many requests appeared to 

be stalling mechanisms, we have complied again and again. We 

have been prevented from developing any of our 428 acres for 27 

years, and our 15-year State permit will expire in 2018. Our efforts 

are reflected in the files on these boards. 

We fear that the worst is yet to come. The EPA and Corps have 

finalized a rule further expanding their authority under the Clean 

Water Act. This rule will lead to increased litigation and delays. 

Small businesses will not survive under these rules, as most do not 

have the time and resources to fight. We have spent over $4.5 million in the process and over $40 million in our investment and still 

are not close to a permit. If constructed, our project will create jobs, 

increase property tax revenue, and provide affordable housing. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilkinson follows:] 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Ms. Wilkinson. That is very powerful testimony. I appreciate this. 

Our next witness is Mr. William Buzbee, Professor of Law at 

Georgetown University Law Center. 

Professor Buzbee, you have 5 minutes for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. BUZBEE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Mr. BUZBEE. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member 

Whitehouse, and other committee members. I am William Buzbee, 

a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. I am pleased to 

testify today about both application of current Federal law under 

Clean Water Act and also briefly comment on the Waters of the 

United States rule, known as the Clean Water Rule. 

I should also note that previously I have testified at congressional hearings in the House and the Senate on these questions 

and also represented a bipartisan brief of former EPA administrators in the Rapanos case, which was also aligned with the George 

W. Bush administration. 

I think it is important to remember this has been an area of bipartisan support in the past, and I hope it will be again, too. 

Rather than covering the remarks I submitted in writing, I want 

to focus on two main issues. One is given the claims of regulatory 

overreach, I will address some of those claims and make a few suggestions. And then I will turn to issues of the Clean Water Rule 

and ways in which I believe it would be a beneficial and good turn 

in the law. 

So, first, on this issue of regulatory overreach, I think first, and 

most importantly, Federal policy should never be based on a story, 

but an assessment of how a regulatory program works overall. And 

I note today, as in many past hearings, and really since the 

SWANCC case, up until today, critics of Clean Water Act jurisdiction focus on wetlands and section 404. It is important to recall 

that the Waters of the United States issue and jurisdiction is the 

linchpin for all jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, including 

industrial pollution discharges. 

Second, it is important to look at where the law stands today 

compared to where it stood prior to the SWANCC case. The Clean 

Water Act, as measured now, protects less water or fewer waters 

than it did during the Administration of President Ronald Reagan. 

Then, as I read the witness statements for today, a few things 

jumped out at me. First, as is not to be a surprise to any of us, 

you see unavoidable interaction of Federal, State, and local regulators, and it is important to remember that States’ actions here, 

although sometimes disliked, are protected under the Clean Water 

Act; they are never forced to accept a project merely because at 

times it will be federally protected; they are subject to a strong savings clause. 

Second, thinking about the Army Corps’ work and EPA’s work, 

for a country as large as the United States, there is a formidable 

task in trying to provide regulatory consistency and also show sensitivity to local differences; and there is probably no area more 

than the Clean Water Act where the jurisdictional determinations 
179 

call for this balance of rule-like clarity and sensitivity to local circumstances. 

Part of this is a result of the Rapanos case. Several of the groups 

here today on this panel and past witnesses in similar hearings 

were ardent advocates in the Supreme Court, that the Supreme 

Court should embrace the so-called significant nexus rule, which 

required in many circumstances close attention to individual waters and their characteristics. 

Justice Kennedy’s now authoritative opinion in Rapanos embraced that, and for good or bad, unless the Clean Water Rule is 

allowed to take effect, it requires substantial case-specific judgment 

by regulators about how lands and waters function, including for 

things like filtering of pollutants and reducing flooding. So this sort 

of individual discretionary judgments is unfortunately, right now, 

in part the result of the significant nexus test embraces in 

Rapanos. 

If this is disliked, the Clean Water Rule would bring greater clarity. Also, the earlier Clean Water Restoration Act that was proposed would also bring greater clarity. And you can’t have it both 

ways; you either need rule-like clarity with more law or you need 

to have discretionary judgments, and right now the law requires 

quite a bit of regulatory individual judgments. 

Looking at the overall data—I was looking it up in response to 

testimony today—it is important to understand that skirmishes 

and permit denials are not the norm here. The recent Army Corps 

data says that there were 79,000 permit activities this past fiscal 

year; that the Army Corps authorized 57,000 permits, completed 

49,000 jurisdictional determinations, and 95 percent were authorized. The remainder received individual permits, and only 1 to 3 

percent are subject to denials. 

Now, with my last few seconds I would suggest that the Clean 

Water rule is well grounded in law and science. I notice in statements there are some arguments that EPA and the Army Corps 

did not have power to act here. It is important to note that six Supreme Court justices in Rapanos called for action by regulation to 

bring clarity to the law. 

Second, as mentioned by Senator Whitehouse, the Clean Water 

Rule solidifies exemptions and carve-outs, and actually proposes to 

eliminate completely the longstanding Commerce clause sweep-up 

provision that allowed regulators to act based on the existence of 

commerce and industrial linkages. My sense is that the Clean 

Water Rule is well founded in science and the connectivity report 

and should be embraced. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buzbee follows:] 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Professor Buzbee. 

Our final witness today is Mr. Scott Kovarovics. He is the Executive Director of the Izaak Walton League of America. 

Scott, you have 5 minutes for your opening statement. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT KOVAROVICS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA 

Mr. KOVAROVICS. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan and Senator 

Whitehouse, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the Clean Water Rule. I am Scott 

Kovarovics, the Executive Director of the Izaak Walton League of 

America, and I am pleased to be here on behalf of not only the 

League, but the much broader community of Americans who enjoy 

hunting and angling and outdoor recreation. 

The League’s 43,000 members nationwide are leading efforts locally to conserve and restore habitat and improve and monitor 

water quality. Our members enjoy hunting, angling, recreational 

shooting sports, and a myriad of other outdoor recreation. And our 

members and sportsmen nationwide understand that healthy natural resources provide the foundation for the outdoor traditions 

that tens of millions of Americans enjoy every year. 

Ensuring our Nation’s streams, wetlands, and other waters are 

healthy is vitally important to Americans who hunt and fish for 

communities nationwide and for the outdoor recreation economy. 

Wetlands and streams provide essential habitat for fish, ducks, 

and other wildlife. Prairie potholes throughout the northern plains 

and southern Canada support 50 percent of the North American 

duck population in an average year. Ducks that grow to adulthood 

and hatch in those wetlands are harvested throughout the United 

States every fall. Headwaters and other small streams provide vital 

habitat for coldwater fish, provide essential spawning habitat for 

trout, salmon, and other fish, and support those fish throughout 

their lifecycles. 

Each year, nearly 50 million Americans go into the field to hunt 

or fish. The money that sportsmen and sportswomen spend benefits 

major manufacturing industries and small businesses in communities all across this country. These expenditures directly and indirectly support more than 1.5 million American jobs and ripple 

through the economy to the tune of $200 billion annually. 

And many other forms of outdoor recreation depend on clean 

water and a healthy environment. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, boating, including canoeing and kayaking, had a 

total economic impact of $206 billion in 2012, supporting 1.5 million additional jobs in this country. 

The Clean Water Rule is science-based, limited, and more specifically defines waters that are and are not covered by the Clean 

Water Act. The final rule narrows the historic scope of Clean Water 

Act jurisdiction. It clearly defines and limits tributaries through 

physical features and distinguishes tributaries from dry land 

ditches and erosional features, and it preserves and enhances existing exemptions for farming, ranching, and other land uses. 

