Property Rights Slowly Eroding...One Drip at a Time (Congress Pulls the Plug)

Property Rights Alliance ^ | 7/29/10 | Anthony Lizan

[Andrea19]

Whoever said, “Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me,” never met Congressman James Oberstar (D-Minn). His bill, “America’s Commitment to Clean Water Act (H.R. 5088),” would remove the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act’s definition. By removing this one word, the federal government’s regulatory authority over private property would increase exponentially.

The implications of this bill on individual property rights are frightening. By removing the word “navigable,” the government could regulate every body of water in the U.S. from small ponds to irrigation canals. Bureaucrats could impose onerous new restrictions and permit requirements that would hamper economic growth, especially for small businesses.

Owners of desert property would be the only ones truly safe from this bill, except for the fact that the government already owns most of the deserts in America...

[Andrea19]

The environmentalists want to pour out American prosperity in one splash.

Help promote Conservative activism here & here & here

[BwanaNdege]

I checked several years ago and the Feds were regulating Scotts Creek in Jackson County, NC. Last time I was trout fishing in it the water was knee deep or less nearly everywhere.

Navigable by canoe only.

Also, with the riparian amendments, they are now controlling farmland within 50 feet of the creeks & rivers.

[Pontiac]

Unless people are selling things door to door out of a canoe I don’t see how your creek would qualify for regulation under federal law.

Commercial navigation would be the only link to federal regulation that could pass constitutional muster under the Commerce Claus (the be all and end all for Fed regulation).

[BwanaNdege]

That was my point; it should NOT qualify for regulation. I’ve searched on the internet for documentation about this (Scotts Creek) but could find nothing. The article must have been in our local paper several years ago.

The point is that the Commerce Clause, like the Right to Privacy, has been extended so far beyond common sense in order to justify Federal intrusion into private or at most State issues.