Congress doesn't pass "rules"...they pass laws that are implemented via rules.
In the case of the "Migratory Molecule Rule," it's the Clean Water Act. Without the CWA, there could be no "Migratory Molecule Rule." (Note that I'm interpreting your term "Migratory Molecule Rule" broadly.)
Who sponsored the legislation?
Edmund Muskie, I believe, was the primary sponsor...but you should be able to look up all the sponsors.
How is the rule applied to tile drainage ditches? And at what distance is it applicable to navigable waters? And who in Congress determined that?
Soon after the Clean Water Act was passed, it was determined in federal court that Congress intended it to apply to more than strictly navigable waters. IIRC, in one of the first portions of the law, it notes that the intent is to protect navigable waters--and that, of course, requires control of the inputs to navigable waters. There have been dozens of court cases confirming the CWA jurisdiction over these "Migratory Molecule" inputs. To get specific answers on how the rule (which was shot down in its original sense by a complex SCOTUS decision, but supported in a narrower sense) is applied in a modified way, you should contact an environmental attorney--I'm not qualified to answer those questions, despite having a couple of binders of MDEQ documents in my back seat at the moment. :-) But as stated above, Congress determined, and the SCOTUS agreed, that many inputs are regulated under the CWA.
And the important point: Congress has not amended the CWA to avoid including "significant nexus" or "permanent flow" inputs. Congress has left intact the interpretations of dozens of court cases, including the decision of the SCOTUS.
How does the migratory molecule rule fair when it butts up against SWANCC v. US Army?
The "Migratory Moleule Rule" came in response to SWANCC v. USACOE, so there's not an issue of "butting up against" it. See a case known as Rapanos v. United States (dealing with a case in your state) for more relevant and recent info.
As you highlight, the EPA and COE rules are subject to court decisions and may be overturned by Congressional amendments. I believe this is exactly what arrogantsob is pointing out: the laws are passed by Congress, and the agencies are Executive branch--i.e., implementing the laws, and subject to checks and balances of the Legislative and and Judicial branches.
So Congress is the appropriate root-cause target for reform.* Without the Clean Water Act being written the way it is, allowing these EPA/COE rules, the rules couldn't exist.
*unless we act like little anti-American lefties and push for ignoring the law.
You got so much wrong, I don’t know where to start.
The migratory molecule rule has nothing to do with the clean water act. It has everything to do with the fascist EPA persecuting a farmer.
The migratory molecule rule doesn’t exist. It was never passed by congress and nobody, including the Congress or the US Supreme Court, knows what it means.
It was an invention by the fascists in the EPA to destroy a farmer in Michigan.
I set this out as an example to expose that know-nothing leftist arrogantsob as the fraudster that he is. As I mentioned, arrogantsob couldn’t answer a single question I posed.
“Ed Muskie sponsored the “migratory molecule rule?”
Really? Give me a cite. You can’t. Muskie was dead many years before the fascist EPA tried to destroy the farmer with the pretend “molecule rule.”
Congress never passed a “migratory molecule rule.” It was an invention by the Nazi EPA to destroy a farmer.
“Soon after the Clean Water Act was passed, it was determined in federal court that Congress intended it to apply to more than strictly navigable waters.”
That’s bullshit. In SWANCC v US Army, the Supreme court very clearly stated that the CWA is very restrictive.
“There have been dozens of court cases confirming the CWA jurisdiction over these “Migratory Molecule” inputs.”
You’re really fishing off the deep end and don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
There was ONE US Supreme Court decision addressing the stupid and insane “migratory molecule rule.”
“I’m not qualified to answer those questions...”
Ah, the first reasonable thing you’ve said.
“But as stated above, Congress determined, and the SCOTUS agreed, that many inputs are regulated under the CWA.”
What in blazes does that mean?
“The “Migratory Moleule Rule” came in response to SWANCC v. USACOE, so there’s not an issue of “butting up against” it.”
No, the migratory molecule rule was shot down by the Supreme Court based on SWANCC v US ARMY.
Okay, give it your best shot: Explain to everyone here what the “migratory molecule” rule is. I’ll bet a box of doughnuts that you can’t because you needed to be involved in the court case to understand the extreme fascist stupidity of the EPA.