Clean Water Act raises fears of land grab

[Eredar Warlock]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/14/private-property-clean-water-restoration-act/

Upwards of 40 percent of all land in the United States is already under some form of government control or ownership -- 800 million to 900 million acres out of America's total 2.2 billion acres.

The government now appears poised to wield greater control over private property on a number of fronts. The battle over private property rights has intensified since 2005, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo v. City of New London case that the government could take property from one group of private landowners and give it to another.

Outraged over that ruling and a series of recent efforts by government to wield greater control over private property, citizens are fighting back. Fox News' Shannon Bream takes a fair and balanced look at the controversy in a three-part series.

The Clean Water Restoration Act currently pending in the U.S. Senate could reach to control even a "seasonal puddle" on private property.

Eleven senators and 17 representatives in the U.S. House have sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasting the measure as one of the boldest property grab attempts of all time.

This bill is described by opponents as a sweeping overhaul of the Clean Water Act that could threaten both physical land and jobs by wiping out some farmers entirely.

"Right now, the law says that the Environmental Protection Agency is in charge of all navigable water," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Western Caucus and an opponent of the bill.

"Well, this bill removes the word 'navigable,' so for ranchers and farmers who have mud puddles, prairie potholes -- anything from snow melting on their land -- all of that water will now come under the regulation of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency," he said.

Barrasso said the federal government's one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work in the west where the Rocky Mountain states have gone even further than Washington to protect land, water and the environment.

"The government wants control of all water -- that also means that they want control over all of our land including the private property rights of people from the Rocky Mountain west, the western caucus and the entire United States," he said.

But Jan Goldman-Carter of the National Wildlife Foundation said fears by ranchers and farmers are unfounded.

"That amended language is very clear that it preserves long standing exemptions for ongoing agricultural practices, forest roads. There are a number of very generous exemptions in there particularly for ranchers and farmers that I know have been worried about the effect of this legislation, but in fact those worries are largely unfounded," she said.

Goldman-Carter added that the United States has long regulated streams and other waterways that aren't 'navigable' by boat because to do otherwise would be to allow dumping into smaller water sources that lead to the larger ones used for drinking water and other purposes.

"I can't imagine anyone wanting to walk down to the stream and dump their oil or paint," she said. "Even if they did they're not going to be enforced against now and they never were, there simply isn't the ability to do that."

Aside from striking "navigable," the bill defines U.S. water as "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."

It adds that any "activities affecting these waters are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."

The legislation, introduced by Wisconsin Democratic Sen Russ Feingold, has the support of 24 senators. It passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in June but has not been scheduled for a floor vote, though it could be tacked onto other legislation as an amendment.

Seriously...what the hell. I live on well water, and they want to regulate it?

No.

Just...no.

 

[The Big Al]

Where does it say anything about well water?

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Well water falls under "All waters".

 

[Raves]

Again, I see Faux News.

However, the fact the yank government wants to control more of its land only reinforces the idea that they're becoming more and more like Hitler and the nazis were in domination, only this time targeting homeowners and people living innocent lives on farm grounds rather than everyone else not sporting a swastika.

 

[SSJ4Jesus]

Aside from striking "navigable," the bill defines U.S. water as "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."

Where does it say anything about wells? The definition seems to be saying that all naturals waters are U.S. waters. Is your well spring fed?

 

[Eredar Warlock]

It's fed by an aquifer, like all wells are. There's no real difference between that and a spring - they both come from the same source.

 

[SSJ4Jesus]

Sorry, I was under the impression that some people had wells that were filled by water trucks...maybe that's something different.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Nope. It's a well drilled into the groundwater.

 

[Mozz]

Sorry, I was under the impression that some people had wells that were filled by water trucks...maybe that's something different.

Underground tanks in rural areas. I've seen them with fancy wells as additional drawing methods.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Umm...I'm in a rural area and my well is just a plain old drilled well. In fact, I can go out to my backyard and look at it. The only truck that comes to my house delivers the propane.

 

[Mozz]

Umm...I'm in a rural area and my well is just a plain old drilled well. In fact, I can go out to my backyard and look at it. The only truck that comes to my house delivers the propane.

Some homes that are on the top of hills or are at the base of tainted sources rely on tanks. :mail:

 

[Rayne]

The concerns are warranted given the loose definitions of the bodies of water included. The argument the farmers are going for is that the sway of legislative control depends primarily on the bodies of water listed, but may extend indefinitely however loosely defined those bodies are.

IANAL but, the implication is that with legislative power over bodies of water, defining an area of water under rule is less burdensome and the Government may have the power to shift "ownership" of water resources.

For farmers, loosing control of a local source would mean ruined crops or fears of extra levied taxes or what not. Of course, the article does mention

"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..."

By this, farmers are still expected to adhere to the current laws regarding water management and pollution control, but their current methods and needs for water use should remain unchanged.

By the language of the draft, the new bodies of water listed are:

"
all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide
territorial seas
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
all impoundments of the foregoing
"

The range doesn't include aquifers, underground wells or anything like that, but understanding basic hydrology means that groundwater (underground water) is usually connected, or feeds into surface water which include lakes, rivers and streams. Also as I'll mention later, the general idea that 'all inter/intrastate' implies just that, ALL is a point of contention for any water source above or below ground.

What this may affect is the usage of water as a recreation, diversion or tool within communities or cities that rely on natural water sources to operate (ie Water Recreation, Canals, surface activity, etc.). Why? The control is supposed to be derivative of the Clean Water Act whose purpose is to limit discharging of contaminants. The new bill includes a language that says: " ... to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting them, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."
If these activities are deemed to negatively affect the water quality, they should be removed or banned.

By that wording, the law can be as aggressive as it wants to be in basically attacking anything deemed wrong. I would say in one mindset, this isn't a bad thing, stewardship is something a lot of (eco-conscious) people are striving for in the 21st century. If more control over water means only to regulate water quality, then that's great.

It's the potential abusive power the government now has over it that's a huge issue.

If water dries up, does the government still own the land underneath? If a lake is connected via underground aquifer, is that contained within the law? How about vapors and air moisture? Water changes constantly which means boundaries will shift nearly as constantly. There are regulations on controlling the discharge of contaminants and pollutants, but nothing specifically says the government owned said bodies afterward. This law closely breaches that definition by it exerting control over a body in order to 'protect' it. Does this law control the water after it's moved beyond, since in all natural processes, the water in the air and moving on land is as much connected to the aforementioned bodies of water as a child is connected to their mother's womb? At what point does the transition occur that water goes from one thing to something else entirely and out of regulation?

The government may very well be able to move lakes and streams if some odd contaminant is in it's path.

Actually, by the wording of "all inter/intrastate waters" < right there shows domain of water within state boundaries. That's probably the grayest clause out of the whole draft since it's hard to tell if it's only bound by the following passage that denotes bodies of water, or is on it's own, all inclusive.

To correct all this, they need to put something that specifically says "any illicit action that actively or passively deteriorates the bodies of water (listed) unusable subject to the constraints (the allowable contaminant levels) of the Clean Water Act."

 

[Phoenicks]

This scares me, if only because of the recent example that's been set with the drought in California.

At least clean up the language. I'll still have problems even if they clean up the language, but this version is just completely ridiculous.