Waters of the United States veto draws criticism

President Barack Obama vetoed a congressional resolution that would have prevented enforcement of the Waters of the US provision.

Obama said the rule is needed to protect waters that are vital for the health of communities.

Republicans and farm groups have said the rule gives the government too much power to regulate their land and potentially subject ditches, stream beds and self-made ponds to new oversight. “Moreover, he has taken side against the 32 states, and countless stakeholders who have challenged the WOTUS rule”.

As of last week, the only thing standing between farmers and the overturning of WOTUS was a presidential veto.

“[Waters of the United States] isn’t really a clean-water measure, it’s an unprecedented federal power grab clumsily masquerading as one”, he said in a statement. “With Congress clearly showing their disapproval of this rule, the consequences of WOTUS implementation now rest exclusively with President Obama”. Neither chamber appears to have enough votes to override the president’s veto.

He wrote that pollution affects some previously unregulated “rivers, lakes, reservoirs and coastal waters near which most Americans live and on which they depend for their drinking water, recreation and economic development”.

The sponsor of the resolution, Sen. Ernst added that she remains “committed to identifying new ways to push back against this complex, burdensome and overreaching rule”. “This administration continues to ignore the will of Congress and the significant impact this will have on our country’s farmers at a time when they can not afford more regulatory confusion and red tape”. Because this resolution seeks to block the progress represented by this rule and deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty and clarity needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water, I can not support it. I am therefore vetoing this resolution.

Despite the victory by the White House, the changes to the Clean Water Act are not being implemented because a federal court blocked the measure previous year while the legality of the measure is reviewed.