WND EXCLUSIVE

FEDS AIM TO CONTROL VIRTUALLY 'ANY WET SPOT'

'Largest expansion of power ever proposed'

Bob Unruh

A rule change to the Clean Water Act proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency apparently would put “any wet spot” under Washington control.

A low spot in a farmer’s field that occasionally holds rainwater, a subdivision ditch that drains storm runoff or a mountain road that directs snowmelt all could face new layers of federal requirements and bureaucracy.

The change to the definition of water and water bodies could impact millions of landowners, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation, which has won water-related disputes at the U.S. Supreme Court.

“On its face, the proposed rule covers virtually every water in the nation,” the team told the government in a comment procedure in advance of any final decision on the plan.

“Under this rule, a prudent legal practitioner would have to advise his client that the only waters not covered are those few that are expressly exempt.”

Exemptions would include a swimming pool or a decorative pond.

“If a water body isn’t a ‘traditional navigable water,’ it is a ‘tributary.’ If it isn’t a ‘tributary,’ it is an ‘adjacent water.’ If it isn’t an ‘adjacent water,’ it is an ‘other water.’ All of which are subject to onerous federal regulation,” Pacific Legal Foundation said.

“If it isn’t a water at all, it is still covered by the fine print in Footnote 3 of the proposed rule that states the terms ‘waters’ and ‘water bodies’ ‘do not refer solely to the water contained in these aquatic systems, but to the system as a whole including associated chemical, physical and biological features.’”

Pacific Legal said the “seemingly innocuous language is troubling because it can be interpreted to include runoff, dry land, man-made structures, and flora and fauna.”

“What isn’t a chemical, physical or biological feature of the aquatic system? Nothing!” they wrote.

The proposed redefinition of “waters of the United States” is an attempt by the federal agencies to expand their power, Pacific Legal said.

The rule is so broad “it could lead to practically unlimited expansion of federal control over property nationwide.”

M. Reed Hopper, a principal attorney for the foundation, said the rule’s vagueness means “virtually any natural pond or pothole, anywhere, could be labeled part of the ‘waters of the United States,’ bringing the property’s owner under the control of federal regulators.”

“Federal bureaucrats assert jurisdiction over ditches, drains, temporary seasonal ponds or streams, and even prairie puddles, along with the land adjoining them,” Hopper said. “Only minor features would be excluded, such as artificial pools or ponds, and only if they are in dry, upland areas.”

He called it the “largest expansion of power ever proposed by a federal agency.”

“It would stretch federal oversight beyond the limits of statutory and constitutional law and include small, rarely wet areas that have no significant effects on navigable waters such as rivers, lakes or the oceans,” said Hopper. “It would usurp state authority over local land and water resources. And property owners large and small, nationwide, could see their land and their lives come under the control of Washington, D.C.”

Hopper has described the rule as outlandish because the Clean Water Act is based on the Commerce Clause, which regulates whatever impacts interstate commerce.

Originally the “waters” were interpreted to mean “traditional navigable waters that could be used in interstate commerce.”

“But it didn’t take long before the agencies started pushing the envelope on federal jurisdiction claiming regulatory authority over wetlands and other nonnavigable waters that had nothing to do with commerce, let alone interstate commerce.”

Even a slapdown earlier from the U.S. Supreme Court in case over an expansion of the Clean Water Act’s authority didn’t change the direction of the agencies, Pacific Legal said.

In its comments to the government this week, the legal team pointed out that the new definition include any waters that can float a canoe in its definition of navigable waters that impact interstate commerce.

“The Corps and the EPA’s claim that all tributaries are subject to the Clean Water Act – no matter how remote or inconsequential – defies comprehension,” the legal team said. “This claim is based on the so-called Connectivity Report that suggests virtually all waters are interconnected and therefore subject to federal regulation.”

But PLF said that is what the Supreme Court rejected.

Further, the definition changes would “for the first time … expressly assert jurisdiction over dry land and shallow groundwater.” The agencies want to control “wetlands” even when they are dry.

“This alone is the largest land grab in the history of the nation, encompassing tens of thousands of miles of usually dry land and extending from the lower Mississippi Delta to the smallest streams,” the legal team.

PLF pointed out the scope of the definition leads to absurdities.

“Strangely, the Corps and EPA could not bring themselves to expressly exclude ‘puddles,’ claiming the term is too ambiguous.”

WND reported PFL was at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a Louisiana landowner who wanted to develop a landfill but was stopped by sudden changes in Army Corps of Engineers program definitions.

Furthermore, the company was told, there is no challenge allowed to the decision.

Its options were to “abandon” the property, “go through the pointless and costly permit process (averaging more than $270,000 and over two years)” or simply “proceed without a permit, risking immense fines of $37,500 a day and imprisonment,” the court was told.

The outline of the case is remarkably similar to the Sackett case that was decided by the Supreme Court in 2012. The Priest Lake, Idaho, couple bought a residential lot and started work on their dream home. Along came the Environmental Protection Agency with a determination that the parcel contained “wetlands” and the couple’s options were to abandon their land, seek a prohibitively expensive permit or face millions of dollars in fines.

The federal agency also contended the couple was not allowed to seek a judicial review of its decision.

But the Supreme Court ruled the EPA cannot issue a “drive-by” decision regarding wetlands and then prohibit the owner from using the property or challenging the decision.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/feds-aim-to-control-virtually-any-wet-spot/#0hxOsVBumILYiL4A.99

My comments: The Democrats want ABSOLUTE CONTROL over EVERYTHING. It is Religion to them--godless, Secular Humanist Religion--in their pseudo intellectualism, they know best. They MASQUERADE as angels of light and will use ANY MEANS to CONFORM the Nation to their will. Water is only one part of what they want to CONTROL. They are emissaries of Satan and ultimately, want your soul.