Smith, EPA spar over water maps
August 27, 2014 | 06:53 PM
House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, today posted maps from the Environmental Protection Agency that he said detail the impact of the Waters of the United States proposal, as well as a letter he wrote to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy saying that they paint an “astonishing picture.”
But an EPA spokeswoman said the maps do not show jurisdictional waters. According to a cover letter, EPA sent the maps to Smith on July 28.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas
In a news release Smith noted that he had asked repeatedly before the hearing for the maps and said “Given the astonishing picture they paint, I understand the EPA’s desire to minimize the importance of these maps.”
“But EPA’s posturing cannot explain away the alarming content of these documents,” Smith said in his letter. “While you claim that EPA has not yet used these maps to regulate Americans, you provided no explanation for why the agency used taxpayer resources to have these materials created.”
“This is the smoking gun for agriculture,” said Ashley McDonald, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association environmental counsel in a news release. “These maps show that EPA knew exactly what they were doing and knew exactly how expansive their proposal was before they published it.”
"We have not received any letter from Congressman Smith, but we will review and respond once we do,” an EPA spokeswoman said.
“USGS [the U.S. Geological Survey] and Fish & Wildlife Service provided us with maps that show certain water features, but they do not show jurisdictional waters,” the spokeswoman said.
“For the past 40 years, decisions regarding the jurisdictional status of particular waters have been made almost exclusively in response to requests for a jurisdictional determination,” she said.
“To actually reflect what is in the proposed rule, maps would have to be based on ground surveys of specific tributaries and other waters. And mapping every jurisdictional water in the U.S. would involve ground surveys and be prohibitively expensive.
“Also, some waters are unique and require a case specific look before deeming it jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional,” she added.
“If someone has a question about whether a body of water on their land is covered under the Clean Water Act today or under the proposed rule, the best place to check is with their district office of the Army Corps of Engineers, which makes determinations about jurisdiction.”
In a followup email, the spokeswoman added, “Let us be very clear — these maps have nothing to do with EPA’s proposed rule or any other regulatory purpose. They were first created during the Bush administration to identify waters that would be vulnerable as a result of a 2001 Supreme Court case and pending litigation.”
“The maps were subsequently updated to reflect new data and a 2006 Supreme Court decision,” she said. “EPA’s proposed rulemaking was initiated as a result of these Supreme Court cases, and seeks to protect only those waters that significantly impact health and quality of downstream waters used by America’s communities, farms and businesses for drinking, recreation, and a healthy economy.”
▪ Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas — EPA State and National Maps of Waters and Wetlands
▪ — Smith letter to EPA
▪ July 28 EPA Letter to Rep. Smith
But an EPA spokeswoman said the maps do not show jurisdictional waters. According to a cover letter, EPA sent the maps to Smith on July 28.
In a news release Smith noted that he had asked repeatedly before the hearing for the maps and said “Given the astonishing picture they paint, I understand the EPA’s desire to minimize the importance of these maps.”
“But EPA’s posturing cannot explain away the alarming content of these documents,” Smith said in his letter. “While you claim that EPA has not yet used these maps to regulate Americans, you provided no explanation for why the agency used taxpayer resources to have these materials created.”
“This is the smoking gun for agriculture,” said Ashley McDonald, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association environmental counsel in a news release. “These maps show that EPA knew exactly what they were doing and knew exactly how expansive their proposal was before they published it.”
"We have not received any letter from Congressman Smith, but we will review and respond once we do,” an EPA spokeswoman said.
“USGS [the U.S. Geological Survey] and Fish & Wildlife Service provided us with maps that show certain water features, but they do not show jurisdictional waters,” the spokeswoman said.
“For the past 40 years, decisions regarding the jurisdictional status of particular waters have been made almost exclusively in response to requests for a jurisdictional determination,” she said.
“To actually reflect what is in the proposed rule, maps would have to be based on ground surveys of specific tributaries and other waters. And mapping every jurisdictional water in the U.S. would involve ground surveys and be prohibitively expensive.
“Also, some waters are unique and require a case specific look before deeming it jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional,” she added.
“If someone has a question about whether a body of water on their land is covered under the Clean Water Act today or under the proposed rule, the best place to check is with their district office of the Army Corps of Engineers, which makes determinations about jurisdiction.”
In a followup email, the spokeswoman added, “Let us be very clear — these maps have nothing to do with EPA’s proposed rule or any other regulatory purpose. They were first created during the Bush administration to identify waters that would be vulnerable as a result of a 2001 Supreme Court case and pending litigation.”
“The maps were subsequently updated to reflect new data and a 2006 Supreme Court decision,” she said. “EPA’s proposed rulemaking was initiated as a result of these Supreme Court cases, and seeks to protect only those waters that significantly impact health and quality of downstream waters used by America’s communities, farms and businesses for drinking, recreation, and a healthy economy.”
▪ Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas — EPA State and National Maps of Waters and Wetlands
▪ — Smith letter to EPA
▪ July 28 EPA Letter to Rep. Smith
