Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPACTS OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS) RULE</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


	SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPACTS
	OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S WATERS
	OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS) RULE

	=======================================================================

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
	UNITED STATES
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	HEARING HELD
	MARCH 8, 2023

	__________

	[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


	Small Business Committee Document Number 118-004
	Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov

	__________


	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
	51-287 WASHINGTON : 2023

	-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

	ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
	BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
	PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
	DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
	BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
	MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
	TRACEY MANN, Kansas
	JACK ELLZEY, Texas
	MARC MOLINARO, New York
	MARK ALFORD, Missouri
	ELI CRANE, Arizona
	AARON BEAN, Florida
	WESLEY HUNT, Texas
	NICK LALOTA, New York
	NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
	JARED GOLDEN, Maine
	KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
	DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
	GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
	MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
	MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington
	HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
	SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
	JUDY CHU, California
	SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
	CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire

	Ben Johnson, Majority Staff Director
	Melissa Jung, Minority Staff Director


	C O N T E N T S

	OPENING STATEMENTS

	Page
	Hon. Roger Williams.............................................. 1
	Hon. Nydia Velazquez............................................. 2

	WITNESSES

	Mr. Frank Murphy, Senior Vice President/CFO/COO, Wynne Jackson,
	Inc............................................................ 5
	Ms. Katherine R. English, Owner, English Family Limited
	Partnership.................................................... 7
	Mr. Rick Baumann, Founder, Murrells Inlet Seafood................ 9

	APPENDIX

	Prepared Statements:
	Mr. Frank Murphy, Senior Vice President/CFO/COO, Wynne
	Jackson Inc................................................ 30
	Ms. Katherine R. English, Owner, English Family Limited
	Partnership................................................ 44
	Mr. Rick Baumann, Founder, Murrells Inlet Seafood............ 57
	Questions for the Record:
	None.
	Answers for the Record:
	None.
	Additional Material for the Record:
	NFIB......................................................... 60
	Statement of Clean Water-Dependent Businesses................ 63
	U.S. Chamber of Commerce..................................... 78


	SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES ON THE
	IMPACTS OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
	(WOTUS) RULE

	----------


	WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2023

	House of Representatives,
	Committee on Small Business,
	Washington, DC.
	The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in Room
	2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams
	[chairman of the Committee] presiding.
	Present: Representatives Williams, Luetkemeyer, Alford,
	Stauber, Crane, Meuser, Bean, Van Duyne, Ellzey, Mann, LaLota,
	Velazquez, Scholten, Thanedat, Davids, McGarvey, and
	Gluesenkamp Perez.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Before we get started, I want to ask Mr.
	Mann to lead us in prayer.
	Please stand.
	All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
	of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
	nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
	all.
	Mr. MANN. Bow your heads with me.
	Thank you, Dear God, that we get to live in the greatest
	country in the history in the world. Thank you for all the
	small businesses that provide work and goods and services all
	over our great land. We pray for the ability to distinguish
	between right and wrong. And give us wisdom and continue to
	bless our great country.
	In the name of Jesus. Amen.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Good afternoon, everyone.
	I now call the Committee on Small Business to order.
	I will turn my mike on.
	Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
	recess of the Committee at any time.
	The Committee is here today to hear testimony about the
	harmful impact of the Biden administration's Waters of the
	United States Rule on small businesses.
	I now recognize myself for my opening statement.
	And first I want to thank our witnesses for joining us
	today. I understand that all of you have traveled a long way to
	be here, and we appreciate it. I know how hard it is to step
	away from your day-to-day operations, and I am extremely
	grateful that you chose to give us your time today.
	Since President Biden was sworn into office, the regulatory
	actions of this administration has cost the private sector
	nearly $360 billion in compliance costs, an estimated 220
	million hours in our new paperwork requirements to meet those
	compliance costs.
	Later this month, the Biden administration will increase
	these costs by finalizing the new Waters of the United States
	Rule. For any business, certainty is key, and enforcing the
	rule is leaving many people in the dark on if they will be in
	compliance with the new regulations.
	For the last decade, small businesses have hoped for
	clarity around what is the definition of a waterway that is
	subject to regulations by the federal government.
	Unfortunately, this rule fails to resolve these issues and will
	leave business owners wondering if they need to get permission
	from the federal government before they make even minor
	adjustments on their private property.
	There are laws on the books that are supposed to protect
	small businesses from regulatory overreach from the federal
	government. Specifically, the Regulatory Flexibility Act is in
	place to ensure agencies are conducting analysis on how their
	actions will affect small entities and propose alternatives.
	However, the EPA certified that this rule would not have
	any impact on small businesses and, therefore, unilaterally
	decided that they do not need to conduct any further analysis
	on the rule.
	According to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, which is charged
	with speaking out against overly burdensome regulations, this
	determination by the EPA was not based on any factual analysis.
	Today we listen to the small businesses whose opinions have
	been disregarded by agencies far too long, and we will hear how
	this rule will have a significant impact on many types of small
	businesses, such as farming, ranching, mining, and real estate
	development, just to name a few.
	The past several years have caused tremendous hardship for
	Main Street America. Whether it be the COVID-19 pandemic, out-
	of-control inflation, broken supply chains, high interest
	rates, or a national labor shortage, the federal government
	should not be giving small businesses yet another challenge to
	overcome.
	I want to thank you all again for being here with us today,
	and I'm looking forward to today's conversation.
	And lastly, without objection, I would like to submit
	letters for the record from the National Federation of
	Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
	So with that, I will yield to our distinguished and my
	friend the Ranking Member from New York, Ms. Velazquez.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I'd like to welcome all of the witnesses. Thank you for
	being here.
	Clean water is an essential building block of any
	functioning economy. We depend on it for drinking, bathing,
	cooking, farming, fishing, manufacturing, tourism, recreation,
	and many other activities. Without clean water, our health,
	environment, and economy will be at serious risk.
	For the past 50 years, the Clean Water Act has safeguarded
	our rivers, streams, and wetlands from pollution and
	degradation. Since its inception, it has prevented billions of
	pounds of pollutants from entering our waters and restored
	thousands of miles of impaired rivers and streams.
	This environmental benefit has saved billions of dollars in
	health care costs by reducing water-borne diseases and
	supported millions of jobs in industries that rely on clean
	water. Whether it is our growing craft beer industry, which
	brings investment to communities across the country, or our
	behemoth outdoor recreation economy, which provides $862
	billion in economic output, robust federal protection for clean
	water is a prerequisite for the success of a variety of
	industries.
	Unfortunately, the 2006 Supreme Court ruling in the Rapanos
	case upended longstanding protections for many of our nation's
	precious rivers, streams, and wetlands. As a result, many
	stakeholders have faced confusion and uncertainty as industries
	seeking to pollute have attacked the scope of the Clean Water
	Act.
	In 2020, the Trump administration imposed the Navigable
	Waters Protection Rule, which significantly limited federal
	protection for clean water by excluding safeguards for many
	wetlands and streams. This rule allowed industries to pollute
	our waters, and was shifting the cost of pollution to the
	families, businesses, and communities downstream.
	Fortunately, this rule was struck down by courts as it
	largely failed to recognize the scientific evidence on the
	interconnectedness of our water systems. As a result, the Biden
	administration has worked to revise the WOTUS rule and provide
	greater clarity to stakeholders while codifying important
	exclusions for prior converted cropland, ditches, and
	artificial ponds.
	Over the past two years, the EPA has conducted extensive
	meetings with stakeholders, including many small businesses,
	and I believe the final product adequately reflects that.
	This rule demonstrates a clear middle ground between the
	2015 clean water rule and the 2020 rule. It makes clear that we
	cannot sacrifice the economy for environmental protection, nor
	sacrifice the environment for economic growth. As you will hear
	from our witness today, those two things go hand in hand.
	Nobody here wants small businesses to deal with excessive,
	burdensome regulations. However, we must recognize that many
	regulations, especially those safeguarding our waters, serve an
	essential purpose in protecting families, communities, and
	entrepreneurs. In fact, a national survey of small businesses
	found that 80 percent of small business owners favor federal
	rules to protect upstream headwaters and wetland.
	To that end, I want to take this opportunity to announce my
	opposition to the resolution of this approval filed by
	Republicans under the Congressional Review Act. Not only will
	this resolution not achieve the outcome Republicans seek, but
	it could also actively harm the exclusions they are seeking to
	protect. It only adds to the confusion and uncertainty that
	stakeholders are currently experiencing.
	I advise my colleagues to carefully consider the costs that
	blanket deregulation could have on businesses that rely on
	clean water to function.
	With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent
	that this letter in support of the new revised definition of
	Waters of the U.S., signed by over 400 businesses that are
	dependent on clean water, be submitted to the record.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. So ordered.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. I yield back.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. I will now introduce our witnesses.
	It is my privilege to introduce a fellow Texan as our first
	witness, Mr. Frank Murphy, for today's hearing.
	Mr. Murphy is the Senior Vice President and CFO and COO of
	Wynne/Jackson, Inc., a real estate development firm and small
	business based in Dallas that employs eight people.
	Starting in the early 1970s, by its name sake, Clyde C.
	Jackson and Toddie L. Wynne, Wynne/Jackson now has a presence
	throughout Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. And since joining
	the company in 1985, Mr. Murphy has played a role in over $2
	billion worth of projects encompassing everything from
	apartments to retail space to golf courses, hotels, marinas,
	and storage facilities. These projects not only have helped
	spur economic development in countless communities but have
	also served as the actual foundations for where families live,
	work, and make lasting memories.
	In addition to real estate development, Wynne/Jackson has
	also a long history of participating in philanthropic
	initiatives, including religious education centers, institutes
	promoting the responsible use of land, and several
	international projects.
	Mr. Murphy's experience in all types of development make
	him exceptionally qualified to speak about the regulatory
	burdens facing businesses, such as Wynne/Jackson. He
	understands the real-world implications of what happens when
	vital projects that would otherwise benefit whole communities
	cannot be started due to bureaucratic uncertainty and red tape.
	So, Mr. Murphy, thank you for joining the Committee today,
	and I look forward to today's conversation.
	I now yield my time to Mr. Bean to introduce our next
	witness.
	Mr. BEAN. A very good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, to you and
	the Committee Members, everybody here, small business family.
	What an honor it is to introduce a fellow Floridian, Ms.
	Katherine English, for today's hearing.
	A native of Southwest Florida, Ms. English has worked at
	the Pavese Law Firm since 1994 and became partner in the year
	2000. Her law practice focuses on agriculture, environmental,
	and land use law, which should be no surprise considering her
	primary occupation is overseeing her family farm, which has
	been in the English family for over 100 years.
	It is no exaggeration to say that Ms. English is one of the
	most qualified people in America to speak with us today about
	the impact that cumbersome and unclear regulations have on
	family farms, such as her own.
	Her legal work has been recognized by her being selected as
	one of the--you ready for this, Committee Members?--best
	lawyers in America for 2021 due to her expertise in land use
	and zoning law.
	And in addition to family farming and law, it also should
	be no surprise to any Committee Member here that Ms. English is
	a community superstar because she has served just so many:
	Chair of the Farm Bureau Association, the Natural Resource
	Advisory Committee, a past Chair of the American Farm Bureau of
	Federation, National Issue Advisory Committee, on Water and
	Water Quality. And yes, the United Way is blessed with her
	presence on the Board of Directors for Lee, Hendry, and Glades
	Counties.
	Ms. English, welcome to Washington, D.C., the House of
	Representatives, and to the Small Business Committee. Thank you
	for joining us, and I'm looking forward to today's
	conversation.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
	And I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Velazquez, to
	introduce her witness for today's hearing.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Our final witness today is Mr. Rick Baumann, a business
	leader, veteran, and environmental advocate from Murrells
	Inlet, South Carolina.
	He was born in New York City in 1948 and went on to enlist
	in the military in 1966. During his military service he studied
	at American University. After his honorable discharge in 1969,
	he founded the business he continues to run today, Murrells
	Inlet Seafood.
	In 2012, he founded a non-profit, Trees For Tomorrow. In
	2019, he became a Riley Fellow at Furman University.
	Throughout his career he has been a tireless advocate for
	wildlife, the environment, and clean water.
	Thank you for being here, and you are welcome.
	I yield back.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ranking Member Velazquez.
	And I want to say today we appreciate all of you being here
	today, as I said earlier.
	Before recognizing the witnesses, I would like to remind
	them that their oral testimony is restricted to five minutes in
	length. If you see the light in front of you turn red in front
	of you, it means your five minutes has concluded, and you
	should wrap it up as quickly as possible.
	I now recognize Mr. Murphy for his 5-minute opening
	remarks.

