Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Obama admin asserts dominion over creeks, streams, wetlands, ditches — even big puddles

  1. #1

    Obama admin asserts dominion over creeks, streams, wetlands, ditches — even big puddles

    I guess this sets the stage for the Federal Government to claim control or seize any home in the U.S.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...eks-streams-w/

    President Obama’s administration on Wednesday claimed dominion over all of America’s streams, creeks, rills, ditches, brooks, rivulets, burns, tributaries, criks, wetlands — perhaps even puddles — in a sweeping move to assert unilateral federal authority.

    The Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, says it has the authority to control all waterways within the United States — and will exercise that authority.

    “We’re finalizing a clean water rule to protect the streams and the wetlands that one in three Americans rely on for drinking water. And we’re doing that without creating any new permitting requirements and maintaining all previous exemptions and exclusions,” EPA head Gina McCarthy told reporters Wednesday.

    The moves comes as part of the Clean Water Act and federal officials say they are simply trying to help businesses comply with regulations.

    “This rule is about clarification, and in fact, we’re adding exclusions for features like artificial lakes and ponds, water-filled depressions from constructions and grass swales,” McCarthy said. “This rule will make it easier to identify protected waters and will make those protections consistent with the law as well as the latest peer-reviewed science. This rule is based on science.”

    The Supreme Court has twice questioned the breadth of powers decreed under the Clean Water Act, prompting Wednesday’s actions.
    McCarthy claimed the new powers would “not interfere with private property rights or address land use.”

    “It does not regulate any ditches unless they function as tributaries. It does not apply to groundwater or shallow subsurface water, copper tile drains or change policy on irrigation or water transfer.”

    Not surprisingly, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, THE top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, loves the plan.

    “The Obama administration listened to all perspectives and developed a final rule that will help guarantee safe drinking water supplies for American families and businesses and restore much-needed certainty, consistency, and effectiveness to the Clean Water Act,” she said in a statement.

    House Majority Whip Steve Scalise said:

    “EPA’s attempt to redefine ‘navigable waterways’ to include every drainage ditch, backyard pond, and puddle is a radical regulatory overreach that threatens to take away the rights of property owners and will lead to costly litigation and lost jobs. The House is committed to fighting back against this radical policy, which is why we passed bipartisan legislation earlier this month to stop the EPA in their tracks from moving forward with this misguided proposal. It’s time for President Obama’s EPA to abandon these radical proposals, all in the name of protecting wetlands and waterways, that instead will only lead to more American jobs being shipped overseas at the expense of the American economy.”

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3bQlEJ7Au
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    The moves comes as part of the Clean Water Act and federal officials say they are simply trying to help businesses comply with regulations.


    creeks, rills, ditches, brooks, rivulets, burns, tributaries, criks, wetlands — perhaps even puddles — in a sweeping move to assert unilateral federal authority.
    Where I'm from a crick is a creek...

  4. #3
    And the Washington Times only just noticed? After this thing has been building up to this point for six years and more?

    Hell, even Fox noticed long ago!

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...light=wetlands

    Well, I guess that means that this morning, the entirety of Oklahoma and most of Texas are federalized. Because you'd be hard pressed to find a portion of either state that doesn't fit that description.

    Hey, Obama. You took responsibility for all this water. Get your spoiled ass down here and help us bail. Or are you going to tell us that you only took on the power, and you have no intention of taking on the responsibility with it?

    Silly question. Of course he's demanding power but accepting no responsibility, he's a Democrat.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-28-2015 at 08:02 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  5. #4
    so if Rand is elected president, how realistic is it that he can unilaterally erase the years and years of regulatory control? Who decides what is constitutional and how does the fight get put in the hands of people who will actually stand up for the constitution?

    Congress is a joke and the alphabet agencies obviously wouldn't support a plan that diminishes their responsibility.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    so if Rand is elected president, how realistic is it that he can unilaterally erase the years and years of regulatory control? Who decides what is constitutional and how does the fight get put in the hands of people who will actually stand up for the constitution?

    Congress is a joke and the alphabet agencies obviously wouldn't support a plan that diminishes their responsibility.
    He can exercise control of 95% of the Alphabet Agencies because they tend to be Executive Branch agencies. This includes all five sides of the Pentagon.

    He can undo thousands of executive orders.

    He can pass executive orders. Would you like to see an executive order that prohibits any federal agency from enforcing any regulation that was created by bureaucratic fiat, and was not passed by both houses of Congress and the president?

    He can close Executive Branch bureaus.

    And he can veto every piece of garbage the Congress passes.

    Just for starters.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-28-2015 at 08:53 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  7. #6
    This actually doesn't expand the juridiction EPA and the COE have been claiming off the cuff for decades. It really does just codify the extent of what they already had claimed. The question has been what exactly qualifies as "waters of the United States". EPA and the COE have been making it up as they went along, always expanding it as much as they could, with some court cases (like SWANC) thrown in here and there to muddy the waters (haha) and in some cases pull the limits back. I guess the mainstream media is just now noticing a problem that has existed for a long time.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  8. #7

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    And the Washington Times only just noticed? After this thing has been building up to this point for six years and more?