Hunting, angling, and conservation groups, including the League, 

strongly support the final rule. It is also supported by businesses 
195 

and industries that depend on clean water and a healthy environment. I will give you two quotes that offer examples. 

‘‘The Clean Water Rule is good for our business, which depends 

on clean fishable water. Improving the quality of fishing in America translates directly to our bottom line, to the numbers of employees we hire right here in America, and to the health of our brick 

and mortar stores all over the country.’’ That is from Dave Perkins, 

the Executive Vice Chairman of the Orvis Company that has some 

80 retail operations across the country and employs 1,700 people. 

Next, ‘‘EPA’s rule gives the business community more confidence 

that clean water sources, including streams and wetlands, are protected and removes uncertainty surrounding the Agency’s authority 

to protect our waterways. This is good for the economy and vital 

for businesses that rely on clean water for their success.’’ That is 

from Richard Eidlin, the Vice President of Policy and Campaigns 

at the American Sustainable Business Council, which represents 

250,000 businesses across the country. 

The exemptions from the Clean Water Act are maintained and 

enhanced in the Clean Water Rule. As mentioned, since 1977, the 

Clean Water Act has included a number of exemptions from the 

404 permit process for discharges associated with farming, construction, mining, and other activities. Moreover, in an effort to 

provide even more clarity and certainty about the types of waters 

covered by the Clean Water Act, the final rule maintains existing 

regulatory exemptions and for the first time in regulation explicitly 

excludes specific waters and features from the definition of waters 

of the United States. 

The following summarizes some of those exemptions: prior converted cropland; many drainage ditches; artificially irrigated areas; 

artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools; small ornamental waters; erosional features, including gullies and rills; puddles; groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage 

systems. 

Conserving and protecting streams, wetlands, and other waters 

is essential to Americans who hunt and fish and enjoy a wide array 

of other outdoor recreation. These activities depend on clean water 

and healthy habitat, including abundant wetlands. And these activities fuel the outdoor recreation economy, which totals hundreds 

of billions of dollars annually and supports millions of American 

jobs. 

The Clean Water Rule is vitally important to safeguarding our 

Nation’s water resources, hunting and angling traditions, and the 

outdoor recreation economy. The final rule provides more clarity 

about the waters that are and are not covered by the Clean Water 

Act. It is based on overwhelming science and common sense, and 

it responds to common calls from Supreme Court justices, industry, 

and landowners to clarify agency regulations. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify and happy to answer any 

questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kovarovics follows:] 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, thank you. 

I want to thank all the witnesses. We have a very distinguished 

panel, a lot of different views, so I think we are going to have a 

good hearing this afternoon. 

I do want to emphasize again that I don’t think that any of us, 

certainly I can say from my experience on this committee, we are 

all very focused on clean water, clean air. But the issues that have 

been raised here about certainty, about the Federal agencies’ statutory authority are very, very important from a perspective of oversight, and it is not just members of this committee who have concerns. 

In the last 2 years, whether it is the WOTUS rule that has now 

had a Federal judge put a stay on that, whether it is the Clean 

Power Plan, which the Supreme Court, first time in its history, has 

put a stay on that before a district court has even ruled on it; several other cases, or even EPA Administrator McCarthy’s statement 

on the eve of the EPA v. Michigan case, where, when asked if she 

thought she was going to win, she said, yes, but then she said, 

‘‘Even if we don’t, we promulgated this rule 3 years ago. Most companies and everybody else are already in compliance. Investments 

have been made. We’ll catch up.’’ Essentially, even if we lose, we 

win, and that is not how the law works. 

So there is a lot of concern. 

And I do want to mention, again, Ms. Wilkinson, your point 

about uncertainty in changing the rules, how that impacts our 

economy, is also very, very powerful. 

So let me start with a question that relates to your case, and this 

is for Mr. Schiff or Ms. Wilkinson. My understanding is the Corps 

told Ms. Wilkinson’s company that they can regulate land even if 

there is no surface connection to navigable water. 

First, I want to know did they actually say that. And can anyone 

explain to me how a high groundwater table creates Federal jurisdiction, particularly if the groundwater never reaches the surface? 

Wouldn’t all of the State of Florida, for example, be subject to the 

EPA’s jurisdiction if that is actually their legal view of their jurisdiction? 

Mr. Schiff, why don’t you take a shot at that? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For a long time the 

Corps has used the idea of what they call shallow subsurface connection to justify the basis of Federal jurisdiction, and at bottom 

it is really an attempt to regulate groundwater and to expand surface jurisdiction without a congressionally appropriate change in 

the legislation. 

So, under the WOTUS rule, this is carried forward under the 

idea of adjacency jurisdiction, that if there is that shallow subsurface connection, then the Corps will consider your property to 

be adjacent to, and therefore subject to regulation under the Clean 

Water Act, adjacent to whatever the nearest navigable water may 

be where that shallow subsurface flow ends up. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So doesn’t that greatly expand the jurisdictional reach? 

Mr. SCHIFF. It is hard to imagine, really, any area that otherwise 

would at least be, prima facie, subject to jurisdiction, because to 
201 

some extent you are going to have that shallow groundwater flow 

in almost any part of the country. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask you another question. In a hearing last year I asked EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy if permafrost itself was jurisdictional under the proposed WOTUS rule. And 

if so, what is the significant nexus between permafrost, which, 

again, is frozen water and a navigable water, interstate water, or 

territorial sea. Her response was that permafrost specifically refers 

to permanently frozen soil. And while permafrost may underlie 

wetlands or open waters, it is not, in and of itself, a water of the 

U.S. subject to the rule and the jurisdiction of the rule. 

If that is her response, this is the head of the EPA, do the Corps 

and Alaska agree, in particular with regard to the Schok case that 

you are working on or more broadly in terms of their guidance? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. And it is surprising that the administrator 

would take that position. But the Corps is certainly not reconcilable, its position is not reconcilable with what Administrator 

McCarthy said. The position of the Corps is that permafrost can 

qualify not just as a wetland, but much more importantly, as a 

water of the United States. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Just to follow up on that, it is not your position that because something is permafrost it could not be 

regulable under the Clean Water Act; i.e., something that is permafrost could, for other reasons, in addition to it being permafrost, 

make itself properly regulable under the Clean Water Act, correct? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Senator Whitehouse, certainly under existing law it 

can’t be regulated. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It can’t be regulated as permafrost, per se, 

but one can have an area that is permafrost that is also a wetland, 

that is also an area through which a stream runs and so forth. So 

the fact that there is permafrost underneath a wetland feature 

doesn’t disqualify the wetland feature from being regulable. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I think perhaps, Senator Whitehouse, there may be 

a semantic issue, because the Corps would say that we are not 

talking about permafrost underlying a wetland; we are talking 

about essentially just permafrost. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And that, I think, is the difference here, 

and that is what I want to make sure. But your position is not that 

something just because it is permafrost can’t be regulated under 

the Clean Water Act no matter what other conditions it may be exhibit. Your point is that just because it is permafrost shouldn’t be 

enough to trigger Clean Water Act regulation. 

Mr. SCHIFF. At the very least, yes, that is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. 