	STATEMENTS OF FRANK MURPHY, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
	ISSUES COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS;
	KATHERINE ENGLISH, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU
	FEDERATION; AND RICK BAUMANN. FOUNDER, MURRELLS INLET SEAFOOD,
	BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SOUTH CAROLINA SMALL BUSINESS CHAMBER OF
	COMMERCE

	STATEMENT OF FRANK MURPHY

	Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the kind
	introduction, sir.
	Chairman Williams, Ranking Member Velazquez, and Members of
	the Committee, on behalf of more than 140,000 Members of the
	National Association of Home Builders, I appreciate the
	opportunity to testify today on the 2023 WOTUS rule's impacts
	on small businesses.
	My name is Frank Murphy, and I am the Chief Operating
	Officer at Wynne/Jackson, a small business in Dallas, Texas,
	with eight employees. I have been employed in the real estate
	industry for nearly 40 years and am currently honored to serve
	as the NAHB's Chairman of its Environmental Issues Committee.
	As to the new WOTUS Rule, it is difficult to overstate the
	impacts of regulations on small businesses and our ability to
	provide affordable housing. An NAHB study found that
	governmental regulations already account for up to 25 percent
	of the price of a new single family home and over 40 percent of
	multi-family development. So for every $1,000 of increase in a
	medium-priced home, it will price out over of 117,000
	households from being able to afford such home.
	EPA has indicated that the new 2023 rule will not have a
	significant economic impact on small entities. In contrast, the
	Small Business Administration determined just the exact
	opposite, acknowledging that the rule would have significant
	direct impacts on a substantial number of small entities.
	As an example of this, the 2023 rule inappropriately
	expands federal authority by relying on undefined regulatory
	terms and concepts, such as relatively permanent, material
	influence and its reliance on a more stringent definition and
	nexus test to assert federal control over otherwise isolated
	features.
	This rule increases federal control in wetlands permitting
	requirements over private property and, thus, increases delays
	to small businesses awaiting jurisdictional determinations.
	Ironically, the agencies rushed to finalize this rule
	before the U.S. Supreme Court issues its Sackett v. EPA, which
	focuses on the legality of the significant nexus test.
	As to issues with the new rule itself, I have three main
	concerns. First, the rule's heavy reliance on the usage of the
	significant nexus test will cause delays to small businesses
	awaiting jurisdictional determinations. NAHB Members already
	report waiting for a year or more for the Corps to to complete
	such determinations today.
	Further, under the significant nexus test, the rule
	authorizes the agencies to base determinations of WOTUS on my
	property by considering isolated wetlands and tributaries
	outside the boundaries of my land. Such an approach is just not
	feasible in practice because I can normally not obtain legal
	access to the adjoining properties in order to conduct such
	studies and determinations. I can't do it.
	I cannot afford the cost nor the time to hire third-party
	consultants to analyze these waters similarly situated in the
	region to determine if my property collectively has an impact
	on the Waters of the U.S. as navigable waters out here.
	Overall, as a result of the complexity and delays inherent
	in the significant nexus test, many small businesses will
	simply give up. Instead, they will opt for preliminary
	jurisdiction or determination, which allows the agencies to
	assume a feature is WOTUS. This would then allow a property
	owner to advance directly to the permitting stages.
	The usual result of this is that more land will then be
	classified as WOTUS and reduce the amount of developable land
	associated therewith.
	Second, the rule includes many undefined concepts and lacks
	clear guidance. Instead, small businesses and their consultants
	must interpret conflicts within the final rule's preamble,
	regulatory text, and scientific technical documents. Such an
	approach by the agencies ensures confusion and uncertainty for
	small businesses seeking to comply with the law.
	Third, the agencies have cast doubt by stating that
	determinations issued under the Navigable Waters Protection
	Rule are no longer valued. As a result, land owners are forced
	to start over if they want a valid determination. These
	determinations are supposed to be valid for five years.
	Further, with the final rule's preamble, the agencies state
	that even when prior determination found that no permit was
	required, land owners could now risk violations of the law if
	they move ahead with a project without obtaining a new
	determination. This is a clear example of moving the goalposts
	on small businesses.
	In closing, I want to thank the Members of the T and I
	Committee for reporting out the CRA to rescind the Biden WOTUS
	rule last week. I look forward to a swift passage on the House
	floor.
	Until the CRA is passed or enacted, I encourage Congress to
	direct the agencies to delay this rule until the Supreme Court
	decides Sackett. NAHB believes there should be no WOTUS before
	SCOTUS.
	Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and Committee
	Members, to testify before you, and I look forward to your
	questions.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
	And now I recognize Ms. English for her 5-minute opening
	remarks.

