This past week the Clinton campaign was upended by a letter from FBI Director James Comey. Another blockbuster for agriculture was the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report on “Politicization of the Waters of the United States Rulemaking.”

It, unlike Mr. Comey’s  letter, is supported by an investigation and facts.

The report claims EPA director Gina McCarthy and EPA have not been telling the truth as to the impact the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule would have on agriculture.

A subsequent quote proves EPA and Ms. McCarthy simply have lied to farmers. EPA’s final rule stated: ”In this final rule, the agencies clarify the scope of ‘waters of the United States’ that are protected under the Clean Water Act based on the text of the statute, Supreme Court decisions, the best available peer-reviewed science, public input, and the agencies’ technical expertise in implement [sic] the statute.”  The Committee states specifically that ”None of this was true.”

The Report states, “Documents and testimony obtained by the committee show the rulemaking process, and the outcome it produced, were deeply flawed because of numerous shortcuts and process violations. Chief among those complaints was that the process was politicized, and not driven by science or economics.”

White House in control

The Report documents high level White House staff and the Chief of Staff advising environmental groups about aspects and the speed in which EPA would finalize the WOTUS rule.

USDA staff criticized EPA and wrote that EPA’s process was “not well managed,” and suggested White House priorities interfered with the regulatory process.

EPA also ignored input from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps found itself sidelined with little input into the massive WOTUS rule. Corps staff told committee investigators that EPA excluded them from participating in drafting the rule’s preamble.

Corps staff also testified it was excluded from participating in the creation of the Economic Analysis related to the rule. “When the Corps staff finally saw it, a Corps employee stated ‘…they [EPA] had not used the data that we had developed, and they [EPA] had used their own data’.”

Pending court cases

The findings of the House Oversight Committee will provide great fodder for the pending court cases. Several Attorneys General, such as Patrick Morrissey (WVA), Leslie Rutledge (AR), Bill Schutte (MI), and Alan Wilson (SC), are fighting a legal battle against EPA which is critical to protecting agriculture. The House Committee’s findings support the cases filed by these and other Attorneys General.

There are eight findings, but I will only list a few.  

“The EPA made no effort to ensure the [WOTUS] rule was based on sound science. The EPA did not conduct additional research (which the Corps believed was necessary) to justify the rule’s conclusions. (The White House Office of Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA) enabled the agencies to proceed with the rulemaking despite violation of its own Information Quality standards.”  

Your comments

Remember how farm groups and others were urged to make public comments on the proposed WOTUS rule? Well, the congressional oversight committee report found “Public comments were not fully reviewed and considered before agencies drafted the final rule. The agencies contrived a unique process for considering and responding to public comments, despite arguments from Army Corps and EPA staff in favor of including such responses in the rule’s preamble, as is customary.”

Another finding by the House Oversight Committee is “The agencies pushed the rule through on an accelerated timeline that appeared to have been motivated by political considerations. Some officials involved in the process believed politics deprived them the opportunity to conduct a meaningful and full review of the rule before its promulgation.”  (Sound familiar?)

The Corp wasn’t included

A deputy commanding general of the Corps sent memoranda to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works which articulated legal, scientific, and other concerns the Corps had with WOTUS. The Corps Major General stated: “The preamble to the proposed rule and draft preamble to the draft rule state that the rulemaking has been a joint effort of the EPA and the Corps, and that both agencies have jointly made significant findings, reached important conclusions, and stand behind the final rule. These statements are not accurate.”

The military head of the Corps Civil Works demanded that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be undertaken. Regulatory staff at the Corps also agreed an EIS was absolutely required before issuing WOTUS rule. The Corps official recommending the EIS “…was removed from his duties on WOTUS and replaced by someone who had no previous experience on WOTUS…” The new Corps official determined no EIS was required and was supported by the political leadership of the Corps.

The corruption continues. 

The opinions of the author are not necessarily those of Farm Futures or Penton Agriculture.