Posted on 04/22/2010 8:18:11 AM PDT by george76
House Democrats pushed forward Wednesday with an effort to delete the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act - a change that would give the government greater ability to enforce clean-water rules but that opponents said amounts to a federal power grab.
"If this bill were to become law, there'd be no body of water in America that wouldn't be at risk of job-killing federal regulation - from farmers' irrigation canals to backyard ponds and streams to mud puddles left by rainstorms," said Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee.
The Waters Advocacy Coalition, made up of farm, manufacturing and housing advocacy groups, said the bill would upset the federal-state balance that has developed on water protection.
At its core, the fight is over how broadly Congress wanted the 1972 Clean Water Act to be applied.
The law in one place says the act was to protect the nation's waters, but in other places, it says it's meant to govern "navigable" waters. The Supreme Court ruled that constrained the Environmental Protection Agency to regulating waterways big enough for ship traffic.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Official Summary 4/2/2009--Introduced.Clean Water Restoration Act - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to replace the term "navigable waters" that are subject to such Act with the term "waters of the United States," defined to mean all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting them, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution. Declares that nothing in such Act affects the authority of the Secretary of the Army or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the provisions of the Clean Water Act related to discharges: (1) composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture; (2) of stormwater runoff from certain oil, gas, and mining operations composed entirely of flows from precipitation runoff conveyances, which are not contaminated by or in contact with specified materials; (3) of dredged or fill materials resulting from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities, from upland soil and water conservation practices, or from activities with respect to which a state has an approved water quality regulatory program; or (4) of dredged or fill materials for the maintenance of currently serviceable structures, the construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds, irrigation ditches and maintenance of drainage ditches, or farm, forest, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment in accordance with best management practices, or the construction of temporary sedimentation basins on construction sites for which discharges do not include placement of fill material into the waters of the United States.
The Communists Party is on a roll
Incorrect.
If this bill were to become law, there'd be no body of water LAND in America that wouldn't be at risk of job-killing federal regulation
All land drains into water.
It is fairly obvious that the NRDC lawsuit was not the first that the EPA had heard about enforcing 303(d) TMDL on nonpoint sources. Both litigants are members of the same multilateral organization, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). In this case, both litigants have a confidential, offshore venue at which to conclude the settlement in advance, and get a free vacation in the deal. The litigants can walk into the Federal Court and tell the judge that they'll settle. The judge looks at the backlog and down comes the gavel. It's a done deal: The litigants can enter into a consent decree with a time limit for implementation upon which they alone agree. They can even have the press releases written in advance.
It's called a sweetheart suit.
There are dozens of Federal Courts in the Western United States. No one could possibly monitor all of these lawsuits sufficiently to find out about the suit, notify the affected property owners, gather data capable of refuting the claims, and organize a response quickly enough to block the consent decree. No one is there with the preparation and aura of credibility to refute the legitimacy of the claims or contest their jurisdictional authority to institute and enforce the nonpoint TMDL.
Now, what was the point of all this? Why should the NRDC and the EPA think the nonpoint nitrate TMDL in the San Lorenzo River Watershed is such a big deal? It's gonna take a little while for this one to sink in.
Mud.
Wherever there is dirt and water, there is mud. Whenever you mix mud and water, you get suspended silt. Mud is a nonpoint source of silt. Silt is found everywhere there is dirt, which is everywhere. If you want to control the use of dirt, just call it a pollutant! It isn't clean water any more, it's dirty. People don't want dirty water. They want clean water. Just ask them.
Thanks
William Z. Foster said it best, back in 1932.
“The establishment of an American Soviet government will require the confiscation of large landed estates in both town and country and the entirety of lakes, rivers, forests, and mineral deposits.”
He was the head of the Fosterite division of the Communist Party, as well as CPUSA National Chairman.
Then Gus Hall said, “The future of communism in America will be the environmental movement.”
Fast forward to National Audubon Society President, Peter Berle - “We reject the idea of private property.”
Berle’s VP was Brock Evans, and Brockie Poo said “..let’s be unreasonable! Let’s take it all!”
The Clean Water Act is one of the great unnatural acts, along with the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, ad nauseam.
RE: ‘The Communists Party is on a roll’
Yes. Power-hungry... ALWAYS.
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.