EPA Overreach on Water
The Supreme Court has refused to side with the EPA and has suggested that the EPA consult the Congress to legitimize its overreaching grab to control all water in the U.S. with its regulations. Citizens are invited to comment on the Clean Water Act on the website listed below: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-0001;p=1
See posting below:
Clean Water Act; Definitions: Waters of the United States
Bill Gainey posted in New Georgia Republican Leadership for Principles above Politicians
This is the EPA's summary for this proposed rule: "After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of 'waters of the US' protected under all CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act has a single definition for 'waters of
the United States.' As a result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current regulatory definition of 'waters of the United States.' However, the decisions established important considerations for how those regulations should be interpreted, and experience implementing the regulations has identified several areas that could benefit from additional clarification through rulemaking. U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are developing a proposed rule for determining
whether a water is protected by the Clean Water Act. This rule would make clear which waterbodies are protected under the Clean Water Act."
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court limited the EPA's power in these decisions. Because the agency's power isn't as broad as it had previously assumed, this limitation of its power has led to "considerable debate and uncertainty." If the EPA believes it needs more clarification on how to implement its regulations, the EPA should seek this clarification through lawmaking by the elected
representatives of the American people instead of through rulemaking by unelected bureaucrats. The Supreme Court made it clear that Congress should clarify which waterbodies are protected under the Clean Water Act. This is one of the many reasons the EPA needs to Ditch The Rule
You can leave your public comment on this regulation here:
The EPA's Attempt to Seize Western Water
The Environmental Protection Agency's new proposed rule for Waters of the United States (WOTUS) will allow the agency to regulate every ditch, stream, canal, etc.
This Proposed Rule document was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
33 CFR Part 328
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 122, 230, 232, 300, 302, and 401
[EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0880; FRL-9901-47-OW]
Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Department of Defense; and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) are publishing for public comment a proposed rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), in light of the U.S. Supreme Court cases in U.S. v. Riverside Bayview, Rapanos v. United States, and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), and Rapanos v. United States (Rapanos). This proposal would enhance protection for the nation's public health and aquatic resources, and increase CWA program predictability and consistency by increasing clarity as to the scope of “waters of the United States” protected under the Act.
Comments - My Comment posted on http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880-0001;p=1 is as follows:
Land owners must continue to own the water and mineral rights accessible from their land. Land without these rights is worthless. Farmers need to be able to access water by having wells drilled and pumps installed. Property owners should have total control over their land and their homes and should not be subject to government supervision of their property. Current civil law provides for redress if a citizen causes financial harm to another citizen. Cities and counties have water treatment plants and are responsible for water treatment. Farmers with wells are responsible for their own water quality. States should have sole responsibility for providing water access and water quality for water flowing through their state and used by their citizens. Federal water quality regulations should not be allowed.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader