Comments (18) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Water, water everywhere
Tools
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 10:17 a.m.
In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has tended to "split the baby" in deciding how far the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers can go in enforcing the Clean Water Act.
Trying to hew at least reasonably close to the Constitution, the 1972 law stipulates the federal agencies can restrict states or private landowners from dredging, draining, channeling or doing anything else that might inconvenience any weed, bug and minnow in and around only those waters which comprise "navigable waterways."
Predictably, government regulators have attempted to stretch the definition of that authority -- which can be found only by implication in the Constitution -- to include inland wetlands and streams up which you could barely drag an empty canoe, on the theory that these waters "feed" some navigable waterway far downstream.
But two recent Supreme Court decisions, in 2001 and 2006, partially reined in these excesses.
Those who want to see the federal government regulate every inch of land in the nation were not pleased, and in reply they now offer up the Clean Water Restoration Act, which simply removes the word "navigable" from the law.
"So for ranchers and farmers who have mud puddles, prairie potholes -- anything from snow melting on their land -- all of that water will now come under the regulation of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency," points out Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Western Caucus. "The government wants control of all water -- that also means that they want control over all of our land."
Such an expansion of federal authority could put farmers in "regulatory quicksand," protests Charlie Kruse, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau. But Jan Goldman-Carter of the National Wildlife Foundation, predictably, says the concerns of ranchers and farmers are unfounded.
"That amended language is very clear that it preserves long standing exemptions for ongoing agricultural practices, forest roads. There are a number of very generous exemptions in there particularly for ranchers and farmers that I know have been worried about the effect of this legislation, but in fact those worries are largely unfounded," she said.
So in leaving private land owners a few "grandfathered-in" rights -- while effectively barring any new land use or development -- these voracious feeders on our remaining property rights are being "generous"!
Ms. Goldman-Carter added that the United States has long regulated streams and other waterways that aren't "navigable," anyway.
Ah. So a law intended to vastly expand federal authority isn't anything to worry about, since the regulators have been vastly exceeding their authority for decades, already -- until the court found enough teeth to start drawing the line?
Aside from striking "navigable," it turns out the bill defines U.S. water as "all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds and all impoundments of the foregoing."
It adds that any "activities affecting these waters are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution." Sounds a bit like a constitutional amendment.
In fact, it's the Constitution that delegates -- and limits -- congressional powers, not the congressmen who would vote on this bill. If they want their regulatory reach expanded, let them seek the approval of the states, and of the people, for such an amendment.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
long as we're enjoying the legions of commissars... air, water, cars, wages, energy, and such, why not a "threads" commissar ?
way beyond a twinkie, pizza, or sody pop commissars, lots more revenue could be diverted to/redistributed by, the "change" oaf via an apparel commissar. grandpa mao mighta had it right when all citizens were required to wear the simple mao jacket, loose pants, sandals, and that cap. no more "inner city" youths capping another grade schooler to score a pair of trick, felony flyers. no class envy.
think about all the cash americans waste on stuff created by some alternative lifestyle "designer", clothing. instead of a thousand buck handbag or pair of shoes, pounds of bling, that cash could be sent to the "change" regime. that mao jacket and pants oughta cost less than ten bucks if made in china or even cheaper made in africa or other impoverished, industrializing countries. the sandals... mebbe those made in india outta worn bus tire treads... less than a dollar. while kinda rough on the feet, those sandals'll last a lifetime. those mao pants are comfortable. i already have a few of the caps from the last trip.
now all's to do is to name the clothing commissar, hire the few thousands or federal employees to oversee the program, and build a new skyscraper to house the staff.
The Feds would try to control the urine in our bladders if they thought they could get away with it. Eff them!
does anyone not notice the invasion of citizens' lives by the "change" regime ?
the apologists for the neo-com[munist] are amusing.
what's cool is the utter hypocrisy exhibited by the likes of gomer gore. he preaches to third world countries about energy waste/co2 emission while vast numbers of thise "poor" citizens do not have electricity. all the while preaching from the door of his gas guzzler, private jet.
Yeah, during the Right-Hand Turn fight that Ian Gregor guy from the FAA said they OWNED the skies!!!
So, therefore we the 500,000 citizens of Las Vegas with whom those planes would be flying AND CRASHING (three bombs) had NO RIGHTS as to where those planes flew.
HUH!!! And now the GOVERNMENT wants to say they own the water too.
Where were my Republican leaders on this one, AND the previous legislation?
This is appalling!!!!!!