Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Impact of EPA’s ‘Waters of the U.S.’ Proposed Rule on Small Businesses Could Be Significant
National Journal ^ | May 30, 2014 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business

Posted on 05/30/2014 6:56:46 AM PDT by george76

The Small Business Committee, under the chairmanship of Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), today conducted a hearing about how small businesses would be affected by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and United States Army Corps of Engineers' proposed rule to expand the Clean Water Act.

Last week, Graves and Members of the Committee wrote to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy, who oversees the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to urge withdrawal of the pending rule. Among the witnesses' and Members' concerns, the EPA and Corps of Engineers did not adequately assess the impact of their proposed rule on small businesses, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).

"This EPA 'Waters of the United States' proposed rule is a classic example of regulatory overreach," said Chairman Graves. "This rule will impose significant additional costs and burdens on small businesses to comply with Clean Water Act requirements for thousands of small streams, ditches, ponds, and other isolated waters, some of which may have little or no connection to traditionally navigable waters that the Act was designed to protect.

This is a power grab that cannot be justified. It demonstrates the lengths to which the Obama Administration will bend its interpretation of the law and ignore the limits placed on it by Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution, to achieve its big government objectives

(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Colorado; US: District of Columbia; US: Kansas; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: agenda21; agriculture; economy; epa; esa; farming; farmland; govtabuse; greenagenda; privateproperty; propertyrights; rewilding; ruralcleansing; un; un21; unagenda21; water; waterrights

1 posted on 05/30/2014 6:56:46 AM PDT by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Information, and How to Comment (closes July 21, 2014):
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm#comment

Online comment portal:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-0001

Other ways to submit comments:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/04/21/2014-07142/definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states-under-the-clean-water-act#p-5


2 posted on 05/30/2014 7:14:46 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
I am getting more and more angry about our situation. I live on rural property with ponds on the property, we irrigate our garden and orchard from them. The ponds are run off from hills on our property and also spring fed, all the water comes from our property and none of the water leaves our property, not the feds business.

If this is implemented and anybody tries to contact me about our seasonal creek and ponds, I am leaving the country. We have talked about it for 10 years and it just might be time, before they take everything.

We don't want to pollute our own source of water , what is wrong with these people. We have invested time and money on putting in a two inch pipe 700' long to gravity feed our garden, with a 300' drop, we can turn on 6 high powered sprinklers, shooting at least 50' in circumference all gravity flow, it is awesome. I would hate to have a DC bureaucrat come on our property and tell us we can't use the water as we may harm it, then it will be you are living too close to "our" water, move.

3 posted on 05/30/2014 7:37:45 AM PDT by thirst4truth (Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - it has no point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

You can not drink the King’s water nor harvest his game.....


4 posted on 05/30/2014 7:46:31 AM PDT by Hogblog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hogblog

We need a nationwide movement of “Robinhoods” like they had in Bunkerville.


5 posted on 05/30/2014 7:47:34 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: george76

Sure, like any negative comments will see the light of day.

“Your comment will be viewable on Regulations.gov after the agency has reviewed it, which may be an indefinite amount of time. Use your tracking number to find out the status of your comment.”

David didn’t take a Bible to go meet with Goliath. Neither should we.


6 posted on 05/30/2014 8:15:42 AM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: george76

At one time I lived in Florida and owned some land near Pensacola (Navarre). The property alongside of me was euphemistically called “Green Break” by the real estate people. It was damn near swamp.

One definition of “wetlands” then was that water seeped into your footprint as you walked about. They tried to redefine my neighbor’s property by claiming it was wetlands if there was water in your footprint AFTER it rained. Dunno if they succeeded as I left the area soon after for other reasons.


7 posted on 05/30/2014 8:55:15 AM PDT by Oatka (This is America. Assimilate or evaporate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oatka

I have done wetland delineation for years. A few years ago they amended the original regulation to state that even if the property in question did not meet the requirements as specifically stated in the reg. it could still be considered a wetland if the Corps decided it was in the public interest for it to be considered such.

As I told the Corps engineer, any property can be a wetland if you try hard enough.


8 posted on 05/30/2014 9:09:13 AM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Oatka

EPA to property owner: ‘Your land is our land’

Just imagine. You want to build a home, so you buy a $23,000 piece of land in a residential subdivision in your hometown and get started. The government then tells you to stop, threatens you with $40 million in fines [ $75,000 per day ] and is not kidding.

a Priest Lake, Idaho, family, Chantell and Mike Sackett.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/348077/

PLF and the Sacketts: an important win at the Supreme Court.

http://www.pacificlegal.org/Sackett


9 posted on 05/30/2014 9:38:57 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: george76
This has nothing to do with water quality.

It's about who gets to make money in real estate.

10 posted on 06/01/2014 7:04:55 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel

PING to you.

They said we were crazy, back when you and I said this was coming.


11 posted on 06/05/2014 5:38:20 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson