It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So, essentially the EPA, and the Obama administration are slowly, but surely trying to take control of all land, including private land, as long as
there is a runoff running through it. Whether or not it is a permanent runoff.
This is nothing but State control of all land, including private land.
If the highest court in the land agrees to hear the appeal, they’ll surely do so with more than a little frustration, as environmental agencies have lost three times in similar Supreme Court cases since 2001.
The Obama Administration released a national Clean Water Framework on April 27, 2011, that affirms its comprehensive commitment to protecting the health of America's waters. The framework recognizes the importance of clean water and healthy watersheds to our economy, environment and communities, and emphasizes the importance of partnerships and coordination with states, local communities, stakeholders, and the public to protect public health and water quality, and promote the nation’s energy and economic security.
Obama Administration Affirms Comprehensive Commitment to Clean Water
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
For nearly 40 years, the Clean Water Act, along with other important Federal measures, has been a cornerstone of our effort to ensure that Americans have clean and healthy waters. The Administration’s framework outlines a series of actions underway and planned across Federal agencies to ensure the integrity of the waters Americans rely on every day for drinking, swimming, and fishing, and that support farming, recreation, tourism and economic growth. It includes draft Federal guidance to clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act nationwide; innovative partnerships and programs to improve water quality and water efficiency; and initiatives to revitalize communities and economies by restoring rivers and critical watersheds.
originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Do you understand what "Draft federal guidelines" means?
ETA: you do understand under the American system that guidelines and frameworks are not laws. So Obama has done nothing but lay out what he would like to see.
President Obama asserts power over small waterways
By Timothy Cama - 05/27/15 10:05 AM EDT
The Obama administration on Wednesday asserted its authority over the nation'streams, wetlands and other smaller waterways, moving forward with one of the most controversial environmental regulations in recent years.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers said they are making final their proposed waters of the United States rule, which Republicans and many businesses have long panned as a massive federal overreach that would put the EPA in charge of ditches, puddles and wet areas.
“We’re finalizing a clean water rule to protect the streams and the wetlands that one in three Americans rely on for drinking water. And we’re doing that without creating any new permitting requirements and maintaining all previous exemptions and exclusions,” EPA head Gina McCarthy told reporters Wednesday.
McCarthy and other Obama officials sought to emphasize that the rule is about increasing clarity for businesses and helping make it easier to determine which waterways are subject to the pollution rules of the Clean Water Act.
“This rule is about clarification, and in fact, we’re adding exclusions for features like artificial lakes and ponds, water-filled depressions from constructions and grass swales,” she said
“This rule will make it easier to identify protected waters and will make those protections consistent with the law as well as the latest peer-reviewed science. This rule is based on science,” she continued.
With the Wednesday action, the Obama administration is doubling down on an effort that has sustained repeated attacks from congressional Republicans hoping to overturn the regulations.
In doing so, the administration is fulfilling what it sees as a responsibility to protect the wetlands, headwaters and small water bodies that can carry pollution to the larger waterways, like bays and rivers, that are more clearly protected by the Clean Water Act. Officials said the rule was made necessary by a pair of Supreme Court decisions in the last decade that called into question Clean Water Act protections for some small tributaries, streams and wetlands that were previously covered.
Brian Deese, Obama’s top environmental adviser, said the rule “is an important win for public health and for our economy,” and sought to paint its opponents as fighting clean water.
“The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who want to threaten our clean water,” he said.
McCarthy said the regulation would result in a modest increase in the federal government’s jurisdiction, amounting to less than a 3 percent growth.
Responding to criticisms from farmers, ranchers, developers, manufacturers and others, she took time to list what is not covered by the waters of the United States rule.
“It does not interfere with private property rights or address land use,” she said. “It does not regulate any ditches unless they function as tributaries. It does not apply to groundwater or shallow subsurface water, copper tile drains or change policy on irrigation or water transfer.”
Democrats buck Obama on water rule
By Timothy Cama - 05/28/15 10:24 AM EDT
Dozens of congressional Democrats are joining Republicans to back legislation blocking the Obama administration’s new rule to redefine its jurisdiction over the nation’s waterways.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers made the regulation final Wednesday in an attempt to clarify that small streams, wetlands, headwaters and tributaries are covered by the Clean Water Act and the rules that go along with it.
Opponents labeled the rule as a massive “power grab” by the Obama administration that could give federal officials authority over every creek and puddle.
Three moderate Democrats in the Senate and 24 in the House have joined the GOP in opposition, but leave them far from the two-thirds majorities they would need for a veto-proof vote to overturn the rule.
originally posted by: aethertek
So your argument is farmers should be allowed to let leach as much toxic runoff from their farms into the local waterways as they wish without any regulation?
Algal Blooms and Dead Zones
Appellants American Farm Bureau Federation; Pennsylvania Farm Bureau; Fertilizer Institute; U.S. Poultry & Egg Association; National Pork Producers Council; National Corn Growers Association; and National Association of Home Builders consent to the filing.
CAMBRIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; PERRY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; TIOGA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA; PENDLETON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA; AND NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE
Intevenors [sic] Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future; Defenders of Wildlife; Jefferson County Public Service District; Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy; and National Wildlife Federation; Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, Inc.; Maryland Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies; National Association of Clean Water Agencies; and Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association
Pendleton County, West Virginia is 698 square miles with a population of 7,695. All of Pendleton County drains into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The county has approximately 540 family-owned farms for a combined total acreage of 170,000 acres or 38.2% of the county land area. It is anticipated that a significant amount of Pendleton County farmland will have to be removed from production due to itsproximity to waterways and the resulting impacts of the Bay TMDL on local land use.
originally posted by: BubbaJoe
a reply to: Teikiatsu
That is exactly what it means, how do you understand any other way?
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Please tell us, why does the federal government need to buy excess land?
EPA intruded on this local authority by setting annual and daily pollutant allocations for both point sources and nonpoint sources (see JA1400-33; JA1596, JA1766); by demanding assurances from states by way of their WIPs, objecting to those that EPA deemed to be deficient and threatening federal “backstops” in situations where states failed to abide by EPA’s objections (see JA565, JA572-74); and demanding that all pollution control measures necessary to achieve EPA’s allocations must be in place by 2025 (see JA1106).
Amici incorporate by reference the CWA framework presented by PlaintiffsAppellants American Farm Bureau Federation et al. As this framework makes clear, EPA’s TMDL authority is limited. In the case of the Bay TMDL, EPA exceeded this authority. Instead of simply setting the “total load” as provided in Section 303(d)(1)(C) of the CWA, EPA usurped the authority of state and local governments by allocating and assigning pollutant loads to specific source sectors and individual sources throughout the watershed
EPA argues that the TMDL allocations were based on the draft Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP)1 put forth by each state.
However, the record shows that the state’ draft plans were developed under unreasonably short time frames and with incomplete information.
We deal primarily with one provision of this complex statute, which calls for the establishment of a “total maximum
daily load” of pollution for certain waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(C).2 The parties dispute what those words mean. They are not defined in the Act, but the EPA has interpreted them to require publication of a comprehensive framework for pollution reduction in a given body of water. When we discuss this comprehensive document, we refer to it by the acronym “TMDL”; by contrast, when we analyze the statutory text, we refer to the words “total maximum daily load.”