Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Senator Nielsen to the Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy regarding Waters of the United States (WOTUS)July 14, 2014 o•aftwMM JUL 18 2014 Honorable Jo -Ellen Darcy 004LF,CAUFQ%M Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 108 Army Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20460 RE: Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Dear Honorable Darcy, Water is a precious cormnodity 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 III 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 tinder 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 urmecessarily 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. 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 COMMITTEES. CAPITOL OFFICE STAI E CAPITOL �,/Y �° BUDGET &FISCAL REVIEW SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 til yy�t Tiy1+LYY tY�E#P HEALTH 1916, 651-4004 tLli .l.Vi ii 6t4 C/_ INSURANCE CHICO DISTRICT OFFICE s`2 VETERANS AFFAIRS 2653 rOREST AVE.. STE. 110 CHICO, CA 95926 5301 6797424 V' y7 CRESCENT CITY DISTRICT OFFICE ^� 4� 1080 MASON MALL STE 4 CRESCENTCHY.CA95531 r< 60 - ih:,C �," 007)4641255 G� p , � r FOCE� LLE DISTRICT OFFICE SENATOR -h• 2200A DOUGLAS BLVD, STE. 100 ROSEVILLE. CA 95765 JIM NIELSEN (916) 772-0571 FOURTH SENATE DISTRICT YUBA CITY 015TRICT 01HOE 409 CENTER ST.. STE. C YUBA CITY. CA 95993 15301751-8657 July 14, 2014 o•aftwMM JUL 18 2014 Honorable Jo -Ellen Darcy 004LF,CAUFQ%M Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 108 Army Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20460 RE: Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Dear Honorable Darcy, Water is a precious cormnodity 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 III 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 tinder 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 urmecessarily 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. 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 riot. 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 rude 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 imiumerable 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 Stonn 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. Sincerely, rim Nielsen h District Senator, Fo Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman House Natural Resources Committee Honorable Tom 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 Glenn 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