Senator Mike Rounds’ Weekly Column: The Water Quality Protection Act

The Water Quality Protection Act

By Senator Mike Rounds

May 1, 2015

 

In 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule to expand the definition of ‘waters of the U.S.’ This power grab would dramatically expand the federal government’s jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act, beyond what the Act intended. The proposed rule, commonly known as WOTUS, has the potential to be one of the most burdensome and overreaching regulations in history for South Dakota’s farmers and ranchers by requiring onerous and unnecessary new permits.

 

I’ve heard from a number of South Dakota farmers and ranchers, who continue to tell me the WOTUS rule would bog down productivity. Our Ag producers should be focused on growing crops and caring for their herds, not wasting time filling out paperwork or waiting around to get a permit to spray weeds in their ditches.  In the Senate, I recently joined my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to prevent WOTUS from taking effect.

 

Our bill, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, would protect traditional, navigable waters as well as the livelihood of farmers and ranchers by requiring EPA and the Army Corps to completely abandon their current WOTUS rule. Instead, it directs the administration to go back to the drawing board, following principles and procedures we set forth in our bill.

 

We clarify that the definition of ‘waters of the U.S.’ does not include things such as groundwater, sheet flow, agricultural water and temporary ponds formed from rainwater, floodwater and wastewater because they do not have a connection to navigable waters. We also recommend grandfathering systems that may have been created by converting a stream into a water management system before the Clean Water Act was enacted. These commonsense ideas help set clear limits on the federal regulation of water. 

 

Farmers and ranchers know their land better than anyone. Often times, it is handed down for generations. They make their living from the land, and have a vested interest in preserving and protecting it for their children and grandchildren. As such, they are inherently good stewards of the land. They deserve a voice in any rule that would dramatically affect the way their property is regulated and managed by the federal government. Our bill would also require EPA and the Army Corps to work with the Ag community and state and local governments when determining which water features should be under federal jurisdiction and which should be left to local governments. 

 

Freeing Americans from burdensome regulations such as WOTUS has been a priority of mine since taking office. Our Federal Water Quality Protection Act would stop this unnecessary, burdensome and intrusive rule from getting in the way of our farmers and ranchers. It is another step toward reducing regulatory burden being handed down by unelected bureaucrats in Washington. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the Senate to get this bill to the President’s desk before a final rule is published. 

 

###

Congresswoman Kristi Noem’s Weekly Column: Building On Early Successes

Building On Early Successes

By Rep. Kristi Noem

May 1, 2015

 

It’s hard to believe we’ve already passed the 100 day mark of this Congress. The new Senate Republican majority has provided us a valuable opportunity to work together to get the country on the right track, and my assignment to the Ways & Means Committee has put me in prime position to help South Dakota.

 

The goal of the new Republican majority in Congress has been to work across the aisle to move common sense measures that increase freedom, promote opportunity, and make our government accountable. To that end, we’ve made solid progress so far this year.

 

In the House, we’ve passed a budget which balances without any new tax increases. While our budget cuts spending, we continue to focus on areas where the federal government has legitimate responsibility, like defense. In areas where control rightfully belongs in the hands of states or local communities, we introduce new limits on the federal government and even repeal programs it has no business managing. Rather than increasing your taxes, this budget begins to lay the groundwork for a fairer and simpler tax code that could lower your annual tax bill.

 

We’ve also passed bipartisan legislation that’s been signed into law that protects and strengthens Medicare by stopping dramatic cuts to doctors who care for Medicare patients.  This so-called “Medicare doc fix” also contained reforms that save taxpayers money and put our nation’s budget on a more secure footing. I am proud that this law also extends the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which serves more than 8 million children and expecting mothers, giving new parents the certainty they need to plan their family budgets and doctor visits in advance.

 

The House has also taken steps to protect the most vulnerable among us. The bipartisan Human Trafficking Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery Act, a bill I first introduced last year, was passed by the House. This bill will give caregivers, state law enforcement officers, and others the tools they need to prevent trafficking in our communities.  The Senate has recently also passed this bill and I’m hopeful we will be able to get it signed into law soon. 

 

Additionally, we’ve taken action to improve the lives of our nation’s veterans by passing the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Act. It provides resources to those who stood up to serve and defend our country. I am glad to report this legislation was signed into law. Additionally, the House passed the Hire More Heroes Act, which aims to provide more economic opportunity for veterans by exempting them from Obamacare’s employer mandate.

 

We’ve also seized the unprecedented opportunity we have – due to the recent North American energy revolution – to break our reliance on overseas oil, which has for so long left us vulnerable.  One of the first items of business this year was passing and sending to the president’s desk the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act. The president unfortunately vetoed this legislation, though we are not giving up on the effort to get this common sense pipeline approved. 

 

Simplification of the tax code is another area where there is overwhelming bipartisan agreement. Farmers, ranchers and small business owners in South Dakota are often disproportionately impacted by bad tax policy. I am proud that the House passed a repeal of the death tax, as I have experienced firsthand how this can affect a farm or business when a family is hurting most. 

 

As a lifelong farmer and rancher, I also understand the importance of reasonable deduction levels for new equipment and have heard repeatedly from producers and business owners across the state who are looking for more certainty with how the federal tax code treats these types of investments. In response, earlier this year the House passed legislation that would permanently increase what is known as Section 179 expensing to provide more certainty for our agriculture producers and small businesses.   

 

Hardworking taxpayers deserve a more efficient, effective, and accountable federal government. We have made some progress so far this year in delivering this goal but there is much that remains to be done. As your voice in the U.S. House, you have my word that I will work hard on your behalf to build on these early accomplishments and continue promoting common sense solutions to the challenges our country faces.  

 

###

Governor Daugaard’s Weekly Column: A Message To The Graduating Classes Of 2015

A Message To The Graduating Classes Of 2015

 

A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

 

Congratulations to the class of 2015! To all high school, college and technical school students now approaching graduation in South Dakota, I commend you for reaching this milestone. After years of studying, taking tests and writing essays, you’ve finally made it. Congratulations on all you have achieved!

 

Most of you probably already have a good idea of what you’ll be doing next – what additional education you’ll seek or what career you’ll pursue. Whether you’ve decided to stay in South Dakota or pursue a career or education elsewhere, I hope you’ll ultimately consider a future here in our state. There are a number of reasons to consider living and working here.

 

First, we have the fourth lowest unemployment rate in the nation at 3.5 percent, compared to the national rate of 5.5 percent. Job opportunities are better here than in most places.

 

Secondly, the tax burden in South Dakota is low. We are among only a few states without an income tax, meaning you can keep more of the money you earn. Money that can repay student debt, buy a house someday or replace that car you drove into the ground in school.

 

Third, not only do people keep more of the money they earn in South Dakota, but that money will buy more here than in other places. According to a U.S. Department of Commerce report, South Dakotans experience a very low cost of living in the United States. We don’t spend as much money on housing, insurance, food and the other everyday needs. In fact, we have some of the lowest costs in the nation.  In New York, California, Washington, D.C., or many other places, you will find costs that are 10 percent, 12 percent, even 18 percent higher than the national average.  In South Dakota those costs are only 88 percent of the national average.

 

Now some people will say, “There may a low tax burden and low cost of living, but I won’t get paid as much if I live in South Dakota.” Actually, when it comes to per capita personal income, we fare pretty well. Nationally, we rank in the top half. And, if you adjust the per capita personal income for the low cost of living, we are the fifthbest in the nation. If you adjust for lack of income taxes, we rank third in the nation.

 

Beyond the financial reasons, though, South Dakota is a great place to live because we have a good quality of life here. Our communities are safe, our public schools are high-quality and our people are friendly. We also have clean air, clean water and beautiful scenery.  And you can’t put a price tag on the love and support of your family, here in South Dakota.

 

My hope is not that you will never venture outside of our state, but rather that you would consider a more permanent future in South Dakota. Your dreams can come true – right here at home.

 

 

-30-

On my way back to SD…

“Sorry for the light posting,” as I wind my way back to South Dakota.

This was originally going to be a busy weekend writing on the SDCR convention featuring Michelle Maklin. Plus the Avengers movie and Free Comic Book Day for the kids.

Instead, I was in Arkansas cleaning out my in-laws house, and helping my wife de-clutter for the Realtor, and somewhat prepare it for a personal property sale.  Granted, I’m coming out of it with a truckload of “stuff,” but I suspect it’s going to be taking more of my summer.

Plus, I have three cats to find homes for.

