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:
http://www.facebook.com/l/mAQGJJsAvAQGkRtcNOaQu6oCko6uip4WToxJOJrcgGcB4uw/www.regulations.gov/%23!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880
The EPA's Attempt to Seize Western Water
http://www.facebook.com/l/3AQF67eLgAQG29HEERRdOT0X6K-O5S-7iG39r4wXnifDqcA/youtu.be/PR4DdhynGss
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)
Summary
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
No comments:
Post a Comment