EPA vs DEVELOPMENT, AGAIN

The EPA has proposed new definitions of wetlands that would make the federal government owner of much land that has little effect on the quality of water, but would reduce the opportunity of much new development.  The National Association of Home Builders, and others, strongly oppose the regulation.

The US House has passed a bill by 261 - 155 to force withdrawal of the regulation.  

The US Senate has that under consideration. Please send a note to your senators, MARCO RUBIO and BILL NELSON in Florida, asking for their support of the measure.

President Obama threatens to veto it, if passed.

See article below.

Henry Rogers, CCIM, ALC
Florida Land Realtor of the year 2014
                

House backs business in 'waters' war with EPA

May 13, 2015, 1:45pm EDT

Kent Hoover                                            

 

The Environmental Protection Agency would be required to withdraw a proposed regulation clarifying what bodies of waters are subject to the Clean Water Act under legislation passed by the House Tuesday.

That’s a victory for business groups that contend the EPA’s new definition of “waters of the United States” could include ditches, mudflats and other insignificant or temporary bodies of water, and give the government too much power over the use of private property.

"This legislation would prevent a federal land grab that would raise housing costs and harm conservation, water quality, job growth and economic development," said Tom Woods, a home builder from Blue Springs, Mo., who chairs the National Association of Home Builders. 

Similar legislation is pending in the Senate, which will hold a hearing on the bill next week.

The White House, however, has threatened to veto the legislation, saying it would “sow more confusion and invite more conflict at a time when our communities and businesses need clarity and certainty around clean water regulation.”

 

The House’s 261-155 vote in favor of the bill falls short of the two-third margin needed to override a presidential veto.

 

The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers issued the proposed regulation to address questions raised by two U.S. Supreme Court decisions. But business groups contended the proposed rule greatly expanded the scope of the Clean Water Act.  Home builders, for example, would be required to get permits to build in a lot more areas, Woods said.

 

“This would lead to bureaucratic delays, additional costs and more expensive homes,” he said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the proposed rule “could ultimately slow, or bring to a complete halt, numerous projects across the nation and significantly impact a portion of the U.S. economy.”

 

Associated Builders and Contractors said the regulation would “chill any construction near waterways that could conceivably be covered by the rule.” 

 

Opposition to the rule went beyond the building industry, however. Farmers and ranchers also opposed it, as did an executive from an aggregates mining company who told the House Small Business Committee last year about how the rule would hurt his company.

 

The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy last fall recommended that the rule be withdrawn, contending EPA and the Army of Corps of Engineers were wrong to certify that it wouldn’t have a significant impact on small businesses.