Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!
Register

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Not So Private Property?: Clean Water Restoration Act Raises Fears of Land Grab

mbwmn

mbwmn

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
I guess there is just no middle ground here...
I asked for re-instatement of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts ("energy exploration" has been exempt since 2005), look what they give us!
No worries about the NYGEIS, the feds will be controlling us if we piss...

FOXNews.com - Not So Private Property?: Clean Water Restoration Act Raises Fears of Land Grab

"The Clean Water Restoration Act currently pending in the U.S. Senate could reach to control even a "seasonal puddle" on private property. "
"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.
 
mbwmn said:
I guess there is just no middle ground here...
I asked for re-instatement of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts ("energy exploration" has been exempt since 2005), look what they give us!
No worries about the NYGEIS, the feds will be controlling us if we piss...

FOXNews.com - Not So Private Property?: Clean Water Restoration Act Raises Fears of Land Grab

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

Anyone seen the constitution around lately:)
 
Maybe we should change our name to "The Socialistic States of America"

or make it easy and just call us Venezuela?? Cuba?? or better yet the "OSR", Obama Socialist Republic.
 
Rusty Spinner said:
Apparently they're no longer using it in Washington DC :crap:
Click to expand...

There recycling it, using it as toilet paper. I think we should flush all these politicans and save the country and constitution from the abuses of power so prevalent on Capitol Hill.
 
MACFLY said:
Anyone seen the constitution around lately
Click to expand...


... of all people to ask that question.

You know it is alive and well.

That is why we will never have to get numbers tattooed on our arms..

They already have our bank account numbers!
 
AKSkim said:
... of all people to ask that question.

You know it is alive and well.

That is why we will never have to get numbers tattooed on our arms..

They already have our bank account numbers!
Click to expand...

im not worried i have lifelock:)
 
Since apparently Fox forgot the "fair and balanced" portion of things-


On February 17, we called on Congress to introduce and pass legislation that would fix a glaring loophole punched in the Clean Water Act during the Bush years. The Supreme Court, with Bush administration backing, held that only "navigable" waterways could enjoy protections of this law.
Today, I am glad to report, the Clean Water Restoration Act has been introduced by Senators Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Benjamin Cardin and 20 other pro-clean water senators in the 111<sup>th </sup>Congress. The new bill would protect ALL waters of the United States, regardless of whether one could paddle a dinghy down the stream or not.
The federal Clean Water Act is the nation's primary protector of water quality. Its basic goal is to restore and maintain our lakes, rivers and wetlands, to ensure that we have clean water for fishing, swimming and drinking.
The Clean Water Restoration Act will close the loophole and restore the traditional scope of protection intended by Congress in the 1970s when the Clean Water Act was adopted. It will again guarantee Americans the safeguards we need to achieve the goal of restoring and maintaining our waters.

Hopefully this will stop greedy landgrabbers and real estate developers from filling in crucial wetlands and small streams, to build more houses and ruin more wilderness.
 
Last edited:
jlajoie said:
The federal Clean Water Act is the nation's primary protector of water quality. Its basic goal is to restore and maintain our lakes, rivers and wetlands, to ensure that we have clean water for fishing, swimming and drinking.
Click to expand...
I reckon that there's a biggun.
 
coolkyle said:
I reckon that there's a biggun.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
But hey, lets not pass it. then we can go dump paint or other assorted wastes in "non-navigable" waterways. Isn't this closely tied with the fracking waste water debate?
Maybe thats just me....
 
jlajoie said:
Agreed.
But hey, lets not pass it. then we can go dump paint or other assorted wastes in "non-navigable" waterways. Isn't this closely tied with the fracking waste water debate?
Maybe thats just me....
Click to expand...

Let's hope it's just you! We cannot afford$$ to have much more regulation!
:)

It is tied to the exploration of gas and oil...
Cheney made gas and oil exploration exempt from the Clean Air and Clean Water acts in 2005. All other businesses (including farmers) had to play by the 1970's rules.

You and your paint and assorted waste dumping friends are covered by the existing 1970's rules and subject to prosecution and severe penalties. Oil and gas exploration companies are not.

