It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In The Other Hand Was - EPA Claimed New Jurisdiction Under Clean Water Act !

page: 2
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhioPariah
reply to post by beezzer
 


What, specifically, do you have a problem with?



•Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance , October 5, 2009 – On October 5, 2009, President Barrack Obama signed an executive order setting sustainability goals for federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy, and economic performance. The EO requires federal agencies to improve water efficiency and management by: (1) reducing potable water consumption intensity 2 percent annually through fiscal year 2020, or 26 percent by the end of fiscal year 2020, relative to a fiscal year 2007 baseline; (2) reducing agency industrial, landscaping, and agricultural water consumption 2 percent annually, or 20 percent by the end of fiscal year 2020, relative to a fiscal year 2010 baseline; and (3) identifying, promoting, and implementing water reuse strategies consistent with state law that reduce potable water consumption.


Just for starters, having the federal government determine how much water I can use to drink, water my garden, fill pools, store water.
Call me a wacky conspiracy theorist, but I don't like the government making rules about what I need or want in terms of water/power/fuel.
Specifically, water. I feel that it is an encroachment on any freedoms that I may have to irrigate a personal garden, etc.




posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


This his nothing to do with what you have quoted. This is over jurisdiction - and this clearly excludes artificially-irrigated areas from jurisdiction.

I am assuming we are still talking about what was released on April 27. If this is about the entire management of water in America, then I apologize. I just want to make clear that this guidance is very important, and something environmental professionals have been waiting for since the term "significant nexus" was first coined.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OhioPariah
 


This is part of the proposal. This is going to be law if nothing is done.
water.epa.gov...
There's the link. Right from the EPA website.

If I'm wrong, then no harm, no foul. But if I'm right, then this would allow the EPA by fiat to govern how much water we use.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OhioPariah
 


Would you please define for me the usage and sense of the term "significant nexus?" I am unfamiliar with it's application in this subject matter.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by OhioPariah
 


This is part of the proposal. This is going to be law if nothing is done.
water.epa.gov...
There's the link. Right from the EPA website.

If I'm wrong, then no harm, no foul. But if I'm right, then this would allow the EPA by fiat to govern how much water we use.


What your referencing is an executive order - it's in place and effective right now. It is a mandate to federal institutions to reduce water usage; eg., the CIA headquarters cuts back on irrigation, new federal construction includes sustainable landscaping, that sort of thing. It's really pretty benign and invisible to the average person, but a nice "do as I do" from the Feds, in my opinion. It is not a mandate on private people or industry.



Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by OhioPariah
 


Would you please define for me the usage and sense of the term "significant nexus?" I am unfamiliar with it's application in this subject matter.



That term came out during the Rapanos Supreme Court case, but was never defined. A water body was under Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction if it was a "navigable waterway" - that is, you could put a boat in it. Then the definition expanded to waters that were connected to navigable waterways. Now - it's a "significant nexus" - and that means a pond, for example, could have no visual overland connection to a navigable waterway, but still have a significant nexus (or connection) to that waterbody.

So the significant nexus - a nexus being a connection, basically - would mean that this pond may have an unseen underground connection, or it may be that the pond holds silt-laden water from uphill, thereby preventing the dirty water from entering the river. So the term was used because it's not as simple as tracing a water connection. It's still a complicated concept, and that's why it's under review and comment.

The whole thing is here (link goes to PDF). The nutshell is on page 5.

Don't get me wrong, it will greatly expand the jurisdiction of the EPA and the Corps. I just don't think there is anything that is below board and it's got plenty of eyes on it.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhioPariah

It's about the health of rivers, streams, and wetlands.



Ummmm No.

Its about the control of rivers, streams, wetllands, lakes, ditches and puddles.

We all know that "health' is not a governement strongpoint.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Beezer, thats Awesome! And thanks for leading the way -

Was just perusing the details...



Waters Generally Not Jurisdictional

The scope of “waters of the United States” does not include all waters. EPA and the Corps previously have described in preambles to CWA regulations waters that the agencies generally do not consider to be waters of the U.S.45 The agencies’ position regarding these waters is unchanged. The categories of waters generally not “waters of the U.S.” include:

• Wet areas that are not tributaries or open waters and do not meet the regulatory definition of wetlands.46 • Waterbodies excluded from coverage under the CWA by existing regulations.

• Waters that lack a significant nexus when one is required for jurisdiction.
20

• Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. • Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. • Artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools excavated in uplands.