	STATEMENT OF KATHERINE ENGLISH

	Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you, sir.
	Chairman Williams and Ranking Member Velazquez, thank you
	for the opportunity to testify today.
	My name is Katherine English, and I am a farmer, rancher,
	small business owner, and environmental lawyer from Fort Myers,
	Florida. It is an honor today for me to represent the American
	Farm Bureau Federation, and I speak on behalf of the thousands
	of hardworking farmers and ranchers who produce the food,
	fiber, and renewable fuel that our nation and the world depend
	upon.
	Farmers and ranchers' livelihoods depend on healthy soil
	and clean water. We support the Clean Water Act and its goals.
	What we cannot support is a Waters of the United States rule
	that is so ambiguous, it creates unmanageable risk and
	confusion for farmers, farmers who struggled with uncertainty
	for decades with near constant rulemaking in litigation
	regarding WOTUS.
	A workable definition of WOTUS is critically important to
	our Members, and they are extremely disappointed that the Biden
	administration's new WOTUS rules fail to provide that. This new
	rule greatly expands the federal government's reach over
	private property, asserting jurisdiction over ephemeral
	drainages, ditches, swales, and low spots in farm fields and
	pastures.
	The significant nexus test allows the agencies to aggregate
	and regulate waters that would not otherwise be subject to
	permit, relying on vague language vulnerable to subjective
	interpretation to do so. It is impossible with this new rule
	for any farmer or rancher to know whether their irrigation and
	drainage infrastructure and fields are jurisdictional waters
	requiring Clean Water Act permits.
	Considering these features as jurisdictional waters risk
	federal regulation of everyday farm and ranch activities that
	move dirt and apply products to the land, such as planting,
	cultivating, fence building, or ditch maintenance. Doing work
	in or near these features without a jurisdictional
	determination or a permit risks triggering the Clean Water
	Act's harsh civil and even harsher criminal penalties. This is
	the experience that farmers will have with this new definition
	of WOTUS.
	Before the 2020 WOTUS rule went into effect, I worked with
	a Florida farmer seeking authorization to insert earth blocks
	totaling less than a half an acre of fill into existing upland
	cut ditches on a farm that had been in operation for decades.
	The ditch blocks were needed to hydrate an existing wetland
	mitigation area.
	The farmer waited for more than a year for a nationwide
	permit only to be told an archeological study of the farm was
	needed to comply with the federal historical preservation
	requirements for the permit, even though the property had an
	archeological study that had previously been completed,
	reviewed, and accepted by the State's historical preservation
	agency.
	The Army Corps of Engineers' archeologist decided the
	existing study was insufficient and wanted a new study that
	would cost tens of thousands of dollars and months of delays to
	resolve his concerns. Shortly thereafter, the 2020 rule went
	into effect, and the Corps' staff determined that the project
	no longer required a permit since the proposed work affected
	only upland cut ditches upstream of the project's State
	permanent outfall structure.
	Also frustrating to our Members is the agency's claim that
	the costs associated with this rule are de minimis. The only
	way this conclusion is possible is to ignore all the costs that
	farmers incur to comply with the rule. The agencies ignore the
	cost of the team of experts required to successfully navigate
	the permitting process, biologists, hydrogeologists, attorneys,
	and engineers.
	The agencies also ignore the cost of mitigating impacts and
	the lost opportunity cost caused by years of delay. These
	permits are beyond the means of many farmers who already
	operate on thin margins and discourage the kinds of
	agricultural innovation we need to remain competitive and
	sustainable.
	A key factor in the WOTUS debate centers around the Supreme
	Court's consideration of the highly consequential Sackett v.
	EPA case. This case should provide clarity regarding the
	appropriate scope of a WOTUS definition. By finalizing this
	rule before the Supreme Court issues its decision, the agencies
	reinforce the perception that they want this rule in place
	before the court clarifies the significant nexus test.
	Farmers and ranchers are extremely frustrated that our
	concerns were ignored in the final rule, as were our efforts at
	participation in the process. This new rule creates confusion,
	more legal and financial risk, discouraging the entrepreneurial
	spirit that small family farms and ranchers rely on to survive.
	This rule may well result in irreparable harm to our rural
	communities who rely on these small businesses who are being
	disproportionately burdened by this overreaching rule.
	Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective on
	this important issue, and I look forward to taking your
	questions.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ms. English.
	And next I want to recognize Mr. Baumann for his 5-minute
	opening remarks.

	STATEMENT OF RICK BAUMANN

	Mr. BAUMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Before I push my button, I just want to compliment the
	previous speakers, and I respect their views very much, and I
	understand them.
	Here is my statement: Good afternoon, Chairman Williams,
	Ms. Velazquez, and distinguished Committee Members.
	I am Rick Baumann from the fishing village of Murrells
	Inlet in the seafood capital of South Carolina.
	Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.
	I would like to begin with a very short dedication to the
	testimony I am about to give to my late friend and mentor Dr.
	Ian W. Marceau, Ph.D.
	Ian was from Australia, but he spent many years of his life
	in the United States, both in Washington and as an advisor to
	the Governor of New York before he retired to South Carolina.
	In his lifetime, Mr. Marceau did a lot of great work, both
	for the environment and agriculture. He had a Ph.D. on either
	side there. All over the world he worked, but his proudest days
	were spent here in D.C. helping to write and negotiate the
	Clean Water Act into law to fulfill President Nixon's vision of
	clean air and water for all Americans.
	During our many days spent together enjoying the outdoors,
	Ian and I talked a lot about clean water. He tempered his pride
	about the Clean Water Act while lamenting the fact that so much
	more had been learned since the Act was written that
	desperately needed to be addressed.
	So many new chemicals of convenience had come into
	existence: Pesticides and fertilizers and so many others, and
	we were just beginning to understand their negative impacts on
	land, water, wildlife, and human beings. We were starting to
	learn the profound impacts of non-point source pollution, how
	toxic man-made compounds and chemicals spread on the land were
	ending up in the wetlands, streams, and rivers, and how they
	were being found in our drinking water.
	In 2004, when I was appointed to my county's Stormwater
	Advisory Committee, I was fortunate to have two geniuses
	advising me at every meeting, Dr. Marceau and Dr. Kraner,
	Ph.D., formerly of Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long
	Island. And together, using only the facts, we were easily able
	to make a very strong case that our fast-developing area was
	threatening our small business economy by failing to address
	non-point source pollution and its effects on that economy,
	which so specifically require clean water to survive and
	thrive.
	As those meetings progressed, we received a great deal of
	pushback from the exact name special interest and industries
	that we've heard from today. I have often seen this scenario
	play out in many areas of the country.
	When I was young, I worked on a Black Angus farm in Upstate
	New York, and I have been a waterfowl hunting guide in many
	areas of the country, in the agricultural Eastern Shore of
	Maryland to the Rice Belt in Texas and everywhere in between. I
	am keenly aware of the challenges facing today's farmers. They
	are immense. And I am a Member of the South Carolina Farm
	Bureau.
	Like farmers, I am in the business of feeding people, too.
	Since 1967, I have fed many millions of folks with their
	seafood dinners, but I am not just speaking for the seafood
	industry. I am speaking for all the small businesses, which
	exist in the vicinity of watersheds all across America.
	When we think of a recreational and commercial fishery, we
	need to realize that there is a very large group of small
	businesses which are intertwined with that fishery. We have ice
	companies, boat mechanics, dry docks, and marinas. Plus, there
	are assorted rental businesses. We have boat companies,
	fiberglass works, tour guides, bait shops, bait catchers, rig
	and tackle shops, crabbers, oystermen, clammers, wholesale
	seafood processors, charter fishing guides, commercial
	fishermen, retail stores like mine.
	In the secondary market are the restaurants that purvey
	local seafood and all of their employees, right down to the
	dishwashers. Then you have the gift shops, cafes, breakfast
	houses, the Airbnb's, rental cottages and condos, convenience
	stores and more.
	Also, in the secondary market requiring clean water are the
	campers, hunters, birders, and recreational anglers who are
	part of the $887 billion outdoor recreation economy. On and on
	I could go with examples.
	I can assure you folks, without a doubt, that anywhere in
	our great country where there is navigable water, there is
	another plethora of small businesses which relies on clean
	water for their businesses to thrive. I can also assure you
	that wherever there is navigable water, there are wetlands,
	sometimes isolated. There are ditches, creeks, and ephemeral
	streams that flow into those navigable waters at various times,
	if not perpetually.
	The credible science speaks much louder than the fallacious
	disinformation. These waters absolutely need CWA protection if
	we are to ensure President Nixon's vision of clean water, land,
	and air for all Americans.
	Thank you so much for your kind attention.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Well, I want to thank all of you. You
	all hit your number right on, all three of you. You don't see
	that too often. Thank you.
	We will now move to the Member questions and the 5-minute
	rule.
	And I now recognize myself for five minutes.
	As a business owner of over 50 years, I know what happens
	when uncertainty is added to a business, and I still own my
	businesses. Some of you might not know this, but I operate a
	small calf/cow operation in Texas, Angus. And I remember when
	this rule initially came out under the Obama administration,
	people in the industry were asking me if a ditch on their
	property would now be subject to EPA and regulations.
	So Ms. English, you have been in the business for long
	enough to know the legal battles with the different iterations
	of this rule. So my question is: Can you describe how this new
	WOTUS rule adds more uncertainty, and could it be even worse
	than the Obama era rule?
	Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I think I can
	help with that.
	The biggest problem that we have with this rule is its
	uncertainty. The Obama rule was clear about what it covered,
	which was essentially everything even though that is not what
	was contemplated under the Clean Water Act. Specifically,
	101(b) of the Clean Water Act talks about the fact that this is
	an exercise in cooperative federalism where some waters are
	protected by the federal government for those that are
	important to them, and the others can be regulated by the
	States.
	This rule is simply unknowable. Unless you have hired a
	lawyer, a biologist, an engineer, and, in some instances, a
	geologist, you have no idea of knowing what your jurisdiction
	is, and you won't know then until you actually file an
	authorized jurisdictional determination with the Army Corps of
	Engineers.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you for that.
	Last week we held a hearing with small business owners from
	a wide variety of industries, from different corners of the
	country, and every one of our witnesses discussed how inflation
	is affecting their operations. Something that I am very
	concerned about is how this rule could add fuel to the fire and
	make inflation even worse for all Americans.
	Many business owners have no choice but to pass the high
	cost of compliance with new rules like WOTUS on to their
	consumers, but in many cases you can't do that.
	So Mr. Murphy, in your testimony, you discussed how this
	new rule could force you to hire more environmental compliance
	officers, and it could lead to permitting delays for projects.
	So the question would be: Can you discuss your business'
	ability to absorb these costs and some of the changes that you
	are considering making in order to comply with the confusing
	new EPA guidelines?
	Mr. MURPHY. That is a very detailed question. So I am going
	to try to keep it very simple in deference to time, Mr.
	Chairman.
	Yes. First off, it will have significant impact because we
	have to go through the additional determinations on already
	existing jurisdictional JDs to have them redone and validated.
	We presently have projects that are in the development pipeline
	that have existing JDs. We have to stop the process now, as we
	are going through the engineering, construction, and permitting
	process, while we re-determine under the new WOTUS rules
	whether those projects are subject to WOTUS or not. We don't
	know.
	Now, consultants may not know it either, based upon some of
	the criteria set forth. So what do we do? We stop; we pause; we
	reconsider, which has the impact of delaying projects.
	We are already facing inflationary issues, as you have
	already addressed here, which leads to compounding of
	affordability, housing shortages, and so forth.
	So by delaying this while we reconsider the impacts
	associated, and we receive new JDs, we are going to shut
	projects down, and that will lead directly to increased housing
	costs, increased lack of affordability, and shortages of homes
	and lots.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. And jobs, too.
	Mr. MURPHY. And jobs, too, sir, yes. Good point.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
	There are always laws in the books that are supposed to
	protect small businesses from some of the worst regulations
	coming out of Washington. Unfortunately, it appears many of
	these required checks against regulatory overreach are not
	being taken seriously by the agencies, and I am proud to say
	this Committee sent out 25 letters seeking more information on
	how they are complying with the laws in the books. We want to
	know how they are helping us.
	Now, Ms. English, I want to ask you about any suggestions
	you might have to force these agencies that we are talking
	about to seriously consider small business interests as they
	make these large rules.
	Ms. ENGLISH. The Small Business Administration has already
	sent a scathing letter exercising its concern with EPA about
	their failure to comply with your rules. I would suggest to you
	that, perhaps, at this point, the most effective tool is the
	pocketbook. I would consider removing authorization for
	expending funds for enforcement of this rule or, in the
	alternative, remove appropriations that were intended for the
	enforcement of this rule.
	I am not sure that anything else would help.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
	With that, I yield my time back.
	And I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Velazquez, for
	5 minutes of questions.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you.
	This question I will ask each Member of the panel to please
	answer yes or no.
	Tomorrow the House is scheduled to vote on a CRA resolution
	to block implementation of the 2023 revised WOTUS rule. Do you
	believe that enactment of this CRA will reinstate the Trump
	administration's Navigable Waters Protection Rule that was
	vacated by a federal district court in 2021?
	Mr. MURPHY. I assume you want me to answer first.
	I hate to say yes but good chance, yes.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. English?
	Ms. ENGLISH. The House resolution will not re-implement the
	notice of the Trump era rule.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Baumann?
	Mr. BAUMANN. As I understand it, the new rule, the Biden
	rule will pretty much mirror what was on the books prior to
	2015. What I would like to point out is that from 1986 until
	2015, there were no lawsuits. There was no arguing. There was
	no hearing. Everybody got along. I don't understand what the
	big deal is, but I am being enlightened somewhat.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. When the court vacated the Trump rule in
	2021, the federal agencies reverted back to using the pre-2015
	rule approved by former President Reagan and later defined by
	President Bush.
	If this resolution is enacted it will not only do away with
	the Biden rule, it will also prevent agencies from interpreting
	any new rule that is substantially the same meaning that this
	will likely tie the hands of the Corps and EPA from further
	clarifying the scope of WOTUS unless Congress enacts some
	additional law.
	Do you believe that indefinitely tying the hands of the
	agencies to further clarify the WOTUS issue is good for small
	businesses' clarity and certainty?
	Mr. Murphy?
	Mr. MURPHY. We need clarity at the end of the day. The new
	Biden rule basically expands the definition of significant
	nexus test, which is much more cumbersome than the pre-2015
	rule.
	Do I believe it should bind the hands of the Corps
