Sen. Feingold: on the wrong side of Wisconsin farmers and families

Ron is fighting against the EPA’s Waters of the U.S. rule on behalf of Wisconsin farmers and families — Senator Feingold championed these kinds of regulations long before the EPA became the scourge that it is today. Excerpts:

From Media Trackers:

… As Johnson pointed out the new rule would expand federal control to intermittent streams, prairie potholes, and wet meadows that have nothing to do with interstate trade and commerce. He identified this as simply, “an attempt for a dramatic increase in jurisdiction by the federal government over waters within states.”

… The WOTUS rule found its genesis in legislation sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in 2009, which never passed even though Democrats controlled Congress at the time. After the legislation failed to pass and Feingold was kicked out of office by Wisconsin voters, the Obama EPA began to use the regulatory process to impose the same restrictions without Congressional approval.

From Red State:

… An Environmental Protection Agency water regulation change heavily backed by President Barack Obama was proposed as legislation in 2009 by then-Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold (D). After the proposal died in Congress and Feingold received the boot from voters in 2010, the Obama Administration EPA moved ahead with implementing the change anyway using the regulatory power of the federal government.

The change, now known as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, dramatically expands the reach of federal environmental regulators when it comes to waterways and activities that occur on or near those waterways.

From Watchdog:

… “As he promised as a candidate, President Obama’s latest regulatory overreach from the EPA would certainly cause electricity prices to skyrocket in Wisconsin and across the country.  The best estimate right now is that his proposed plan would end up costing Americans $7,000 per person,” the senator said.

…“We can all agree on reasonable regulations that prevent the pollution of Lake Michigan or the rivers of our state, and we should all celebrate the Clean Water Act’s success in reducing pollution in lakes and streams,” the senator said in a statement earlier this month. “That success should not be used as an excuse for the EPA to unilaterally claim control over all land within 1,500 feet of any backyard puddle or former high-water mark.”