EPA Joins UN to grab our Water

Far-reaching “Waters of the United States” rule could be the most significant EPA regulation you have never heard about: opinion

Posted on October 27, 2014 Written by Cameron Smith, Al.com

In 1972, Con­gress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to “restore and main­tain the chem­i­cal, phys­i­cal, and bio­log­i­cal integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The fed­eral government’s legal author­ity to reg­u­late water is largely derived from the Constitution’s Com­merce Clause, which the­o­ret­i­cally lim­its the government’s juris­dic­tion to the type of nav­i­ga­ble water­ways where such com­merce occurs. Sadly, the fed­eral gov­ern­ment is rarely con­tent with any lim­i­ta­tion placed on its reg­u­la­tory authority.

Although the CWA defines “nav­i­ga­ble waters” as “the waters of the United States, includ­ing the ter­ri­to­r­ial seas,” fed­eral reg­u­la­tors fur­ther define the “waters of the United States” to cover tra­di­tional nav­i­ga­ble waters and all other waters that could affect inter­state or for­eign com­merce. The cur­rent reg­u­la­tory def­i­n­i­tion opens up more waters to CWA cov­er­age but still attempts to track Congress’s Com­merce Clause authority.

Now the EPA and Army Corps of Engi­neers are tak­ing advan­tage of a par­tic­u­larly unclear Supreme Court rul­ing in Rapanos v. United States. Nar­rowly inter­preted, the 2006 Rapanos deci­sion gives the EPA reg­u­la­tory author­ity over wet­lands “with a con­tin­u­ous sur­face con­nec­tion” to nav­i­ga­ble water­ways. Read broadly, the Rapanos deci­sion gives the EPA author­ity under the CWA to reg­u­late water with a mere “sig­nif­i­cant nexus” to nav­i­ga­ble waterways.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s lack of clar­ity, the EPA and Army Corps of Engi­neers have pro­posed to expand the cov­er­age of the CWA in an excep­tion­ally far-reaching man­ner. Many con­ser­v­a­tives, agri­cul­ture groups, and even the U.S. Small Busi­ness Admin­is­tra­tion are call­ing for the pro­posed rule to be withdrawn.

On Octo­ber 8, 2014, Alabama Attor­ney Gen­eral Luther Strange joined other state attor­neys gen­eral oppos­ing the new def­i­n­i­tion. The joint let­ter noted that many of “the waters and lands cov­ered [by the pro­posed rule] are entirely out­side of Con­gress’ author­ity under the Com­merce Clause, such as non-navigable intrastate waters that lack any sig­nif­i­cant nexus to a core water, trench­ing upon state author­ity, includ­ing in areas of non-economic activity.”

The Alabama Farm­ers Fed­er­a­tion (ALFA) has also raised con­cerns about the impact of the pro­posed rule on Alabama. “The gov­ern­ment over­reach from this rule would extend beyond farms to affect busi­nesses, homes, schools, churches — any place built on land where water runs through after a heavy rain,” said ALFA pres­i­dent Jimmy Par­nell. “This was never the intent of the Clean Water Act, and this bypass­ing of Con­gress should not be allowed.”

Bald­win County farmer Hope Casse­baum echoed Parnell’s con­cerns. “Farm­ers don’t need any more reg­u­la­tions than what we have now,” said Casse­baum. “It’s sad because we already try to be the best stew­ards of the land that we can be.”

Elmore County farmer Richard Edgar proudly high­lighted that his fam­ily has worked with the USDA’s Nat­ural Resources Con­ser­va­tion Ser­vice for gen­er­a­tions. “We have some of the first, and still well-maintained, par­al­lel ter­races which are best for the envi­ron­ment,” said Edgar.

At the same time, Edgar con­sid­ers the EPA’s move to be more about fed­eral con­trol than true envi­ron­men­tal con­cern. “My chil­dren are the sixth gen­er­a­tion on this land,” he said. “We’re going to take care of our farm­land because we have a legacy and hope for the future. We don’t need gov­ern­ment telling us how to take care of it.”

The CWA has been a major suc­cess in clean­ing up our national waters, but fed­eral author­ity under the act is not with­out limit. The EPA and Army Corps of Engi­neers are press­ing the bound­aries of their fed­eral juris­dic­tion to their break­ing point, and Alabami­ans would be wise to pay attention.

Related Posts

• Obama’s EPA Plans for 2013
• United Nations – Agenda 21 – Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment and the Regional One Bay Area Plan
• States Fight­ing Obama EPA’s Global Warm­ing Decrees
• United Nations’ (U.N.) con­nec­tion to Agenda 21 and sus­tain­abil­ity and how it directly affects prop­erty owners.
• BACKGROUND TO THE WILDLANDS PROJECT
• EPA Funds Envi­ron­men­tal Projects Along US-Mexico Border
  Filed Under: Agenda 21, Property Rights, Water Rights, Wildlands Network
  Source:http://agenda21news.com/2014/10/far-reaching-waters-united-states-rule-significant-epa-regulation-never-heard-opinion/
  Comments
  Water rights must accompany land use rights and the government is after both of them using “regional governance” to shut out voter objections. Government agencies have already shut down fisheries, pig farms, chicken farms, crop farms, cattle ranches, land owners and homeowners using claims based on bogus regulations.  Land owners facing daily fines who are not helped by volunteer citizens’ rights organizations will have to hire a lawyer and spend a fortune in defense costs.  Lots of these cases have been televised on Fox News over the past several years.
  Voters need to head to their state legislatures to demand nullification bills for federal abuse and state regulatory reform to reverse state, county and city abuse.  State laws are currently predatory, because of their UN Agenda 21 implementation and the Agenda 21 enabling cookie-cutter plans it allows cities and counties to adopt.  These are Land Use Plans, Zoning Ordinances and federal bribes paying for part of the implementation.
  Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader