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

Originally posted by OhioPariah

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.

What is with all the new, new pro government accounts? Pretty creepy in a 1984 kind of way.
When it comes down to it people don't trust the governments of the USA nor do we trust their agencies that operate under the governments jurisdiction.

The EPA(Both State and Federal) lie through their teeth to help big business and Uncle Sam cover up eco disasters. All the EPA is supposed to do is watch out for polluters, test the water supplies, test the toxicity of stuff and keep an eye on endangered species(I think).

They can't do any of that right so they seek for more and more and more power? Only a sociopath would find comfort in such an agency having more power as I am confident the EPA (like most of the American governments) is a functioning pathocracy(rule of sociopaths). And since sociopaths are born incurable monsters(I don't even consider them human, more like a rabid dog), pardon me if people with some common sense find the prospects deeply disturbing.

Originally posted by Danbones
Removing ‘Navigable’ From CWA Creates Regulatory Quicksand
www.antifascistencyclopedia.com...

Yes, and funny (not) that was the original legistation they started with, was Navigable Waters.
Now when we go back and look at the intent of the original legislation, and compare that to where
we are now...its mind boggling and very apparent, they carry out an agenda!

Originally posted by burntheships
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)

Look, you pointed everyone to this thread in the "wonder what dog they're wagging" thread, and you named this thread "In the Other Hand", insinuating that something newsworthy in the last few days, be it Obama's b.c., the royal wedding, the OBL news, something was intentionally manipulated so we wouldn't notice jurisdictional guidance going into a 60-day public comment period. You've intentionally sensationalized this topic and driven the discussion away from what the actual subject matter is. Maybe I am protesting too much, but it's rare that something comes up on ATS that I have first-hand experience with, and I am excited to discuss it with interested people.

I am not pro-government, nor am I anti-government. I'm a pragmatist, I don't live in a black and white world. I know many won't believe me, because some guy who signed up in January thinks it's funny that a guy who signed up in March has an opinion in favor of environmental policy so he must be a dis-info plant.

I grew up near a very polluted waterbody (I'm not giving out my hometown, but you might guess by my username) and water pollution has long been a passion of mine. In the absence of legislation, I can't simply paddle a canoe down a creek until I see a pipe sticking out of the bank with a milky liquid dripping out of it and march to the door of the business and force them to stop. It takes laws and regulations. And that's what I use, every day, to prevent pollution, to improve impaired waterways, and to hopefully make our US waters safe to swim in again. (It'd be a pipe dream to hope they'd be potable again, so I keep my sights low.)

So the increased jurisdictional ability formally recognizes that there is more to the water quality network than just a navigable waterway. It is a complex system chemically, biologically, and hydraulically, and negative effects on any one portion of that by as small as one single individual action can have a cascading effect throughout the network.

Call me a shill. The truth is, I'm out there, every day, making sure our children will have cleaner water than we have right now. I don't work for the government, but I use the sticks they provide. Please respect the water on your property, and the land - because what you dump or spill will probably make it into the water some day.

Alright, I've said my piece. Now I don't know how to end this ATS manifesto. So it will just end, like this.

reply to post by OhioPariah


Ohio,

I can appreciate your desire for clean water...and while I would venture to say that most everyone (corporate MONSANTO eBP, Chevron and The Feds to name a few excluded) cares about water "quality" - most will say that its is not to the benefit of the people, or the States to grant the FEDERAL government more power to oversee (rule over) all the surface water in The United States.

Why add more ineffecient layers bureaucratic federal red tape?

Do you really think that subjecting every surface runoff to new and sweeping federal regulations, and changing the current law allowing federal oversight of major waterways where boat navigation occurs makes sense, to sending EPA bureaucrats into our backyards and onto our farms so extending the tentacles of the federal government where they do not belong is the right and best way to cleaner water in The United States?

Thats a yes or no answer - no matter what your join date is which I never mentioned -

This bill is nothing more than another dramatic expansion of federal government control over Americans’ livelihoods and their private property.

Not to mention the corrupt collusion that exists between the Federal Government and
Convicted Corporate Serial Killers like BP, Monsanto, and Chevron!

If the handling of the Gulf Oil Disaster is any indication of what I could expect from the Federal Government -

Forget It

Is your idea of clean water adding over a million gallons of toxic COREXIT to the Gulf Of Mexico?

If not, then why would you want to give jurisdiction of all surface water to the FEDS?

I personally dont consider a Gulf of Mexico contaminated with Oil and COREXIT clean water.

Do you?

reply to post by roguetechie

Originally posted by roguetechie

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 !

Exactly! Its just a way for the Government to take away local control.

