Last Friday, I testified at a House Committee on Natural Resources subcommittee hearing on the Spruce Mine in Logan County, West Virginia, and the impact the EPA’s retroactive veto of Clean Water Act permits for that project had on manufacturers.  EPA’s 2011 decision to renege on Spruce Mine’s validly-issued 2007 permit sent shock waves through a wide range of manufacturing sectors, who receive 60,000 of these permits each year and condition $220 billion worth of investment annually on issuance of these permits.

My testimony addressed the uncertainty the EPA’s after-the-fact veto could have caused for manufacturers had it not been vacated by a federal court two months ago.  I also discussed EPA’s broader water policy agenda and the concerns manufacturers have with some of EPA’s more recent Clean Water Act regulations and guidance.  A copy of my testimony can be found here.

Ross Eisenberg is vice president of energy and resources policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

NAM VP NAM Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy Ross Eisenberg testifies at House Committee on Natural Resources subcommittee.

Later today the House will vote on the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (H.R.2018).  Watch the exciting parliamentary action here.  Here’s coverage from The Hill.

The NAM is key voting this measure, which would  strengthen states’ ability to set water quality standards.  The bill comes amid frustration with the Environmental Protection Agency, which expanded its authority over state water standards and delayed and even revoked Clean Water Act permits, putting billions in economic activity at risk.

UPDATE: The bill passed, 239 to 184.

Writing in English, Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post reports “EPA proposes stricter controls on water pollution“:

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will impose stricter pollution controls on millions of acres of wetlands and tens of thousands of miles of streams.

The new guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency, which will be codified in a federal regulation later this year, could prevent the dumping of mining waste and the discharge of industrial pollutants to waters that feed swimming holes and drinking water supplies. The specific restriction will depend on the waterway.

Writing in Washington bureaucratese , the EPA announces, “Obama Administration Affirms Comprehensive Commitment to Clean Water“:

WASHINGTON – Recognizing the importance of clean water and healthy watersheds to our economy, environment and communities, the Obama administration released a national clean water framework today that showcases its comprehensive commitment to protecting the health of America’s waters. The framework emphasizes the importance of partnerships and coordination with states, local communities, stakeholders and the public to protect public health and water quality, and promote the nation’s energy and economic security.

We expect a new pronouncement of economy-sapping regulation almost every day from the EPA, but does it have to be so soul-sapping, too?

The National Association of Manufacturing’s Mahta Mahdavi explains why the proposal is the latest example of bad regulation to come from the Imperial EPA in the Shopfloor post below, “The EPA Muddies the Water With Its Clean Water Act Guidance.”

Today, the White House along with a number of agencies that included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Department of Interior held several press briefings and industry calls on clean water policy.  In addition to these briefings and calls, the White House, along with the EPA and the Corps released two documents. 

The White released its comprehensive framework on clean water that highlights a vast number of initiatives that the Administration has either undertaken or will undertake.  The EPA and the Corps also released their joint guidance on the Clean Water Act.  This guidance would replace an earlier guidance released in 2008 by the previous administration that defined the scope of the Clean Water Act more narrowly.   The guidance expands the definition of the “waters of the United States,” and by extension the EPA’s and the Corps’ jurisdiction over these bodies of water.  Ultimately, this guidance serves as nothing but the continuation of the Administration’s burdensome environmental agenda that has been overwhelming manufacturers as they try to recover from one the hardest recessions.

Would it be hyperbole to say that the last two weeks have witnessed the greatest expansion in history of the Environmental Protection Agency’s control over U.S. economic activity and the day-to-day lives of American citizens? If so, we’ll just encourage readers to ponder the substance — and costs — behind the anodyne headlines.

