Rex W. Tillerson

Evidence continues to roll in that the U.S. economy is struggling. And economists from across the ideological spectrum have rightly observed that by historic standards this is one of the weakest U.S. recoveries on record.

But even in the midst of anemic growth and falling labor-force participation rates, one sector continues to power forward: America’s chemical industry.

The reason for the industry’s resurgence is well known: Vast new supplies of natural gas flowing from U.S. shale deposits have given American chemical manufacturers a global edge.

The response from the industry is a flurry of activity that could reap benefits for decades to come. Chemical manufacturers have announced approximately $150 billion in investments.

The chemical industry is building new plants – and retrofitting others to leverage U.S. natural gas. The data on nominal construction spending shows construction spending by the chemical industry increased nearly 140 percent in the year that ended on June 2015 – and the growth rate is over 150 percent in the first half of this year alone.

If all of the industry’s investments move forward it will create nearly $300 billion in new economic output and lead to more than 400,000 new jobs. They would also lead to $21 billion in permanent new federal, state, and local tax revenues by 2023.

But the future successes of the shale revolution and America’s manufacturing renaissance are not forgone conclusions.

We need policies equal to this historic opportunity.

The good news is that the sector may be getting some timely help from a rare instance of Washington bipartisanship.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress have come together in an effort to modernize the Toxic Substances Controls Act (TSCA), the outdated regulations affecting the chemical industry. The proposed reforms will help bring that 1970s legislation into the 21st century.

It’s taken years of bipartisan work and negotiation, but the changes are just the comprehensive overhaul we need.

Just as important, these bipartisan efforts look to have an excellent chance of succeeding. The reform is drawing impressive support from across the ideological and economic spectrum – from industry, building trade unions, and organizations including the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, March of Dimes, and the U.S. Humane Society.

By modernizing the regulations governing the chemical industry, we can strengthen and clarify the role of government in overseeing and protecting public health. The proposed reforms would provide a better system for the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate risks of both new and existing chemicals using the best available science. This will give the public confidence in the safety of the chemical products that are used every day.

Regulatory modernization will also help strengthen and sustain America’s role as a leading innovator for chemical products – an area that drives 25 percent of the U.S. economy.

To borrow a phrase from Dan Yergin, plastics and chemical products are “the bricks and mortar of contemporary civilization.” They are found in 96 percent of manufactured goods – from life-saving medical devices and personal technologies to food packaging and storage to building materials. Chemicals are vital to making the world safer and healthier. They are also critical to using energy more efficiently as well as helping us minimize mankind’s impact on the environment.

But over the decades, for the U.S. chemical sector, the regulatory landscape has been mired in complexity and uncertainties because of anachronistic Washington rules.

TSCA has made it difficult to green light innovations or effectively calculate costs of various policy options. Because the federal legislation is so out of date, this system is broken and not working. In the face of this dysfunction and ambiguity in Washington, a patchwork of state and local laws has appeared – further complicating interstate commerce and industry’s investment decisions.

Yet, thanks to the efforts of leaders in both parties in Washington, we hopefully can look forward to clearing away that clutter and enacting reforms that bring clarity, certainty, and consistency to America’s dynamic and vital chemical industry. With these reforms, parents in every state can be confident that their children are adequately protected from any risks and manufacturers from New Jersey to California will have the regulatory certainty they need to continue to innovate and create jobs.

TSCA modernization passed the House this summer with overwhelming bipartisan support. And in the Senate a coalition of both Democrats and Republicans have formed to push this across the finish line to send it to the president’s desk.

The leaders in Congress working together to modernize TSCA regulations deserve credit. They are acting in the best interests of our economy and our environment. They are also setting an example for modern Washington – building bridges across parties to act with wisdom and common sense.

It is a moment for which we can all give thanks – and which should guide all the efforts of our elected leaders and policymakers in the future.

Sen. Jim Inhofe

On Thursday, the Obama administration finalized a new national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone as part of the president’s legacy of addressing the environment through regulatory overreach. Not only does the new ozone standard impose very real, draconian economic costs on states across the country, but it is veiled in the false promise of environmental benefits.

If the past is prologue, we can be certain that this new ozone standard will be no different, imposing draconian economic costs on states and counties across the country.

In 2008, the Bush administration set the standard for ozone at 75 parts per billion (ppb). This standard, a reduction from the 84 ppb set in 1997, was viewed at the time as quite stringent, and counties faced major challenges in meeting it. Now, the Obama administration has set the ozone standard at 70 ppb  — a requirement that will push counties all over the country out of attainment, causing extensive economic turmoil.

When a county is in nonattainment, business as usual stops dead in its tracks.  In order to build anything from factories to schools to hospitals, one must jump through a series of regulatory hoops, giving EPA veto power over any major projects. Not meeting the standard could keep companies from expanding and could even result in some industries electing to shut down their facilities and move out of state or even out of the country to places where there are fewer compliance restrictions, like China and India.

