Skip to comments.EPA land grab? Agency claims authority over more streams, wetlands
Posted on 03/25/2014 3:37:58 PM PDT by jazusamo
In what critics are describing as a government land grab, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a change Tuesday to the Clean Water Act that would give it regulatory authority over temporary wetlands and waterways.
The proposal immediately sparked concerns that the regulatory power could extend into seasonal ponds, streams and ditches, including those on private property.
"The ... rule may be one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history," said Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The EPA proposal would apply pollution regulations to the country's so-called "intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands" -- which are created during wet seasons, or simply after it rains, but are temporary.
At issue is whether the smaller streams and wetlands are indeed part of the "waters of the United States."
The Supreme Court ruled on the issue in 2001 and 2006. The second ruling restricted the federal government's authority by stating such waters must be "relatively" permanent or continuously flowing and sizeable, like "oceans, rivers, streams and lakes."
In defending the proposed change, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday that determining Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands became "confusing and complex" following the high court decisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yep. More to come since MORON voters voted in Democrats.
The EPA’s demise should be the first act of a new president and a Republican Congress.
AMEN to that!
ENUMERATED POWERS! It ain’t rocket science. Even a cursory reading of the US Constitution demonstrates that the EPA is outside the legal boundaries of fedgov authority.
We have let this happen by way of 100 years of allowing ourselves to be hoodwinked by criminal elitists and blowhard do-gooders who are content to take this nation down the socialist rabbit hole, one step, one inch at a time.
It’s well past time to put a stop to it. I pray we can still recover the greatness that was America.
For the list.
Agenda 21 is a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty
Thanks Army Air Corps
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Congress could stop this crap, if they had the desire to do so.
Yes, and this “seasonal” thing will affect most everyone in this nation living in rural areas.
R-I-G-H-T. We’ve had (R) control of D.C., HOW many times since 1980, and all we’ve gotten have been: TSA, DHS, NSA, NCLB....
I haven’t heard word ONE, for many a year, about abolishing the DOEd, let alone any other Department (aside from what Perry could remember *rolls eyes*)
Every other year, all that’s talked....is lip service. Vocal noise to get elected and fill their own pockets with the $$ of the We the People.
Agenda 21...Agenda 21! They can’t get it through Congress so they will try anything they can to steal our land with “regulations”.
Don’t spit in your back yard. It will be declared a wetland.
I agree. It’s the main reason why none of us support the RNC any longer. It’s why we think of the GOP as a joke, even though most of us came into the GOP as youth, and remained here.
There is no GOP any longer, unless it now stands for Grand Old Pretenders.
The next Republican power position MUST find massive action to defund the Left’s income streams, and begin the demolition of the present social network in the United States.
Over the next 40 years, all of it needs to be returned to the private sector. This federal government is living on borrowed time. What’s more, it knows it.
That’s why it is buying up all the ammo. It doesn’t intend to listen to the will of the people. It intends to hold on to it’s power by force if it has to.
Does desire = balls?
Quite often, the GOP can be our # 1 enemy.
When Richard Nixon was president, the EPA and the BATF came into existence. Thanks for nothing, Mr. President.
Only one solution: Shut down (or radically diminish) the EPA.
I guess that means that the EPA considers the big puddle in my back yard from the snow melting is a “navigable waterway.” Talk about power hunger idiocy.
Those fortunate enough to have a seasonal or not stream or pond are generally involved in caring for the land anyway as part of their livelihoods. I doubt they need EPA nannies flicking switches at their ankles.
The commies see the writing on the November wall and are setting their claws in while they can.
Defund, defund, defund. Let these rats lose THEIR houses, for once.
Oh, “temporary” wetlands. Everywhere except Death Valley.
Just another incremental step toward implementation of Agenda 21.
“... Weve had (R) control of D.C., HOW many times since 1980 ...”
Only from 2003 - 2007 but we never had 60 votes in the senate.
Yes, the power hungry idiots basically are trying their best to do away with the “navigable waterway” thing entirely and go around the former SCOTUS ruling.
Exactly, if for nothing else just to ensure that seasonal water doesn’t do damage to their property, I’ve been their and done that.
Defund the EPA NOW!
Here in Michigan you can’t walk 100 yards without stepping in some kind of water.
Technically, they might try to claim our lands based on below ground water tables. Sorry, for the scary idea.
And hang the EPA perps on the Capitol Steps.
Up your way and the states abutting you this could turn into a huge nightmare of abuse by the EPA.
Not just rural. The Corps Of Engineers have already tried to enforce "wetlands" laws on every dry patch of earth that someone spit on once. Every curb and gutter, every lawn or vacant lot. Everywhere, really would come under their expanded jurisdiction.
to further agenda 21 and force people off their land.
we gotta end this sh1t now.
and unless we run and elect people who do more than lip service about shutting down rogue alphabet agencies, they will just let them continue on.
that’s the entire point. and if you complain any puddles on your property...