	ultimately? No. But we need some guidance by which to establish
	the certainty of the rule and not be subject to continual
	changes every time a new administration comes in and takes
	issues with the existing rule.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. English, do you believe that
	indefinitely tying the hands of the agencies to further clarify
	the WOTUS issue is good for small businesses' clarity and
	certainty?
	Ms. ENGLISH. I don't believe that the resolution will tie
	the hands of the Corps and EPA.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay.
	Ms. ENGLISH. Frequently, in dealing with the Corps staff
	now, I am struggling with being back in the 1980s.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you.
	And Mr. Baumann?
	Mr. BAUMANN. You know, lawyerese is not my forte, but I am
	concerned about the drinking water and the fishing water and so
	forth for my grandchildren and great grandchildren.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Baumann.
	I would like to ask another follow-up question. Under the
	Trump WOTUS rule, EPA estimated 50 percent of wetlands and up
	to 70 percent of rivers, lakes, and streams lost protection
	under the Clean Water Act. How did this impact your business?
	Mr. BAUMANN. Honestly, until it was struck down, it didn't
	have a profound impact, but it had a lot of impact from Mr.
	Murphy's business in my area because so much land that was
	under water, so much land that was swampland was filled and
	built with very small lots and houses close together, taking
	natural ground that absorbs the water and looks after our
	drinking water and absorbs rainwater, trees, and so forth that
	sequester rainwater and pollutants. Okay?
	These were--clearcut houses were built, and, you know, the
	swamps were filled. And when it rained, when we had a tropical
	storm or a hurricane or even just a hard summer thunderstorm,
	we had profound runoff and flooding.
	Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you.
	I yield back.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ms. Velazquez.
	I now recognize Mr. Luetkemeyer.
	Before I do that, reminding myself and all of you, make
	sure your button is on when you speak. Okay?
	Mr. Luetkemeyer from Missouri.
	Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And, yes, I have heard from a lot of my constituents from
	Missouri with regards to the Navigable Waters Protection Rule
	of the Trump administration, and they believed that it gave
	certainty and predictable, at least more than what we have now.
	Ms. English, could you compare that rule with what is being
	proposed today? Just give me three or four differences that you
	can point to that are problematic.
	Ms. ENGLISH. Certainly.
	Under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, it was clear
	that upland cut ditches were not included in the rule in places
	where a permanent outfall structure and a surface water
	management system was authorized behind that structure. It was
	clear that there was no intention for the Clean Water Act to
	apply to that; that that was an area that had already been
	permitted and maintenance in that area, and that is the example
	that I gave you specifically.
	Under the present rule, the proposed rule, all of that
	would be jurisdictional, and I would be going through the
	entire process.
	What I think is important to remember is the uncertainty of
	this rule drives the fact that I can't ever look at something
	with certainty and tell my family or tell a client or tell a
	friend that I know for certain they are not dealing with Waters
	of the United States.
	The benefit of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule was I
	could answer that question straight.
	Mr. LUETKEMEYER. One of the things that is concerning to me
	is I come from Missouri, and the Farm Bureau there in Missouri
	says that this rule would affect 99.9 percent of the land in
	our State. That means the federal government has control over
	whatever you want to do on 99.9 percent of the land in my
	State. That is unconscionable. That can't happen.
	You know, I understand. I am not against clean water. I am
	not against clear air, but there is a limit to the Government's
	overreach and authority to be able to come out and control what
	goes on.
	You know, Mr. Murphy, you talked about the cost. Have you
	looked at this rule itself and what the average cost per home
	that you would build would be incurred by you as a builder or
	the person who purchased the home from you? What percentage of
	the cost would increase as a result of that?
	Mr. MURPHY. I can't give you the percentage or the cost per
	individual home because it varies based upon the individual
	projects, but I can tell you what we looked at, potential price
	impact or cost impact in total.
	Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay.
	Mr. MURPHY. So for existing jurisdictions that we have, we
	have to go redo those, and the cost of a new jurisdictional
	study itself is usually $10 to $20,000 just for the study. Then
	if we have to go through the individual permitting process, not
	even talking about time delays but the individual permitting
	process is usually 50 to 75,000.
	Then if we wish to proceed with development impacting the
	Waters of the U.S. with the mitigation, mitigation costs on two
	projects we studied recently of our own could be upwards of
	$600 to $1.5 million per project.
	Mr. LUETKEMEYER. That is per home?
	Mr. MURPHY. Per project.
	Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Per project.
	Mr. MURPHY. One of these is a 500-acre project, and the
	other one is about a 300-acre project. So a significant cost.
	So we then have to take that cost, mark it up by interest
	and debt, carry cost, and associated delay factors, and then
	pass it through. Ultimately, what we are limited to passing
	through cost-wise is what the market will accept.
	We can't just unilaterally increase the price of the lot,
	increase the price of the home $10,000, because it may not be
	marketable. If that is the case, we have to simply shut down
	and stop development on that project.
	Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Wow! That is mind-blowing.
	Ms. English, you talked a little bit about the cost to
	farmers to be able to comply. You know, Mr. Murphy just blew a
	hole in all of the trying to build new homes here and develop a
	whole new subdivision.
	If a farmer is wanting to do something on his ground or
	they come out and say that there is some navigable waters on
	his property and he has to comply, it would seem to me that it
	would hurt the value of his property, hurt his ability to
	market and sell that property. Is that a fair assessment?
	Ms. ENGLISH. That is absolutely the case. I'm sorry. That
	is absolutely the case. If you fail to resolve that issue, it
	will affect the value of your property.
	Mr. LUETKEMEYER. So what we are looking at here is
	devaluing farmers' property, raising the cost to individuals
	who want to purchase a home or rent an apartment from a multi-
	family unit development perhaps out of their price range.
	Right now we already have a problem with affordability. I
	mean, I sat on another committee and that is all we talk about
	all the time is the unaffordability of housing today. And now
	we are going to add this as one more cost to drive people away
	from being able to buy their dream home.
	Thank you so much for your testimony today.
	Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
	And next I would like to recognize Congressman Thanedar of
	Michigan for five minutes.
	Mr. THANEDAR. Chairman Williams and Ranking Member
	Velazquez, thank you for convening this hearing on the Waters
	of the United States.
	I want to thank everyone who came to testify before our
	Committee. Your firsthand knowledge of our country's
	environment enables our body to contribute more to the work we
	do in Congress.
	There is no doubt of the importance of Clean Water Act. In
	Michigan, our citizens rely on clean water to protect public
	health. It has been critical to the significant progress we
	have made as a State in improving the quality and health of our
	rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, and watersheds.
	Furthermore, clean water is a basic need for families and
	businesses across the United States, particularly in Michigan.
	The Great Lakes support over 1.3 million jobs generating 82
	billion in wages annually. It is critical to discuss the
	importance of Great Lakes as a water source and the worlds most
	extensive fresh water system, which extends to the Detroit
	River.
	As a result, it is vital to ensure the safety and quality
	of waters that are the lifeblood of our district. Any repeal of
	the Clean Water Act would represent a step back in protecting
	our water resources.
	Wetlands and other critical habitats could be destroyed,
	affecting human health and the environment. This is a disaster
	for small businesses, as 80 percent of owners support federal
	regulations to protect upstream headwaters and wetlands. Our
	companies rely on the Clean Water Act.
	Now, I do appreciate your viewpoints, every one of you. I
	am a former small business owner, and we have small businesses
	on both sides of this debate. Quite frankly, I am sympathetic
	to potential regulatory burden, but I am also struggling to see
	how we can protect our clean waters while also being mindful of
	additional cost.
	Does anyone on the panel have any proposals on how to help
	fishermen and oyster farmers like Mr. Baumann and farmers and
	builders like Mr. Murphy and Ms. English? I'm willing to
	listen, and I am interested in finding some sort of middle
	ground and hope today we can help lead to that.
	A specific question, Mr. Baumann, to you is: How is this
	reduced regulation affecting our tourism, say, for example, or
	recreation?
	Mr. BAUMANN. It can be profound at times.
	But I would like to, if you don't mind, address the general
	statement you made and some of the remarks that were recently
	made about cost to farms and to developers.
	The EPI was promulgated a few years ago when our
	illustrious President appointed a coal lobbyist to head the
	EPA, a coal lobbyist, and they started the environmental
	integrity think tank and watchdog. And the EPI has tested
	700,000 miles of river in realtime. The EPA, on the other hand,
	hasn't--and they are required to by the Clean Water Act, has
	not upgraded their evaluation of our waters in over 30 years.
	Can you imagine how much has changed in that much time?
	And it is important to know that the Mississippi River
	alone carries an estimated 1.5 metric tons of nitrogen
	pollution from agriculture into the Gulf, nearly creating a
	dead zone each summer the size of New Jersey.
	Now, you want to talk about cost? Gulf shrimp? Oysters?
	Let's think also parallel to that. The BP oil spill and the
	dreaded Corps exit that they used before they tested. That is
	what a lot of our problem is. We get out ahead of the science
	with some human activity. We get out ahead of the science. They
	used the Corps exit before they found out there was 30
	carcinogens in it. All right?
	And the agricultural--I mean, the farmers don't mean to do
	this, but it is a consequence of feeding America. But they are
	not as careful as they claim to be. It is just that simple. And
	they are quick to portray a pastoral image of the family
	farmer. And God bless the family farmer. I have worked for
	them.
	But our problem in our area that is affecting the waters
	that flow through our State and the conditions of those waters
	and the cost of cleaning up such things is the fact that we
	have these big mega farms.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Mr. Baumann, your time has expired.
	Mr. BAUMANN. Excuse me.
	Mr. THANEDAR. Thank you, Mr. Baumann.
	I yield back.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Next I would like to recognize Mr.
	Meuser from Pennsylvania for five minutes.
	Mr. MEUSER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
	Thank you to all of our witnesses. Mr. Murphy, Ms. English,
	and Mr. Baumann, we appreciate your passion on this issue very,
	very much, actually.
	In eastern Central Pennsylvania, we have thousands of
	family farms. Every one of them that I speak to, and I speak to
	a lot of them, is very, very concerned about this new Biden
	WOTUS regulation going back to what existed before. They were
	generally pleased with the Clean Water Act prior because there
	was a certain level of certainty.
	But when you start talking about this WOTUS, where there
	are no nexus limits set, no distance limits set, what is
	considered navigable, what isn't, removing the word navigable.
