Document j2zq17oYbQemx4omyNVpG70Z

Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Jim Myers [________ Ex. 6_________I 12/6/2017 10:24:02 PM Abboud, Michael [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b6f5af791al842fladcc088cbf9ed3ce-Abboud, Mic] Re: Media inquiry on WOTUS provision in spending bill 10-4. Thanks. Sent from my iPad On Dec 6, 2017, at 5:10 PM, "Abboud, Michael" <abboud.michael@epa.gov> wrote: Hey Jim, you can attribute this to an EPA spokesperson. "EPA did not request the language in the bill." From: Jim Myers [majjtorf Ex. 6 j Sent: Wednesday, December 067'2017"10i40 AM" To: Lynn, Tricia <lynn.tricia@epa.gov> Subject: Media inquiry on WOTUS provision in spending bill Tricia, Just checking in on the WOTUS language that the Washington Post on Dec. 1 reported was in the spending bills. According to the Post, that language is designed to block legal challenges under the APA to the EPA/Corps bid to at least revise the rule. Anything on that legislative language, specifically whether EPA request ed it? Thanks, Jim Myers Washington Correspondent The Waterways Journal Ex. 6 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00007941-00001