Noem Succeeds in Making Additional Resources Available to Lewis & Clark Project in House-Passed Bill

Noem Succeeds in Making Additional Resources Available to Lewis & Clark Project in House-Passed Bill

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Congresswoman Kristi Noem today announced she has successfully led an effort to make additional resources available for rural water projects in the Fiscal Year 2016 Energy and Water appropriations bill without increasing total spending in the bill. The legislation, which passed the House today, would allocate a total of $28.75 million to a rural water project fund that the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System is eligible to draw from. Total funding in the Energy and Water appropriations bill as brought to the floor for debate was $633 million below the president’s funding request.

“It is imperative that the federal government meets the promises it has made to rural areas while still protecting hardworking taxpayers, and this bill helps accomplish that,” said Rep. Noem. “Our local communities have put in more than their share of the funding for Lewis and Clark, but the federal government has not kept its commitment. By not living up to its end of the deal, the federal government is costing taxpayers more money in the long run due to inflation and inaction on projects like Lewis & Clark. The bill passed today includes funding for a rural water account I previously was able to create which could help fund Lewis & Clark at a higher level than the president requested while also not increasing the bill’s overall spending.”

Troy Larson, executive director of the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System said, “It is terribly frustrating that the administration refuses to make rural water construction a priority in its annual budget. Thankfully the House today added another $28.75 million to the Bureau of Reclamation’s Rural Water Program, bringing the proposed total for the FY16 Budget to $47.3 million and matching last year’s total. We still have a long way to go to get overall funding for rural water construction to where it needs to be, but this is a huge improvement over the President’s proposal. We cannot thank Congresswoman Noem and the rest of the tri-state congressional delegation enough for once again going to bat for this critically needed water project. We greatly appreciate the strong support and leadership that she and the rest of the delegation continue to provide.”

The Fiscal Year 2016 Energy and Water appropriations bill specifically allocates $2.774 million in support of the Lewis and Clark project. Additionally, Rep. Noem led an effort with eight other Members to increase overall rural water funding, making an additional $28.75 million available to projects like Lewis and Clark. This brings overall funding for rural water projects to a level equal to what they received last year.

The rural water projects fund was originally created in 2013 as the result of an amendment offered by Rep. Noem to the FY2014 Energy and Water appropriations bill. Lewis and Clark received $5.2 million from that account in addition to the funding specifically allocated to the project in the bill. Rep Noem again offered an amendment in 2014 to the FY2015 Energy and Water appropriations bill, which resulted in an additional $31 million for rural water. Lewis and Clark received $6.6 million from that account in addition to the funding they were originally allocated for the project.
###

Noem Effort to Bar VA from Ending Services at Facilities Like the Hot Springs VA Hospital Passes House

Noem Effort to Bar VA from Ending Services at Facilities Like the Hot Springs VA Hospital Passes House

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. House of Representatives tonight passed legislation that included a provision authored by Rep. Kristi Noem that would prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from ending or limiting hospital-based services at facilities like the Hot Springs VA Hospital.

Specifically, the amendment would bar the VA from ending, suspending, or relocating hospital-based services at a health care facility that is undergoing an Environmental Impact Statement, is designated as a National Historic Landmark, and is located in a highly rural area. The Hot Springs VA facility meets all of those criteria.

“There is a reason Hot Springs is called ‘The Veterans Town’ and I’m not going to stop fighting on their behalf,” said Noem. “The VA Hospital in Hot Springs has long provided critical care to South Dakota veterans. My amendment which was approved in the VA appropriations bill is pretty simple: it would prohibit the VA from spending money to shut down or limit services for rural veterans, including those who are treated in Hot Springs.”
Noem’s amendment was approved as part of the FY 2016 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, which passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 255-163.
Noem has been fighting for years to save the Hot Springs VA hospital from closure. Last summer she brought House Veterans Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller to Hot Springs to hold a field hearing which helped highlight discrepancies in data that has been used by the VA as they have worked on their proposal to close the hospital. Earlier this year, Noem joined Sens. John Thune and Mike Rounds in urging the VA secretary to remove plans to close the Hot Springs hospital from President Obama’s budget request.
###

Bolin congratulates Shorma on appointment, but leaves the future unwritten. How have appointees fared?

