News
Panel questions McCarthy on scientific basis for rules
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was under fire during a House Science Committee hearing on Wednesday. The hearing examined the EPA’s regulatory agenda and the scientific justifications for the regulations.
Michigan Representative John Moolenaar pressed the Administrator on the final Clean Water Rule, formerly referred to as Waters of the US (WOTUS). “I think it’s a pretty strong indication when the majority of Congress has voted to disapprove of the rule and 32 states are suing over that rule,” he says. “I don’t know if there is anything you can do to rescind it or modify it at this point.”
McCarthy testified that 87 percent of the comments the agency received during the rule’s comment period were in support of it and that primary concerns have come from the agriculture industry. “What I’m most concerned about is that I paid very close attention to their (agriculture’s) comments and concerns,” she says. “And in finalizing the rule, I went above and beyond the exemptions and exclusions in that rule. I did everything I could to not just protect but to go beyond it.”
Illinois Representative Darin LaHood asked McCarthy if she disagreed with the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals judge that questioned the scientific merit behind the EPA’s final rule. McCarthy says she’s hopeful with all the information available to the EPA and the court will have and oral arguments that the court will agree with the agency. “It is well documented why we came to the decision we made on the basis of science and the history of our and Army Corp’s experience here.”
McCarthy said the agency fought for the agriculture industry in the final rule. “We have actually expanded the exemptions for agriculture,” she says. “We have provided clarifications that should allow them to produce the food, fuel, and fiber that we rely on. We did everything they could that it would add any permitting issues or responsibilities to the agriculture community.”
Last October the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay of the rule that blocked its implementation.
Add Comment