And then to go to Mr. Parrish, you have indicated that the Army 

Corps, to quote you, ‘‘still regulates puddles, including puddles in 

dirt roads, tire ruts, and depressions in gravel parking lots.’’ Could 

I ask, as a question for the record, that you send me any and all 

information that you have, any and all paperwork from the Army 

Corps that substantiates that statement? That is worth, I think, 

pursuing. It doesn’t have to be right now, but we can take that as 

a question for the record. 
202 

Mr. PARRISH. I can do that, but I can also bring forth a technical 

witness that can support that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The other question that I had had to do 

with arroyos. In your testimony, Mr. Schiff, I believe you said because sediment and fertilizer collected in stormwater could flow 

through the arroyo into the Rio Grande, the arroyo was regulated 

under the Clean Water Act. If you are a downstream water user, 

and somebody upstream is dumping pesticides, manure, waste, 

anything else into an arroyo that they know, you know, everybody 

knows is a couple times a year going to just flood and wash all that 

stuff down into the waterway, isn’t that something that the EPA 

should be able to consider in protecting the downstream waterway? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Senator Whitehouse, I would say, first of all, it is 

hard to imagine any State in the Nation where that sort of activity 

would also be legal. So I think that it is a clear example of even 

in that extreme—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, if it is outright illegal, then it certainly shouldn’t be a great burden for the EPA to come in and say, 

look, we are regulating that, too. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, then you have a question of duplication of effort. And wouldn’t it be much better if EPA could focus its authorities and limited budget on those issues that truly raise a Federal 

question? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Perhaps. But your question was jurisdictional. You are not suggesting that an arroyo, because it is sometimes dry, is always beyond EPA’s jurisdiction, no matter what the 

polluting effects to that arroyo on the downstream waters when it 

floods? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, it is not so much, Senator Whitehouse, what 

I am suggesting. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But it is your testimony, so I am trying to 

clarify it. So it is exactly what you are suggesting. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, what I meant to say, Senator Whitehouse, is 

that it is not my position so much as it is Justice Kennedy’s position in the Rapanos case, where he said that there are some tributaries that, because of the quality or quantity of their flow is so 

small, that it is not in the appropriate—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Correct. But one can have an arroyo that 

is on both sides of the Kennedy test. One could have one where 

there is a significant enough nexus that even though it is dry sometimes, it could still properly be regulated. Or is it your testimony 

today that no streambed that ever runs dry should be regulable 

under the Clean Water Act? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No, that is not certainly my testimony. But I would 

say that ultimately even the Corps, in the case that you mentioned 

from my written testimony, the Corps itself realized that this was 

an arroyo that fell on the other side of the line, so to speak, even 

under Justice Kennedy’s test. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good. OK. I agree with you, they could be 

regulable or not, depending on local conditions and what the actual 

factual circumstances there on the ground are. 

Let me make a concluding point in my last 30 seconds. One is 

that people who are downstream of manure lagoons or heavily pesticide-laden farmland, or extensive use of fertilizer very often expe-
203 

rience really significant effects when that runs off and hits the waterways that they love; whether they want to protect the insects 

that the fish feed on or whether they just want to have a clean 

stream going by their children’s backyard, I do think that they 

have an interest in that we should protect. 

And the second point is that I think that there is a difference we 

should reflect between, particularly in a large organization, bad bureaucracy that creates a problem by not being helpful and responsive to individual applicants versus an underlying bad statute. And 

I think that is an important distinction for us to bear in mind. 

Ms. Wilkinson, I am sorry that you had a horrible experience, 

and I gather it continues. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Chairman Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to put a 

statement in the record that I didn’t want to give in the beginning. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I want to thank Senator Sullivan for holding this very important hearing. This 

committee has conducted extensive oversight of both the development and the implications of the new Waters of the United States—or WOTUS—rule. On behalf of 

Oklahomans and farmers and property owners across the United States, I was very 

relieved when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on October 9, 2015, 

that prevented this rule from going into effect. 

However, I have heard concerns that the Corps and EPA are continuing to expand 

Federal control over land and water without any change in the statute or regulations. 

This hearing validates those concerns with concrete examples of how the Corps 

and EPA are already implementing the expanded Federal control that they are trying to codify in the WOTUS rule. The examples presented by these witnesses are 

not hypothetical. They are based on the experiences of farmers, developers, and wetlands experts. 

The WOTUS rule allows use of remote sensing and aerial photographs to assert 

Federal control over dry land. The testimony presented today demonstrates that the 

Corps is already regulating land based on information from these tools, even when 

there is no on-the-ground evidence of a wetland or water. 

The WOTUS rule allows use of water that is below the surface of the land to assert Federal control. The testimony presented today demonstrates that the Corps is 

already claiming that groundwater and even water in soil creates Federal jurisdiction. 

The WOTUS rule erodes ordinary farming exemptions with its broad definition of 

tributary. The testimony presented today demonstrates that Federal officials are 

claiming authority over farming activities even on land that has no streams and no 

wetlands. As far as EPA and the Corps are concerned all plowing is regulated, and 

the farming exemptions no longer exist. 

This testimony is tremendously important because EPA has tried to convince 

Members of Congress that its new rule does not expand Federal jurisdiction, and 

exemptions for farmers will remain. 

In fact, as our witnesses today explain, EPA’s and the Corps’ claim of Federal control over land and water has expanded significantly over the last several years, and 

the WOTUS rule would codify that expansion. 

I don’t know which is more shocking: 

• Ms. Wilkinson’s testimony about how the buildable acres of her company’s property have shrunk from 144.6 acres down to 6—with no change in the law, 

• Mr. Parrish’s testimony that the Corps is regulating farmland based on light 

sensing radar and aerial photographs and then refusing to share these documents 

with the landowner, claiming that they are classified, or 

• Mr. Schiff’s testimony about how Corps districts are issuing Regional Supplements to change the definition of a wetland without going through notice and comment rulemaking. 
204 

I will do everything within my power to expose these abuses so my colleagues— 

including the seven Senators who wrote a letter to EPA instead of voting for 

S. 1140—are no longer fooled by EPA’s assurances. Working together, we can stop 

this Federal overreach. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Parrish, do you know Tom Buchanan from 

Oklahoma, who is the Farm Bureau President there? 

Mr. PARRISH. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. He testified before this committee just a few 

weeks ago, sitting in the same chair where you are now. He was 

really quite outspoken. He had contended for a long period of time 

that of all the problems that farmers and ranchers in the State of 

Oklahoma, and he contended outside also, was nothing that is really found in the agriculture bill, but was overregulation by the EPA 

and specifically the WOTUS bill. Do you agree with Tom Buchanan? 

Mr. PARRISH. I do, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. He was really quite emotional about it, and it 

is one that we are all concerned about. The last time Secretary 

Darcy testified before this committee I specifically asked her why 

she was ignoring the language in the energy and water appropriation bills that says the Corps cannot require a permit for ordinary 

farming activity, and she claimed that they were not doing that 

now. 

Do you think they are doing that now? Do you have an example? 

Mr. PARRISH. Yes. We believe that they are doing that now. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, you know, one of the things that they say, 

I am not sure how formal this is, but I have heard the Corps and 

the EPA claim jurisdiction if a farmer wants to change just from 

grazing to growing hay, or from rice farming or to walnuts or something else. Have you heard that? 

Mr. PARRISH. I have, sir, and I keep hearing that from my members. If the Chairman would like even more information, Ms. 

Gallaway here has actually seen on-the-ground results of that. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask permission 

for her to join, without objection, to respond to that question. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Without objection, Ms. Gallaway, you are welcome to join the panelists for additional expertise and information 

that you want to provide. 

