HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Senator Nielsen to Gina McCarthy regarding Water of the United States (WOTUS)CAPITOL OFFICE
STATE CAPITOL
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916)6514004
CFICO DISTRICT OFFICE
2653 FOREST AVE.. GTE. 110
CHICO. CA 95928
(530) 879-7424
CRESCENT CITY D15TRICT OFFICE
1060 MASON MALL. STI, 4
CRESCENT CITY. CA 95531
(707)464-1255
ROSEVILLE CIA 't PICT OFFICE
2200A DOUGLAS BLVD., STE. 100
ROSEVILLE, CA 95765
(916) 7720571
%La liforniat ` atjt enate
SENATOR
JIM NIELSEN
YUBA CITY DISTRICT OFFICE FOURTH SENATE DISTRICT
409 CENTER ST- STE C
YUBA CITY, CA 95993
15301751-8657
July 14, 2014
Gina McCarthy, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Administrator, 1101A
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Waters of the United States (WOTUS)
Dear Ms. McCarthy,
COMMITTEES
BUDGET & FISCAL RFVIEW
HEALTH
INSURANCE
VETERANS AFFAIRS
AUL 1
qw"'4F CALIp
Water is a precious commodity in the State of California. Our economy relies on water to grow
food, produce energy, develop land, and provide safe and reliable drinking water for all our
citizens. Together, all of these contribute to the success of this vibrant State. Any regulations
affecting that success, whether in statute or proposed are of great interest to me, and the citizens I
represent. The Fourth Senate District that I represent is in Northern California where most of the
state's water originates and is stored. It is comprised of rural counties whose main industry is
agriculture and timber in the north, to suburban and urban areas in the southern -most part of the
district.
It has been brought to my attention that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corp) have issued a proposed rule that would expand your
regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act, by redefining the waters of the U.S. (WOTUS).
This proposed rule is under the guise of providing clarity to the existing rule of what waters are
protected under the Clean Water Act, but I strongly disagree. I believe this proposed rule largely
unnecessarily expands federal jurisdiction and will threaten local land use and zoning issues.
Additionally, I feel it will place undue hardship on the California agriculture and timber
industries and the local economy from the resulting burdensome permits, vague interpretations of
the rule and restrictions upon private property rights.
f,
t
This proposed rule has far reaching implications regarding what is considered "navigable"
waters. The topography of California lends itself to rivers, lakes and coastline. It also has
hundreds of miles of high mountain streams, meadows, wetlands, water district ditches, flumes
and reservoirs. Some are adjacent or near larger downstream waters, but many are not. Herein
lies the matter of interpretation, and most importantly, who is doing the interpreting.
The California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Cattlemen's Association, and both of
their national organizations, have come out in opposition to this proposed rule. These hard
working men and women feed America. The U.S. Beef Cattle Industry is a $220 billion dollar
industry, and 97 percent of farms and ranches are family owned. This proposed rule compounds
an already onerous regulatory process and the agriculture exemptions are too restrictive. The
exemptions are extremely narrow; only applying to the Clean Water Act, Section 404 "dredge
and fill" permit program. The exemption does not provide any protection from enforcement for
routine agricultural practices such as fertilizer application or weed control. Furthermore, a
farmer has to have been farming continuously since 1977 to benefit from this exemption. What
this proposed rule is doing is placing roadblocks in front of new or future farmers and ranchers.
It will make it more difficult to farm or change a farming operation to help it remain competitive
and profitable, because they will not benefit from the EPA's interpretive rule.
I have also been contacted by Placer County Water Agency that provides water for consumption
as well as agriculture throughout Placer County and into adjacent counties. Their water supply
and delivery system involves innumerable movements of water between different watersheds,
large and small, and discharges into creeks and rivers. They expect the paperwork to comply
with this proposed rule to be staggering. There are numerous large and small water agencies in
my district, and all will be faced with the same paperwork.
Additionally, I Have been contacted by the City of Roseville, the largest city in my district,
informing me that this proposed rule would have significant implications for MS4 permit
holders. Roseville is part of the Statewide Storm Water Coalition, which is comprised of 48
cities, counties and organizations. The MS4 Permits are used for storm water discharges from
separate small municipal storm sewer systems. Roseville relies on man-made ditches and
channels to divert storm water away from businesses and homes to prevent flooding. Under the
Clean Water Act, the city has an obligation to ensure that pollutants discharged from its storm
drain system are reduced to the maximum extent practical. The EPA's proposed rule will greatly
expand the reach of the Clean Water Act to classify large portions of the city's storm drain
system as WOTUS as opposed to what they really are: a flood control system that discharges
into WOTUS.
Additionally, the EPA's proposed rule will impose a significant burden on the City of Roseville.
Maintenance of the storm drain system will require separate permitting that will increase costs
and impose time constraints on normal city operations. The city will additionally be prevented
from using portions of its 'flood control system to implement treatment projects that will result in
cleaner water and benefit the environment. Lastly, attaining compliance within the system, rather
than at the point of discharge, is simply unfeasible.
This last point raises the distinction between the Clean Water Act permitting requirements and
whether a particular water body is a WOTUS, and must meet applicable Water Quality
Standards. Even though a particular discharge or activity may not require a Clean Water Act
permit, other regulatory restrictions apply to WOTUS that will impact use of the water body.
These include Water Quality Standards and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). In
California, municipal storm water permits issued under the Clean Water Act prohibit the City
from discharging pollutants into WOTUS that cause or contribute to exceeding allowable Water
Quality Standards. If the storm drain system is a WOTUS, compliance with this requirement will
be infeasible and the City could find itself perpetually out of compliance.
What I have detailed in this letter is taking place all over California, and this great nation. I do
not find one redeeming point to this proposed rule. If enacted, it will have a devastating effect on
every county in my district. It is my hope the EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers will re-
assess the need for this proposed rule, and act to repeal it.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact myself, or my District Director Rob
Olmstead at 916-772-0571.
R
Jim Nielsen
Senator, Fo rth District
fr5norable Doc Hastings, Chairman House Natural Resources Committee
Honorable Torn McClintock, Chairman House Subcommittee on Water & Power
Members of the House Natural Resource Committee
Members of the House Subcommittee on Water & Power
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Cattlemen's Association
Placer County Water Agency
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Colusa County Board of Supervisors
Glean County Board of Supervisors
Placer County Board of Supervisors
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
Sutter County Board of Supervisors
Tehama County Board of Supervisors
Yuba County Board of Supervisors
Susan Rohan, Mayor -City of Roseville