Instead of just closing the loophole and leveling the playing field, the proposed legislation would make the EPA supreme beings and all-powerful when it comes to any puddle. If given this power and the money to police and enforce the proposed rules a gas exploration company could (for example) pump water out of a pond on a landowners property to be used for fracking and spew the used fracking solution, while that landowner (farmer) would need to satisfy the EPA to pump a few gallons of his own pondwater to irrigate the family veggie plot, or fill the trough for his cow.

It's an excuse gain more control. While you think you are 'protecting the earth from those who would harm her', you are really just allowing the Federal government to control yet another part of your life, or the life of another. The earth was pretty well protected in 2004. It would be better if it was protected from oil and gas exploration. Why does it need to be regulated further? This will create thousands and thousands of bureaucratic jobs that your grandchildren will have to pay for, with hundreds of loopholes for all the special interest groups. Why would you want the Feds to control your water, and have to pay them to do so?

Water Police? Not for me thanks. AND I AM A HUGE PROPONENT OF REMOVING THE GAS AND OIL EXPLORATION EXEMPTION!

I think it's just yet another lunatic reaction to the contoversial Cap + Trade getting bogged down.

How do you guys feel about invading part of Canada and starting over? Can we secure the Miramachi?

:)
 
jlajoie said:
Since apparently Fox forgot the "fair and balanced" portion of things-


On February 17, we called on Congress to introduce and pass legislation that would fix a glaring loophole punched in the Clean Water Act during the Bush years. The Supreme Court, with Bush administration backing, held that only "navigable" waterways could enjoy protections of this law.
Today, I am glad to report, the Clean Water Restoration Act has been introduced by Senators Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Benjamin Cardin and 20 other pro-clean water senators in the 111<SUP>th </SUP>Congress. The new bill would protect ALL waters of the United States, regardless of whether one could paddle a dinghy down the stream or not.
The federal Clean Water Act is the nation's primary protector of water quality. Its basic goal is to restore and maintain our lakes, rivers and wetlands, to ensure that we have clean water for fishing, swimming and drinking.
The Clean Water Restoration Act will close the loophole and restore the traditional scope of protection intended by Congress in the 1970s when the Clean Water Act was adopted. It will again guarantee Americans the safeguards we need to achieve the goal of restoring and maintaining our waters.

Hopefully this will stop greedy landgrabbers and real estate developers from filling in crucial wetlands and small streams, to build more houses and ruin more wilderness.
Click to expand...

HA! Try building in or near wetlands in NY or NJ! It can't be done.

"So, instead of just closing the loophole that Bush/Cheney created for their gas and oil buddies, we're going to use this to tighten the noose (all the while we'll tell you its' a GOOD thing!)."
 
Closing the loophole is a separate debate and has nothing to do with the Clean Water Act. The loophole is part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and there is a separate proposal to amend that to remove the loophole.

Also to be clear the loophole affects 2 things:

1) the need to have a stormwater runoff permit - currently all activities associated with oil and gas exploration do not need to apply for such permits so there is no regulation of the runoff from the gas drilling sites unless states impose a requirement.

2) Exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act which imposes a requirement that under ground injections of anything other than water need to be disclosed and regulated. Under the loophole fracking is not considered an "injection" for purposes of the statute.

The Clean Water Act is not some nefarious tool of world domination. All it does is prevent people from discharging pollutants into waters of the United States. This isn't some way to make the EPA an omnipotent force so stop with the fear-mongering.

I don't get it, on the one hand you want regulation of drilling but on the other hand you think regulation is a bad thing and use all this scary language and conspiracy theory stuff to demonize the regulatory body. Your position seems pretty inconsistent.
 
Dr. Gonzo said:
lol thanks GB I had you in mind all along :D
Click to expand...

well, i just have no response to that.



Thanks for clearing up a few things. It will be nice to see this most recent introduction (proposed bill) properly defeated and the loophole closed.

I want regulation to apply EQUALLY to all (including drilling companies), Why is that so hard to get? Is that an inconsistant position?

The Clean Water Act IS a VERY good thing. It's worked pretty well for us since 1970. Why change it? Fix the loophole and move on. Lots more out there that needs regulatin'!

