EPA ‘showers’ the people with unwanted regulations

The Washington Times ^ | March 18, 2015 | Ernest Istook

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

If you like your shower, you probably can’t keep it once the Obama administration bureaucrats are done.

Nobody can altogether escape regulations, not even when bathing in the altogether. The Environmental Protection Agency denies wanting to compel us to shorten our showers, but that’s like President Obama denying you will lose your current doctor under Obamacare.

EPA is funding research to create hotel guest monitoring systems so the front desk can track your shower time and water usage. It’s the scariest thing since Hitchcock staged the deadly shower scene in “Psycho.”

The next step could be a water-use surcharge on your room bill. Then coin-operated systems, probably locating the slot across the room and making you walk to it, dripping everywhere. Then we may see shower-snooper systems required in every home. It’s part of the EPA’s “War on Women and Men,” launched when Congress mandated low-flow showerheads back in 1992 with George H.W. Bush’s approval.

EPA officials sent Americans a message last year when they approved funding to design the new CIA (Cleanliness Inspection Agency) to spy on us in the shower. As federal grants go, it’s tiny: $15,000 to the University of Tulsa. But that’s only for Phase 1 of a project “to build and test a working prototype and to conduct a preliminary market analysis.”

What problem do they hope to solve? The grant papers state: “Millions of gallons of potable water are wasted every year by hotel guests. The proposed work aims to develop a novel low-cost wireless device for monitoring water use from hotel guest room showers. This device will be designed to fit most new and existing hotel shower fixtures and will wirelessly transmit hotel guest water usage data to a central hotel accounting system.”

[Jim Noble]

“Committee hearings” are not law.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for your patience with this discussion.

“'Committee hearings” are not law.'

Congress uniquely has the constitutional authority to make law as evidenced by the Constitution’s Section 1 of Article I.

And regarding all executive orders, as mentioned in previous post the Supremes had clarified in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that executive orders don’t have force of law unless they are supported by Congress. And reference material indicates that the Senate, long controlled by low-information voters via the 17th Amendment, supported the committee ratification of the executive order that established EPA.

But all that is beside the point since the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate environmental issues. And I am inclined to believe that senators elected by state lawmakers to protect their respective states in Congress would have worked with Congress to establish the EPA within the framework of the Constitution by proposing an environmental protection amendment to the Constitution to the states.

In fact, regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, activist judges and indoctrinated attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (5.2) aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate environmental issues in this case, are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for your patience with this discussion.

“'Committee hearings” are not law.'

Congress uniquely has the constitutional authority to make law as evidenced by the Constitution’s Section 1 of Article I.

And regarding all executive orders, as mentioned in previous post the Supremes had clarified in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that executive orders don’t have force of law unless they are supported by Congress. And reference material indicates that the Senate, long controlled by low-information voters via the 17th Amendment, supported the committee ratification of the executive order that established EPA.

But all that is beside the point since the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate environmental issues.

In fact, regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, activist judges and indoctrinated attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (5.2) aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate environmental issues in this case, are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

And I am inclined to believe that senators elected by state lawmakers to protect their respective states in Congress would have worked with Congress to establish the EPA within the framework of the Constitution by proposing an environmental protection amendment to the Constitution to the states.

The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.

[metesky]

I learned in HS freshman science that NO water is "wasted".

[publius911]

The EPA is the poster child bureauracy of a good idea and good intentions going PSYCHO.

Unless those get reined in imfreakingmediately, they ALL tend to morph into Frankenstein, or Geheime Staatspolizei, your choice...

[publius911]

My state reps are by and large all socialists!!

It's my state too.
One is a stamp-stealing "don't call me ma'm" criminal, the other a "It's the Law! Deal with it" get rich at "public service" Nazi.

[MeshugeMikey]

Lynn The Communist Woolsey was my Rep...but she may have been replaced...I cant remember..

[unixfox]

NOW ENFORCE THEM!

[publius911]

Californians lose 800,000 acre-feet of water to 305 minnows.

305 Minnows?

And what was one of Calif's two senators' response when representatives of the California's Central Valleys visited her DC office to appeal to common sense?

Dianne Feinstein's curt, arrogant and smarmy response to the appeal to protect human beings over minnows?

IT'S THE LAW!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!!

In the mid 60s, California grew and provided 90% of all the fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States. And much was exported.

Today, it is down to 60%.
And the most valuable farmland in the United States is slowly, but relentlessly, reverting to desert.

But minnows, and white water rafters are happy.
Whooopieeeeee!

[publius911]

The ridiculous environmental rules protecting the Delta minnow say the pumps can only gobble up 305 of the minnows in a water year, which ends Sept. 30. The count is already 232 — more than 75 percent of the limit. So to make sure pumps supply water to 25 million people and millions of acres of farmland consumes no more than four minnow buckets full of smelt — 800,000 acre-feet of water is gone."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!