Congress backing move to Claim all US Water rights

Originally posted by antar
Without the ability to access our water, things like rain barrels and such will be needed. They can't charge us for stored water although some of the wording sounds as if they would like to. Stay in touch.

Hi Antar: Sadly, there have already been instances where landowners had their rain barrels confiscated and/or charged for.

This is it, folks, we're screwed if this gets passed.

Section 54 & 79 authorises bureaucrats to enter any private property without consent or warrant, and empowers bureaucrats to make any excavations, collect samples, evidence, or data and compels people to provide any and all information. "a permit inspector may, for the purpose of enforcing this part, enter property, without the consent of the owner or occupier and without warrant",



Bill 43, the Clean Water Act (now S.O. 2006 c.22) received Royal Assent on October 19. However the Act will not come into force until a date to be named by Mr. McGuinty’s Cabinet.

Is this what you meantForrestlady? I suppose the wording would include such low down tactics...

reply to post by antar


Not really, it's just that I've read about people having trouble with their rain barrels denied to them so that they couldn't collect rain.

I don't know what everyone is so up in arms about?

I'm waiting for them to legislate a tax, charge interest, and require insurance on any water contained in my blood before I rebel.

John Lock: Second Treatise

60% taxable H2O per pound,

Sri Oracle


[edit on 17-3-2008 by Sri Oracle]

This particular legislation, at first blush appears to concern American citizens and their property. In reading legislation, one must always understand that Congress uses “terms” not words. “Terms” are designed to confuse, and deceive, the average reader into thinking the “terms” have the generally accepted meaning of words. If someone doesn’t discover the meaning of the “terms” used, that person will forever be lost in the legalese mumbo jumbo designed to confuse.
So lets take a look at some definitions, and jurisdiction of “Acts” of Congress.
One of the better examples that distinguishes between "States of the United States" and the Union of several States is the venue and jurisdiction section of the criminal code, at 18 U.S.C. § 3231:

§ 3231. District courts

The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.

Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof.
It is necessary to go to Rule 54(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to determine application of an "Act of Congress", and the term "State":

"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.

"State" includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular possession.


So nothing in any ‘Act” of Congress has any application in the several states, that would be us, perhaps that’s why its called an “Act”, Now lets look at the definition of “terms” (these are not words), but are limited to the definitions provided.

Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 2421 IH
(2) To clearly define the waters of the United States that are subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So lets see the areas where 33 USC is applicable

TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS

CHAPTER 26--WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
(3) The term ``State'' means a State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands.

Don’t’ you just love that definition …State means a State, how does one define a “term” by using the “term” in the definition. Just a feeble attempt to confuse the average reader, Congress knows it would have to use several states in the definition to include the 50 states. What is definition of waters of the United States?. The definition is provided below
Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters
PART 2—JURISDICTION
§ 2.38 Waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; waters over which the United States has jurisdiction.Waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction mean the following waters—(a) Navigable waters of the United States, as defined in §2.36(a).(b) Waters, other than those under paragraph (a) of this section, that are located on lands for which the United States has acquired title or controls and—(1) Has accepted jurisdiction according to 40 U.S.C. 255; or(2) Has retained concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction from the date that the State in which the lands are located entered the Union.(c) Waters made subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by operation of the international agreements and statutes relating to the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and waters within the territories and possessions of the United States.
As far as the fifty states are concerned, it’s only on Federal Property located in a state, section (2) above, and of course Federal buildings listed at title 40 USC
Title 40 Public Buildings Property and Works; and Appendix (1)

thespec.com...
An interesting article that involves water wars in the near future and why.

Originally posted by antar
thespec.com...
An interesting article that involves water wars in the near future and why.

I do not think I can edit this late after posting so here is a continuation of my previous post:

TheSpec.com - CanadaWorld - 'Water wars' with U.S. in our future: experts

Water issues that are currently emerging will develop into bitter conflicts in the not too distant future when those dry states become increasingly desperate, said Milton Clark, a senior health and science adviser for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

I am growing increasingly concerned about the water rights issues and the lack of Msm coverage on the hidden agenda behind control.

The government does so good a job of protecting our water BS.

The city of LA Calif looses over 1 million gallons of water a minute just from leakage in there water system.

Most of this is from there aqueduct system where they move the water hundreds of miles in open and closed aqueduct channels made of concrete
that leaks due to porosity and unrepaired cracks plus miles of unlined rock tunnels in the system.

Who knows how much is lost to leaks in the 10,000 miles of pipe the water flows through in LA its self.

Can you ever really loose water?

reply to post by zoso28


WELL..... My second well wont have a permit....I had a stab well on my land for 40 years. Last year the Dept for Community Development said it was obsolete and I had to replace it with a "Modern" plastic one... That lasted less than one year ....Now it is 2500.00 to repair the "new" well and it is not "user friendly" to repair... I HAVE to call the well company....I wondered why they were so "helpful" in removing all of the hardware from the old well....well...well

Just stopping by to update this thread as I have just posted on this new thread about the same issue, now a year and a half later, looks like it going to go, and this is going to be worst case scenario.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread is old, so it may get lost again, lol, follow the new link and lets keep this issue alive!

"Water, say the World Bank and the United Nations, is a 'human need,' not a 'human right.'... A human need can be supplied in many ways, especially by those with money. No one can sell or trade a human right." - Maude Barlow, co-author of Blue Gold: The Fight to Stop Corporate Theft of the World's Water.

wataer


****More from the same site. There are lots of good articles on this site.

"While "Their" skullduggery is abhorrent and must be fought, we have a bigger picture to keep in view. The bottom line is that Population Growth + Climate Change = Exponential Water Crisis. It seems that activists and foundations are seldom concerned with all three parts of the equation, nor are they able to connect the elements successfully for the public's consumption.

It is pointless to demand justice for all thirsty people if we do not consider (1) how many of us are demanding water and (2) what other species are being affected by our ongoing demands. The world's people can cut water use equitably as a model for the universe, but if they don't cut their numbers, according to logic, eventually all is lost. That said, we can look at details of the economic and ecological crisis that so few observers tie to overpopulation. For example, water — essential for growing the population — is pumped via nonrenewable energy, in the main "

****You cannot ignore the overpopulation problem.

This news is outrageous! I cannot imagine why on earth the GOV would want to keep people from collecting rainwater!

It just gets more crazy everyday. As a grower I can sympathize with not being able to use rain barrels for crops and plants.

I think that it would become hell on earth the day they take away and regulate all water from above 'and' below.

From Holly Deyo's Site:
standeyo.com...

Collecting Rainwater Now Illegal in Many States as Big Government Claims Ownership Over Our Water
As water supplies dry up and states' populations increase – especially California, concerns over adequate water mounts. Since California supplies 40% of the Nation's food supply including most of our fruit and veggies, it's of vital interest to ALL Americans that they have plenty of water. California environmentalists' on-going worry for the smelt has caused many farmers to suffer because water preference has been given to this tiny fish rather than the farmer. Though this issue pertains to areas in Calif. that the Colorado River doesn't supply, it is yet another example of idiotic laws that put people, fresh drinking water and their livelihoods at risk over the well-being of a minnow.

It would be one thing if in the states that are lacking water would just jump on the bandwagon and set up their own way of catching water, but stopping others who are using their intelligence is just astounding.