New guidelines for wetlands replacement adopted

Most certainly NAS will make policy recomendations if they are asked to. It could be that I am wrong, but for whatever reason, I was under the impression that Bush did not ask for policy on Klamath from NAS. Only technical findings with which he could develop policy.

And it does get down to who has the credibility to deliver technical findings. And for sure, those that have the credibility can and do rely incredible work done by others to reach a desired conclusion.

That is the whole point of efforts by Norton. To open up the process to allow more opinions to be used, especially by those who presently have no authority to present opinions.

Broken might be the right word. Or, so complicated that it is unusable. But don't look for Congress to wipe the slate clean and start over. Unless, the right case reaches the right court, with the right judges, at the right time.

Most certainly NAS will make policy recomendations if they are asked to.

Technical recommendations have the effect of policy. That means all the considerations of NEPA apply every step of the way. The system is incapable of doing that either in parallel or serially with recursive feedback.

Credibility determined by whom? Is this a democratic process? Do you think that a majority of voters should make decisions about every single land use? No? Is it a process ruled by fiat? Do you think that bureaucrats should determine who is "credible" when they are often serving corrupt interests or merely their own ambitions? That's tyranny and it certainly isn't Constitutional. So, is it a Constitutional process? Nope, becuase it pretends to authorize the national government to make decisions about the use of private property WAY beyond what is authorized in the Constitution.

This system is "credible" if and only if you believe that government has the right to control the use of private property, in this case, water. If you cross that line, then you have declared this a socialist nation in toto, simply because there is no place where the interactions among individuals and property ends.

That is the whole point of efforts by Norton. To open up the process to allow more opinions to be used, especially by those who presently have no authority to present opinions.

For which I have little respect. Besides the fact that it can't work, the Constitution doesn't authorize her to exercise that kind of authority.

Sir, you are in love with deterministic outcomes when such isn't possible. Give it up; you haven't thought it through to its logical lack of conclusions and basket case of unintended consequences. You can't get there from here that way.

There is a much simpler way of looking at it.

Congress has authority over ESA and the indian treaty rights.
The courts have expanded Federal Reserved water rights.
The executive branch cannot change either.

You are entitled to fault them for it but the fact remains that Bush and his appointess can only work around the edges, trying to change outcomes. And then only if he has a favorable technical opinion. While president, Bush can tell the states that he plans to work within their water rights laws, that he won't invoke reserved rights. A judge or the next president can change that.

Whatever faults that you assign to the system, it is ultimtely up to those that have the authority.

This answer is a dodge on your part, because it doesn't address the futility of your apparent preference for regulatory control of the use of property. So you just bail out and claim that "nothing can be done." Such is characteristic of an agency bureaucrat or one intimately associated therewith (as if I couldn't tell before).

Congress has authority over ESA and the indian treaty rights.

Congress dosen't have the authority to give the ESA it's current scope. In that respect, the ESA is blatantly unconstitutional as it has been applied. The treaties that supposedly give it that authority were both unconstitutional and ratified fraudulently. Further, the addition of the term "harm" to the definition of "take" in the ESA is not authorized by treaty or the Constitution.

The courts have expanded Federal Reserved water rights.

They don't have that authority either. They can direct the United States to purchase those rights and only for a necessary purpose, but under the Constitution they don't have the authority to simply take them. Further, the Constitution doesn't authorize the United States to own those rights, much less Federal Lands.

The executive branch cannot change either.

This proves that you are on the run. You just said that Norton had changed the process. There is NOTHING in the ESA that precludes using a market among property owners to resolve competing claims in the management of habitat services for endangered species with competing needs (such as suckerfish, birds, turtles, bears, and salmonids).

I tried to respond earlier, but this @#!&^* computer crashed just as I was ready to post. Thank you Bill Gates.

What I wanted to add to the discussion was that regardless of the "best" way to manage the environment, one thing that I can say with certainty is that the federal government is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution to perform that function.

The federal government rightly has some control over interstate navigable waterways. But in the last few decades, congress and the bureaucracies have streched the meaning of "navigable" to include a rainwater puddle in my back yard.

Absurd, but that is what has passed for "logic" since FDR.

On December 23, 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in the case of United States v. Wilson, 133 F. 3d 251 (4th Cir. 1997). The decision resulted from an appeal. The 4th Circuit finally said enough is enough, and limited this unconstitutional encroachment of my liberty.

"...we conclude that 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(3) (1993) (defining waters of the United States to include those waters whose degradation "could affect" interstate commerce) is unauthorized by the Clean Water Act as limited by the Commerce Clause and therefore is invalid, and that the district court erred in failing to require mens rea with respect to each element of an offense defined by the Act, we reverse and remand for a new trial."

The EPA and the Army Corps. of Engineers no longer have any authority over your backyard puddles (wetlands), but both of these agencies are openly and willfully ignoring this decision.

Norton is not trying to change policy, she doesn't have the authority. She is only nibbling at the edges. As Bush tried to defund the listing process, he wasn't changing policy. He was only nibbling at the edges. Once again: ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY.

The Supreme Court set the Winters Doctrine and it has been expanded by the courts. A different court in a different time may change that.

As for ESA being un-constitutional, that is subject to judicial review. But it hasn't happened yet.

For those who prefer to work within the system, working within the system is the only option. I'm sure that there are others feel differently.

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.