See other Editorial Articles
Title: EPA and Clean Water Act; another step toward a Banana Republic
Source:
Klamath Basin Crisis
URL Source: http://klamathbasincrisis.org/whits ... /EPAandcleanwateract111413.htm
Published: Nov 14, 2013
Author: Oregon State Senator Doug Whitsett
Post Date: 2014-08-25 01:51:46 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 84
Comments: 4
Oregon State Senator Doug Whitsett newsletter 11/14/13 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently renewed its ongoing crusade to control all of the nation’s land by controlling all of its water. The Agency is attempting to make its jurisdiction limitless under the authority it alleges is vested by the Clean Water Act. Its new proposed rule would usurp near complete regulatory control of water from the states on both publicly and privately owned lands. The Agency has developed a new report titled “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters”. The report is described as a review and synthesis of peer reviewed scientific literature. The document appears to be little more than a synopsis of “cherry picked” passages from the executive summaries of previously published papers. Little if any new scientific data or research is cited. The report is designed to support limitless EPA jurisdiction over the waters of the nation. The Agency alleges that the draft science report represents the state-of-the-art science on the connectivity and isolation of the waters of the United States. It plans to use the report to inform rulemaking agencies on how best to enhance the protection of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our nation’s waters. The EPA report draws three main conclusions. First, it alleges that streams, regardless of their size or how frequently they flow, are connected to and have important effects on downstream waters. These streams supply most of the water in the rivers, transport sediment and organic matter, provide habitat for many species, and take up or change nutrients that could otherwise impair downstream waters. The claim here is that EPA should have regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act over all streams, whether the stream is ephemeral, intermittent or perennial because the water in those streams eventually may flow into navigable water. Second, it alleges wetlands and the open-water floodplains of streams and rivers, and in riparian areas are integrated with streams and rivers. It claims they represent transitional areas between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and strongly influence downstream waters by affecting the flow of water, trapping and reducing non-point source pollution, and exchanging biological species. The claim here appears to be that virtually any seasonal wet spot in a watershed that is capable of intercepting sediment or other materials carried in the water should be regulated by EPA because it could potentially effect the composition of downstream navigable water. Finally, it alleges that there is insufficient information to generalize about wetlands and open-waters located outside of riparian areas and floodplains and to their connectivity to downstream waters. The assertion here is that the agency has not yet sufficiently manipulated the data to claim jurisdiction to regulate isolated waters under the authority of the Clean Water Act. The United States Army Corp of Engineers has already sent a draft rule to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review. The Corp took this action based upon the draft review and synthesis of selected literature before the mandatory public comment period on the draft report was even completed. This untimely action appears to emphasize the distain that the current administration holds for public opinion as well as for legal administrative process. The EPA and Corp claim that they are acting in concert to “clarify the current uncertainty” concerning the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act that they allege has arisen out of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. However, recent high court decisions in Rapanos, Carrabell, and Sackett each appear to establish limitations on the agencies’ regulatory authority. The decisions appear to limit the same jurisdiction that EPA and the Corp are attempting to establish by rule. Our Constitution and form of limited Republican government are designed to require the consent of those who are governed. In my opinion, this EPA proposal is but one more example of the Obama administration’s near complete distain for the rights reserved to the states under the United States Constitution as well as for the rule of law. Further, his agencies are showing their total contempt for public participation in the creation of the laws and rules under which we consent to live. The members of the four-state Committee on River Governance who voted unanimously oppose this blatant attempt to expand EPA Clean Water Act jurisdiction. We all signed a letter to EPA requesting an extension of the public comment period so that citizens will at least have an opportunity to be heard on this critical matter. Perhaps the Obama administration believes that it can slip through this take-over of all the water, and thereby all the land, while the nation is distracted by his unprecedented Obama Care fiasco. This great nation is taking on more of the persona of a Banana Republic with each passing week under his administration. Please remember, if we do not stand up for rural Oregon no one will. Best Regards, Doug EPA and Clean Water Act; another step toward a Banana Republic
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#1. To: farmfriend (#0)
