Posted on 07/06/2015 2:09:21 PM PDT by george76
Attorneys general from thirteen states filed a lawsuit Monday challenging EPA's new rule defining the waters of the U.S. (WOTUS), asserting that the rule expands the scope of clean water regulations to lands that are dry much of the year and increases the federal government's authority over land use.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley, who joined in the lawsuit, noted that 35 states have filed comments in opposition to the rule and several other attorneys general are considering filing challenges.
The EPA is overstepping its congressional authority and seizing rights specifically reserved to the states," Jackley said in a news release. "The EPA is creating uncertainty for our agriculture and business community that needs to have fairness and a degree of common sense in federal regulation."
In their complaint, the states contend the new definition of WOTUS violates provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the United States Constitution.
The states assert that the EPA's rule inappropriately broadens federal authority by placing a majority of water and land resources management in the hands of the federal government. Congress and the courts have repeatedly affirmed the states have primary responsibility for the protection of intrastate waters and land management
...
the rule defines tributaries to include ponds, streams that flow only briefly during or after rainstorms, and channels that are usually dry. The definition extends to lands within a 100-year floodplain -- even if they are dry 99 out of 100 years.
...
Participating in the filing are the attorneys general from the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.
(Excerpt) Read more at agri-pulse.com ...
Participating in the filing are the attorneys general from the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.
This is another one to watch to see if the NWO bunch make more headway into our sovereignty.
Why not all 50 states?
Emailing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, why are we not in on this?
.
Just ignore it if your state doesn’t want it.
The U.S. Supreme Legislature will simply rewrite the law to meet the needs of fedgov. Then you’ve thrown your lot in with them and they’ll screw you.
Ignore it.
The EPA needs to be eliminated.
Should be 58.
Congress should simply pass a bill defining the term.
-
For all intents and purposes,
“The Waters Of The U.S.” are hereby defined, as those waters
that are maintained for commercial navigation by
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as any
claimed territorial waters. All other waters located within
the boundaries of the United States are the province of the States.
The EPA regional wetland maps are at the bottom of this page. Virtually the entire country is “wetland”
http://science.house.gov/epa-maps-state-2013#overlay-context
BUMP
[[( 13 ) States file lawsuit against EPA’s ‘Waters of the U.S.’ rule]]
And just who are they going to take the case to? The ‘supreme’ court? Gee, that aughta go well for the states- the ‘supreme’ court being all like objective and all-
This one will go up to the Supreme Court, where who knows what will happen.
On the one hand, they’ve told the EPA before that it has overstepped its bounds. On the other, the laws can be twisted to mean anything.
I sometimes think that, in an imprecise way, our legal system has reached the more formal mathematical limit limit Godel talked about when he proved that within a mathematical system, propositions could arise which could neither be proved nor disproved.
Well don’t get all in a sweat about it.
Or they’ll claim that as “waters of the US” too.
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10
- Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I would be a tad more specific and include a statement around things like, rivers that run year round, x feet wide by x feet deep, etc.
Just because the left keeps trying to change the language.
Thirty-five states have joined in opposition? So what?
The answer is to return the states to the senate . . . NOW.
Article V before we can't.
There are several terms that need to be defined, such as "significant nexus", which SCOTUS used in a decision in 2006, which threw this regulation into turmoil.
Congress can't really do anything. SCOTUS needs to take another case and clarify themselves. But they haven't done that and since then numerous lower court decisions have been conflicted.
EPA waited 8 years before they finally decided to rewrite the reg to try to clarify it to the SCOTUS decision.
Meanwhile, there are many high priced environmental lawyers and consultants who can't advise their clients with certainty.
Supreme Court's Murky Clean Water Act Ruling Created Legal Quagmire
If the EPA workload is such that they need to continually invent new problems to solve then they are WAY overstaffed.
However, the enviros still want to wrest control of land. One approach had been to declare these ephemeral ponds a component of interstate commerce. For example, use by ducks and other migratory birds. The new proposed rule goes much further:
Consistent with this view, the agencies now propose to continue to exert jurisdiction over, inter alia, “other waters” that are geographically isolated and even seldom, if ever, hydrologically connected, but are nevertheless “biologically connected to each other and to downstream waters through the movement of seeds, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.”
http://www.paulhastings.com/docs/default-source/PDFs/epa-an--the-corps-seek-to-reclaim-jurisdiction-over-waters.pdf
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.