	So does that mean heavy rains create new requirements? And then
	when the rains aren't there, it doesn't so much?
	You know, most family farms have their creeks and streams
	lead into other family farms, particularly up in my neck of the
	woods. So there are great conservationists.
	Now, being a great conservationist and being an
	environmentalist, as I certainly classify myself, doesn't
	necessarily mean you are going to always follow the most--the
	rules established, but when you have a family farm for 100
	years, it tends to do that.
	So, you know, when you are dealing with a WOTUS rule like
	that, as Vice Chair Luetkemeyer brought up, where 99.8 percent
	of the private property is going to come under federal
	jurisdiction, I agree with my colleague who was just speaking
	that, boy, there needs to be a middle ground here.
	And just the fact that this is going to be overturned by
	SCOTUS, because it can't possibly. I mean, I have more notes
	here of what I can talk about on all the legal problems that
	exist with Attorney English. I am sure you could go on, and I
	would yield to you, and we would hear a lot of that.
	So it is going to be overturned and for a good reason, that
	it is a profound overreach. I mean, I have more quotes from
	farmers. I couldn't get them off the phone when I asked them to
	comment on this hearing, as well as all these other quotes from
	people from Zippy Duvall, to the NFIB, to the president of the
	Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, home builders. I mean, it just goes
	on that it is way too nebulous and troubling and potential high
	levels of costs and unnecessary regulations.
	So we need to come up with a fix, and we are the body. You
	know, the Small Business Committee is the only Committee in the
	old Congress that is here advocating for small business. So
	that is what we have to do.
	So I will just ask a question. I will go to Ms. English
	first. Where do you see--we just go back to what we currently
	have. What do you see as a solution that we should try to focus
	on?
	Ms. ENGLISH. I would encourage Congress to look to the
	congressional intent that is already expressed in the Clean
	Water Act. The fact that this was intended to be an exercise of
	federalism, that there is responsibility, and there are spaces
	that require the attention and focus and the power of the
	federal government to protect. But that is not all the waters
	in the United States. It was not intended to be all of the
	water bodies that existed in the United States.
	The States, many States have vigorous regulatory programs
	to protect what they see as State waters that encompass
	everything from the interior to the isolated to the coastal.
	The EPA has been very successful in using the Clean Water
	Act to encourage States to adopt reasonable water quality
	standards to protect the water uses in that State. I would
	suggest gently that Congress has told EPA how to do this and
	that, perhaps, EPA needs to re-focus on the language in the
	statute that Congress has given it.
	Mr. MEUSER. Excellent.
	Mr. Murphy, and then if I have time, I will go to Mr.
	Baumann.
	Mr. MURPHY. Same question, sir?
	Mr. MEUSER. Same question.
	Mr. MURPHY. I am not an expert in legal affairs, especially
	regarding Congress.
	Mr. MEUSER. You are on the ground field for it.
	Mr. MURPHY. We need certainty. Interact directly with the
	Corps, EPA, to establish a level of certainty that is not going
	to be subject to change upon each administration's change. We
	can't afford to change every four years or some other time
	because that forces us to go back to the JD process and start
	over.
	Mr. MEUSER. I appreciate that.
	I am going to have to yield back. But thank you.
	Mr. LUETKEMEYER. [Presiding.] The gentlemen yields back.
	I am glad you are trying to minimize your concern there.
	With that, we go to--I now recognize the gentleman from
	Kentucky, Mr. McGarvey, for five minutes.
	Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
	I appreciate the panel for being here and telling us about
	your experiences.
	And the Chairman mentioned, I am from Kentucky. You all
	might not know too much about our State but might have heard a
	little bit about one of our products that we make there, and I
	can tell you that the four sort of core ingredients of bourbon
	are corn, yeast. You have to have a new charred white oak
	barrel and, of course, water.
	So bourbon. I won't go into a dissertation on bourbon today
	for the small business community. It gets its flavor from a lot
	of things, including the barrel, including the corn, including
	the products that go into it. But a lot of it does come from
	the water and from Kentucky's limestone water and from a lot of
	the properties we possess in our clean water.
	We have heard today a lot about the negative impacts that
	these regulations can have on farmers, on developers, on
	communities. And I agree. We deserve a clear and
	straightforward framework.
	But I think it is also important to acknowledge the
	negative impacts that weak water standards have and how they
	would devastate some industries. Whether it is breweries,
	whether it is fishing, whether it is my State's home industry
	of bourbon, these are entries that rely on clean water.
	And so, Mr. Baumann, I just wanted to hear from you a
	little bit about those kinds of benefits that those businesses
	that benefit from the regulations that we have ensure clean,
	safe water, and what kinds of small businesses are harmed when
	these water standards are relaxed.
	Mr. BAUMANN. There is so much I can answer that with. I
	will begin by telling you that we have a lot of beautiful
	rivers in South Carolina. We have a multi-billion dollar
	tourist industry. We have billions of dollars in the fisheries
	and in the outdoor recreation, and all that gets hurt.
	I will give you an example. We have polluters. We have coal
	fired power plants. We have agriculture. We have the
	aforementioned situations with the fill and build, fill in the
	wetlands and building on it and causing runoff and flooding and
	non-point source solution to our estuaries, which are the
	nursery grounds for everything we catch, you know. So it is
	really profound.
	And in South Carolina, to give you an idea about our
	recreational fishing and our ocean fishing and commercial
	fishing, there are health advisories now and have been for
	years during the EPA and the clean water rule in my view that
	is just not being addressed properly because we have health
	advisories telling us that we can't eat the fish we catch.
	I mean, that has got to--people go fishing to filet the
	fish and fry it for dinner. And when you can't eat the fish you
	catch because of mercury poisoning or some other heavy metal or
	whatever, it has to have profound impact on how many people go
	fishing, the money they spend in the community, in restaurants
	and hotels and everything else like that. It is an economic
	wheel that is being disrupted by a lack of good water quality.
	Our estuary now is an impaired estuary according to the
	EPA. The reason is non-point source pollution. It is just a
	small inlet. There is no major fresh water creeks going into
	it. It is from rain runoff, all of it.
	Mr. MCGARVEY. And you bring up something I think is worth
	noting in this hearing. I think this is something we all
	inherently know, but I think it is worth pointing out, our
	waters are connected.
	Mr. BAUMANN. All water is connected.
	Mr. MCGARVEY. You can't pollute water in one place and not
	feel the effects somewhere else. We are low on time, Mr.
	Baumann. I appreciate your testimony.
	But, Ms. English and Mr. Murphy, I would like to give you a
	chance to chime in. I am sympathetic, again, to needing a
	clear, straightforward framework and the real-life impacts of
	regulations. What kind of middle ground do you think we can
	pursue that would address your concerns and those of Mr.
	Baumann about the need for clean water?
	Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you.
	Again, I think the idea that the only solution here is at a
	federal level is very concerning to me. I think a bright line
	test for where the federal interest stops and where the State
	responsibility begins would be an important step, because it
	would then allow the discussion to take place about the kinds
	of protections that need to take place locally. It is with that
	local knowledge I think the middle ground can be found.
	Mr. MCGARVEY. And unfortunately, we are out of time, so I
	am going to yield back.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
	I now recognize Mr. Alford from Missouri for 5 minutes.
	Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
	this important hearing about how the Biden administration's
	WOTUS rule really impacts small businesses. That is why we are
	here today.
	Uncertainty is not a part of the equation for success for
	small businesses. That is exactly what this WOTUS rule has
	created for small business. This backwards rule would force
	family farmers to jump through hoops and likely retain legal
	counsel before developing or farming their land. I guess, the
	Biden administration forgot that most small business owners--
	most farmers are small business owners.
	What also concerns me about this haphazard policy is that
	the EPA and Army Corps have said that the WOTUS rule would not
	have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
	entities, despite the Small Business Administration's Office of
	Advocacy sending a letter to the EPA and Army Corps last
	February stating the exact opposite.
	The decision was a calculated attempt by these groups to
	circumvent their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility
	Act so that they did not have to conduct an initial regulatory
	flexibility analysis, which would prove just how dangerous this
	policy is for small businesses across the country.
	The Biden administration's failure to look at this rule and
	how it affects small businesses is just another shameful
	example that this administration will push its agenda at all
	costs, including at the cost of our small businesses and
	hardworking Americans.
	I want to begin my questions with you, Ms. English, because
	we have 95,000 farms in the State of Missouri. I, too, like our
	Vice Chairman, am from Missouri, and I am honored to represent
	those, not just here but on the Ag Committee as well.
	This has been a large focus that I have heard from farmers
	for the last 2 years in the 24 counties that I represent. One
	farmer in Cass County told me this incredulous story, but it is
	true, that he had to shut down part of his farm because they
	found the water standing in his cornfield. And until he could
	prove that it was not a navigable waterway, it turned out to be
	ruts from his combine and farming equipment that had filled in
	with water. Where is the commonsense in this ruling?
	I want to know from your standpoint, do you have any
	stories like that that you could share with us of the lack of
	commonsense of this, and what economic impact has it had on
	your family farm so far?
	Ms. ENGLISH. In regard to a story that is very similar to
	this, I practice a great deal with the Army Corps of Engineers,
	and I know the reviewers there. There is one who lives in a
	home that is not far from our family farm, and he called me to
	tell me that I needed to make sure that I filled in a bull
	hole. For those of you who don't know, bulls like to roll in
	dirt and get dirty.
	And we had a bull hole in front of a gate that was near the
	road, and he noticed that it was puddling during our rainy
	season in Florida, which is between May and September-October.
	And he warned me that I needed to backfill my bull hole before
	it became a jurisdictional wetland, and that if anything came
	up that that would be a concern. When an agency staff person
	uses my personal cell phone and does not send an email to tell
	me I need to backfill a bull hole, that should tell you that
	there is a concern in this space.
	The only reason I went to law school was having worked for
	a citrus growers co-op for 5 years--4 years, and watching what
	had happened with the regulatory creep in that timeframe. I
	became convinced that the only way my family could continue to
	farm, to continue to be the good stewards of the land and have
	the legacy of handing this property down to my children and
	grandchildren was for us to have a lawyer who understood it. It
	defined my entire professional life.
	Mr. ALFORD. I would submit to you that we don't need to be
	backfilling bull holes. We need to backfill the BS in WOTUS.
	And we need to come to the aid of farmers who are
	conservationists, who are doing everything they can to protect
	their farms.
