Under the sponsorship of Rep. Steve Southerland [R-FL], the bill would prevent the EPA from creating new rules that allow them to regulate water quality standards. These standards pertain to fracing among other matters.
Various journalists indicate that this is a move by the GOP to prevent increased regulatory reach of the EPA.
Is there a legal justification for prohibiting the EPA from taking such action? In other words - do they have the right idea, but the wrong approach (perhaps requiring sponsorship from congress / etc. to expand the powers of the EPA's charter?)
Given a bill that has a straightforward protective aim, I believe discussion should focus on what legal precedents exist to forbid the bill, rather than whether it is 'good for business.'