The expected veto was issued on the afternoon of April 6.
The joint resolution of disapproval passed the Republican-led House with a vote of 227–198 on March 9.
It then passed the Democrat-led Senate on March 30 with a vote of 53–43.
Notably, it drew support from non-Republicans in rural states, where Biden’s WOTUS definition is seen as a major issue for landowners and which contain many of the United States’ greatest natural wonders and protected lands.
Those outliers included Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-N.M.), along with Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.).
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), John Fetterman (D-Penn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) didn’t vote.
Both the House and the Senate would need a two-thirds vote to overcome Biden’s veto—an improbable outcome, given the current partisan configuration of Congress.
It’s just the second veto of Biden’s presidency, and it comes months into a divided Congress in which the Republican-led House has set its sights on regulations promulgated by the Biden administration.
“There is extensive evidence showing that environmental, social, and governance factors can have a material impact on markets, industries, and businesses,” the White House stated about that veto.
‘Waters of the United States’ Drives Conflict
WOTUS has long been a source of controversy.The Clean Water Act subjects the “waters of the United States” to regulation by the federal government. The original law defined those waters as the country’s “navigable waterways.”
Many environmentalists prefer broader views of WOTUS, arguing that the regulation is vital for the protection of marshland and other habitats. Yet many farmers, ranchers, and other landowners see broader definitions of WOTUS as burdensome, impractical, and sometimes even damaging to the environment.
“Congressional efforts such as this, as well as the previous administration’s rulemaking and the revisionist tendencies of conservative judges on [the] Supreme Court, all share a common goal: to weaken the federal protections of our nation’s waters and benefit those who are polluting rivers, streams, and wetlands,” Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) said during the same hearing.
“Farmers would be left wondering whether artificially irrigated areas remain excluded or not. Construction crews would be left wondering whether their waterfilled gravel pits remain excluded or not. The resolution would also negatively affect tens of millions of United States households that depend on healthy wetlands and streams.”