Posted on 10/10/2015 12:59:04 PM PDT by MarvinStinson
A federal appeals court on Friday dealt the Obama administration’s environmental agenda a major blow, halting a highly controversial water rule and saying more time is needed to determine whether the regulations are legal.
Critics had said the rule would give the Environmental Protection Agency control over irrigation ditches, canals and small streams, giving the federal government a say in permitting and land-use decisions over millions of acres of land surrounding those waters.
A lower court had already blocked the rule in 13 states, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued a nationwide stay, undercutting the EPA’s push to try to carry out the rule in the rest of the country.
In a 2-1 decision, the majority said the process the EPA used to write the new rules was “facially suspect” because the agency didn’t tell the public never asked the public for comments on the far-reaching limits it ended up imposing.
Eighteen states challenged the rule in court, and the judges said a more “deliberate determination” is needed to see if the rule is “proper” under federal law.
The court also said there is no proof that American waters will suffer significant harm if the rule is put on hold.
In a statement, the EPA said it respected the court’s call “for more deliberate consideration of the issues in the case.
The law gives the EPA power over “navigable” waters and any land where water runs off into those waters. But what that meant has been hotly debated.
Last year the administration wrote new definitions that would mean all waters within 4,000 feet of a navigable water would be subject to EPA review.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Critics said that would put land under the EPA’s control even if it had no possible connection to the rivers and lakes the Clean Water Act was designed to protect.
The new rules were supposed to take effect in August, but a federal judge in North Dakota issued a halt in 13 states, saying the administration appeared to be making an illegal end-run around Congress.
The appeals court’s ruling expands that halt.
Good!
It is only a set back if they follow the Judge’s ruling.
The EPA is a cancer on this country, and it’s spreading.
Obama sputters in a closed door office rage: “But what about the streams, and the criiks, and the ponds and the puddles?
Who’s gonna protect these waters for world usage and fair consumption?”
I would love to know which 13 states.
Land grab becomes water grab
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming
http://www.law360.com/articles/696393/epa-s-clean-water-rule-halted-in-13-states
John Roberts hasn’t had his say yet.
I was working for a company in the East Bay (that’s SF Bay) in the early 1970’s that was using a piece of equipment that used a small amount of water for cooling purposes. The water didn’t contact anything that would contaminate it. One day we had a visit from The Coast Guard. They were charging us “with discharging water into a navigable waterway.” Seems the drainage ditch into which we dumped a couple hundred gallons a day of clean water, discharged into a creek which discharged into the Niles River, which emptied into SF Bay. One of our guys remarked that we were unaware that the ditch was “navigable” because we had never seen so much as a Coast Guard Cutter anchored there! The really bad actors out here are the Army Corps of Engineers. They are environmental terrorists!
Thanks. I can only imagine how this would devastate northern Michigan.
Farming, hunting, and fishing are central to this economy.
Roberts will give Bambi what he wants.
So do you think this would include the great lakes?
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued a nationwide stay, undercutting the EPA’s push to try to carry out the rule in the rest of the country.
Frist it was just the thirteen states, but now, if I've read this right, it's all the states, although temporary plus there are other end runs around Congress and the Constitution as we know.
Did you see this?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/10/epa-spends-millions-on-military-style-weapons-repo/
The Environmental Protection Agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on military-style weapons to arm its 200 “special agents” to fight environmental crime.
Among the weapons purchased are guns, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities, according to a new report by the watchdog group Open the Books.
Did you see this?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/10/epa-spends-millions-on-military-style-weapons-repo/
‘The Environmental Protection Agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on military-style weapons to arm its 200 “special agents” to fight environmental crime.
Among the weapons purchased are guns, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities, according to a new report by the watchdog group Open the Books.”
Wow. We need to get rid of this agency as soon as possible.
“‘The Environmental Protection Agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on military-style weapons to arm its 200 “special agents” to fight environmental crime.”
Yeah, I saw it. Just wonder when all these “armies” from each Federal Agency are going to be joined into a National Police Force.
Amazing.
“One day we had a visit from The Coast Guard. They were charging us “with discharging water into a navigable waterway.” Seems the drainage ditch into which we dumped a couple hundred gallons a day of clean water, discharged into a creek which discharged into the Niles River, which emptied into SF Bay.”
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.