The water rule at issue grew out of the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972 and has been the subject of congressional and court fights since the 1980s as the federal government has sought to define what constitutes a waterway subject to federal regulation on pollution.
How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.
Republicans say the Biden proposal is too complicated and broad, and would inhibit agriculture operations, development and other activities that would need permits. They say even ponds and streams that contain water only on a seasonal basis or after storms would be covered, placing new burdens on those who would have to comply.
“Agriculture, oil and gas, energy, the housing industry, road builders, bridge builders, construction workers and municipalities have all voiced their disapproval of the rule and the cost of the negative impacts that its adoption will have on American industries and consumers,” said Senator Roger Marshall, Republican of Kansas.
But Democrats said the new language represented a reasonable compromise that would reduce the threat of water pollution while granting some flexibility to those who would be covered by it. Senator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of Delaware and the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new rule exempts an estimated 53 million acres of farmland.
“Some might say our nation cannot afford a level of protection for our waterways and wetlands provided by the Biden rule,” Mr. Carper said. “The converse is true. The reality is that because of the interconnectedness of our waterways, our streams, wetlands, oceans and estuaries, how private property owners manage their land has the potential to affect us all.”
The administration said that upending the rule would leave farmers and businesses unsure if they had to comply with an array of federal requirements.
“The increased uncertainty would threaten economic growth, including for agriculture, local economies and downstream communities,” the White House said in a statement threatening a veto. “Farmers would be left wondering whether artificially irrigated areas remain exempt or not. Construction crews would be left wondering whether their water-filled gravel pits remain exempt or not.”