This afternoon, Jim Bolin offers congratulations to Bill Shorma for the Governor’s appointment to the District 16 Senate seat. Which also happens to be the same legislative seat that outgoing State Senator Dan Lederman had recommended Bolin for:

jim bolinI want to congratulate Mr. Shorma on his appointment to the legislature.  I look forward to working with him on areas of mutual concern and interest.   In 2015, the governor very legitimately gets to decide who will be the new state senator for District # 16.   In 2016, the voters in District # 16 will very legitimately decide the same question.

“In 2015, the governor very legitimately gets to decide who will be the new state senator for District # 16. In 2016, the voters in District # 16 will very legitimately decide the same question.”  Hmmmm….. that kind of leaves the door open.

It wouldn’t be the first time a Gubernatorial appointee has been challenged within the party for Governor Daugaard. In the past, I’ve seen legislative appointees failing to successfully get through the general election at the rate of about 50% at one point in the Mickelson administration.  But generally Governor Daugaard has enjoyed electoral success.

For Daugaard, in Shorma & Bolin’s district, District 16, after David Anderson was appointed to take Patty Miller’s place, a hard right candidate Kevin Jensen, who was strongly supported by the South Dakota Gun Owners in a challenge for one of the seats ran for the office, but was soundly defeated by around 300 votes in the race.

In challenges outside of the Republican party which resulted in losses, Rep. Kent Juhnke who was appointed to fill a Senate seat for Cooper Garnos lost in 2012 to Larry Lucas in a newly redistricted seat. Chuck Jones of Flandreau who had been appointed to the State Senate by Daugaard lost to sitting Representative Scott Parsley in the general election.

But those are far fewer than the wins, as described above for the primary, and here in the general; Blake Curd, who was appointed to fill a District 12 seat has successfully run for re-election, as has Representative Kris Langer appointed by Governor Daugaard in 2013. Curd defeated his democratic opponent on a 60-40% basis, and Langer’s democratic opponents withdrew from the election.  Senator Alan Solano appointed in early 2014 joined Langer in running unopposed in the 2014 general election.

Although…. Possible spoiler alert: There was word going around the Capitol during the 2015 session that House Majority Leader Brian Gosch could possibly be contemplating a primary challenge to Senator Alan Solano for the District 32 State Senate seat in ’16. But with Solano having won election in his own right, it’s hard to call it an appointee challenge. (Not to say that it’s going to happen. But, as I’d said, the rumor was running around – PP.)

Rounds, Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Protect Navigable Waters in the United States

Rounds, Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Protect Navigable Waters in the United States

Bipartisan bill will direct EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to issue a revised WOTUS rule that protects traditional navigable water from water pollution, while also protecting farmers, ranchers and private landowners.

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) joined his colleagues in introducing the bipartisan Federal Water Quality Protection Act (S.1140).

The bipartisan legislation would protect traditional navigable waters of the United States. It also protects farmers, ranchers and private landowners by directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue a revised “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule that does not include things such as isolated ponds, ditches, agriculture water, storm water, groundwater, floodwater, municipal water supply systems, wastewater management systems, and streams without enough flow to carry pollutants to navigable waters.

“The administration’s proposed Waters of the U.S. rule is unnecessary and yet another example of unelected bureaucrats overstepping their boundaries when it comes to rulemaking,” said Rounds. “I agree with South Dakota farmers and ranchers, who continue to tell me this rule would bog down productivity by imposing massive new regulatory hurdles. In South Dakota, our producers are already good stewards of their land – they have to be because their livelihoods depend on it. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Federal Water Quality Protection Act to protect South Dakota producers and put a stop to this unnecessary, burdensome and intrusive regulation.”

In addition to Rounds, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act is co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.), The Committee on Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-O.K.), Senators Roy Blunt (R-M.O.), John Barrasso (R-W.Y.), Pat Roberts (R-K.S.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Deb Fischer (R-N.E.), Dan Sullivan (R-A.K.), Joe Donnelly (D-I.N.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.).

Background

EPA and the Corps of Engineers have proposed to expand the scope of federal authority over land and water to encompass all water in a flood plain, manmade water management systems, and water that infiltrates into the ground or moves overland, and any other water that they decide has a “significant nexus” to downstream water based on use by animals, insects and birds and water storage considerations, shifting the focus of the Clean Water Act from water quality protection and navigable waters to habitat and water supply.

