A new EPA proposal will give “free reign” to regulate any and every waterway and wetland in the nation, Republican lawmakers warned.
EPA head Gina McCarthy was called to explain the new EPA plan to control waterways before a House-Senate hearing.
House transportation committee chairman Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., said that if the policy takes effect, “It will open the door for the federal government to regulate just about any place where water collects.”
He said it will “trample the rights” of state governments and hurt the middle class. “This rule is an end-run around Congress and another example of overreach by the administration,” he added.
The EPA is determining what kinds of waterways fall under its jurisdiction, using The Clean Water Act as a way to control them.
They are actually redefining the meaning of the word ‘water’ in order to seize control over all water and, as a consequence, all private property in the United States.
The Supreme Court of the United States has defined the meaning of ‘water’ as ‘navigable water.’ The EPA seeks to redefine the meaning of water as all ‘connected water,’ and they are seeking to define ‘connected water as all water, so they can assume power to regulate every body of water in the United States.
Their claim is that the Supreme Court’s definition was vague.
Conceivably, any water under their definition could even include ditches and puddles on private property.
“Let’s set aside fact from fiction,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said at the hearing. She rejected the notion that the regulation might allow the government to claim jurisdiction over miniscule water bodies.
“Puddles, swimming pools, stock ponds are not regulated,” she stressed.
That might not be their intent, but the fact is they could if these rules go through. Perhaps not right away. This policy allows them to do anything they want however whenever they choose.
In Maryland, they do control puddles on property and Virginia has taken steps to do the same thing.
The EPA is using a bogus study which says all water is connected to one another deep under the earth. It would mean even puddles, ponds, and ditches along with streams and rivers fall under their jurisdiction.
This has been in the works since Mr. Obama entered office and it took place under Bill Clinton.
The EPA has long wanted to control property because it has something as insignificant as a ditch on it despite what they claim. One example lies in the story of Dexter Lutter, which you can read about on this link.
If you want to know how extreme the EPA is, read about this attack on oil and gas. Remember the case of the Sacketts who wanted to build their dream home? How about the time they fined companies for non-existant fuels? How about the ongoing land grabs to save the Mississippi Gopher Frog?
The list is endless.
No one will be able to build anything on one’s own private property without EPA approval if this goes through and it will be expensive to support these regulations.
The fine for not obliging the EPA is $37,500 and in some cases $75,000 per day or more. What American can afford that? Certainly not the average American. Property owners will be forced to comply no matter how egregious the demands.
The EPA wants to define stream, lakes, major rives as falling under their authority but they claim they won’t require a permit for famers.
That is for now.
The EPA is planning to release a final policy in the spring of this year. They are merely “clarifying” the rules, they say.
GOP lawmakers are not convinced and worry that the EPA language will force individuals and businesses to obtain “costly permits” for their land.
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. — citing the case of a Wyoming family that was threatened with $75,000 a day in fines over a stock pond built on their property without a federal permit — said he would introduce legislation along with Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., to “stop this bureaucratic overreach.”
Republicans, as well as farmers and other groups, say the plan could endanger private property rights by giving the EPA a say over temporary waterways like seasonal streams, under the Clean Water Act. Critics warn this could create more red tape for property owners and businesses if they happen to have even small streams on their land.