I have more confidence in local officials to care about water quality in the areas where they live
than I could ever have in the Feds! Just look at what they did in The Gulf Of Mexico!

Under this new law, areas that contain water only during a rain would be subject to full federal regulation. Further, not only would many areas not previously regulated require federal permits, those permits would be subject to challenge in federal court, delaying or halting these activities resulting in a huge impact on rural economies.

While it has “restoration” in its title, it does anything but. The Clean Water Restoration Act is not a restoration of the Clean Water Act at all. www.protectmywater.org...

That is truly frightening!

Enough is enough!

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by OhioPariah

 

1. Why add more ineffecient layers bureaucratic federal red tape?

2. Do you really think that subjecting every surface runoff to new and sweeping federal regulations, and changing the current law allowing federal oversight of major waterways where boat navigation occurs makes sense, to sending EPA bureaucrats into our backyards and onto our farms so extending the tentacles of the federal government where they do not belong is the right and best way to cleaner water in The United States?

3. Is your idea of clean water adding over a million gallons of toxic COREXIT to the Gulf Of Mexico?

4. If not, then why would you want to give jurisdiction of all surface water to the FEDS?

It's a lot to answer point-by-point. I'll try to number my responses with your questions. I deleted the rest of your remarks for clarity, and not to censor or obscure your comments.

1. I don't think it's another layer of red tape, I think it's a wider piece of the same red tape. It will not require any additional levels of bureaucracy than it currently has, although it will require more trips out by staff for "jurisdictional determinations (JDs), which will cost more money. This is true. I can't answer your question, because I don't agree with the premise.

2. Yes, I really do think that the government has a responsibility to protect public resources, even if the source of pollution is on private property. Which it usually is.

3. No, it sure as hell is not. But it was not the federal government or the EPA or the Army Corps that did it or condoned it, it was a private company that needs to have it's ass held to the fire. It's no different from the fracking debate. Corporations get a pass. And that's wrong. But it's not the fault of the regulation.

4. Who is better to have jurisdiction, I should ask? Who should have the power and authority and ability to stop BP or others from blatant and covert acts like that? Only the federal government can. It is not the law, it is not the agency that is the problem, it is the elected officials and the corporatocracy that tie the hands of the good people on the ground. We just need solid, honest leadership in Washington.

If a farmer has a wetland in his property that serves to filter runoff from the watershed above, then yes, I believe it should be regulated. This does not mean protected at all costs. There are always exceptions and variances granted. A wetland may be filled if another is created elsewhere, or it may be so small as to not need any mitigation at all. But it is, unfortunately, private development that has impaired our waterways, and without education and a firm understanding of how natural systems work, the private citizen may not even recognize the damage they are doing.

Originally posted by burntheships
Exactly! Its just a way for the Government to take away local control.

I have more confidence in local officials to care about water quality in the areas where they live
than I could ever have in the Feds! Just look at what they did in The Gulf Of Mexico!

I can agree with this to a point - if you can define local authorities to cover a large enough portion of the watershed. The only government authority with the scope to manage a resource that crosses state lines is the federal government.

reply to post by OhioPariah


I asked..."Why add more ineffecient layers bureaucratic federal red tape"

1. I don't think it's another layer of red tape, I think it's a wider piece of the same red tape. It will not require any additional levels of bureaucracy than it currently has, although it will require more trips out by staff for "jurisdictional determinations (JDs), which will cost more money. This is true. I can't answer your question, because I don't agree with the premise.

May I suggest you read the legislation? No way could you say its just a "wider piece" of the same tape.

Granting jurisdiction to the FEDS, removing jurisdiction from State and Local authroities - and even land owners!

The Clean Water Restoration Act, or S. 787, gives the government the right to extend its reach to any body of water from farm ponds, to storm water retention basins, to roadside ditches, to desert washes, even to streets and gutters. The legislation leaves no water unregulated and could even impact standing rainwater in a dry area. Private property owners beware. www.protectmywater.org...

I asked - "Do you really think that subjecting every surface runoff to new and sweeping federal regulations, and changing the current law allowing federal oversight of major waterways where boat navigation occurs makes sense, to sending EPA bureaucrats into our backyards and onto our farms so extending the tentacles of the federal government where they do not belong is the right and best way to cleaner water in The United States?

2. Yes, I really do think that the government has a responsibility to protect public resources, even if the source of pollution is on private property. Which it usually is.

Well we disagree entirely on that one! The Federal Government's debt level cannot be sustained, therefore
it must look for new sources of revenue. This is just designed to feed the hungry beast.

You want to feed it, I would starve it to near death.