The EPA recently announced its' intention to start flexing its' muscles recently. They started w/ announcing new regulations for light trucks. I think it's the wrong time to f$ck w/ the lifeline of small businesses (their transportation), and I think it would be better for our economy if they delayed the new regulations until we were in a better economy, but that just my opinion. What do I know, I'm just an under-paid, over-taxed, and over-regulated regular guy. If the EPA continues along the path it anounced on their website last week they will have the ability to affect the lives (wallets) of everyone on the planet. It is their intention to do so, as they believe the State of Mass DMV court case legally obligates them to "protect" us, whether we can afford protection or not.

It's also my opinion that as long as Cap + Trade is stalled getting stalled the current majority want to "double-down" and tighten the EPA regs to "stop greedy landgrabbers and real estate developers from filling in crucial wetlands and small streams" and "to ensure that we have clean water for fishing, swimming and drinking". We have this now except for the loophole. How much more is all this special protection going to cost me? I already have more protection than I can afford. It's going to take years to work out all the loopholes and sillyness that will be added to new regulation, and years to see any positive results out of it. How many more months of the year will I need to work to pay for yet another problem that may not exist?

I think there's a happy medium here, and for me it's just a little right of center.

[On the other hand perhaps we need a few more levels of legislation and a few more trillions spent to prevent the Mike's Salmon Egg Co from packing their eggs in oil. The bait guys are leaving big slicks every spring...]:)

I don't think I'm fear mongering. I think I'm tired of hearing that the sky is falling and it needs to regulated quickly and we need to throw trillions at it or else.

More regulation = less money for me, less money for me = poor economy. More regulation = blank smiles on the faces of all the people who think they helped the environment, but succeeded only in creating more regulation packed w/ pork and loopholes. It's ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
Usually, I'm pretty supportive of environmental regulations, however I have to say that this bill is an obvious communist-inspired land grab by the extremist leftists.

As proof, I offer this..... even the far left, enviromental wackos at Trout Unlimited support it....

Broad Coalition of Groups Support Passage of Clean Water Restoration Act | Trout Unlimited - Conserving coldwater fisheries

And what did TU have to say about the loophole when it was first created?

Supreme Court Delivers a Muddy Decision on Clean Water Act Jurisdiction | Trout Unlimited - Conserving coldwater fisheries

Let's everybody step back and take a deep breath... this is not a conspiracy.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
gadfly said:
Usually, I'm pretty supportive of environmental regulations, however I have to say that this bill is an obvious communist-inspired land grab by the extremist leftists.

As proof, I offer this..... even the far left, enviromental wackos at Trout Unlimited support it....

Broad Coalition of Groups Support Passage of Clean Water Restoration Act | Trout Unlimited - Conserving coldwater fisheries

<INPUT id=gwProxy type=hidden><!--Session data--><INPUT id=jsProxy onclick=jsCall(); type=hidden>
Click to expand...

Umm, the date here is
"Date:
04/08/2008"
Are we looking at old legislation or newly proposed legislation?

Can you find anything a little more current from TU? I suspect they won't release anything for a few days yet. Not that it matters.


There is no conspiracy theory. There are simply those of us that prefer to generate new laws IF AND WHEN REQUIRED through the proper processes, and only after careful debate about how it will affect us.
 
jlajoie said:
Agreed.
But hey, lets not pass it. then we can go dump paint or other assorted wastes in "non-navigable" waterways. Isn't this closely tied with the fracking waste water debate?
Maybe thats just me....
Click to expand...

I highly doubt this will stop anyone who is dumb enough to dump paint into their pond from doing so. To me this is more about what controls the federal regulatory body should have versus the state bodies. Of course I will sound like a broken record but everyone should want clean and safe drinking water but the idea that a federal agency could have some control over a private owners water source is a bit disconcerting. Just remember that for every added power we give the federal agency we end up growing the size of our government and in the end the bureaucracy becomes more and more inefficient as it gets bigger still demanding more funding as it grows. Would be interested to know if there are any state laws or mandates for permitting before dumping anything into non-navigable waters. My guess is there is but its just a guess.
 
First, here's an editorial from July 2009:

Restore the Clean Water Act | Trout Unlimited - Conserving coldwater fisheries

Second, have you read these? These materials confirm what other here have stated, that the change to the Clean Water Act restores its former authority to regulate smaller non-navigable water bodies, as it had since the act has been in existence. The authority of the act was limited to navigable waterways after a bad precedent that was set during the Bush administration.

You state: "The Clean Water Act IS a VERY good thing. It's worked pretty well for us since 1970." Good, I agree! So lets restore that act to its former scope and authority. And if you don't like the original scope of the Act, than you can blame the leftist Nixon administration. (You know he met the Chinese?)<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
CTobias said:
I say we head west towards BC and make April Vokey our president.:fart:
Click to expand...

too late the pine beetles are eating all of the forests..and you know what has caused that dont you..dont say it...dont say it.
 
mbwmn said:
well, i just have no response to that.



Thanks for clearing up a few things. It will be nice to see this most recent introduction (proposed bill) properly defeated and the loophole closed.

I want regulation to apply EQUALLY to all (including drilling companies), Why is that so hard to get? Is that an inconsistant position?

The Clean Water Act IS a VERY good thing. It's worked pretty well for us since 1970. Why change it? Fix the loophole and move on. Lots more out there that needs regulatin'!

The EPA recently announced its' intention to start flexing its' muscles recently. They started w/ announcing new regulations for light trucks. I think it's the wrong time to f$ck w/ the lifeline of small businesses (their transportation), and I think it would be better for our economy if they delayed the new regulations until we were in a better economy, but that just my opinion. What do I know, I'm just an under-paid, over-taxed, and over-regulated regular guy. If the EPA continues along the path it anounced on their website last week they will have the ability to affect the lives (wallets) of everyone on the planet. It is their intention to do so, as they believe the State of Mass DMV court case legally obligates them to "protect" us, whether we can afford protection or not.

It's also my opinion that as long as Cap + Trade is stalled getting stalled the current majority want to "double-down" and tighten the EPA regs to "stop greedy landgrabbers and real estate developers from filling in crucial wetlands and small streams" and "to ensure that we have clean water for fishing, swimming and drinking". We have this now except for the loophole. How much more is all this special protection going to cost me? I already have more protection than I can afford. It's going to take years to work out all the loopholes and sillyness that will be added to new regulation, and years to see any positive results out of it. How many more months of the year will I need to work to pay for yet another problem that may not exist?

I think there's a happy medium here, and for me it's just a little right of center.

[On the other hand perhaps we need a few more levels of legislation and a few more trillions spent to prevent the Mike's Salmon Egg Co from packing their eggs in oil. The bait guys are leaving big slicks every spring...]:)

I don't think I'm fear mongering. I think I'm tired of hearing that the sky is falling and it needs to regulated quickly and we need to throw trillions at it or else.

More regulation = less money for me, less money for me = poor economy. More regulation = blank smiles on the faces of all the people who think they helped the environment, but succeeded only in creating more regulation packed w/ pork and loopholes. It's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

The last paragraph says it best but I would only add regulations need to considered in the framework of a federal vs state mandate in some cases as well. For all the calls of fear mongering its never just one bill that raises the hackles on some people. Its a littany of regulation and some without regard for how our constitution works. Just as there where people during the last administration that voiced concern about eroding of our rights there are other people voicing a similar concern. You have to understand that one of the key components underlying a lot of these new bills is greater control of your freedoms and your pocketbook. The history of our country is that we can never find the happy medium. Always the pendulum swings too far right or too far to the left.

Of course we want clean, safe, and abundant water. I just dont want Uncle Sam telling us when we can flush our toilet, what we should eat, and generally how we should live. Our beloved government has a hard time doing the basics like spending our money wisely. Why should encourage them to grow bigger and more powerful when its clear their thirst can never be satiated. Take a look at NJ. A state with a huge tax base from Gambling and big business. Its seems like everyday the state legislature is coming up with yet a new regulation, new mandate, and more control over the lives of Citizens. There is no balance and when you couple that with myriad of scandals by the same folks making the laws you have to wonder what the hell is going on..dont you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top