• Small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons.

• Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel, unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States.

• Groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems.xii

• Erosional features (gullies and rills), and swales and ditches that are not tributaries or wetlands (see Section 4).


But, however....


An “other water” is jurisdictional only if it both has a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water or interstate water and meets the regulatory definition. One of the ways of demonstrating that a water is one “the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce” is through demonstration that the water has a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water or interstate water. If a water meets Justice Kennedy’s significant nexus standard, the degradation or destruction of that water could harm the traditional navigable water or interstate water and therefore could affect interstate or foreign commerce.



For the reasons articulated in Section 3 of this guidance, the agencies will interpret “in the region” for such proximate other waters to be the watershed boundary defined by the geographic area that drains to the nearest downstream traditional navigable or interstate water through a single point of entry.


water.epa.gov...

And so what about Groundwater NOT drained through subsurface drainage systems???



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


First mention of it here :


Justice Kennedy concluded that “waters of the United States” included wetlands that had a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters, “if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable’” (id. at 780). The four justices who signed on to Justice Stevens’ opinion would have upheld jurisdiction under the agencies' existing regulations and stated that they would uphold jurisdiction under either the plurality or Justice Kennedy's opinion water.epa.gov...


This once section alone contains hundreds of references...


If a wetland is adjacent to a traditional navigable water or a non-wetland interstate water, a finding of adjacency is sufficient in and of itself to demonstrate that the wetland is subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. On the other hand, a finding that a particular wetland is adjacent to a jurisdictional waterbody other than a traditional navigable water or non-wetland interstate water is not sufficient in and of itself to establish Clean Water Act jurisdiction over that wetland.

For the latter category of adjacent wetlands, in order to establish Clean Water Act jurisdiction, field staff, on a case-by-case basis, must determine whether the particular adjacent wetland, alone or in combination with similarly situated wetlands in that watershed, has a significant nexus with traditional navigable waters or non-wetland interstate waters (see discussion below).

A determination of adjacency is based on an evaluation of the relationship between a wetland and the nearest jurisdictional water, which includes consideration of both physical and ecological connections between those waterbodies. In contrast, a determination of significant nexus is a different inquiry, which is based on evaluating whether there is a significant nexus between that adjacent wetland (in combination with similarly situated adjacent wetlands in the watershed) and a traditional navigable water or a non-wetland interstate water.

edit on 2-5-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


This has always been a possibility.

Just because you own your property does not mean you own anything under it.

Meaning the mineral and resource rights.

That is a whole other thing than purchasing property you are purchasing the top soil.

In a square designated by a Federal, State, County, or City ordinance.

This is why George H.W. Bush tried slant-drilling in Kuwait with Saddam Hussein.

This is the real reason Hussein got nasty during the First Iraq War.

This is as well when we heard about fracking and all sorts of other nonsense.

To be expected by some, a total surprise for others, business as usual for Government.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Just because you own your property does not mean you own anything under it.

Meaning the mineral and resource rights.

That is a whole other thing than purchasing property you are purchasing the top soil.

In a square designated by a Federal, State, County, or City ordinance.



Being this is all about "Surface Water" ...and any "Surface Water" that came via by other "Surface Water"...



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Removing ‘Navigable’ From CWA Creates Regulatory Quicksand
www.antifascistencyclopedia.com...

When we examined this issue a year ago, it was hidden behind something that was happening at the time, but the cattlemen didn't like it then, and they felt they had to mobilize because it was all about getting control of the little guy, his crops and animals, and the land.

Just like the premesis ID was

edit on 2-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Yes, but, do not forget most water sources have origins in mountains and underground streams.

A water aquifer is not limited to above ground activities by any means whatsoever.

We're talking protecting clean water and this means protecting and or securing the original sources.

This is a blanket scheme to make all land connected through water covered under the E.P.A. jurisdiction.

Remember, when it comes to Government, dual-use and blanket authority is assumed.

Then we as citizens have to carve back legislation through fighting for our rights.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by OhioPariah

It's about the health of rivers, streams, and wetlands.



Ummmm No.

Its about the control of rivers, streams, wetllands, lakes, ditches and puddles.

We all know that "health' is not a governement strongpoint.


Precisely it is about control, because we Americans cannot and will not control it ourselves. People dump pollutants into the river and watch it wash away. If you are against this simply because you are against all regulation, then I won't even bother having the discussion. There must be laws to protect water, and there must be laws to protect the health of water.