	And, Mr. Baumann, I agree, you know, I try to listen to
	people I agree with. I really try to hear people I disagree
	with. I hear you, brother. I understand, we want clean water. I
	used to be an environmental reporter in south Florida. I know
	that pollution does cause bad effects on our seafood and our
	fishing industries, but we have got to find a way to work
	together in America that we can have great fisheries, great
	farms, and be a productive society that has commonsense.
	And with that, I yield.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
	Next, we recognize Mr. Ellzey from Texas for 5 minutes.
	Mr. ELLZEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Thanks, everybody, for coming in today.
	One of the benefits of being very junior is to get to hear
	some of the arguments before you get to ask a question, and
	this is really a fascinating discussion. And as it comes down
	to it, as I see in my three witnesses here, not a single one of
	them wants dirty water. We all want clean water. We all depend
	on clean water. We all depend on it for our food.
	Mr. Baumann, I look forward to eating at your place
	sometime and sampling some of that fine seafood.
	And, Mr. Murphy, you build homes in my area.
	So I think what it comes down to at the end of the day, the
	reality is this is about power from agencies that don't answer
	to anybody else and the agenda of individual administrations. I
	didn't say what party they were from. Everybody has got their
	own agenda.
	Mr. Baumann, I do have a--this isn't a ``stump the chump,''
	and I don't mean it as such. Can you define for me--since we
	have got some land folks here and then a water guy, can you
	define for me, in your opinion, what a navigable waterway is?
	Mr. BAUMANN. Let me answer that by something that has been
	left out by everybody who has brought up navigable water, and
	the phrasing is something to the effect of ``or substantially
	affects navigable waters.'' Water moves. It don't stay where it
	is at. It is either going to go down into the aquifer, or it is
	going to, you know, move with environmental conditions or with
	weather and so forth like that.
	So I don't have the exact definition of navigable water. I
	have read a few--like you say, it has changed over the years,
	and I do think it needs to be adopted at a certain level where
	everybody can count on it, you know. Mr. Murphy, Ms. English,
	myself, we need to know what the parameters are, but we are
	getting the short end of the stick in my business, I can tell
	you.
	And it is not just my business. I am speaking for that
	myriad, that plethora of people who I spoke about that rely on
	the fishing industry. Our whole town relies on the fishing
	industry and virtually every business in it. 99.9 percent of
	the businesses in this country are small businesses. And
	polluted water, regardless of how it happens, it has
	consequences for everybody except the people that cause the
	pollution. Nobody is getting accountability, you know,
	especially, with all due respect, the big mega farms, you know.
	Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. Let me ask you--in my time left, let me
	ask you another question. In your opinion, who should define
	navigable waterway? Is it the Congress or is it the EPA and the
	Corps? Real quick. Real quick.
	Mr. BAUMANN. Is it one of those three, who should define?
	Mr. ELLZEY. Who should, in your opinion? Real quick. 15
	seconds.
	Mr. BAUMANN. You can't do it by the States because the
	States don't have the money or the purview.
	Mr. ELLZEY. All right.
	Mr. BAUMANN. That has been proven.
	Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. All right.
	Mr. Murphy, every administration has done its own thing.
	What would the homebuilders like to see in predictability, and
	who should define navigable waterway? Who should define these
	rules, Congress or an agency?
	Mr. MURPHY. We need certainty. Homebuilders and developers
	are adaptable, but we can't adapt to something we don't know.
	If you provide us certainty, we will deal with it somehow, some
	way. But as we go to contract to purchase land today, we cannot
	ascertain with any level of certainty whether we have WOTUS in
	or not, which forces us to either drop contracts, delay them,
	or incur the additional cost I testified to earlier.
	What is the solution? Give us certainty. Put it in the
	hands of an independent body. The Corps and the EPA, in my
	position, have more of a different take on it because they have
	been dealing with this for years. Put it with Congress, is my
	suggestion. Put it into an independent body, a committee of
	Congress, to study it and come up with some type of rule that
	will provide certainty beyond this single administration. That
	would be my recommendation, sir.
	Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. Ms. English?
	Ms. ENGLISH. I am always wary of a special study group. I
	believe that we need to honor the Constitution and the commerce
	clause. I believe that we need to honor the concept that was
	originally written into the Clean Water Act about the
	separation and the cooperative nature of our governmental
	associations between the federal government and States.
	I think that we need to have a bright line test. Just
	exactly what Mr. Murphy said, we need certainty and clarity.
	But by the same token, you are overlooking the power and
	responsibility of local governments and local States to protect
	their citizens, and they have the most direct knowledge.
	Mr. ELLZEY. Thank you all very much for your testimony.
	I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
	And now I recognize Ms. Van Duyne from Texas for 5 minutes.
	Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
	you for holding this important hearing on the persistent threat
	Waters of the U.S. poses to small businesses across the nation.
	I have heard from many small businesses just about how
	starting--they are just starting to now bounce back from
	government and post lockdowns and closures, and now this
	administration is reviving a threat of a vague and very
	confusing, as we have heard today, regulation that grants the
	federal government broad authority to regulate nearly every
	stream, pond, wetland.
	I mean, I think, Ms. English, you said it perfectly:
	Anything that comes on the land is basically--is how they are
	defining it. And even worse, the agency charged with enforcing
	this regulation doesn't even understand what they are
	executing, which in turn causes small businesses and farmers to
	be susceptible to fines and legal action even if they
	unknowingly violate these regulations. And honestly, the
	renewed approach to WOTUS seems designed not to protect the
	environment but really only to satisfy the administration's
	unending desire to regulate our job creators out of business.
	In the 117th Congress, I, along with all of my Republican
	Committee Members, sent a letter requesting that the Army Corps
	of Engineers and the EPA look at how this role will be
	determined and how it will be detrimental to small businesses.
	And while all of those questions remain unanswered, I look
	forward to holding the Biden administration accountable and
	working to ensure that this harmful rule does not go into
	effect.
	Mr. Murphy, you have provided some great testimony today.
	You had said--when asked by the Chairman and others what impact
	this is going to have, you said that basically you are going to
	have to abandon some projects. You have already had to abandon
	some projects. You said that as costs increase, and this does
	add additional cost, that the cost not only increases for the
	building for your company but that is having to be passed
	along----
	Mr. MURPHY. Right.
	Ms. VAN DUYNE.--to your customers as well. Have you had to
	hire any additional staff? Have you had to hire consultants to
	help with this compliance?
	Mr. MURPHY. Not yet. We have not, because this is brand
	new. I was speaking to one of our consultants, a third party
	that we engage, just the other day. And I asked him, under the
	new 2023 WOTUS rule, how would you interpret this, especially
	regarding the significant nexus test, which now takes the
	combination of chemical, physical, and biological tests, along
	with the culmination of all upstream, i.e., catchment basin,
	similarly situated properties. How do you calculate that? This
	is a gentleman who used to be in the Corps office himself. He
	told me, I don't know.
	Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yeah, that is a problem.
	Mr. MURPHY. So if our investigative experts can't tell us,
	how can we understand what to do going forward on projects? We
	just basically shut projects down. We haven't yet, because
	everything we have under construction was basically permitted
	before. This only pertains to projects that haven't yet started
	construction.
	So we are dealing with shutdown on these. This is the first
	time in my career, not just related to WOTUS, but overall
	economic situation that we do not have any properties to
	acquire under contract right now. To sit here today and be
	faced with compounding the cost and delays associated with this
	may just force us to discontinue development for some period of
	time. How long, I don't know.
	Ms. VAN DUYNE. I mean, that is a grim look. If you had to
	estimate--I know you said, you know, this hasn't happened yet,
	but if you had to estimate, how much time do you think is going
	to be spent on working on compliance?
	Mr. MURPHY. Oh, Lordy.
	Ms. VAN DUYNE. Taking away from actually what you do do as
	part of your business model.
	Mr. MURPHY. Yes. We hired third-party consultants to advise
	us. We also engage third-party engineering, investigative firms
	to prepare the plans and items associated with it. Let me give
	you an example of a jurisdictional permit we have. Once we have
	that jurisdictional determination, that gives us the clarity
	and the certainty that we can proceed ahead with the
	development on that project without risk of intruding into
	WOTUS and incurring civil and criminal penalties. So we rely
	upon that.
	Under the new rule, they basically have noticed us that
	they will no longer consider existing JDs. That forces us to
	stop our engineering process, reconsider the impacts of the new
	WOTUS rule on that particular phase of development or the new
	development. That, in itself could result in months of delay,
	redoing the engineering plans, loss of land that we could
	otherwise develop because we can no longer wait for the
	timeframe for the agencies to determine jurisdictional
	determination, which could be, you know, 2, 3, 5 years. We
	don't know. So it is a significant impact to us.
	Ms. VAN DUYNE. Can you tell me--and this is just another--
	another problem being dumped onto an industry that is already
	suffering from a whole list of issues.
	Mr. MURPHY. Yes.
	Ms. VAN DUYNE. Can you tell me the context now in which you
	guys are working, everything that is like building up. And
	really, we talk about the importance of having affordable
	housing.
	Mr. MURPHY. Yes.
	Ms. VAN DUYNE. Tell me what is happening in your district.
	Mr. MURPHY. In just a few seconds, you have got inflation;
	you have got interest rates; you have got electrification; you
	have got the shortages of transformers, which are going to be
	compounded by additional items out there; you have got
	shortages of houses already; you have got the overall issues
	with inflation and cost. There is no lack of demand. It is a
	lack of availability and cost.
	Ms. VAN DUYNE. I appreciate that very much and yield back.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
	I now recognize Mr. Bean from Florida for 5 minutes.
	Mr. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, a very good afternoon once again.
	And thank you so much. I am still learning. I am still
	learning how vastly it affects a small business. We already
	know in this committee how hard it is to run a small business
	already without government interference. But then when you
	throw government interference, uncertainty, a cloudy future,
	then it is really hard, especially if you own a family farm for
	over 100 years, as the English family has.
	Ms. English, what is it going to mean should this go
	forward? And you are an attorney, so you are used to
	understanding complex things. I understand this rule is hazy
	and complex, but what does it mean to your family having to
	deal with another rule such as this?
	Ms. ENGLISH. Well, you may be familiar with citrus
	greening, which has affected citrus groves across the State of
	Florida decimating the industry. We have pushed the groves on
	our property, and we are preparing to go back with varieties
