Congress backing move to Claim all US Water rights

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.