Edit: I am becoming more and more convinced that you're simply trying to invent a conspiracy where none exists.
edit on 2-5-2011 by OhioPariah because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

This is a blanket scheme to make all land connected through water covered under the E.P.A. jurisdiction.


Exactly, and thank you!

And yes, we must fight back against this...

This is really not about clean water, as I outlined in my OP...its abour water control!

If it was about clean water, they would not have let all of the MONSANTOS of the world a side door...
Which they did!



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhioPariah

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by OhioPariah

It's about the health of rivers, streams, and wetlands.



Ummmm No.

Its about the control of rivers, streams, wetllands, lakes, ditches and puddles.

We all know that "health' is not a governement strongpoint.


Precisely it is about control, because we Americans cannot and will not control it ourselves. People dump pollutants into the river and watch it wash away. If you are against this simply because you are against all regulation, then I won't even bother having the discussion. There must be laws to protect water, and there must be laws to protect the health of water.

Edit: I am becoming more and more convinced that you're simply trying to invent a conspiracy where none exists.


As we have already addressed this is about Water Jurisdicion...Control.


because we Americans cannot and will not control it ourselves.


Ummmm....a very weak...very weak argument.

Americans are sick and tired of The Government overreaching its bounds.

There is simply NO reason for The Government to gain control over mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, ditches, wet meadows and natural ponds, and puddles, vernal pools etc.

Some Background for your understanding....



During the last Congress, both the House and Senate failed to enact the Clean Water Restoration Act introduced by former Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and former Congressman James Oberstar (D-MN).

The month after the November 2010 elections, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drafted a document marked "Deliberative Process: Confidential DRAFT from December 2010."

The draft guidance, which was announced today officially, would replace 2008 Bush administration guidance that defined the scope of the Clean Water Act more narrowly as a result of two Supreme Court decisions.

This guidance trumps states' rights by usurping the authority of state and local governments to make local land and water use decisions. Enormous resources will be needed to expand the Clean Water Act federal regulatory program, leading to longer permitting delays. Increased delays in securing permits will impede a host of economic activities in our states. Commercial and residential real estate development, agriculture, electric transmission, transportation, energy development and mining will all be effected and thousands of jobs will be lost. news.tradingcharts.com...


edit on 2-5-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by OhioPariah
Precisely it is about control


As we have already addressed this is about Water Jurisdicion...Control.



And I agreed with you before you repeated it. What is the point, though? Are you just anti-control? Leave it to the commons? That's fine if you're politically opposed to government regulation. But you framed this entire thread as a huge conspiracy that Obama wanted to hide by killing Osama Bin Laden, which is absurd, and I sincerely hope you know it. This is an important enough topic that it doesn't need sensationalism.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

This is a blanket scheme to make all land connected through water covered under the E.P.A. jurisdiction.


Exactly, and thank you!

And yes, we must fight back against this...

This is really not about clean water, as I outlined in my OP...its abour water control!

If it was about clean water, they would not have let all of the MONSANTOS of the world a side door...
Which they did!


And your MONSANTO link never mentioned MONSANTO.

Boogity.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OhioPariah
 


Where, prove to me where did I mention Obama? Sensitive much?

And its not a conspiracy, its a reality....

Me thinks thou protestest too much, which means I am right on track.


Thank you!
edit on 2-5-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OhioPariah
 


Yes I think most of us are Anti control... mostly because of what said parties have done with EVERY piece of control they've managed to wrest from us so far!

and that in itself is another discussion for another time.. like why we can't trust our government to look after the interests of the public. Especially when you look at what's happening in michigan with the appointed reps...

Also yes this whole thing is in fact wrapped up in the law of the seas treaty and like anything UN it's bad juju if you ask me!

The people in agencies like EPA etc are not looking after the best interest of the nation or the people of the nation! They are pursuing an AGENDA ! One that is NOT in the interest of anyone but those who will profit from it quite possibly at the cost of LIVES lost and communities destroyed.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Wait a minute...

My girlfriend uses cocoa butter... that has oil in it. Hm, guess my jergens is going to need 'protection' as well. Quick, someone call EPA and tell them you are deathly afraid of dying in a greesy jergens 'oil' spill.

Maybe we need to start fighting misdirection with misdirection. Cuz i just confused myself.




top topics



 
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join