Protecting water and property rights act?

[ANGELL2379]

Browsing the Senate and House bills can be so enlightening. I found this bill that was introduced in mid-June called "Protecting Water and Property Rights Act of 2014". Now the name sounds great, but reading the bill is a different story. It does nothing to protect property rights and very little to nothing to protect water. All it does is to restrict the EPA or the Secretary of the Army from defining U.S. water. It is in committee right now, which means that maybe something will come of it before the regulation goes into effect.

Read more at:

http://www.dailypaul.com/321967/protecting-water-and-property-rights-act-of-2014

[kcchiefs6465]

All it does is to restrict the EPA or the Secretary of the Army from defining U.S. water.
Then it does quite a bit.

[ANGELL2379]

True. I just think the title is misleading because it proposes to "protect water and property rights".

[kcchiefs6465]

True. I just think the title is misleading because it proposes to "protect water and property rights".
If it reins in the hapless bureaucrats that are the EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA, or FWS, I would be quite the happy camper.

I imagine, though I have no intention of reading the text of this bill, that it attempts to adequately define what constitutes a navigable water. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers (and the rest of them) have been acting the role of bullies for quite some time, assessing ridiculous fines and fees per day absent any oversight whatsoever.

We should all be concerned with our water being pollutant free, but they've gone on a power trip long ago. Many of their actions make no sense whatsoever, are unconstitutional, and frankly violate people's rights.

[ANGELL2379]

The bill isn't actually that long, but it just states that the EPA can't enforce it's rule that defines water. It's the regulation that attempts to define thee water which it will regulate. The Senate bill just states that they can't do that and it will have no effect if they try to enforce it.

[kcchiefs6465]

Upon reading the bill, what it does is prevent the EPA and Corps of Engineers from legislating from the executive using vague language of the Clean Water Act. The term "navigable waters" is so ambiguous that federal judges have mentioned as much.

And this regulatory behemoth is so incredible as to make the average American guilty of three felonies per day (that they may not even realize).

Government Bullies, by Rand Paul, Constitutional Chaos, by Andrew Napolitano, and Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silvergate would be great places to start.

[ANGELL2379]

kcchiefs6465, I think it's great that the Senate is trying to reign in the outrageous regulations. I just find the title a little misleading.

[kcchiefs6465]

kcchiefs6465, I think it's great that the Senate is trying to reign in the outrageous regulations. I just find the title a little misleading.
It's really not that misleading.

Private property rights have been abridged by overzealous EPA bureaucrats and the Clean Water Act. People have been assessed $75,000 a day fines, and decades of legal battles simply for the right to move dirt ("a pollutant") from one side of their yard to another ("a navigable water"... though any honest look at the land would show you that it is not.. in fact, it's often times dry dirt). Preventing the EPA from acting like thugs would indeed help to protect property.

As far as the "protect water" portion of the title, I believe that ["1"] would finally adequately define what a navigable water is. If this is the case, it certainly would help to protect water from pollutants (the EPA, after all, wouldn't waste its time on dry creek beds, and ditches, then).

And if not, them simply preventing the EPA from using the Clean Water Act in ways that were unintended and unimaginable would free them up much time. You know, to actually do what people think it is that they do.

I don't know, Angel. I support the bill. After learning of the way that the EPA has treated countless citizens, they could be dissolved tomorrow for what I care. In fact, I would welcome that. Tort Law would be adequate if people understood and the courts respected private property. Collectivist, majority rule nonsense has made this rather hard to even imagine.

[oyarde]

All my waters belong to me .They can suck it .

[kcchiefs6465]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?455415-Video-Thomas-Massie-questions-EPA-on-water-regulations-7-9-14&p=5586389#post5586389