    Hell, even Fox noticed long ago!

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...light=wetlands

    Well, I guess that means that this morning, the entirety of Oklahoma and most of Texas are federalized. Because you'd be hard pressed to find a portion of either state that doesn't fit that description.

    Hey, Obama. You took responsibility for all this water. Get your spoiled ass down here and help us bail. Or are you going to tell us that you only took on the power, and you have no intention of taking on the responsibility with it?

    Silly question. Of course he's demanding power but accepting no responsibility, he's a Democrat.
    Wow, never thought about Texas. Guess the Feds own it now.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    He can exercise control of 95% of the Alphabet Agencies because they tend to be Executive Branch agencies. This includes all five sides of the Pentagon.

    He can undo thousands of executive orders.

    He can pass executive orders. Would you like to see an executive order that prohibits any federal agency from enforcing any regulation that was created by bureaucratic fiat, and was not passed by both houses of Congress and the president?

    He can close Executive Branch bureaus.

    And he can veto every piece of garbage the Congress passes.

    Just for starters.

    mmmmhhh, like theres even a snowballs chance in hell of doing 1/100th of what you just posted.

  12. #10
    Regulation without Representation.

    I guess this sets the stage for the Federal Government to claim control or seize any home in the U.S.
    Well, they already do.

    When everything down a light bulb and toilet is regulated and asset forfeiture is the "law"...

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Regulation without Representation.



    Well, they already do.

    When everything down a light bulb and toilet is regulated and asset forfeiture is the "law"...
    I think you would have to be half crazy at this point to purchase any land in the U.S. They can seize anything now, for any reason and good luck on getting any news media coverage .... forget it.

    We are nothing but tenant farmers, make no mistake about that !
    Last edited by Dianne; 05-28-2015 at 07:25 PM.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianne View Post
    I think you would have to be half crazy at this point to purchase any land in the U.S. They can seize anything now, for any reason and good luck on getting any news media coverage .... forget it.

    We are nothing but tenant farmers, make no mistake about that !
    Serfs.
    I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.

  15. #13
    US appeals court upholds EPA plan to clean up Chesapeake Bay; farmers call it a power grab

    PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A U.S. appeals court on Monday approved a federal plan to limit pollution in the Chesapeake Bay despite objections from farmers, builders and others who accused the Environmental Protection Agency of a power grab.

    The ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld restrictions on farm and construction runoff and wastewater treatment, and has the support of environmentalists and officials in the six states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

    "The Chesapeake Bay (plan) will require sacrifice by many, but that is a consequence of the tremendous effort it will take to restore health to the Bay — to make it once again a part of our 'land of living,' a goal our elected representatives have repeatedly endorsed," Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro wrote, quoting American poet Robert Frost.

    The bay, the nation's largest estuary, serves a growing population in nearby cities and towns, and supports commercial ventures that include fishing, farming, shipping and tourism. The resulting pollutants have led to dead zones with opaque water and algae blooms that make it difficult for aquatic life to survive, environmentalists argued.

    The judges called pollution in the bay a complex problem with clear winners and losers that affects 17 million people.

    "The winners are environmental groups, the states that border the Bay, tourists, fishermen, municipal waste water treatment works, and urban centers. The losers are rural counties with farming operations, nonpoint source polluters, the agricultural industry, and those states that would prefer a lighter touch from the EPA," Ambro wrote in his unanimous opinion.

    The American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Builders, the Fertilizer Institute and others have fought the restrictions, arguing that the EPA's comprehensive plan usurped state authority to regulate waterways. However, the three-judge panel found their arguments "unpersuasive."

    "Congress made a judgment in the Clean Water Act that the states and the EPA could, working together, best allocate the benefits and burdens of lowering pollution," the ruling stated.

    Animal waste and fertilizer that moves from streams into the Chesapeake is the single largest source of bay pollution, according to the EPA. Scientists have said the bay absorbs too much nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment to maintain a healthy ecosystem. The decision Monday upholds a September 2013 decision by U.S. District Judge Sylvia Rambo in Harrisburg.

    "This is a great day for everyone who cares about clean water and the Chesapeake Bay," said William C. Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. "In a case challenging EPA's Clean Water Act authorities, the 3rd Circuit Court in Philadelphia has spoken."

    The EPA expects 60 percent of the plan to be implemented by 2017, with the rest in place by 2025.

    The six watershed states that previously agreed to the pollution limits and support the plan are Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, along with Washington, D.C.

    The farm bureau plans to review the ruling for several days before deciding whether to appeal or take other actions, spokesman Will Rodgers said.

    http://www.newser.com/article/c3b881...ower-grab.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  16. #14
    The friggin courts are all corrupt

  17. #15
    Going on for a while.

