CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTIONAL RULE Emily W. Coyner, PG National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association April 8, 2014

Previously, Waters of the US=

Now-Waters of the US=

2014 Jurisdictional Rule Tributaries: no SN required; adds wetlands, ponds, lakes, ditches; can be broken by dams and be man-made Expands “adjacent” definition Adds “case by case” consideration of virtually every other type of “water” Some ditches excluded, but tough to prove

2014 Jurisdictional Rule Goes FAR beyond court decisions No frequency or amount of flow limits Complicates/Slows/Increases Costs of CWA 404 Permitting Also impacts other CWA programs – More NPDES testing? Economic study-very low estimates

Background Rapanos/SWANCC  Need for clarity/rule Previous congressional failure to remove “navigable” from Clean Water Act April 2011 Draft Guidance September 2013 Draft Rule to White House – Guidance withdrawn – Draft Connectivity Study released for review March 2014-Draft Rule released

EPA Draft Connectivity Report NSSGA commented November 6 – Science should be done before rule – Connections in specific areas/seasons – Not quantifiable, so how regulated? House Science Committee oversight Scientific Advisory Board review & scrutiny – April 28 & May 2 Meetings/June Final Report

Proposed Rule Advocacy Meeting and educating members of Congress – Years worth of effort with other industries – Letters, Appropriations, Hearings Meetings with EPA – Explaining operations and permits White House meetings – Economic impacts – Slow infrastructure & energy priorities

Current Jurisdiction Proposed

2013 NSSGA White House Meetings 12/12: Specific aggregates industry examples – Dry washes and floodplains; desktop studies – Costs for mitigation very high 12/23: EPA’s Economic Study & “significance” – Deep recession data & existing “asks” – All or nothing costs and benefits – Misuse of data, studies outdated & used out of context

Congressional Opposition Ramped up immediately after rule release Budget Hearings: – EPA Administrator grilled over rule costs, expansion and timing – Corps threatened with no funding for this rule “Biggest land grab in the history of the world” “Profound economic impact” Oversight, specific hearings

What’s Next Rule comments due 90 days from FR notice Hearings/Congressional Pressure – November: Senate Flip? SAB Panel Connectivity Review May-June – Significance/Quantification