02.02.23

Hoeven Helps Introduce CRA Resolution to Rescind Biden Administration's Overreaching WOTUS Rule

WASHINGTON – Senator John Hoeven today helped introduce a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution, sponsored by Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and cosponsored by all Republican Senators, to rescind the Biden administration’s final rule to redefine the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS).

“The Biden administration’s expanded WOTUS goes far beyond the authority granted by Congress, imposing costly federal permitting requirements across industries, including on farmers, ranchers and energy producers,” said Hoeven. “This burdensome and overreaching approach to regulation ultimately leads to higher prices for American consumers, the exact opposite of what our nation needs during this time of historic inflation. Instead, we should provide regulatory relief and take a states-first approach to protecting our land and water that respects private property rights. Introducing this CRA comes as part of my continued efforts, including through the appropriations process, to stop this expanded WOTUS definition.”

Hoeven has been working to protect private property rights and push back on the Biden administration’s efforts to advance an expanded WOTUS rule, which imposes unworkable mandates, burdensome new permitting requirements and compliance cost on landowners, energy and agriculture producers and other industries. Accordingly, the senator:

  • Helped introduce legislation in the 117th Congress to codify the Trump-era Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), which replaced the 2015 WOTUS rule.
    • Hoeven previously worked to advance the NWPR, following his efforts to defund WOTUS in 2015 and 2016 and prevent its implementation.
  • Joined an amicus brief to the U.S.  Supreme Court in the case of Sackett v. EPA urging for the preservation of state authority to regulate local waters and lands.
  • Pressed the EPA and the Army Corps to suspend rulemaking on WOTUS until the U.S. Supreme Court completes its consideration of Sackett v. EPA. 

-###-