Robyn Boerstling

With federal highway and transit programs headed into shutdown mode in just 9 short days, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) today plans to revisit and proceed with his intention to move H.R. 22, the “Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy (DRIVE) Act” – legislation that represents a six-year commitment to surface transportation investments.

While the action to move the transportation legislation to the floor of the Senate does not ensure a six-year transportation bill by the end of the month, the Majority Leader’s commitment, with the help of unlikely ally Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to get the DRIVE Act passed in the Senate is good news and a welcome development by manufacturers.

It may be less than ideal and even unprecedented to have a six-year bill funded for only three years, but manufacturers support legislative progress and discourage actions that will halt this effort in exchange for additional uncertainty that will harm job creation and the economy.

Our nation’s infrastructure is failing our expectations daily. Manufacturers’ desire for more robust economic growth must be supported by a transportation network that can meet our 21^st century potential.

Manufacturers are witness to the erosion of the nation’s infrastructure base and our country has been stuck in a decade-long period of decline in overall infrastructure capital spending, according to the NAM study Catching Up. Fortunately, Senate leaders working to advance the DRIVE Act recognize that standing by is not the way to catch up. While some policy language must still be improved before the President signs a long-term bill into law, this is a critical starting point for negotiations with the House.

Additional time will be needed in the form of a surface transportation extension before the end of the month and that is not something the Senate can avoid or put off.  Hopefully this week’s legislative developments provide the will for the House and Senate to bridge differences and use the next five months to finalize a well-funded, multi-year surface transportation authorization by the year’s end.

Judson Berger

The Environmental Protection Agency for years has issued costly clean air rules based, in part, on two '90s-era studies linking air pollution with death.

But, critics say, the same agency has stymied efforts to access the data behind them. The transparency concerns have Republican lawmakers on a new campaign to end the use of what they dub "secret science."

"Why would the EPA want to hide this information from the American people?" House science committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, asked EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at a hearing last week.

Smith is among those pushing legislation to bar the use of "secret science" for EPA regulations -- namely, Clean Air Act rules that Republicans say are based on research hidden from public view. The bill has passed the House and now awaits action on the Senate floor.

"The most expensive rules coming out of the EPA rely on secret science," Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "Americans deserve to have access to technical information and data being used to develop EPA rules that significantly impact their daily lives."

For its part, the EPA has argued that releasing the data could compromise confidential personal information, and that it didn't have access to all the research anyway, among other issues. The agency made an effort to contact the original institutions behind the studies in 2013, but Republicans say they again would not hand over everything.

During last week's hearing, McCarthy questioned why lawmakers have focused on this -- and why anyone would want to seek out this kind of granular information.

"The EPA totally supports both transparency as well as a strong peer-reviewed independent science process, but the bill I'm afraid I don't think will get us there," she said. "I don't actually need the raw data in order to develop science, that's not how it's done. ... I do not know of what value raw data is to the general public."

But Smith said the agency "has a responsibility to be open and transparent with the people it serves, and whose money it spends."

Further, Inhofe said the data pertains to everything from forthcoming emissions rules for power plants to mercury rules recently challenged by a major Supreme Court ruling.

The Republican legislation -- called the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 -- would bar the EPA from issuing certain rules unless all relevant research is named and publicly available for those who want it. In seeking the change, critics say the EPA's air quality rules for years have relied largely on two studies from the 1990s whose data is not entirely accessible -- including a 1993 Harvard study linking air pollution and mortality in certain U.S. cities, and another from the American Cancer Society.

In the mercury case cited by Inhofe, the high court ruled last month that the EPA should have factored in the costs of recent rules targeting mercury and other pollution. McCarthy reportedly has said the "very narrow" ruling won't affect the separate and ongoing effort to draft new power plant emissions rules, which could be completed in a matter of weeks. The White House has taken a similar stance in downplaying the implications of the 5-4 decision.

But the ruling nevertheless has emboldened critics. And the "secret science" legislation could add to that pressure.

An EPW committee aide told FoxNews.com the legislation, if approved, potentially could impact both the mercury and greenhouse gas emissions rules.

"Really, this is just simple transparency," the aide said.

The Secret Science Reform Act passed out of the EPW committee in April. It is sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., on the Senate side and Smith on the House side, where it passed 241-175 in March. A similar measure passed as an amendment last week to a House appropriations bill.

The White House, though, already has threatened to veto the bill, and it's unclear whether Republicans could muster enough votes to override should it pass the Senate as well.

In the veto threat, the White House warned the bill would "impose arbitrary, unnecessary, and expensive requirements that would seriously impede the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ability to use science to protect public health and the environment." According to the White House, some data is not made public to protect the privacy of test subjects; the White House called for more transparency but not an "overly broad bill." The EPA referred FoxNews.com to this statement when asked for comment on the bill.

Other opponents of the bill claim it is merely a tool for political gain rather than scientific improvement.

"The legislation may sound reasonable, but it's actually a cynical attack on the EPA's ability to do its job," Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement. "The legislation wasn't designed to promote good science -- it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced."

Rosenberg said the law would prevent the EPA from using all sorts of data -- including health studies and business information -- because of privacy laws. This sentiment has been echoed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which sent a petition signed by 43 scientific institutions and universities opposing the proposal.

But industry groups like the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) are fully behind the effort, saying Congress and third-party science groups should be able to review EPA health benefit claims.

"This is supposed to be the experts here, and they don't even have all of it," the EPW committee aide said. "So this just really calls into question their judgment."

Dean Narciso

It might seem odd that local agencies responsible for protecting and improving soil and water would oppose new federal clean-water rules.

But that might be the official stance of the Delaware Soil and Water Conservation District when it meets soon to discuss the issue and document its concerns.

And Delaware County commissioners, developers and farmers also worry about the expanded definition of waterways by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal regulators that previously had jurisdiction over “navigable waterways” will, beginning on Aug. 28, oversee tiny tributaries, backyard streams and even dry creek beds.

As clean water and pesticide and fertilizer runoff have become major problems in Ohio, anger has surfaced from some governments, conservation groups and farmers about the changes.

“We’re very much in favor of clean water,” said Brad Ross, spokesman for the Delaware conservation district. “The reason we struggle with this is that, in our estimation, it’s an over-reach by the federal government that is cumbersome and unnecessary.”

Proponents argue that previously unregulated land, even if dry for much of the year, eventually cleanses itself of pollutants into streams and reservoirs. The buildup of organic matter can create toxic-algae blooms and dead zones in reservoirs and high nitrate levels.

In severe cases, lakes have been closed for swimming, and drinking water has been banned.

Farmers and land developers say they also want safe water but argue that federal permits are a growing burden to their operations.

Farmers already are vigilant about contaminant runoff, Ross said. “They’re right there on the ground, living and breathing (environmentalism) every day. They don’t want to do anything that’s going to harm the land or pollute the ground they’re using.”

The fifth-generation Skinner family has run the 2,000-acre Hardscrabble Farms just east of the city of Delaware for more than a century and is unsure which ponds, mostly dry creeks and ditches might now be subject to expanded review.

“They say they’re not going to cover puddles, but the wording in the law doesn’t say they can’t,” said Gary Skinner, 71. “Actually, we don’t need it in the law if they’re not going to enforce it.

“There’s so many regulations and permits and fees anymore it makes it hard to run your business.”

More than a dozen states, including Ohio, agree, and have filed lawsuits opposing the changes. “It’s an outright expansion” of jurisdiction for both the Ohio EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, said Dan Tierney, spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine. “It clearly takes in things that are dry land.”

Homebuilders also are opposed.

“If you own land, you’re now restricted in what you can do with it, unless you contact the EPA,” said Vince Squillace, executive vice president of the 4,200-member Ohio Home Builders Association. “Depending on their decision, you may not be able to use your land anymore.”

Delaware County Commissioner Gary Merrell supports a U.S. Senate bill that would revert the water rules back to navigable.

“Let’s take a deep breath and look at this and make sure we don’t have any unintended consequences,” he said.

Not all officials think the new standard is burdensome.

“It shouldn’t change how we do business,” said Jennifer Fish, director of the Franklin Soil and Water Conservation District. “We don’t see how it changes how water quality is protected in Ohio. The Ohio EPA makes the bulk of the rules.

“Definitions that had been considered overly broad are now more scientifically based,” she said.

The Sierra Club of Columbus agreed, saying the rules provide “desperately needed clarity.”

But Joe Cornely, of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, said the change runs counter to the original intent of the 1972 Clean Water Act and creates “de facto control over normal everyday farming practices” such as fertilizing and cultivating or conservation.

“The latest version of the ruling is what we call mission creep. Give them an inch and they take 10 miles,” Cornely said.

“How do you plan for the future when you don’t know what the EPA is going to tell you the future is going to look like?”

Brian Skinner, who tends to the corn and soybean fields with his father, worries about the new oversight.

“It does away with the American spirit,” he said. “Most people in our industry do the right thing day in and day out. The more you let the individual do their job to the best of their ability, 99 percent of those people are probably going to do a better job than you expect.”

Chris Shoff

At the end of May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published the long-awaited final rule on “Definition of Waters in the U.S.” — “WOTUS” for short — as an amendment to the Clean Water Act. While the efforts of these agencies are appreciated, county governments are disappointed with the final result.

Minnesota counties are concerned that the new WOTUS rule increases the scope of the authority of the EPA and the Army Corps — adding costly regulations and excessive federal government overreach — and that it will greatly affect county governments in southern Minnesota and across the state.

Currently, local and county governments maintain public safety infrastructure around roads and bridges that keep rising water away from citizens and their property. Local governments use a variety of methods to do this, including flood control channels, roadside ditches and green infrastructure.

The final WOTUS rule would expand the current definition of what waters fall under federal jurisdiction. Counties and local governments would be directly affected, particularly through their legal responsibility to maintain those public safety ditches and infrastructure.

By increasing the number of county-owned ditches under federal jurisdiction, the proposed rule could significantly increase the need for new permits in order to clean vegetation or debris out of ditches. The process for receiving those permits is time-consuming and expensive, adding extensive cost and delay to transportation and other infrastructure projects.

The resulting rule is also poorly written, with vague guidance provided for various water bodies, such as whether drainage ditches are considered waters of the U.S. The lack of clarity in terminology is almost certain to result in litigation, adding additional costs and further delays for critical infrastructure projects.

This rule represents just one of many programs that would affect local governments, as well as farmers and other property owners, through unnecessary, complex, and costly regulations and requirements. Added costs for county governments would mean added costs for taxpayers. We are all concerned about clean water for our families and communities, but the additional costs should come with assurances of better environmental outcomes.

In a previous vote, Minnesota’s U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar supported counties and taxpayers when she voted in favor of Senate Amendment 347 during consideration of the Senate budget. We thank Sen. Klobuchar for standing with counties across Minnesota and now ask for her support again, along with that of Sen. Al Franken, to back the Federal Water Quality Protection Act and any other legislation that would prevent this rule from taking effect at the end of August.

The Association of Minnesota Counties feels strongly that the WOTUS rule should be rewritten to prevent inconsistent and overreaching regulations. We ask Klobuchar and Franken to help counties across Minnesota by restarting the rule-making process to provide the clarity needed at the ground level for counties to effectively implement this rule and protect our valuable water resources.

Chris Shoff is a Freeborn County commissioner and president of the Association of Minnesota Counties.