    Rand Paul actually wrote a book on this issue, Government Bullies.

    A good read if anyone is looking for some specific cases these agencies have overstepped their bounds with regards to.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  18. #16
    Good, maybe now I can finally get "their" broken big puddle fixed.
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 07-10-2015 at 09:52 AM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    They just do what they want. And why shouldn't they? There are never any consequences.

    Pretty ironic, considering.

    EPA says clean water rule in effect despite court ruling
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-court-ruling/
    WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency says it is going forward with a new federal rule to protect small streams, tributaries and wetlands, despite a court ruling that blocked the measure in 13 central and Western states.

    The EPA says the rule, which took effect Friday in more than three dozen states, will safeguard drinking water for millions of Americans.

    Opponents pledged to continue to fight the rule, emboldened by a federal court decision Thursday that blocked it from Alaska to Arkansas.

    "We see this (rule) as very hurtful to farmers and ranchers and we're going to do everything to stop it politically," said Don Parrish of the American Farm Bureau Federation, one of several farm and business groups that have filed suit against the regulation.

    Lawsuits to block the regulation are pending across the country, and the Republican-controlled Congress has moved to thwart it. The House has ignored a White House veto threat and passed a bill to block it, and a Senate committee has passed a measure that would force the EPA to withdraw and rewrite it.
    [...]
    The federal ruling Thursday was in North Dakota, where officials from that state and 12 others argued the new guidelines are overly broad and infringe on their sovereignty. The EPA said after the ruling that it would not implement the new rules in those 13 states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

    Several other lawsuits from other states and farm and business groups remain.

    A federal judicial panel is set to hear arguments on EPA's request to consolidate the lawsuits at an Oct. 1 hearing in New York.
    More here:

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...EPA-Water-Rule

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ter-Power-Grab
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucille View Post
    They just do what they want. And why shouldn't they? There are never any consequences.

    Pretty ironic, considering.

    EPA says clean water rule in effect despite court ruling
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-court-ruling/


    More here:

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...EPA-Water-Rule

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ter-Power-Grab
    They certainly do. We have maybe one handful of honest representatives. The rest are Mafia controlled. This country is in a pretty sick place right now. And each election cycle brings us more of the same crooks. Term limits or the complete dismantling of the Congress and return to State's rights, are the two things that could save us. And I have no hope that either will happen.

  22. #19
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  23. #20
    Yeah, next thing you know, they will be dying rivers to demonstrate their ownership.

  24. #21
    Yup, and why, even if you got up off this rock, you'll never have freedom again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucille View Post

  25. #22
    Supreme Court sympathetic to property owner in wetlands dispute

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared likely to rule that property owners can challenge the federal government in court over the need for permits under a national water protection law in a case involving a company's plans for a Minnesota peat mine.

    The court heard a one-hour argument in a case balancing property rights and environmental law, in this instance the landmark 1972 U.S. Clean Water Act. A majority of the eight justices appeared sympathetic toward North Dakota-based Hawkes Co Inc, which is fighting an Obama administration finding that its property includes wetlands.

    The law mandates that property owners get permits in such situations.

    Whether a particular plot of land falls under the law's jurisdiction is important to developers and other property owners because such a finding triggers a lengthy and expensive permitting process.

    Hawkes' lawyers argued the company should be able to contest whether it even needs to go through the permit process.

    Liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concern about the current arrangement's burden on property owners.

    Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said applicants who disregard a government finding that they need a permit do so at "great practical risk."

    Liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the process "very arduous and very expensive." Liberal Stephen Breyer called the government decision that Hawkes needed a permit "perfectly suited for review in the courts."

    Only liberal Elena Kagan expressed support for the government, raising concerns about the impact a ruling favoring property owners would have on actions by other government agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Property rights advocates said the permitting process can take two years and cost up to $270,000, with owners facing penalties of up to $37,500 a day for noncompliance.

    Business groups including the National Association of Home Builders and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 29 states filed court papers opposing the Obama administration in the case.

    The case follows the justices' unanimous 2012 ruling that property owners facing enforcement action under the Clean Water Act can ask a court to intervene before being forced to comply or pay financial penalties.

    The Obama administration last year issued a new regulation defining the scope of federal jurisdiction over bodies of water. A federal appeals court put the rule on hold after it was challenged by 18 states.

    ...
    http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-...165024696.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.



Similar Threads

  1. Obama Rally -- Ticker Streams your Message; Shall we?
    By DonovanJames in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-03-2012, 07:12 PM
  2. Obama Rally -- Ticker Streams your Message; Shall we?
    By DonovanJames in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-03-2012, 06:40 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 07:25 PM
  4. Obama Ditches Tax Cut Presser, Bill Clinton Takes Control
    By goldenequity in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2010, 09:56 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-10-2010, 05:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •