Posted on 04/23/2010 8:55:11 AM PDT by ICAB9USA
A Democratic congressman is seeking to strip the word "navigable" from the 1972 Clean Water Act to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to surpass the limits imposed by a 2001 Supreme Court ruling on the kinds of waterways the agency can regulate. A Democratic congressman is seeking to strip the word "navigable" from the 1972 Clean Water Act to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to surpass the limits imposed by a 2001 Supreme Court ruling on the kinds of waterways the agency can regulate.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This is possibly very, very evil, dangerous, and all-encompassing legislation.
It’s my understanding that in Maryland, citizens, on their own property, do NOT own water that is in the ground.
Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn - TARGET!
Official Summary 4/2/2009--Introduced.Clean Water Restoration Act - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to replace the term "navigable waters" that are subject to such Act with the term "waters of the United States," defined to mean all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting them, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution. Declares that nothing in such Act affects the authority of the Secretary of the Army or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the provisions of the Clean Water Act related to discharges: (1) composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture; (2) of stormwater runoff from certain oil, gas, and mining operations composed entirely of flows from precipitation runoff conveyances, which are not contaminated by or in contact with specified materials; (3) of dredged or fill materials resulting from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities, from upland soil and water conservation practices, or from activities with respect to which a state has an approved water quality regulatory program; or (4) of dredged or fill materials for the maintenance of currently serviceable structures, the construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds, irrigation ditches and maintenance of drainage ditches, or farm, forest, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment in accordance with best management practices, or the construction of temporary sedimentation basins on construction sites for which discharges do not include placement of fill material into the waters of the United States.
-------
The new legislation wants control of all properties that may adjoin these "bodies of water".
Unreal.
Unbelievable.
Woman, children, and ..... birds hit hardest.
___
That will not be easy.
I.Dare.You.
_____
Control this, Oberstar ...........
****
... better camouflage that.
;-)
Someone should invite the congresscritter on a fishing trip, complete with new footware, and we can see how well control of water is done from 6 ft. under.
The government will attempt to put meters on peoples wells and charge them for the water. If they do that, they can pay me the $20,000 that it cost to put in my well and pay for all maintenance of my pumps and holding tanks. These people are crazy and are going to have a fight on their hands.
Maryland, the entire state, is either a bay critical zone or an ocean critical zone... with few exceptions, all regulated by wetland restrictions and army corps of engineers... it is bad.
t
The next “Global Warming”.
They’re going to push it to that point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.