When I was mayor of Tulsa, Tulsa County was in nonattainment of the 1979 ozone NAAQS, so I have seen firsthand the economic impacts associated with the challenges of attainment and the legacy of EPA intervention that continues long after meeting the standard. Counties in Oklahoma have since met the 1979 and 1997 standard and are working very hard to consistently meet the 2008 standard. Fortunately, Oklahoma will remain in attainment of the 70 ppb standard, but by moving the goal posts the Obama administration’s new standard will threaten our hard work in many states across the country by wreaking havoc on businesses, causing job loss and stifling the economy. While EPA claims only 358 counties across the country will be pushed out of attainment as a result of lowering the standard to 70ppb, this number only takes into consideration the areas EPA is currently monitoring. There are an additional 1,500 counties without monitors that are at risk of not meeting the new standard.

An additional consequence of a nonattainment designation that the administration frequently glosses over is its impact on transportation. A nonattainment county can lose federal highway and transit funds unless it can demonstrate that a project will not increase ozone emissions. A determination must be obtained from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and EPA before states will regain access to federal dollars for highway projects. As a result, states like mine will continue dealing with the safety issues from further eroding roads and bridges. Employees working on highway and transit projects may find their jobs in jeopardy while the local area faces project delays and additional, unnecessary costs.

Despite EPA’s insistence that this rule is about public health, one state is essentially exempt from meeting any ozone standard: California. While claiming to be a leader in public health and insisting on more stringent standards for the rest of the country, Los Angeles County — by far the nation’s most populated — averages a staggering 109 ppb in ozone.

If EPA’s scare tactics were correct, we should be seeing an overwhelming public health crisis throughout the state of California that would make it unconscionable to continue allowing the state to remain so far out of compliance. Fortunately, these health impacts just haven’t materialized.

As a country, we have confronted and controlled the most common sources of ozone precursors, and our options are few and far between to handle what remains, which is mostly naturally occurring ozone and ozone transported from other countries such as Mexico. The rule exhibits a flippant disregard for rural and high-elevation communities that have no control over naturally occurring ground-level ozone.  The administration should have given states and counties across the country the opportunity to fully meet the 2008 standard before implementing this frivolous and costly mandate.

Tom Woods

The residential construction industry is on the road to recovery after the worst housing market downfall since the Great Depression. Housing production has picked up every year since we hit bottom in 2009 and continues to track upward. Meanwhile, solid economic and job growth are helping to gradually unleash pent-up demand for new homes.

While encouraging, we still haven't hit normal single-family production levels—those seen in the early 2000s. That's because builders are facing major headwinds that are delaying a full housing recovery. The largest obstacle right now is overregulation of the home building industry. This year alone, regulatory agencies have introduced or finalized myriad rules affecting residential construction.

These regulations run the gamut from environmental mandates that impede land development to workplace rules and burdensome lending policies. Their benefits often are unproved, and they can add significant cost to a house. NAHB economists found that local, state, and federal regulations on average raise the price of a new home by 25%; in some cases, it can be as high as 36%. As a result, many buyers are pushed out of the market and our industry loses ground in the recovery.

As a builder for over 40 years, I know sensible, cost-effective regulations—developed with industry input—allow us to move forward. But overly burdensome rules that produce nothing more than red tape are a different story.

Perhaps this year's most extreme example of overregulation is the expanded definition of "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act. Issued by the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this rule is essentially a land grab. It could place millions of acres of private property—including certain roadside ditches, isolated ponds, and channels that may flow only after it rains—under federal jurisdiction, making them subject to expensive, time-consuming permitting and mitigation requirements.

The WOTUS rule is such a misuse of federal authority that memos show that the Corps wanted to keep its distance from the regulation. According to these documents, the Corps indicated that the EPA used flawed technical and scientific analysis and failed to consult with necessary stakeholders.

The NAHB has been combating the expanded WOTUS definition since the rule was first proposed. Most recently, NAHB successfully urged the House of Representatives to approve legislation requiring the EPA and the Corps to withdraw the rule and develop a new plan; it's asked the Senate to do the same.

A group of 13 states challenged the rule in North Dakota district court, and the court has issued an injunction barring its implementation in those states. The NAHB also filed suit against the EPA, and has asked for a nationwide implementation delay.

When harmful rules are proposed, NAHB meets with the appropriate regulators to discuss alternatives and encourages congressional representatives to pass legislation that will keep home building moving forward. NAHB has a strong track record of warding off regulatory overreach, and we must remain diligent and prepared to meet future challenges. 

Jack Healy

FORT BRIDGER, Wyo. — The sun was sinking and the brook trout were biting, so Andy Johnson and his daughter Aspen, 6, stepped onto their sun-bleached pier, hooked some mealworms and cast their lines into the most infamous pond in the West.

It is just a splotch of placid water amid endless ripples of grazing land here in western Wyoming. But in the two years since Mr. Johnson dammed a small creek running through his front yard to create the pond, it has become an emblem for conservative groups and local governments that are fighting what Senator Michael B. Enzi called a “regulatory war” with the Obama administration over environmental issues ranging from water quality to gas drilling, coal power plants to sage grouse.

“It makes no sense whatsoever,” Mr. Johnson said, pointing at the waving grasses and birds pinwheeling around the water. “We have wetlands now. I really think the E.P.A. should be coming in and saying, ‘Good job.’”

The pond battle has pitted Mr. Johnson, a 32-year-old welder, part-time barbecue caterer and father of four girls, against a federal bureaucracy that is, in the best of times, grudgingly tolerated out here. It erupted after officials from the Environmental Protection Agency paid a visit to the pond and, Mr. Johnson said, told him that he was facing “a very serious matter.”

Mr. Johnson dammed a small creek running through his front yard to create the pond for his cattle to drink from. He said it had become an oasis for birds and wildlife.CreditKim Raff for The New York Times

In a January 2014 violation notice, the agency said Mr. Johnson had violated the Clean Water Act by digging out Six Mile Creek and dumping in tons of river rocks without getting necessary federal permits. The agency ordered him to take steps to restore the creek under the supervision of environmental officials, or face accumulating fines of as much as $37,500 a day.

Mr. Johnson refused.

He argued that he had gotten full approvals from Wyoming officials, and said the federal government had no business using national water laws to make decisions about the creek that meanders through the family’s eight-acre property. Mr. Johnson and his wife, Katie, had spent $50,000 — most of their savings, they said — to create the pond to water their 10 head of cattle and four horses. Dismantling it now would be ruinously expensive and destroy what has become a tiny oasis for birds and wildlife, they said.

After more than a year of unsuccessful negotiations, the standoff veered into a federal courthouse last month when Mr. Johnson sued the E.P.A., asking a judge to declare his pond legal and wave away accumulating fines of as much as $16 million.

“They have no right to be here,” Mr. Johnson said. “We’re law-abiding people. It makes your blood boil that they would come after you like that.”

The suit argues that the pond is exempt from the Clean Water Act because it was created to water stock. Further, it says the creek is too far removed from navigable rivers to fall under the E.P.A.’s authority.

The case has drawn support from conservative leaders around the state. Wyoming’s Republican senators, Mr. Enzi and John Barrasso, called the agency’s action“heavy-handed bureaucracy.”

“What did they do wrong?” Representative Cynthia M. Lummis, Republican of Wyoming, said in an interview, referring to the Johnsons. “What does the E.P.A. intend to gain? What wrong are they trying to right by imposing fines on these people?”

A libertarian legal group called the Pacific Legal Foundation began representing Mr. Johnson at no charge.

“We can’t have unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats ignoring the limits of their own authority,” said Jonathan Wood, a lawyer for the foundation. “There was no need for federal regulation here.”

In a statement, the E.P.A. said it had been “attempting to work cooperatively” with Mr. Johnson and added that it had not yet imposed any fines on him. The agency declined to say anything further, citing the lawsuit.

While the Johnsons watch trout jump in Wyoming, more than two dozen states and energy and farm groups are waging a similar fight, arguing that the E.P.A. went too far when it adopted a rule clarifying its authority to oversee smaller streams and wetlands. After 13 states sued, a federal judge in North Dakota temporarily blocked the new water rule from taking effect across much of the West.

But other states and many environmental groups have welcomed more federal control of state waters, saying that a confusing patchwork of rules had left small bodies of water vulnerable to pollution. In Wyoming, for example, some conservation groups criticized a state decision that reclassified thousands of miles of smaller streams to allow up to five times the level of E. coli bacteria.

States and landowners often argue that they are the ones best suited to preserve their own land and water. In Wyoming, officials point to requirements that drillers test for baseline groundwater quality, and to measures protecting sage grouse — rules that have been lauded by the Interior Department.

In Fort Bridger, Mr. Johnson points to his own pond. Since creating it, he and his family have seen blue herons and an eagle, moose and muskrat come to drink, and it is full of trout. (The Johnsons say they only catch and release.) Water flows in from the west, and out and back into the creek over a sloping spillway of river rocks that Mr. Johnson dumped into the channel.

A private report he commissioned found only positive environmental results. But the E.P.A.’s violation notice described the rocks, sand and concrete he used to create the dam and spillway as pollutants.

As the fight wore on, Mr. Johnson sold off most of his livestock to pay for legal costs and environmental studies. All that is left are one steer, a donkey and a Shetland pony to drink from their own private, bitterly contested watering hole.