McCarthy & Darcy.JPG

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy and Army Corps of Engineers head Jo-Ellen Darcy answer Congress' questions on proposed Clean Water Act refinements.

(Sabrina Eaton, Northeast Ohio Media Group)

WASHINGTON, D. C. - Congressional Republicans including Holmes County Republican Rep. Bob Gibbs on Wednesday grilled federal officials on a proposal to update the clean water protections that Congress adopted after the infamous 1969 Cuyahoga River fire.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last year proposed new "Waters of the United States" rules with the goal of clearing up confusion over which water bodies are covered by the 1972 Clean Water Act.

Its effort to protect waterways that flow into bigger lakes, rivers and ocean areas spurred fear the proposed rule would define those terms so broadly it would let the federal government regulate land anywhere water collects.

Rep. Bob Gibbs, a Holmes County Republican, prepares to question EPA and U.S. Armey Corps of Engineers representatives on proposed changes in Clean Water Act enforcement.

"It will threaten jobs and result in costly litigation," House Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican, said at a joint House and Senate hearing on the issue. "It will negatively impact business - farmers, homes and road builders and other job creators. It will trample the rights of state and local governments, and their ability to make economic development decisions, and more importantly, public safety decisions."

Shuster and the U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said EPA should withdraw the proposal.

Democrats like California Sen. Barbara Boxer said problems like recent Lake Erie algal contamination that threatened Toledo's drinking water underscore the need to stay on top of the Clean Water Act.

She said numerous environmental, sporting and business groups have endorsed the EPA's proposal and opponents have misstated its impact. She stressed it won't affect isolated ponds and puddles, reflecting pools, and water-filled depressions caused by construction.

"It is time to restore much-needed certainty, consistency, and effectiveness to the Clean Water Act and put our nation back on track for clean and healthy waters for every one of our constituents," Boxer said.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told the legislators the rule's goal was to clarify protections provided under the Clean Water Act and make the law's enforcement more effective and predictable. The agency has received more than a million public comments on the proposal and will review them when it makes revisions, McCarthy said. She said the agency hopes to issue a final rule this spring.

Farmers, ranchers, and foresters who are conducting activities like plowing, tilling, planting, harvesting, building and maintaining roads, ponds and ditches won't need federal approval for such things under the new rule, she said.

"What's good for the environment is also good for farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and home builders," said McCarthy. "We all want clean water."

Gibbs questioned McCarthy and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers head Jo-Ellen Darcy on whether the proposal would require farmers, manufacturers, small businesses, golf courses to get "countless permits" to continue their practices, and whether it would usurp state governments' role in overseeing their own waters.

"Everybody in this room wants clean water, and clean drinking water and to protect the environment," said Gibbs. "Unfortunately, this rule, as proposed, doesn't get us there."

McCarthy told him her agency has worked with states for many years, and her agency intends to clarify the rule to establish what is and isn't covered.

While many Democrats at the hearing applauded the proposed rule, some said they don't think it's strict enough. Although McCarthy stressed the Clean Water Act exempts agricultural storm water from regulation, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse was displeased the new rule won't crack down on runoff from pesticides, fertilizers, and manure.

"This would allow a significant amount of contamination to flow into waters we would otherwise want to see protected," said Whitehouse.