I asked - "Is your idea of clean water adding over a million gallons of toxic COREXIT to the Gulf Of Mexico? "

3. No, it sure as hell is not. But it was not the federal government or the EPA or the Army Corps that did it or condoned it, it was a private company that needs to have it's ass held to the fire. It's no different from the fracking debate. Corporations get a pass. And that's wrong. But it's not the fault of the regulation.

Either your ignorant on the matter - or?

The Federal Government was completelty complicitly involved in the spraying of
millions of gallons of COREXIT - The Coast Gaurd used its own planes!

The current Obama Administration made it a Federal Crime to investigate!
Homland Security actually confiscated notes taken by independent Professors -
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I asked - "If not, then why would you want to give jurisdiction of all surface water to the FEDS? "

4. Who is better to have jurisdiction, I should ask? Who should have the power and authority and ability to stop BP or others from blatant and covert acts like that? Only the federal government can. It is not the law, it is not the agency that is the problem, it is the elected officials and the corporatocracy that tie the hands of the good people on the ground. We just need solid, honest leadership in Washington.

Who is better you ask?

Its obvious the answer - State and Local authorites, and landowners.

Originally posted by darius2025
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.

Its time for the fat beast to be put on a diet... lest it become so grotesque, a white bloated isatible
monster even the purest water and best suntan in the world wont help it one bit.

Just say no to The Feds - down boy, down!

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by darius2025
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.

Its time for the fat beast to be put on a diet... lest it become so grotesque, a white bloated isatible
monster even the purest water and best suntan in the world wont help it one bit.

Wow, I think you owe his girlfriend an apology. That was really unnecessary.

reply to post by OhioPariah


I see your wink but just to be sure you know that I was referring to the Federal Government there,
and not his girlfreind. That was perfectly clear.

You edited my post, and clipped off the last line that was most important....

Originally posted by burntheships
Its time for the fat beast to be put on a diet... lest it become so grotesque, a white bloated isatible
monster even the purest water and best suntan in the world wont help it one bit.

Just say no to The Feds - down boy, down!

What?

Thats all, no response to The Coast Gaurd taking the COREXIT out to sea?

No response on the Obama Administration criminalizing pictures of BP operating?

No response to Homeland Security confiscating independent professors work?

Your the one wanting to hand over more power to the Feds, whats wrong, did my graphic descrption
of the monster disturb you?

No, no response. I think the whole argument is irrelevant. I'm not going to indulge you by comparing the response to the biggest man-made disaster in the Gulf of Mexico with some redneck dumping his oil change in the swamp behind his house.

Originally posted by OhioPariah

I'm not going to indulge you by comparing the response to the biggest man-made disaster
in the Gulf of Mexico with some redneck dumping his oil change in the swamp behind his house.

Thanks, and you just did!

So which one would be more of an environmental disaster?

Knock it off you kids

@ Burntheships: Great find. Your threads and posts really add to the quality content of this site, which is something much of the site is lacking these days.
@ OhioPariah: I for one don't read your postings as shill-talk whatsoever. You are obviously passionate about the issue, and articulate your views well.

In my opinion the current state of this debate has two very opposed positions:

First, is Burntheship's premise: When the federal government expands it's control and influence the citizens have every right (and should) deeply question the reasons and motives. The current proposal takes water rights from individuals and local government, giving them to the EPA. This concept flies in the face of 100 years of American water rights law.

Second is OhioPariah's: This premise is just as important and valid as the first. Freshwater resources are limited. They renew, but only at set rates. State by state water quality regulations and enforcement vary, yet upstream deficiencies in water quality affect all citizens in downstream states, so it seems completely logical to expand federal oversight, ensuring all citizens downstream have access to clean water.

I for one am really torn between the two viewpoints you both express. I absolutely believe that TPTB do want to take control of the water resources. I know they want to trade water as a commodity, and water is viewed as the next oil. That scares the hell out of me. (So much so that I am back in college right now to get my degree in Geology, so I can work in hydrology and hopefully make a positive impact in some way against these greedy bastards.)

But that being said I absolutely know that the US is on a collision course with severe water shortages. I don't think that federal oversight of the water quality and consumption is a bad thing, as long as it is carefully bounded.

The bigger problem in my mind is the incestuous relationship that has grown between corporations and the federal government. The real polluters and water hogs have money to throw at Washington. This money buys the exemptions they need to keep business as usual. The EPA and FDA aren't just in their back pockets: Executives of big Ag have been appointed to the highest positions in those agencies time and time again.

I want what you both want: I want the federal government to stay the hell out of my business as much as possible, and I want clean waters both up and down stream. But more than anything I want water control to stay vested in the local communities where the water runs. The EPA has a place in the water quality/use debate for sure, but oversight is far different than administration.