Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) released the following statement on the “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) final rule issued today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
“ABC remains concerned that the Waters of the U.S. rule issued today will lead to an unnecessarily longer and more expensive permitting process for contractors which would undoubtedly harm the construction industry,” said ABC Vice President of Government Affairs Geoff Burr. “Throughout the rulemaking process the business community as a whole, state and local officials, as well as a bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers have opposed the considerable expansion of federal jurisdiction granted under the overreaching proposed rule.
“Increased regulatory compliance costs and a more drawn out approval process will harm the construction industry directly and indirectly as our industry’s growth relies largely on a growing economy as a whole,” said Burr. “We are still reviewing the regulations released with this rule today, but remain concerned that this poorly constituted proposal will have a negative impact on any current or proposed construction project that is near a jurisdictional ‘water’ as defined under the now broadened authority of the EPA or Corps.”
The proposed rule would dramatically expand the scope of federal authority over water and land uses across the country and has met heavy opposition from a wide range of industries within the business community, abipartisan group of U.S. Senators, bipartisan group of members of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy.
ABC has been a vocal opponent of WOTUS since it was proposed in April 2014 and has:
- Filed comments along with more than 50 ABC chapters to voice deep concern over the rule
- Filed comments with a group of 375 trade associations to oppose the rule
- Filed comments as a member of the Waters Advocacy Coalition (WAC) to oppose the rule
To read ABC’s comments click here, to read the group of associations comments click here, to read the WAC comments click here.
Related Stories
| Apr 5, 2012
LEED 2012 will include new requirements for data centers
The U.S. Green Building Council’s updated LEED 2012 standards will require two systems to be modeled for each project in order to show power utilization effectiveness.
| Mar 30, 2012
CSI webinar: Durable & energy efficient building envelope design, April 24
This seminar will review recent changes in North America energy codes, examples of building enclosure wall assemblies being considered for code compliance, potential moisture management and durability challenges, and design tools that could be used to assess and minimize potential problems.
| Mar 30, 2012
Improved construction that followed seismic codes helped avert loss of life in Mexico temblor
A magnitude-7.4 earthquake that shook Mexico from Mexico City to Acapulco damaged hundreds of homes and sent thousands fleeing from swaying office buildings, yet no one was killed, according to early reports.
| Mar 30, 2012
Chicago may allow people to live in retail spaces
The Chicago City Council’s Zoning Committee approved a zoning change that will allow up to 50% of work space in low-intensity business districts to be used for living space.
| Mar 30, 2012
LEED growing fast in the housing rental market
Last year, developers of 23,000 U.S. multifamily housing units applied for LEED certification.
| Mar 30, 2012
Forest Stewardship Council critical of proposed LEED 2012 changes
According to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the third draft of LEED 2012, if approved as written, would represent a step backward from the current Certified Wood Credit.
| Mar 22, 2012
Symposium on water efficiency: How much more water can be saved?
The Third International Emerging Technology Symposium by IAPMO and the World Plumbing Council features a session on water efficiency.
| Mar 22, 2012
Broker doesn’t have to inform contractor that insurer went broke, California court rules
A California appellate court ruled that an insurance broker did not have a duty to inform a subcontractor that a project’s insurer had gone bankrupt.
