clean water act jurisdictional rule emily w. coyner, pg national stone, sand & gravel...
TRANSCRIPT
CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTIONAL RULE
Emily W. Coyner, PGNational Stone, Sand & Gravel Association
April 8, 2014
Previously, Waters of the US=
Now-Waters of the US=
2014 Jurisdictional Rule
• Tributaries: no SN required; adds wetlands, ponds, lakes, ditches; can be broken by dams and be man-made
• Expands “adjacent” definition• Adds “case by case” consideration of virtually
every other type of “water”• Some ditches excluded, but tough to prove
2014 Jurisdictional Rule
• Goes FAR beyond court decisions• No frequency or amount of flow limits• Complicates/Slows/Increases Costs of CWA
404 Permitting• Also impacts other CWA programs– More NPDES testing?
• Economic study-very low estimates
Background• Rapanos/SWANCC Need for clarity/rule• Previous congressional failure to remove
“navigable” from Clean Water Act • April 2011 Draft Guidance• September 2013 Draft Rule to White House– Guidance withdrawn– Draft Connectivity Study released for review
• March 2014-Draft Rule released
EPA Draft Connectivity Report
• NSSGA commented November 6– Science should be done before rule–Connections in specific areas/seasons–Not quantifiable, so how regulated?
• House Science Committee oversight• Scientific Advisory Board review & scrutiny–April 28 & May 2 Meetings/June Final
Report
Proposed Rule Advocacy
• Meeting and educating members of Congress– Years worth of effort with other industries– Letters, Appropriations, Hearings
• Meetings with EPA– Explaining operations and permits
• White House meetings– Economic impacts– Slow infrastructure & energy priorities
Current Jurisdiction Proposed
2013 NSSGA White HouseMeetings
• 12/12: Specific aggregates industry examples – Dry washes and floodplains; desktop studies– Costs for mitigation very high
• 12/23: EPA’s Economic Study & “significance”– Deep recession data & existing “asks”– All or nothing costs and benefits– Misuse of data, studies outdated & used out of
context
Congressional Opposition
• Ramped up immediately after rule release• Budget Hearings:– EPA Administrator grilled over rule costs,
expansion and timing– Corps threatened with no funding for this rule
• “Biggest land grab in the history of the world”• “Profound economic impact” • Oversight, specific hearings
What’s Next
• Rule comments due 90 days from FR notice
• Hearings/Congressional Pressure–November: Senate Flip?
• SAB Panel Connectivity Review May-June–Significance/Quantification