Ms. GALLAWAY. Thank you. Yes, it is my experience on the 

ground. I am a senior regulatory biologist, work mainly in northern 

California, and my main role is to help farmers, a variety of clients, 

public works, cities and States, navigate the Clean Water Act process. 

Lately, it has been my experience that the Army Corps of Engineers has considered changing from one crop to another a land use 

change, and when you incur a land use change, that change becomes under their jurisdiction. For example, a rice farmer going 

from rice to walnuts, the Corps considers that a land use change 

and has submitted letters of inquiry notifying my clients that they 

are under investigation for potential violations to the Clean Water 

Act. These land use changes they consider from temporary to permanent crops now fall under their jurisdiction, and they are requesting farmers to go consult with them before they change crops. 
205 

Senator INHOFE. OK, now, that is interesting. You are saying 

they actually have a written communication to that effect? 

Ms. GALLAWAY. Several. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. I would like to ask if you would give 

this committee some of the copies of that, where they are actually 

making that statement. Would you do that for us? 

Ms. GALLAWAY. I would be happy to. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

Last, Mr. Schiff, you referred to this, so I direct this to either Ms. 

Gallaway or Mr. Parrish or Ms. Wilkinson, that the WOTUS rule 

has been stayed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. So that 

means that we are still operating under the law; nothing has 

changed. Now, despite this, are you seeing a Federal expansion of 

Federal jurisdiction in on-the-ground activities of the EPA and the 

Corps of Engineers? 

Mr. Schiff, you already mentioned that, but how about you, Ms. 

Wilkinson? 

Ms. WILKINSON. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. It has been our experience that each time the rules are further modified or clarified, 

that this results on on-the-ground increase in jurisdictional impacts. We have had it happen several times now on our property, 

since this has been going on for so long. I would also say that these 

changing regulations just make it so difficult for a small business 

to play for the future or to run their business when the interpretations are constantly changing and expanding. 

Senator INHOFE. Any comment on that? 

Ms. GALLAWAY. I would like to echo Ms. Wilkinson. That is what 

I see on a daily basis interacting with the Corps, is each regulator 

has a different interpretation of what is and what isn’t waters of 

the United States, and that creates a lot of confusion on the 

ground. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let me just, in my final few seconds here, 

remind this panel up here that they tried to do this through legislation 6 years ago. That was an effort. In fact, it was Senators 

Feingold and Oberstar. And not only did they lose their legislation, 

they lost their careers, too, at the same time. So this is an issue 

that has been there for a long time. It is very typical of things that 

are not being able to be done through legislation are now trying to 

be done through regulation, and that, I believe, is what we are experiencing now. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Parrish, in your testimony you have identified numerous examples of the Army Corps implementing the waters of the U.S. 

rule despite the nationwide stay. Because of this implementation, 

farmers are losing the ability to manage their land and utilize it 

in the best way possible. Can you explain the impact of this early 

implementation of the WOTUS rule and what it could have in 

terms of an impact on ag production in the United States? 

Mr. PARRISH. From a global perspective, we saw a shift in the 

EPA and the Corps exerting jurisdiction back about 3 years. What 

we are seeing is not just them having an impact on the practices 
206 

that farmers use; we are seeing an actual impact on the way farmers can use their land and actually prohibitions on the way that 

they propose to use their land. They do everything possible, in a 

lot of cases, to try to avoid WOTUS or any impacts to WOTUS. And 

what we are seeing here are things that are going to have ripple 

effects throughout the agricultural economy, not only impacting 

farmers and ranchers, but impacting the quality and the abundance of our food supply. 

Senator ROUNDS. Mr. Schiff, today we have heard multiple examples of the Army Corps implementing the WOTUS rule, nearly to 

the point where the property that is subject to the permitting loses 

its value. When ag land is subject to burdensome and unreasonable 

permitting requirements based on incomplete information or the illegal implementation of regulations, landowners use the ability to 

cultivate and properly manage their land, which essentially prohibits farmers and ranchers from using the land which they rightfully own. 

Would you consider this illegal implementation of the WOTUS 

rule a regulatory taking by the Army Corps of Engineers? And, if 

so, what recourse do the property owners have to prevent the Army 

Corps from devaluing their property to the point that it becomes 

practically unsaleable? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Senator Rounds, for that question. I do 

believe that in many of these instances there would be a regulatory 

taking. The idea is that the Constitution says that the Government 

cannot take your property for public use without just compensation. And the Supreme Court has made clear that includes in cases 

where, through environmental or other regulation, you can no 

longer do anything with your property, and therefore no longer 

have any value left. And oftentimes, with respect to the implementation of the Clean Water Act, that is the result. 

One big obstacle that property owners have, though, to vindicating their property rights when they are told they can’t use it 

and they seek compensation is the general rule that one cannot 

seek compensation until one has first applied for a permit. Unfortunately, Federal agencies, including the Army Corps, oftentimes 

know this and will drag out the permitting process in order to prevent a claim from being ripened, or what they may do, they may 

very well recognize that just the permitting process itself can oftentimes cost more than the value of the property in question, so essentially it gives a landowner no effective remedy. 

Senator ROUNDS. Mr. Parrish or Ms. Gallaway, would you like to 

comment on that? 

Ms. GALLAWAY. Yes, I agree. I mean, just the cost of getting a 

permit, a nationwide 40 permit in California is close to $40,000, 

and that is just with a half-acre or 300 linear feet of fill. So, if you 

exceed that, you are at an individual permit. The cost of that in 

California is $350,000. Those costs do not include mitigation, which 

can also be $300,000, $400,000 an acre. 

Senator ROUNDS. I think the Ranking Member has brought up 

something which I think is important, and that is what we have 

to begin with is a statute, and I don’t think any of us disagree with 

the statute itself. I think the challenge for us is whether or not the 

implementation of the statute within either the existing language 
207 

of rules prior to the implementation of WOTUS are appropriate or 

if they are so ambiguous that we literally need to upgrade them, 

or if the WOTUS would have been a better alternative, which I 

don’t think it was; I think they went way beyond that. 

But I do think that we have to get back to, as the Ranking Member suggested, a more clear and definitive definition and understanding of what the statute really implied in the first place. And 

if we want to change it to the point where it looks something like 

what WOTUS did, I think they have to come back to Congress to 

actually request permission to expand it over and above what the 

statute provided for in the first place. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

The Clean Water Act is an American success story. We don’t talk 

about the Cuyahoga River being on fire anymore. We don’t talk 

about the Charles River as dirty water up in Boston; it is a big success story. Summertime in the Bay State is now filled with students sailing on the Charles and beach days at Revere Beach, 

which is the first public beach in America. These are success stories of the Clean Water Act. 

But the next chapter in protecting our Nation’s waterways is still 

not complete. There is still work to be done. When the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers finalized the recent Clean Water Rule, they did so to clarify longstanding regulatory uncertainty. In fact, many groups on both sides 

of the aisle asked for clarification. And the foundation of the rule 

was based on the latest scientific developments. 

Over 1,200 scientific studies were reviewed. The conclusion was 

that upstream wetlands and small streams are vital to health of 

rivers and lakes downstream. The outreach from EPA and the 

Army Corps was tremendous and demonstrated they understood 

seriousness and importance that had to attach to this rule. More 

than 400 stakeholder group meetings were held across the country. 

More than 1 million public comments were reviewed after an extended comment period. 

The uncertainty about the Clean Water Rule is not good for business, not good for our communities, not good for our environment. 

We have a choice in our story’s next chapter. We can acknowledge 

the interconnectedness of our Nation’s waterways and the importance of ensuring clean water or allow regulatory uncertainty to endanger our Nation’s waterways and the drinking water for onethird of Americans. 

I prefer the chapter with clarity, with clean water, and with a 

healthy future. 

Mr. Buzbee, there have been questions at the start of this hearing about dry areas being regulated. Perhaps you can talk legally 

about how a seemingly dry area can be important to protect under 

the Clean Water Rule. 

Mr. BUZBEE. Thank you, Senator. In the Rapanos case, Justice 

Scalia wrote a plurality opinion were wanted and called for permanent surface flows and connections but never received a majority 

vote in support of that. Justice Kennedy’s significant nexus opinion, 
208 

which is now viewed as the governing one, explicitly calls for attention to a waters functioning. And if you look at the science, and especially the science in the connectivity report, areas like arroyos 

and other seemingly dry features can—during seasonal rains, especially heavy flows—can be critically important to carrying pollutants downstream and impairing water uses that are of great importance; also helping to control, sometimes, flooding. So what seems 

to be dry can in fact be very important water for much of this country. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you feel, Mr. Buzbee, that the regulatory 

certainty in the definition of waters of the United States would 

help to resolve some of the jurisdictional confusions we have heard 

about today? 

Mr. BUZBEE. Yes, I think it would help a great deal. The regulation, as written, ties its lines and strengthens its exclusions, but 

with lots of reference to the connectivity report and peer-reviewed 

science. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. So given the contradictory, conflicting 

court decisions, why is this recent Clean Water Rule an appropriate response to those court cases? 

Mr. BUZBEE. That is a good question. And basically it is if you 

look at the three major Supreme Court cases, one case unanimously said there was room for rulemaking under the Clean Water 

Act and defining what is water of the United States. The next case, 

the SWANCC case, avoided a constitutional question and also 

didn’t question that possibility, and then six justices in the 

Rapanos case either applauded regulation or called for regulation 

to bring greater clarity. 

Senator MARKEY. So they are begging for clarification. 

Mr. BUZBEE. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Please help us. Please don’t leave this so confusing. And that is in fact what has been happening. 

Mr. Kovarovics, in your written testimony you discuss exclusions. 

Why do you feel the EPA and the Army Corps specifically listed exclusions in the new Clean Water Rule? 

Mr. KOVAROVICS. I think, again, as Professor Buzbee alluded to, 

this was designed to provide more clarity, and as you were suggesting, more clarity about what is in and what is out, and I would 

defer to the professor about the legality of that, but I think, you 

know, what we have heard about so long in this process is some 

more clarity, some more bright lines, and that is what I believe the 

agencies attempted to do. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

I am going to ask Ms. Gallaway if you can just take your seat 

again in the audience, and if there are other questions, and I might 

have one, we will have you come up again. So thank you very much 

for doing that. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As we look into the Waters of the U.S. rule, I can tell you in Nebraska, Nebraskans from across the State understand that these 

are rules that are providing an agency with so much overreach that 
209 

every Nebraskan’s life is affected. It is not just what I call the 

usual suspects, people in agriculture; it is every taxpayer who has 

to pay more because of these rules in order to construct or to maintain a road; it is homebuilders who continue to see regulations increased on the cost of a new home, which is an American dream 

that is not out of reach for most of us. So when we talk about waters of the U.S., we need to realize the negative impact it has on 

all citizens across this country. 

Mr. Parrish, I would ask you, in your testimony you discuss the 

Corps’ use of classified aerial photographs to evaluate changes in 

agricultural activities in relation to historical jurisdictional waters. 

What does that mean, and why are these photographs classified? 

Mr. PARRISH. Thank you, Senator, for that question. Classified 

and proprietary. It is pretty amazing to me that the Government, 

our Government, a Government that is supposed to provide clarity, 

can use information that the public has no access to it. And it is 

more than just having access to. We are talking about, from a clarity standpoint, Professor Buzbee, allowing our Federal Government 

to declare something jurisdictional the naked eye cannot identify. 

That is a problem. 

Senator FISCHER. That doesn’t really help with certainty, does it? 

Mr. PARRISH. Absolutely not. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

I would ask Ms. Gallaway, if I could, Mr. Chairman, has she requested access to those photographs. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, we have an order in this 

committee, and we have witnesses who are identified in advance. 

This was not a witness who was identified in advance. I think we 

have given the majority an enormous amount of leeway with a person who has been sort of plucked spontaneously from the audience, 

and I think that should probably run its course about now. 

Senator FISCHER. I was just following other members, I would 

answer to the Ranking Member. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate it, but I think we have been 

out of order for quite a while on this subject. 

Senator SULLIVAN. The Chairman would ask unanimous consent 

to allow Ms. Gallaway. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. To answer his questions, which she did, 

not to refer a witness for all purposes—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. And if Senator Fischer wants to do the 

same—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Then I will object. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

As a follow up, Mr. Parrish, if the Corps can selectively enforce 

section 404 permits based on that historical ordinary high water 

marks in California, can they do it in Nebraska? 

Mr. PARRISH. Senator Fischer, we are very afraid that, based on 

the way we have changed our landscape, if the EPA and the Corps 

can look back into some kind of ethos out in whatever and determine that we have made mistakes as a society, and go back and 

start fining individual landowners with criminal and civil penalties, that is a problem. It is a problem because it is not only going 

to be a problem in California; we are already seeing problems in 
210 

Louisiana and in Georgia, here in Virginia. We are seeing that all 

across the country. So, yes, whether you are talking shallow 

groundwater connections, whether you are talking invisible, secret 

science or secret data and maps, it is going to be a problem in Nebraska, yes, ma’am. 

Senator FISCHER. I would agree. 

On this committee, and especially in this subcommittee, we focus 

on the impacts of these overreaching regulations, and it is my understanding that even though the courts have ordered a stay on 

WOTUS, Federal agencies are still implementing that rule. If the 

EPA and the Corps succeed in this regulation, what do you think 

the impacts are going to be on our rural economies in this country 

and on our Nation’s food supply? 

Mr. PARRISH. Senator Fischer, when we look at what the impacts 

are, the regulatory footprint of this regulation and what it means, 

I mean, technically you are talking about trying to regulate navigable waters. EPA says they are providing clarity. We think we see 

4-, 5-, 10-fold increase in the jurisdiction as a result of this regulation into things that the public has no real understanding of. We 

all support clean water. And most of the support for this regulation 

comes from people that clicked on the I Support Clean Water icon, 

and they never read a word of this proposal. 

Senator FISCHER. Well, we all support clean water. 

Mr. PARRISH. Absolutely. 

Senator FISCHER. We support the Clean Water Act. We make 

that clear in this committee and on the floor and in our States all 

the time. 

I would ask Ms. Wilkinson to follow up. In March 2015 I chaired 

an EPW Committee hearing in Nebraska on the possible impacts 

at that time on waters of the U.S., and at the hearing we did have 

that local homebuilder who spoke about what I thought was a very 

startling statistic, and that was that 25 percent of the cost of a new 

home is now due to regulations. Would you agree that regulations 

are going to continue to go up as a direct result of the rules and 

regulations under Waters of the U.S.? And what impact is that 

going to have? 