	that are more tolerant of the disease. For those of you that
	don't know, citrus greening is sort of an autoimmune disease
	for orange trees. It is deadly. It has decimated the industry.
	Under the new rule, I don't know that the groves that we
	had planted for 140 years aren't actually jurisdictional to the
	Corps, that I am not going to be required to go get a permit
	for them, and mitigate if we are going to plant. We are a small
	family farm. None of us rely entirely on the farm income.
	Again, my husband teases me that I farm to support--or I
	practice law to support my farming habit. But the issue here is
	it is hundreds of thousands of dollars and it is years. We
	would be looking--if this is jurisdictional, and it appears to
	me from the rule that maybe it might be, we would be looking at
	hiring engineers--I would, of course, be the lawyer, but all of
	the other consultants that Mr. Murphy needs in order to
	successfully proceed through a permit or a jurisdictional
	determination so that we had that protection. Hundreds of
	thousands of dollars and years of delay, I don't know that we
	can withstand that.
	Mr. BEAN. Has your farm shrunk over the years, the 100
	years? Has it grown or has it shrunk or stayed the same?
	Ms. ENGLISH. No. We last acquired a piece of property from
	a cousin, I believe, in the mid 1980s. But since that time, it
	has been relatively stable at about 880 acres.
	Mr. BEAN. I gotcha. But you have seen it--because we are
	both from the free State of Florida. You have seen the massive
	influx of people who have voted with their feet, they are
	coming to Florida. But you have seen farming threatened in
	Florida. Is that correct? Have you said you have seen farms
	close or sell out?
	Ms. ENGLISH. Absolutely. And any farm that is within an
	hour or an hour and a half of an urban area in Florida is under
	dire threat of development, simply because farmers are price
	takers not price makers. We compete in a global market. We
	produce commodities that we can't raise the price on.
	So when you reach a point where you can no longer be
	economically viable, the hard choices for legacy farm families
	have to be are you selling this to the government or are you
	selling it to Mr. Murphy's friends, because those are our
	options. Case in point, I have lost probably 10 percent of my
	clients over the last year, and how I lost them was I helped
	them sell their property.
	Mr. BEAN. Gotcha. Would you say--some say that growing a
	nation's--feeding a nation, feeding a nation and for a nation
	to be able to grow its own food is national security. Would you
	agree with that statement?
	Ms. ENGLISH. I would agree with that 100 percent. I just
	object to the fact that I have to have an entire herd of
	consultants in order to successfully do that.
	Mr. BEAN. How would a small business--how would a small
	farmer navigate the waters of running a farm with this new
	environment of uncertainty, of regulations from the current
	administration?
	Ms. ENGLISH. With great respect, Congressman, I don't think
	they can.
	Mr. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you so much.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Next, we have--I want to recognize Mr.
	Stauber from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
	Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
	And to the witnesses, thanks for your testimony.
	We have a big fight on our hands. As a former small
	business owner of 31 years, this WOTUS rule, our small
	businesses, our farmers are against it, and this administration
	just pushes it and tries to push it upon the American people.
	Mr. Murphy, what is the cost of--what does it cost you to
	hire these consultants to figure out this WOTUS rule and what
	goes with it? What is the cost for your company?
	Mr. MURPHY. The initial cost for a study depending upon the
	size and complexity of the individual project will usually
	range from $10,000, $15,000, maybe $20,000. That is the initial
	study. Then if you have to go through a formal submission to
	the Corps for a jurisdictional determination, that cost is
	being priced right now to us between $50,000 to $75,000. And
	this is under the existing rule, not the new rule.
	We don't have the ability to project what the increase in
	cost may be, because my consultants are telling me they don't
	know how to enforce it yet or do the inspection. And that is
	just the cost to do the determination and jurisdictional. If
	you go through the individual permitting, you have got
	significant additional costs beyond that.
	Mr. STAUBER. So in 30 seconds, you just said that these
	rules that the government put forward have cost you a minimum
	of $100,000. In just 30 seconds, that is the minimum. So my
	question to you is, let's say it is $300,000, and I don't think
	that is out of the question once push comes to shove with this
	ridiculous ruling, who do you pass that onto?
	Mr. MURPHY. Well, if we can pass it on, it is to the
	ultimate home buyer through purchases of the homes from the
	individual homebuilder. If we can't pass it on----
	Mr. STAUBER. So if you pass it on to the home----
	Mr. MURPHY. If we could----
	Mr. STAUBER. If you could.
	Mr. MURPHY. Subject to market acceptability.
	Mr. STAUBER. Right. Okay.
	Mr. MURPHY. That is who it would go to. But in many cases
	we can't. So we are forced then to pretty much just mothball
	this particular development because we can't recover the cost
	through increases in housing prices, or we have to resize the
	project, which basically means shrinking the developable land
	to stay way away from what may be considered significant nexus
	under the WOTUS test to basically proceed ahead and not run the
	civil and liability risk associated with it.
	So that would allow us to proceed ahead without incurring
	significant costs, but what it does is have the same effect. It
	increases the cost of the remaining land and lots and therefore
	has a direct increase on the remaining homes to be built.
	Mr. STAUBER. If it wasn't so devastating, I would find it
	laughable that the EPA and the Army Corps claim that the WOTUS
	rule won't significantly impact our American small businesses.
	That is just simply not true. It is just simply not true. I
	think it is disingenuous for them to tell the American people.
	I know the farmers, manufacturers, miners, and homebuilders in
	northern Minnesota would have had a different story to tell if
	they were asked.
	Ms. English, I have heard from farmers in my great State of
	Minnesota that are struggling to comply with the strict water
	regulations already in place in our State. Can you tell me more
	about the jobs and projects that this rule will make harder for
	farmers to get done?
	Ms. ENGLISH. And I actually have talked with some of my
	cousins who farm in and around Hawley, Minnesota.
	Mr. STAUBER. Yeah.
	Ms. ENGLISH. So we have compared notes and cried in each
	other's beer over some of these issues.
	Mr. STAUBER. Yes.
	Ms. ENGLISH. But here is what doesn't happen, you can't--
	you begin not to maintain portions of the systems that need to
	be maintained because you are afraid of incurring jurisdiction.
	Catchment basins that you use to capture soils or to treat for
	water quality don't happen. The improvement projects, like the
	one I referred to in my testimony, where you are trying to do
	something that is going to improve the water quality,
	ultimately being discharged from the property, aren't being
	addressed and aren't being done.
	It is one thing to make a rule to protect water quality; it
	is another thing if that rule cuts both ways and actually
	impairs water quality because you could no longer repair the
	infrastructure or maintain it that treats water quality.
	Mr. STAUBER. I will just tell you, in my last 30 seconds,
	this rule is devastating. I will tell you that the Obama
	administration, when Joe Biden was Vice President, they allowed
	a water permit in a mine in Minnesota. The water came out more
	pure. They had to add sediments to it. And this administration
	just remanded that same water permit to stop mining. You can't
	make this up. You just can't make it up.
	And I think this WOTUS rule is going to be devastating for
	small businesses and farmers. And those--the bureaucrats that
	are getting paid to do this, like your EPA neighbor who calls
	you and says the bull hole needs to be filled or changed, or my
	colleague over here who says that the tractor tires--the water
	and the tractor tire and the groove and the dirt needs to be--
	something needs to be dealt with, can you imagine?
	Ms. ENGLISH. Uh-huh.
	Mr. STAUBER. I mean, can you imagine this?
	Ms. ENGLISH. Yes.
	Mr. STAUBER. And by the way, $320 billion--that is with a
	``B''--$320 billion of additional regulations this
	administration has put on our small businesses in just 2 years.
	I yield back.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
	Now, I recognize Mr. Crane from Arizona for 5 minutes.
	Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
	Thank you to the witnesses for showing up today. I
	appreciate it. Sorry I was tardy. We were in a Homeland
	Security meeting. It is one of the tough things about this town
	is you just get thrown around all over the place.
	But real quick, I wanted to start with you, Mr. Murphy,
	have you ever voted for an official at the EPA in your life
	that you can remember?
	Mr. MURPHY. Voted for an official at the EPA, no, sir.
	Mr. CRANE. Okay. Let's see, Ms. English, have you ever
	voted for an official at the EPA?
	Ms. ENGLISH. No, sir.
	Mr. CRANE. Mr. Baumann, have you ever voted for an official
	at the EPA?
	Ms. ENGLISH. No, sir.
	Mr. CRANE. No, sir. All three of them, no, no, no. Does
	that bother you guys? Follow-on question to all three of you:
	Does it bother you that unelected bureaucrats are making
	rulings and judgments that are affecting your business and
	lifestyle? We will start with you, Mr. Murphy.
	Mr. MURPHY. I would prefer to have a say in that, yes. But
	I also look to my elected Congressman to help enforce the Clean
	Water Act and provide the regulatory guidance that provides
	clarity to what we do.
	Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. And you just made a key word there,
	``elected.'' My point was, right now, you guys, your lifestyle,
	your businesses, and many others across this country are being
	affected because of unelected bureaucrats, and therefore you
	have no recourse, right? You can't go--take me, for example. I
	am a freshman here in Congress. If I screw up really bad, and
	some of the folks in my district would probably, you know, say
	that I am, but if I screwed up really bad, they have a
	recourse. They can get rid of me in 2 years, right? But you
	guys can't go and fire somebody at the EPA, can you?
	Mr. MURPHY. That is correct. We have recourse, not under
	what is called a preliminary jurisdiction because that is non-
	contestable, but there is a jurisdictional determination out
	that we may have recourse----
	Mr. CRANE. Okay.
	Mr. MURPHY.--so contested. But directly to answer your
	question, no, we don't have any authority to approve, vote, or
	try to oust Members of the EPA or the Corps.
	Mr. CRANE. Thank you.
	Ms. Bau--or, excuse me, Ms. English, does that bother you?
	Ms. ENGLISH. It is a terrible concern when it appears that
	the agency perspective appears to deviate substantially from
	the law that has been handed down by Congress and signed by a
	President.
	Mr. CRANE. Thank you.
	And the last thing I have to say is just a statement real
	quick, because I know we are never--we are all never going to
	agree on, you know, everything that goes on here. But I am just
	going to tell you guys, my vote will be cast in a manner that
	acknowledges your private property and keeps unelected
	bureaucrats and government officials out of your lives as much
	as possible. And I want to see local officials making these
	rules and regulations, because I think that they have the best
	eyes on and the best capability of making sound judgments that
	are the best for your lives. Okay?
	Thank you guys again for coming. I yield back.
	Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
	And I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony
	today and for appearing before us.
	Without objection, Members have 5 legislative days to
	submit additional materials and written questions for the
	witnesses to the Chair, which will be forwarded to the
	witnesses. I would ask the witnesses to please respond promptly
	if that happens.
	There being no further business, without objection, the
	committee is adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]


	A P P E N D I X

	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	[all]
	</pre></body></html>