Posted on 05/27/2015 8:09:58 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The Environmental Protection Agency announced a rule Wednesday that critics say would expand federal reach over U.S. waterways, but that the Obama administration contends will clarify which farming, development and other practices are subject to regulation.
The battle over the "Waters of the U.S." rule has been brewing for months and will continue both on and off Capitol Hill. The regulation attempts to define Clean Water Act regulations as stretching to bodies of water that have a "significant nexus" with "navigable waters" to prevent pollution of drinking water.
The EPA told various media outlets that the rule asserts the agency's ability to regulate waters connect to those flowing into drinking water supplies, thus enabling regulation of upstream pollutants. The Washington Examiner and several other news outlets that cover the EPA regularly were not informed of the media call or of the release of the new regulation.
Republicans and rural Democrats are determined to roll the regulation back because they say agricultural and other interests fear the rule could halt virtually all development near water. They said the regulation would add features that only contain water when it rains and hit streams with limited flow.
"I am hearing from too many different sectors that this is not clarification. This is limitation not only on our ability to move, but to breathe," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said at a recent hearing.
Democratic supporters in Congress and environmental groups say the regulation would clear up confusion about whether permits are needed for activity near certain waterways. They defended the rule, saying it would protect drinking water from pollution carried by streams and other bodies of water.
"Small streams and wetlands provide drinking water to roughly one in three Americans and they must be protected from pollution at the source. 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," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Opponents of the rule, however, are readying a fight on the floor. Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., agreed to hold off on an amendment at the Senate Appropriations Committee blocking the rule on the Energy and Water spending bill because he was assured by Murkowski and others that it would be addressed on the floor.
The House version of the Energy and Water spending bill, meanwhile, includes language blocking the rule. The White House has threatened to veto the bill, partly because of that policy rider.
"This rule will provide the clarity and certainty businesses and industry need about which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, and it will ensure polluters who knowingly threaten our waters can be held accountable," President Obama said in a statement.
March 7, 2015: "Researchers and supporters of a program that helps farmers run cleaner and more efficient operations say they were “stunned” and “blindsided” by Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to cut a third of the project’s funding.
Discovery Farms, a UW-Extension program that dates to 2001, applies science from a “plows-on” level, evaluates and monitors efforts by state farmers to control runoff, calibrate fertilizer use and employ techniques to conserve land and water.
It has a $750,000 budget, of which $248,000 would be cut in the governor’s proposed state budget.
UW-Extension officials noted the loss affects longstanding projects and the ability of the small program to leverage crucial additional grants and funds.
“We would have a 1.2-employee reduction of staff and we would pull back some of our sampling efforts, water quality analysis and a project (set) for Rock County,” said Amber Radatz, project co-director.
The project’s programs include monitoring 20 state farms and educating thousands of farmers on conservation strategies.
“This was a big surprise to our agency partners as well as our partners in farm groups and in UW-Extension,” she said. “We never had an inkling.”
The $248,000 comes from a surcharge on farm chemical sales that would be discontinued."
I have three ponds that were built in the 70’s with the help of the water district for flood control.
I will blow up my damns before I let one EPA bass turd tell me what I cannot do.
...confusion about whether permits are needed...
Citizen, do you have a permit to question
the regulatory agency?
If yes, it was a mistake.
If no, then you are under arrest.
But....
Aha, resisting arrest, arrest him again.
EPA reps enter my property - none leave.
Well, that could include the urine in your bladder. Sooner or later, that water will end up in some navigable waterway.
The Rivers and Harbors act of 1898 should have been sufficient. The EPA is a Federal seizure looking for a place to loot.
And if he doesn't cut it out, there'll be heck to pay. Actual heck. You feelin me, Brokeback?
Have you ever seen a vile scumbag more deserving of receiving an overweight truckload of highly unstable karma right up his stankin’ greasey crease? Brokeback gonna have some ‘splainin’ to do...
Does this mean that SALT will no longer be allowed to melt ice on our roads in the winter?
....not to mention a ton of other *unintended* consequences.
Can you name the four branches of gov’t?
Regulatory
Executive
Judicial
Legislative
“I will blow up my damns before I let one EPA bass turd tell me what I cannot do.”
You’ll probably need an EPA permit to do that. And another not to do that. If you do or don’t do it, you will be fined respectively, $10,000 or $22,000 a day.
Read the subtext here - the clarity is that EVERY person & business WILL be subject to increased rules and regulations and these regulations will be decided by bureaucrats heavily influenced by environmentalists whose unobtainable goal is 'zero-impact'.
Of course I should add that the goal is achievable by the elimination of human populations. My personal preference would be for these zero-impact zealots start with themselves!
You forgot the 5th and 6th ones.
STUPID
EVIL
Agenda 21-based. Taking away what you can do on your own property is phase 1, taking away your property is phase 2.
The “navigable waters” definition apparently includes those found inside a toilet bowl...
“...taking away your property is phase 2.”
Ha ha, why bother? Tax and regulate the daylights out of it. It’s “yours”...sort of, if that illusion makes you feel comfortable.
Taking it away is done so that you can no longer live there and just move into a location they have declared to be acceptable.
My head on a turtle moment. I hope they have a camera.
Agenda 21-based. Taking away what you can do on your own property is phase 1, taking away your property is phase 2.
As far as I can tell at some point implementation of phase one accomplishes phase two...
Really gives the EPA control of all water in the U.S.
The EPA is restricted by law to monitoring ‘navigable waters’ in the U.S.
They’re using new language that allows control of any water that is linked to aquifers or underground water supplies that are in any way connected to navigable water.
Basically this is any water anywhere in the country. If you own property on a lake you’re in big trouble, heck if you even have a pond or waterhole on your land the EPA will control your land.
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.