This summary is based largely on the summary provided by the Congressional Research Service, a public domain source. The Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 would prohibit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency from: The bill would require the Army Corps and the EPA to withdraw the interpretive rule entitled, "Notice of Availability Regarding the Exemption from Permitting Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to Certain Agricultural Conservation Practices," issued on April 21, 2014. The bill would require the Army Corps and the EPA to consult with relevant state and local officials to develop recommendations for a regulatory proposal that would identify the scope of waters covered under the Clean Water Act and the scope of waters not covered.
This summary is based largely on the summary provided by the Congressional Budget Office, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on July 16, 2014. This is a public domain source. H.R. 5078 would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from implementing or enforcing certain proposed regulations regarding the use of the nation’s waters and wetlands. The legislation would affect direct spending because it would reduce fees collected by the Corps for issuing permits under the Clean Water Act. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the change in those fees would be negligible. Because the legislation would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting H.R. 5078 would not affect revenues. In addition, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5078 would have no significant effect on discretionary spending by EPA or the Corps. Under the CWA, EPA and the Corps, along with the states, serve as co-regulators of the nation’s waters. H.R. 5078 would prohibit the agencies from developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, or enforcing the following: Finally, enacting this legislation would require EPA and the Corps to jointly consult with state regulatory officials to develop recommendations for an alternative regulatory proposal instead of the proposed rules and draft guidance; such recommendations would be provided to the Congress in a final report. The regulatory changes proposed under current law would expand the area covered by federal regulations and the number of permits issued by the Corps under the CWA. The legislation would probably prevent, reduce, or delay such an expansion of federally regulated waters. However, because the amount of permit fees collected by the Corps is nominal, CBO estimates enacting H.R. 5078 would have an insignificant effect on direct spending over the 2015-2024 period. As with similar legislative proposals directing EPA to prepare alternatives to proposed rules, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would have no significant net impact on federal spending. Under the bill, we expect that EPA resources that would have been used to develop and implement the currently proposed rules and draft guidance would be used to develop an alternative regulatory proposal and a report to the Congress. H.R. 5078 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and any costs incurred by state, local, or tribal governments would result from participation in a voluntary federal program.
The Water Advocacy Coalition, which calls itself an "inter-industry coalition representing the construction, real estate, mining, agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, energy sectors, and wildlife conservation interests," supported the bill and urged Representatives to vote for it. According to WAC, H.R. 5078 would improve the existing situation - a dispute over who owned and controlled some waters - by "requiring the agencies to conduct a transparent, representative, and open consultation with state and local officials to develop a consensus about those waters that should be under federal jurisdiction." The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association supported the bill, arguing that under the proposed rule, "electric cooperatives will face significant challenges as we strive to provide our member-owners with reliable and affordable energy." The NRECA also argued that the proposed rule could result in the need for groups to gain many federal permits "causing uncertainty, delay, and cost."