The Environmental Protection Agency must be abolished because it is destroying the rights of Americans, it’s another monumental waste of money and America doesn’t need it. Like the unconstitutional federal Department of Education which employs almost 4,500 people and will suck up a colossal $63.3 billion dollars for 2005, the EPA with its 18,000 employees, will gobble up $7.76 billion dollars this year. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate in the area of the environment, therefore, it is unconstitutional. All 50 states of the Union have their own version of the EPA as authorized under the 10th Amendment. There is no need for a federal agency. The states of the Union can handle their own environmental needs as authorized by their legislatures. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro, June 3-14, 1992, the Secretariat for World Order distributed a nonpublic document titled, “The Initiative for Eco-92 Earth’s Charter.” It reads, in part, under policies that must be implemented as follows: The Security Council of the U.N. will inform all nations that outmoded notions of national sovereignty will be discarded and that the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region of the world … The Security Council of the U.N. will take possession of all natural resources, including the watersheds and great forests, to be used and preserved for the good of the Major Nations of the Security Council. In the late Dixie Lee Ray’s book, “Environmental Overkill,” one gets a full accounting of what really went on with Al Gore and his loony friends at the Rio Summit. On page 10 of her book, it states: The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be world government, with central planning by the UN. Fear of environmental crises, whether real or not, is expected to lead to compliance. If force is needed, it will be provided by a UN green-helmeted police force, already authorized by the Security Council. And, that is the reason the ESA was done by treaty – in preparation for these other pieces of the grand plan to fall into place. The EPA is the flagship in America to carry out this environmental terrorism against our people. Among the most destructive of its tentacles is the Endangered Species Act. One of the most horrific examples of this grotesque act is what happened in Klamath Falls in 2001 when the government shut off life-giving water to the farmers, driving them into bankruptcy. On Jan. 12, 2005, a federal judge ruled that the salmon listing which caused our ranchers and farmers to go under was illegally listed! So few understand or even know that the ESA is treaty based. The ESA’s history can be traced back to Executive Order 11911 issued by Gerald Ford. It’s authority is derived from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere and three others. On the EPA’s website, it is explained as: “The Endangered Species Act provides a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found.” As I have written so many times, whenever Congress wants to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, they do it by treaty. The Constitution simply grants no authority to the federal government to control the wildlife or fish within the states of this nation. Yet, the EPA and the ESA are getting away with destroying the lives and livelihoods of Americans every day because they don’t understand the finer legal points of federal jurisdiction. According to constitutional attorney and treaty expert, Larry Becraft: Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to make criminal only four types of conduct: treason, counterfeiting, piracies and felonies on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations. According to Jeri Ball, author of “The Great Communitarian Hoax”: A study released by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) noted that “Each year, literally thousands of new regulations are emitted by the EPA … and as the regulatory leviathan grows, it increasingly sucks up revenue, resources and manpower that otherwise would be invested in productive pursuits – thereby driving an increasing number of businessmen and investors offshore.” This is precisely the aim of Marxist-Leninist Communists and their U.S. communitarian cohorts. The destruction of American jobs, manufacturing, and agriculture and the eradication of the property owning middle-class have been among the highest priorities of U.S. CFR-dominated communitarian administrations and their Russian and Chinese Communist Allies. Their chief weapons of destruction have been environmental laws and regulations, heavy taxes and ruinous trade practices. The quest for world communist domination is not dead. This Republic is in great peril. Unless and until Congress is replaced with true constitutionalists in the next election with the guts to do what has to be done, the American people will continue to be destroyed by unconstitutional agencies like the EPA.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to make criminal only four types of conduct: treason, counterfeiting, piracies and felonies on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations. Interesting observations.
There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestFF, Thought you might enjoy this article from Devvy. It's rather dated but, as far as I'm concerned, there is no statute of limitations on unconstitutional.
Why the Environmental Protection Agency must be abolished
Published: 01/21/2005 at 1:00 AM 
#4. To: Southern Style (#1)
As I have written so many times, whenever Congress wants to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, they do it by treaty. The Constitution simply grants no authority to the federal government to control the wildlife or fish within the states of this nation. Yet, the EPA and the ESA are getting away with destroying the lives and livelihoods of Americans every day because they don’t understand the finer legal points of federal jurisdiction. According to constitutional attorney and treaty expert, Larry Becraft:
Replies to Comment # 4.