At one point, I was very interested in a proposal to get rid of the EPA, but it's not that simple.
Between 1955 and 1972, Congress passed a whole slew of unconstitutional laws like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Waters Restoration Act, the Air Pollution Control Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and many others.
these laws impose on the Executive Branch the duty to analyze conditions and to write and enforce regulations to carry out extremely vague mandates.
Nixon created the EPA by Executive order to simplify the tasks, which were then divided among dozens of existing agencies.
The EPA, as such, has never been authorized by Congress. If a President revoked Executive Order 15623, and the EPA ceased to exist, all the laws it is charged with enforcing would still exist, and there would spring up dozens of replacement agencies.
To remove this monster, it is necessary to start repealing the underlying statutes, no small task.
Thanks to information I recently got from freeper Ben Fiklin in a related thread, I had done some scratching and discovered the following. In the early 20th century and with the help of activist justices, Congress had evidently used its power to negotiate treaties to usurp 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate water rights imo.
More specifically, although I'm happy that Native Americans were insured a supply of water for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's decision in Winters v. United States activist justices had given Congress the green light to Congress to regulate intrastate water rights, such federal legislative powers wrongly interpolated from Congress's power to negotiate treaties imo.
More specifically, activist justices had argued that the Supremacy Clause, Section 2 of Article VII, in conjunction with Congress's power to negotiate treaties, trumped 10th Amendment-protected states power to regulate water. In fact, the justice who had argued that treaties trump the 10th Amendment, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., is one of main justices credited for fostering the idea of the "living Constitution."
However, regarding such a perspective on the scope of Congress's power to negotiate treaties, and as similarly noted with respect to controversial United Nations issues, please consider the following. Thomas Jefferson, based on his experience as Vice President and President of the Senate, had officially clarified that Congress cannot use its power to negotiate treaties as a back door to establish new powers for itself, powers not based on the limited powers which the states have delegated to Congress via the Constitution.
In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812.
Also note that the Supreme Court had later reflected on Jefferson's words, clarifing that Congress cannot use it's power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor way to expand its constitutionally-limited powers.
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution (emphasis added)." --Reid v. Covert, 1956.
So while patriots have recently been concerned about "closing the barn door so the horses can't escape," stopping corrupt Congress from using its power to negotiate treates to limit constitutional rights with the help of the UN, little did we know that one horse had already escaped from the barn in the early 20th century, compliments of activist justices.
Also regarding the EPA, note that the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches or in non-elected government bureaucrates. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative / regulatory powers whether it wants it or not imo. So not only has Congress wrongly delegated legislative powers to non-elected bureaucrats in blatant defiance of the previous mentioned clauses, but Congress has delegated powers that the states have never granted to Congress via the Constitution, regulating water rights in this example.
Are we having fun yet?
Neofascists in government are not new. Since 1972 the Supreme court has ruled decisively two or three times that ephemeral water and puddles that are created in ruts and hollows do not invalidate the concept of private property ownership.
For many years, it was the Corps (heh heh) of Engineers which abused the concept of "navigable waters."
Now it's the EPA?
I can't wait to see what the "new reality Supreme Court decides this time. In the past most owners were driven to bankruptcy before the Supreme Court ruled n the case. We're talking ten years or more!
This is one of the reasons we need a CoS with an amendment to prevent the alphabet agencies created by Congress from stealing our rights and our property.
>>For many years, it was the Corps (heh heh) of Engineers which abused the concept of “navigable waters.”
Now it’s the EPA?<<
Yes, and I understand the “navigable waters” has already been abused by the EPA, now they want jurisdiction over “seasonal” waters.
Well said, good post.
Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but these folks do act like tyrants.
So, in other words, just disobey the ruling?
The EPA should be abolished, and all its buildings razed to the ground!
Jim, I agree with that. I say eliminate the EPA and get to work on those laws.
In spirit, I think many Conservatives understand the need to keep Corporations or private entities from leaving behind massive chemical or other contamination spills on property.
That sort of thing should be watched, but the takings and absurd regulations need to be gutted.
Why not?...what they are doing is treasonous...they are deliberately out to distroy this country.
As you and I see it, I agree. As they see it, they’re merely doing something they think must be done to save the nation for the next generation.
I just think it’s easier to dump them out of government service, and let them sink back into the woodwork.
The goal is to lop off about 80 to 90% of the government work force. This is an excellent place to get started.
Next... education. No longer would schools be used for indoctrination, other than to be appreciative and loyal to the United States.
The U. N.s agenda
The Anti-Christian agenda
The Anti-White agenda
It stops that very day.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
It would be better to shut down our entire education system for a year, revamp it, and start kids in again.
When it starts over, have good people in place who are interested in our kids being competitive both nationally and internationally.
I would keep teachers on a short leash, rehiring only the ones who sincerely had the children’s well being in mind.