[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
ObamaNation See other ObamaNation Articles Title: CONGRESS MOVES TO CONTROL ALL U.S. WATER Conservatives are warning Americans about the ambitions of federal lawmakers to control all waters within the United States including those on private property, in the latest power grab by progressive politicians. According to the American Land Rights Association, the Obama Administration and Congress are attempting to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009 (S787) that would amend the 1972 Clean Water Act and replace the words "navigable waters" with "waters of the United States." "The US Constitution's Tenth Amendment automatically reserves power for controlling waters to the states, not to the Oval Office and US Congress," said political strategist Mike Baker. "This is just one more power grab by out-of-control politicians who only adhere to constitutional law when it suits them," he added. Section 3, Paragraph 8 stipulates that "this Act will treat, as ‘waters of the United States’, those features that were treated as such pursuant to the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers in existence before the dates of the decisions referred to in paragraph (10), including-- (A) all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (B) all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; (C) all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds; (D) all impoundments of waters of the United States; (E) tributaries of the aforementioned waters; (F) the territorial seas; (G) wetlands adjacent to the aforementioned waters." After being overuled by the U. S. Supreme Court in two recent decisions that the words "navigable waters" in the Clean Water Act limited federal agencies to regulation of navigable waters only, Democrats and liberal Republicans in Congress are striking back. They are attempting to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009 (S 787) that would amend the 1972 Clean Water Act and replace the words "navigable waters" with "waters of the United States." "The bill also defines "waters of the United States" with such breathtaking scope that federal agencies would be required to regulate use of every square inch of the U.S., both public and private," according to the American Land Rights Association. "Obviously, those behind this legislation have only contempt for the Constitution, limited government and private property rights. To understand what the framers of the Constitution intended, one need only look to their writings and the writings of those from whom they took wisdom and direction," said officials at ALRA. "This is a terrible bill that would give the Federal government jurisdiction over anything that is wet including seasonal mud flats. This means that the Feds could enter your property and dictate what you can do with bodies of water on your land," said political strategist Mike Baker. "It also means that the Great Lake States and Provinces could not protect the Great Lakes from being pumped dry to feed the growth of California and the Southwest. In that area, Democrat Senator Russ Feingold has sold out his own state: Wisconsin." "Senate Bill 787 will change federal jurisdiction over “navigable” water, to give the federal government control over all water everwhere, in municiple reservoirs, and on private lands, and in private wells. This bill ignores state water law authority and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," stated Barbara H. Peterson, a farm lands protection activist. "If the Feds own the water, then they can do anything they want to with it, and I have to ask permission to get a drink or water my animals," she stated.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: christine, all (#0)
(E) tributaries of the aforementioned waters; (G) wetlands adjacent to the aforementioned waters." Ok kids - what this means is the gubmint wants to lay legal claim and title on ANY lagoon property, canal property, lake property, ocean/beach property - IOW, ANY property that was once historically backfilled reclaimed, or part of tidal lowlands, OR located in a "flood zone." Anecdotal evidence? The State of New Jersey has already held up private sales in Spring Lake, NJ (a small affluent town in NJ) because back in 1885 some of the town was backfilled (as many towns at the Jersey Shore were)... Result? The State of New Jersey is claiming it actually technically "owns" some or all of the once tidal wetlands or what once considered under water and or nearby... Clean title must be "negotiated" with the State for a price. Can you say, "Partner"? "Extortion"?
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||