Supreme Clean Water Day

NRO ^ | February 21, 2006, 8:17 a.m. | Jonathan H. Adler

[.cnI redruM]

This situation is just as reprehensible as Kilo Vs. Johnson. The Clean Water Act is being used to acquire power over other people's properties and has less and less to do with the actual safeguarding of water quality.

[jim_trent]

ALL water eventually ends up in the ocean. That interpretation means that they control ALL water.

BTW, Phase 2 of the clean water act is being enacted right now. It means that we will be taxed to treat rainwater.

[Publius Valerius]

I suspect the Supreme Court will be loathe to overturn a decades-old piece of legislation, despite its questionable constitutional footing. The Clean Water Act is just too much of a part of society.

[GreenFreeper]

The CWA definetly needs reform or at least clarification. Private property rights should include protection against neighbors influencing your private property- polluting ones water or air. This needs to extend beyond navigable waterways...that marsh the protects the water supply is important to more than just the land on which it resides.

[Publius Valerius]

Incidentally, the NYT has a bit more detailed article on these cases here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/politics/20water.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[hedgetrimmer]

The Clean Water Act is being used to acquire power over other people's properties and has less and less to do with the actual safeguarding of water quality

In addition it is being used to set up appointed bureaucracies called regional water boards that expand the governments size exponentially and these unelected bureaucrats unconstitutional authorization to tax and fine land owners for noncompliance to their rules.

[GreenFreeper]

ECO-PING

FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!

Had some catching up to do with the ping list....

[hedgetrimmer]

Private property rights should include protection against neighbors influencing your private property- polluting ones water or air.

This protection existed before the creation of the clean water act.

[hedgetrimmer]

Would you mind keeping us posted on their findings?

[Carry_Okie]

This has been decided once before. The definition of "navigable waterway" was set at a waterbody large enough to allow a vessel of 40 DWT. I don't know the case.

[.cnI redruM]

That was the original purpose of the Civil Law Code. Should this hostile neighbor be appraised of the damage they are doing and do nothing to abate their behavior, possible criminal statutes for vandalism, or in a worse case, reckless endangerment, may very well apply.

[HoosierHawk]

More info and commentary:

http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060219-092133-3485

[GreenFreeper]

This protection existed before the creation of the clean water act.

I understand that but at the same time (not trying to side with lawyers) those codes/laws are even more vague than the CWA. We all know how difficult it can be to direct responsibility to an individual party. How many teams of lawyers would it take to 'prove' my neighbor contaminated my water supply? How many more would it take to prove removal of a wetland caused property damage to my property? It's a slippery slope no matter which way you look at it.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>It's a slippery slope no matter which way you look at it.


Yes, but once the power is given over to the Federal Gov, there is no stopping it, controlling it, or making them behave. The problem with the legislation supporting most environmental concerns, is this. It becomes a vehicle to control the lives of others, and therefore becomes a compliant and useful tool of people who's agenda has nothing to do with protecting nature.

[GreenFreeper]

The problem with the legislation supporting most environmental concerns, is this. It becomes a vehicle to control the lives of others, and therefore becomes a compliant and useful tool of people who's agenda has nothing to do with protecting nature.

I couldn't agree more. The question is how do we balance these competing interests. I'm not sure regulation at the state or local level makes anymore sense as watersheds know no boundaries.

[.cnI redruM]

If watersheds know no boundaries, as you claim, than any legislation at all regulating their use, potentially devalues any piece of land I happen to own. Giving a government agency a blanket power like that is in no way in the interest of liberty. Unless a logical and sane border on what land is considered "wetlands" can be established, the government has no Constitutional right to regulate their use.

[hedgetrimmer]

How many teams of lawyers would it take to 'prove' my neighbor contaminated my water supply?

None. Do you have a map of your property? Does it show water from your neighbor runs onto your land? Does a sample of the neighbors water show contamination before it enters your property? Doesn't take any lawyers to figure that one out.

[GreenFreeper]

Doesn't take any lawyers to figure that one out.

You'd think that but that is rarely the case. There is a landfill in the area near my work that illegally handled toxic waste. This contaminated ground/drinking water supplies with contaminants like arsenic, lead, mercury, etc. as well as several tributaries, and a great lake. It's been 5+ years of litigation and still the case has yet to be decided.

[muffaletaman]

All your water are belong to us!

[.cnI redruM]

Remember, watersheds know no boundaries!