• 4/01/2010 — “EPA Issues Comprehensive Guidance to Protect Appalachian Communities From Harmful Environmental Impacts of Mountaintop Mining“
• 4/01/2010 — “DOT, EPA Set Aggressive National Standards for Fuel Economy and First Ever Greenhouse Gas Emission Levels For Passenger Cars and Light Trucks“
• 3/31/2010 — “EPA Disapproves Air Permitting Exemption Program in Texas“
• 3/30/2010 — “EPA Proposes to Revoke New Source Review Final Rule“
• 3/29/2010 — “EPA Formally Announces Phase-in of Clean Air Act Permitting for Greenhouse Gases/Agency reiterates no stationary source requirements until 2011“
• 3/29/2010 — “EPA to Scrutinize Environmental Impact of Bisphenol A“
• 3/26/2010 — “EPA Proposes Veto of Mine Permit Under the Clean Water Act“
• 3/23/2010 — “EPA Proposes to Add Sources to Greenhouse Gas Reporting System/Requirements target potent and persistent greenhouse gases“
• 3/22/2010 — “EPA Administrator Jackson Outlines New Vision for Clean, Safe Drinking Water“

There’s at least a little flexibility on the margins. Thankfully, “Limited Use of Modified Grenade Simulators Approved for Use at Camp Edwards.”

In a column today, “Erosion of ownership rights,” Quin Hillyer of The Washington Times identifies six different fronts (at least) where property rights are under assault. His first example has drawn outrage and opposition in farm country, but it’s worth attention from manufacturers and other business owners, too:

First, consider the moves in Congress to extend federal regulatory jurisdiction from “navigable” waters to “all interstate and intrastate waters of the United States.” Suddenly, if the so-called Clean Water Restoration Act passes, your backyard fish pond could be subject to the dictates of commissars from the Environmental Protection Agency. (See editorial on facing page.)

Enactment of the CWRA would surely spur massive court fights. The CWRA’s regulatory overreach would, by all logic, run afoul of the Constitution’s “interstate commerce clause.” How an “intrastate” water of the sort affected by this bill would qualify as “interstate” commerce is beyond normal reasoning.

In a speech to the State Chamber of Oklahoma on Thursday, NAM President John Engler also mentioned the legislation. From his prepared remarks*:

Since I mention the Clean Water Act, there’s also a bill that has already passed a Senate Committee that would drop the “navigable” to
describe the bodies of water covered under the 1972 law. So the EPA would expand its regulatory authority to take over stock ponds, creeks, and perhaps even where water collects off the downspout from your warehouse.

Try to picture Oklahoma’s first settlers building the American dream under those conditions: 160 acres of land, a mule, and an EPA official hanging on the fence….and a fellow from the Corps of Engineers coming
up over the rise.

The bill is S. 787 sponsored by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI).

* We now find out that Engler did not use the mule imagery. Poor mules. Always left out in the field.

The Wall Street Journal editorializes today on the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, the issue being whether power plants must use the most advanced, most expensive cooling technology no matter what the cost. From “Plankton Watch“:

In Entergy, a green lobby named Riverkeeper is seeking to make power plants go beyond what was judged necessary by the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis. According to Riverkeeper’s lawyer, Richard Lazarus, “The EPA has no authority in any circumstance to decide that fish aren’t worth a certain amount of cost.” In other words, while EPA may consider whether the industry is able to bear the costs, it should not weigh those costs against harm to the environment.

If it sounds fishy, that’s exactly what the environmentalists have in mind. When power plants draw in water from lakes and rivers to circulate into coolant systems for power generation, some fish and marine life forms are harmed. To reduce the mortality rate, the enviros suggest, a better option would be cooling systems that recycle water or air within the plant. Small problem: The conversion cost can run to hundreds of millions of dollars per plant, while decreasing efficiency. According to EPA estimates, 20 new power plants would have to be built nationwide to compensate for the new cooling process.

The NAM and other groups filed an amicus brief in this case, which the Supreme Court combined with two others. For more, please see the NAM’s Legal Beagle entry. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 2; you can read the transcript here.