Ms. WILKINSON. Yes, Senator, I would. And it creates such extensive costs that become a hidden burden. Most homeowners don’t realize what they are spending their money on when they purchase 

a home or are unable to purchase a home due to that. So our costs 

have certainly been tremendous because we have just been in this 

changing environment and with an increased assertion of jurisdiction. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all 

of the witnesses. I was here at the beginning of the hearing, and 

I listened to the Chairman and the Ranking Member both talk 

about the importance of clean water, and I thought I just really 

wanted to make a couple points, and I would be glad to get response. 
211 

It is one thing to be for clean water. It is another thing to recognize where we were before we had the Clean Water Act, when rivers caught fire, when bodies of water were not safe to be near. I 

was involved in the development of the Chesapeake Bay Partnership Program. It started in Maryland under Governor Hughes 

when I was in the State legislature. We got the surrounding States 

to join us. 

It was never a partisan issue; we always had Democrats and Republicans working together. We not only had governmental partners; we had private sector partners. We had partners from States 

that did not border the Chesapeake Bay; Pennsylvania, New York. 

The headwaters, the waters that come into the Chesapeake Bay 

come through those areas; and yes, the watershed areas, the wetlands are all critically important to the Chesapeake Bay. 

So I know what it took to get everyone together and dealing with 

it, and what Senator Whitehouse said is absolutely accurate. Before 

the two Supreme Court decisions, I don’t think the enforcement of 

the Clean Water Act was controversial. I didn’t hear from stakeholders that they thought there was a real problem the way that 

the Clean Water Act was being enforced. But then we had two Supreme Court decisions, and those two Supreme Court decisions basically brought uncertainty as to what is going to be regulated and 

what is not going to be regulated, and we have been dealing with 

that for a long time. 

The Supreme Court decisions was really a challenge to Congress 

to clarify, to make sure that we had it moving forward, and I can 

tell you, I tried. I remember introducing legislation and working on 

legislation and trying to get Democrats and Republicans, as we did 

with the Clean Water Act, to come together, and the premise was 

simple: let’s just get us back to where we were before the Supreme 

Court decisions, because that is where most stakeholders said they 

were comfortable. And we couldn’t get congressional action. 

And now you have the Obama administration with a rule that 

tries to take us to where we were before the Supreme Court decisions, where a lot of things are said about it that just aren’t true, 

and we are trying to get predictability. And one thing I hear from 

my stakeholders: let us know what the rules are. Let us have predictability. We will deal with it. As long as it is rational, we can 

deal with the rules. What we can’t deal with is the uncertainty as 

to whether something is regulated or not. 

So I am somewhat perplexed, I really mean this, as to why there 

isn’t more cooperation to try to give direction to what is regulated 

and what is not. We have exemptions that have been in law. The 

farming activities, regular farming activities are protected. That is 

not what is aimed at the Clean Water Act. Standing bodies of 

water that do not affect the clean water issues are not regulated. 

So why isn’t there more of a sense to get something done? Why 

is it always we are going to be opposed to this? I haven’t really 

heard of an effort to try to get where we were before the Supreme 

Court cases, where I thought most stakeholders thought we should 

be. 

So what am I saying that doesn’t make sense? Nothing. I liked 

your answer. 
212 

Mr. Chairman, I will just yield back the balance of my time. I 

think I made my point. And I am going to continue to fight on behalf of the people of Maryland and the people of this country who 

recognize the importance of clean water, the number of people 

whose drinking water comes from these water supplies in this 

country and my State, the people who depend upon clean water for 

their commercial businesses, the people who depend upon clean 

water for recreation, the people who depend upon clean water for 

public health. They want me to fight to make sure that we don’t 

return to the days we had before the Clean Water Act, and I am 

going to do everything I can to make sure that we protect America’s public health. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

I think the Ranking Member and I are going to wrap up with a 

few additional questions, so I appreciate the witnesses here. 

I wanted to go back to Mr. Parrish, Mr. Schiff. In your experience, back to farming activities, do the EPA and the Corps now 

claim that ordinary farming activities like plowing constitute a discharge or a pollutant? 

Mr. PARRISH. Yes, sir. We are seeing the Corps explicitly regulate 

activities now that 3 or 4 years ago they would not. And again, we 

think the statute is clear. We think the congressionally authorized 

exemptions are clear. 

But what you have now is not only is the Corps parsing what a 

farm exemption is, they are parsing what a ranching exemption is, 

what a farm exemption is. They are trying to parse out specifically 

any changes in use. That is tantamount to land use and the control 

of land use at the local level. 

We see big problems in that because, just for instance, in California alone there has been a drought. Farmers sometimes need to 

shift from crops that use a lot of water to crops that don’t use so 

much water. If they can’t make those kinds of decisions without 

seeking a permit that takes 2 or more years to complete, there are 

some real problems. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And how long have you been farming? 

Mr. PARRISH. Sir, I grew up in a farm, and I started my agricultural career back in the 1980s. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And so that has not always been the case, 

that kind of requirement for Federal permits when you are shifting 

crops or shifting activities on your farmland? 

Mr. PARRISH. That is correct. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So you said you have started to see that kick 

in about 3 years ago? 

Mr. PARRISH. Actually, we saw a more intense focus on agriculture after the economy had the big downturn in 2008 and 2009. 

My friends over here in the homebuilding industry ultimately 

stopped; they were in a depression. They stopped building. And we 

have seen the Corps turn their attention to agricultural uses, agricultural land, and we have seen more focus on agriculture and land 

use activities since that time. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And let me ask you to follow up. Another 

question that you talked about is that in the WOTUS rule there 

is an assertion that the Corps can identify a stream complete, bed, 

bank, ordinary high water mark from an aerial photograph and 
213 

that the Corps does not need to do a site visit to confirm where the 

actual water is present on the property. 

Now, in contrast, current Corps guidance requires a site visit, it 

is mandatory. So are you seeing them implement that aspect of the 

WOTUS rule, where they are just using aerial photography to 

make that determination, which, remember, that rule has been 

stayed. Without that rule, they would have no authority to do that. 

Are you seeing them do that right now? 

Mr. PARRISH. Senator Sullivan, I will refer you to Ms. Gallaway’s 

testimony, and in her testimony she explicitly says that she has 

collected on-the-ground data and presented that to the Corps and 

had it rejected based on information that the Corps had, aerial 

photos, imagery that they would not even share with the permittee. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me turn to the legal issues that I think 

are very important, very vexing. To Senator Cardin’s statement, we 

did pass out of this Committee S. 1140, which would have provided 

very much detail, very much certainty on the WOTUS rule, and 

when we brought it to the Senate floor it was filibustered on the 

ability to proceed. So just to be clear, this committee, the Senate, 

we have tried to clarify this rule, and it has been stymied. So I 

think that that needs to be stated. 

Let me just ask Ms. Wilkinson and Mr. Schiff, can you help us 

understand how a so-called regional supplement can actually 

change the definition of what a wetland is either in Virginia or 

even Alaska, and how that, again, raises the issue of uncertainty 

that you have focused on in your testimony? 

Ms. WILKINSON. Yes. Thank you, Senator. Specifically, the supplement that applies to our area, I first want you to understand is 

very extensive. The supplement itself is one and a half times the 

1987 manual. So these are extensive changes that are in the supplement. 

Some of the key changes is it changed the wetland hydrology criteria to reduce the time the water must be within 12 inches of the 

surface, which is what the Corps calls the surface, not where you 

place your foot, from 30 to 14 days. And it also redefined the growing season from starting at March 15th to essentially year-round 

based on indicators such as bud break. And it expanded, this is 

very important, the list of primary and secondary indicators that 

can be used in certain circumstances to identify a wetland. 

