Rep. Lynn Jenkins touted her support Friday for a bill that would block the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing proposed new clean water regulations that some say would extend federal regulation over small creeks, drainage ditches and farm ponds.

She also called on her Democratic opponent, Margie Wakefield, to take a stand on those regulations, which have become a hot-button issue in both state and federal elections this year.

H.R. 5078, known as the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act, would also require the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to consult with state and local officials to develop recommendations for new regulations that would limit the scope of waters covered under the Clean Water Act.

It passed the Republican-controlled House on Monday by a vote of 262-152. Jenkins, who represents the 2nd District of eastern Kansas, including Lawrence, and the other three members of the Kansas House delegation voted for the bill.

“I have heard from Eastern Kansans time and again on how this rule will negatively impact landowners, farmers and ranchers. I was pleased, this week, to work and pass sensible, bipartisan legislation to block the Obama Administration from implementing this rule,” Jenkins said.

Jenkins’ campaign manager Lee Modesitt added that so far Wakefield has staked out few positions on key issues in the race. “The question is simple: would Margie Wakefield have supported H.R. 5078 or would she have stood with her liberal Washington allies like the Sierra Club and President Obama, who oppose this bill,” he said.

The statement was a rare flash point in a congressional race that has been relatively quiet in recent weeks while most election news has focused on the contentious races for governor and U.S. Senate.

But Wakefield responded quickly by saying that she agreed with the purpose of the bill and would have voted for it if she were in Congress today.

“While much of the language of this bill is clearly an attempt to fan the flames of distrust in Washington, the thrust of its impact is to include the State of Kansas in the development and implementation of any new regulations. I support that,” Wakefield said.

Republican Gov. Sam Brownback has also criticized the proposed new regulations and has vowed to fight them at the state level if he wins a second term.

The proposed regulations deal with the portion of the 1972 Clean Water Act that is meant to protect “Waters of the United States.” That includes rivers and streams that cross state borders, as well as their tributaries. Farmers and ranchers, however, argue that extending federal clean water standards to the smallest upstream tributaries would interfere with their ability to apply farm chemicals or manage herds.

But EPA officials have said the criticisms, which are not limited to Kansas, have been greatly exaggerated.

“The Clean Water Act was passed by Congress to protect our nation’s water bodies from pollution,” EPA spokesman Tom Reynolds said in a blog post Aug. 28. “This law has nothing to do with land use or private property rights, and our proposal does not do anything to change that. The idea that EPA can use the Clean Water Act to execute a land grab or intrude on private property rights is simply false.”