To address these concerns and to ensure protection of water for communities across the country, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act directs the agencies to issue a revised proposal that adheres to the following principles-

o The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is an Act to protect traditional navigable waters from water pollution.

o Waters of the U.S. under that Act should include

o   Traditional navigable waters and interstate waters.

o   Streams identified on maps at the scale used by EPA to identify potential sources of drinking water.

o   Streams with enough flow to carry pollutants to a navigable water, based on a quantifiable and statistically valid measure of flow for that geographic area, and

o   Wetlands situated next to a water of the United States that protect water quality by preventing the movement of pollutants to navigable water.

o  Areas unlawfully filled without a required permit.

o Waters of the U.S. should not include

o   Water that is located below the surface of the land, including soil water and groundwater.

o   Water that is not located within a body of water (e.g., river, stream, lake, pond, wetland), including channels that have no bed, bank or ordinary high water mark or surface hydrologic connection to traditional navigable waters.

o   Isolated ponds.

o   Stormwater and floodwater management systems.

o   Wastewater management systems.

o   Municipal and industrial water supply management systems.

o   Agricultural water management systems.

o   Streams that do not have enough flow to carry pollutants to navigable waters.

o   Prior converted cropland.

o   Areas lawfully filled pursuant to a permit or areas exempt from permitting.

In identifying waters of the U.S., the agencies are directed that the following do not provide a basis for asserting federal control-

o The use of a body of water by an organism, including a migratory bird.

o The supply of water to a groundwater aquifer and the storage of water in an isolated waterbody.

o The water cycle, including the supply of water through evaporation, transpiration, condensation, precipitation, overland flow, and movement of water in an aquifer.

To ensure that Corps and EPA carry out the important analyses and consultations that are designed to improve regulation, a new regulatory proposal must be developed employing the following-

o Federalism consultation under Executive Order 13132.

o Economic analyses under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

o Small business and small governmental entity review under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

o Review of the unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

o Compliance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, on improving regulation.

 ###

What is, and what isn’t in the “public interest” when it comes to records available elsewhere?

The Argus Leader has a story today on the Division of Banking’s refusal to release applications and complaints on some lenders, despite the records being noted as public documents. But, there’s a curious carve-out that says otherwise:

The applications, according to Bret Afdahl, the director of the South Dakota Division of Banking, are not public documents. Afdahl denied an Argus Leader request for the applications, in part by quoting a law whose title notes that banking division records are “open to public inspection.” In his denial of the records, Afdahl noted that the “division must encourage full and complete disclosure of financial and background information” of those seeking a license under laws regulating money lenders.

Money lenders are a distinct class of business regulated by the division. They are typically associated with high-interest, short-term loans.

The Argus Leader also requested all consumer complaints received by the division since Jan. 1, 2014. Afdahl denied the paper’s request for those records, arguing they aren’t in the public interest and could be used to harm people or banks.

Read it here.

To understand why the Division of Banking is saying no, when the Argus is saying “yes,” you’ve got to go back to the law:

51A-2-35.   Records of division open to public inspection–Exceptions–Court order. The records of the division are open to public inspection. However:
             (1)      The director may withhold from public inspection any record, including any correspondence, for so long as deemed necessary for the protection of a person or bank or to be in the public interest;
             (2)      The director shall withhold from public inspection any record required to be confidential pursuant to federal statutes or rules or regulations of the board of governors of the federal reserve system or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and
             (3)      Reports of examination shall remain the property of the division and shall be furnished to the bank for its confidential use. Under no circumstances may the report or any supporting documentation be disclosed to anyone, other than directors and officers of the bank or anyone who is acting in a fiduciary capacity for the bank, without written permission from the director.
     Any record of the division shall be made available upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction if cause is shown.

Read the law here.

And that’s an exception that’s pretty wide open.

I have to concur with the state’s largest paper, who adds: “The application also asks whether an applicant or “control person” of the company has been convicted of a felony, been subject of previous regulatory actions, declared bankruptcy or possessed unsatisfied judgments or liens. All of that information is already publicly available.”

In fact, the ownership information of the banks is also going to be largely public through the Secretary of State’s Office corporate filings.

Given the fact that all of that information IS available through public sources in other places, is the “deemed necessary for the protection of a person or bank or to be in the public interest” carve-out from open record laws warranted or needed?