Very specifically, on our property, we had a Corps-confirmed delineation on our reduced development in 2007, before the implementation of the regional supplement, and they confirmed 30 acres 

of wetland impacts. They have done a new confirmation of the wetland delineation since the regional supplement and said we had 47 

acres of wetland impact. That is a 57 percent increase. So that is 

the specific effect of the regional supplement on our property. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Professor Buzbee, I wanted to ask just a few legal questions, very 

basic. If the EPA is looking at its jurisdictional reach of the Clean 

Water Act, can it expand its own jurisdiction? Can it say, well, we 

know that we have, say, 20,000 square miles of wetlands; we are 

going to expand it with a broader definition? Or is that something 

that only the Congress can do in terms of expansion of its jurisdictional reach? 
214 

Mr. BUZBEE. The statute would govern what the agencies can do, 

the Army Corps and EPA, but the Army Corps and EPA need to 

look at the best science and respond to that. So as science changes 

and develops, whether it is Chesapeake hydrology or understanding of Alaska, the agencies have an obligation to look again 

at that best information, and that may lead to adjustments one 

way or the other. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So one thing, and Senator Whitehouse mentioned at the outset, he mentioned that even under the new rule 

the EPA has admitted that it is going to expand its jurisdiction 

under the Clean Water Act by up to 5 percent, which doesn’t sound 

like a lot. We were running the numbers. Five percent of the clean 

water jurisdiction in Alaska would be expansion of 15,000 square 

miles. That is 10 times the size of Rhode Island. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thanks so much for pointing that out, by 

the way. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SULLIVAN. Sorry. We have a lot of fun with that issue. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SULLIVAN. It is a serious point, though. An even 5 percent expansion of its own jurisdiction, its self-declared expansion in 

certain States can be an enormous expansion. Don’t they need the 

legal authority to undertake that? I mean, the EPA can’t expand 

its own jurisdictional reach, can they? 

Mr. BUZBEE. Two things. One is the legal standard is the same, 

but it is important to understand that science and hydrological 

science has improved vastly in recent years, and if you actually 

look at litigation under the Clean Water Act, people will rely on the 

best science all the time; and this committee and other committees 

in the past in the Senate have called for agencies to rely on the 

best peer-reviewed science. That can lead to changes in what an 

agency can justify. So that is not legally grabbing power; that is following what the science leads to. 

But also, importantly, my understanding is slightly different, 

that if you go to SWANCC and the pre-SWANCC period, that the 

level—the amount of water protected was substantially more than 

now. Then it dropped back as far as actual assertions of jurisdiction dropped back during the uncertain period. The Waters of the 

United States would restore I thought it was 3 to 5 percent of the 

jurisdiction, but that it would still be less than it stood during the 

Reagan administration. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Parrish, EPA spent an enormous amount of time and resources defending their Waters of the U.S. proposal. Most, if not 

all, of the resources were focused on communications outside of the 

Federal Register and outside the formal rulemaking process to the 

point that they used social media to do more than just educate the 

public; they did what the GAO called ‘‘covert propaganda.’’ Covert 

propaganda. So do you think the EPA had an open mind, or even 

fairly evaluated public comments in the rulemaking process? And 

how do you think that this agency’s social media campaign added 

confusion to the process? 
215 

Mr. PARRISH. Senator Barrasso, that is a great question. What 

we experienced during this rulemaking was unlike anything in my 

30 years of regulatory effort that I have ever witnessed. From day 

one, the Agency campaigned to enact this rule. We think they used 

very, very carefully worded talking points that were true but misleading. They mislead the public, they mislead our members, they 

confused the members of the Farm Bureau as to the exact reach 

of this regulatory proposal. 

And not only did they do that; they used social media to do outreach to the public, and they did it during the rulemaking process, 

when they are supposed to be open minded and listen to what the 

stakeholders had to say about their proposal. Now only did they do 

it during the rulemaking process; they did it after the rulemaking 

process closed. And the only reason they would do that, the only 

reason they would do that is because your legislation, S. 1140, was 

before this Congress, and they were doing it to try to influence the 

public and to lobby the public, to lobby against your legislation. 

Senator BARRASSO. So following up on that, both Mr. Parrish and 

Mr. Schiff, you take a look at your written testimony, it clearly documents the EPA and the Corps clearly attempted to expand what 

is a water of the United States, despite the current court stay says 

about the rule. I think it is important because, as you know, I introduced the legislation you just referred to; it was bipartisan, the 

so-called Federal Water Quality Protection Act. It was to repeal the 

rule and have the EPA go back and draft a new more tailored rule 

that basically protects families and farmers and small business 

owners. 

But rather than vote for the bill, we had 11 Senators who had 

expressed concerns with the Waters of the U.S. rule. They chose to 

write this letter rather than to vote against the legislation, and instead they wrote about their concerns to the EPA and the Corps. 

The letter stated, ‘‘We call on the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to provide clear and concise implementation guidance to ensure that the rule is effectively and consistently interpreted.’’ 

They went on to say, ‘‘Farmers, ranchers, water utilities, local 

governments and contractors deserve this clarity and certainty.’’ 

They said, ‘‘Should the EPA not provide this clarity or enforce this 

rule in a way that erodes traditional exemptions, then we reserve 

the right to support efforts in the future to revise the rule.’’ 

So, in your opinion, both of you, has the Corps and the EPA been 

eroding traditional exemptions since this rule has been issued? And 

how clear and consistent has the Corps and the EPA been in their 

decisionmaking since the rule has been issued? 

Mr. PARRISH. Senator Barrasso, what we have seen is the agencies eroding the exemptions. We have seen them intrusively trying 

to not only influence the activities that farmers conduct on their 

land; they try to influence the way the farmers use their land, flat 

out. With regard to guidance, it is pure speculation on my part, but 

I would probably take a bet that EPA and the Corps will not do 

implementation guidance. They do not plan to; they have stated 

such. So we don’t expect implementation guidance. 

No. 2, this rule, the specifics of this rule and what expands it, 

allowing the agencies to use tools that the human eye can’t see as 

affirmative evidence that they can regulate a bed bank and ordi-
216 

nary high water mark, that cannot be changed by guidance. That 

is an expansion, it is a significant expansion, and the agencies have 

not been transparent about that. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Schiff, would you like to weigh in on 

this? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I would just add that it shouldn’t be surprising that 

we are seeing such a dramatic expansion under the WOTUS rule, 

in part because you look at the exceptions. Why would there be a 

need to call out an exception for the regulation of puddles or ornamental fixtures? The only reason for those exceptions is because, 

otherwise, legitimately, the scope of the rule would cover things 

like that. So it is not surprising, unfortunately, that the agencies 

have continued through the WOTUS rule to expand their authority. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso, and thank you 

for your leadership on this issue. I just wish that your bill would 

have been able actually to have a vote on the bill because that is 

what we were trying to do, is bring certainty to this issue. 

Again, it was a bipartisan bill, and yet we couldn’t get over a filibuster threshold by some of the members of this body, even though 

it was voted out of this committee. Some of the members of this 

committee voted for the bill, I believe. So the Senate has been trying to bring clarity to this issue because we are hearing you, we 

are hearing you, and we are hearing from the States. 

One final quick question. Professor Buzbee, Mr. Schiff, anyone 

else, why do you think 34 States have sued to stop the WOTUS 

rule? That is a pretty big number of U.S. States. I think it is also 

bipartisan. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I think, Mr. Chairman, one reason is an issue that 

we haven’t touched upon a great deal this afternoon, and that is 

the federalism implications of the Clean Water Act as interpreted 

by EPA and the Army Corps. Nobody is against clean water, but 

the problem is that the agencies have converted the Clean Water 

Act, through the WOTUS rule, into a de facto land use ordinance 

for Federal agencies; and that has traditionally been an area that 

the States and local governments have been sovereign in, as opposed to the Federal Government. And I think that is what is motivating so many of the States to challenge the rule as a direct 

threat to their sovereignty. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Professor Buzbee. 

Mr. BUZBEE. Yes. I am not sure that the number should be taken 

for all that it appears to be. What started happening now both in 

Supreme Court litigation and in regulatory matters is different 

leading actors in States are taking positions in different cases. So 

you can have environmental regulators taking one position and the 

State attorney general is taking another, and then Governors taking yet another. So my guess is, if you look at the number of who 

filed supportive comments and who criticized, the numbers are far 

more mixed than the number you provided would indicate. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Just for the record, I want to mention a lot 

of statements about the support for this rule, a million comments. 

Actually, the head of the Corps testified that only 2 percent of 

those were substantive comments; 98 percent were form letters or 
217 

e-mails that weren’t substantive and may have been part of what 

Senator Barrasso was talking about, the EPA’s social media attempt to get support for their own rule, which was deemed out of 

line by the GAO. 

Senator Whitehouse, I know you want to finish with some questions. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. I just wanted to wrap up with 

a couple of things. 

First, Mr. Parrish, same question for the record. Any documents 

you have that support the proposition that a mere crop change is 

a regulable activity, I would love to see an example of that, or two 

if you have two examples of it. 

Mr. PARRISH. We can do that. But you also need to understand, 

Senator, that the way in which the Corps enforces the Clean Water 

Act, they scare the dickens out of farmers. They threaten their ability to be an ongoing concern going forward. And we are not talking 

about big farmers; we are talking about farmers that farm 100 

acres or less. And if you are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars to challenge the Agency, they pretty much have to give up the 

use of their property or the proposed use of their property and back 

away from it. 

But we will supply that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let’s start with just supplying me where 

a crop change was seen as a regulable event by itself. 

Also, you are not suggesting that LIDAR is not a credible means 

for mapping? We use LIDAR all the time for coastal mapping, for 

storm mapping, for FEMA mapping, for all sorts of things. You are 

comfortable that LIDAR is a legitimate technology, aren’t you? 

Mr. PARRISH. I am comfortable that the Government has access 

to it; the landowners don’t. And the way in which the Government 

is using it—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So your issue isn’t with the LIDAR. 

Mr. PARRISH [continuing]. Is they are using it in ways—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Your issue isn’t with the use of the LIDAR 

issue—— 

Mr. PARRISH. They are identifying the—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me just ask my question, if you don’t 

mind. Your issue is not with the use of the LIDAR; your issue is 

with the fact that the landowner doesn’t have access to the information that the Government has generated through LIDAR. 

Mr. PARRISH. I am taking issue with the fact that they are using 

it to identify features that you and I could not walk onto the landscape and identify with the naked eye. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Like altitude? 

Mr. PARRISH. That is a problem. That is a problem. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, maybe we need to follow up on this. 

Mr. PARRISH. If they are affirmatively defining, affirmatively 

using as evidence that information to regulate when the human eye 

cannot understand or detect it. That is a problem. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But LIDAR measures altitude. 

Mr. PARRISH. It is, I believe, you know, and these guys are 

the—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. LIDAR measures the distance. 

Mr. PARRISH. I believe it is unconstitutionally vague. 
218 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. LIDAR, you think, on its own, is unconstitutionally vague? 

Mr. PARRISH. Using that to define features that are regulated 

under the Clean Water Act, bring and carry criminal and civil penalties. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So it would be OK under the FEMA, for 

coastal protection, but somehow not under the Clean Water Act? 

Mr. PARRISH. Are you going to find people criminally and civilly 

liable as a result of that information? That would be the question. 

And we think that is outside of bounds. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. There are a whole variety of—— 

Mr. PARRISH. We think that is outside of the bounds of a clear 

regulatory program. There is nothing clear about that, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So the Farm Bureau is opposed categorically to the use of LIDAR in Clean Water Act determinations. 

Mr. PARRISH. We do not have policy on that, but there is a big 

problem. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But that is your testimony. Got it. OK. 

Just last, throw the ball to Mr. Buzbee. There have been tons of 

questions to the agricultural interest and deregulatory interest witnesses and not so many to you, so if you would like to sort of clean 

up with, I will give you my last minute and 45 seconds. 

Mr. BUZBEE. Thank you, Senator. I guess the only thing I would 

say, several people made statements either in questions or witness 

statements stating that the Army Corps and EPA were effectively 

enforcing the Waters of the United States rule, the Clean Water 

rule, despite it being stayed, and I don’t think there is any evidence 

of that, and I think it is based on a misunderstanding of how rules 

work. 

So I would just make one quick point about that, which is if an 

agency promulgates a final regulation, and it is put in the Code of 

Federal Regulations, that becomes binding on everyone; it becomes 

binding on the courts, it becomes binding on the regulator. And 

those who are regulated can rely on it to their benefit or to their 

detriment, but it becomes the binding law. And that is well established in decades and decades of Supreme Court law. 

In the absence of that rule, the agencies still need to undertake 

regulatory actions. You still have the Clean Water Act, you still 

have all of the existing regulations which now have not been 

amended, and you still have these three Supreme Court cases, and 

you still have the connectivity report, which is what it is, it is a 

report on science. 

So the regulators have been basing actions on all of the existing 

law and science, as they must do. There is nothing illegitimate 

about it; indeed, it is their obligation. And if they didn’t do so, they 

would deserve sound criticism. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And be sued. 

Mr. BUZBEE. Yes. And the only other point I would say is I don’t 

think anyone would argue in favor of agencies hiding the basis on 

which they act. If that is going on, then they deserve criticism. But 

that is different than the issue whether the Clean Water Act itself 

is misguided. And I don’t know enough about the particular actions 

that are being claimed here, but that is a totally different problem. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Understood. 
219 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

I want to thank the members again. I do want to ask unanimous 

consent that a letter from the National Association of Realtors and 

testimony from Mr. Merlin Martin of Martin Firms also be included in the record. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without objection. 

[The referenced testimony follows:] 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 

Senator SULLIVAN. And the record will be open for 2 weeks to 

this hearing, so if there is any additional information that you 

think that this committee needs to see, please make sure you get 

it in. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. 

Mr. Parrish, I want to respond to your comments about Federal 

agencies that can scare the dickens out of farmers. I know that 

some of you continue to deal with the EPA and the Corps on a regular basis. My view is that the vast, vast majority of our Federal 

Government officials do their job honorably. 

But as your testimony indicated, some of you may be concerned 

about retribution for speaking out. You still have permits, unfortunately decades long in terms of the wait, and if you feel that a Federal employee has in any way treated you, any of the witnesses 

here, differently because you had the courage to bring your concerns to this subcommittee and share them with the U.S. Senate, 

first of all, that would be unconscionable, it would be illegal. We 

would certainly want you to inform me or my office if you feel that 

any Federal official is retaliating against you for providing this 

very important information to Congress at this hearing today. 

Again, I want to thank all the witnesses. This was a very informative hearing for all of us. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