Lt. Governor Peter Kinder statement on waterways ruling
JEFFERSON CITY – Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder today issued the following statement regarding federal court action Friday that temporarily stops enforcement of President Barack Obama’s attempt to greatly expand regulation of streams and waterways.
“Under President Obama’s new rules, regulated waterways would have been significantly expanded to include almost any body of water – such as dry creek beds, ponds, puddles, even drainage ditches – where water flows when it rains,” Kinder said. “This poorly drafted rule would extend EPA authority into new areas not authorized by Congress.”
“I applaud the court for recognizing that such sweeping changes need to be the product or reasoned deliberation between all stakeholders, not fanciful executive fiats. The proposed Waters of the U.S. rule is a bad idea that will cripple the livelihood of Missouri farmers and ranchers and their ability to produce food. The EPA should respect the limits set by Congress. Protecting Missouri waterways must remain a state regulatory function, and the Missouri DNR should be prevented from implementing these oppressive regulations imposed on them by bureaucrats in Washington.”
Kinder said Friday’s ruling is a temporary solution to the federal government’s overreach in environmental affairs. He urged the U.S. Congress to act to repeal the rules.
“I applaud Sen. Blunt for co-sponsoring Senate Bill 1140, which would do just that, and I encourage Sen. McCaskill to support Sen. Blunt’s bill,” he added.
BACKGROUND: In a 2-1 ruling, the Cincinnati-based Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Friday stopped enforcement of the Waters of the United States rule. That decision expands a stay that a North Dakota judge imposed in August that only applied to 13 states. Nearly 30 states had fought the rules, which would put the EPA in charge of nearly every inch of private and state land. The EPA claimed the rule was needed to ensure protection of small waterways that connect to bigger ones, as called for under the Clean Water Act.
The court case can be found here: