New EPA Reg An
Economy Killer
All good attorneys are adept at connecting current points to past decisions
that might be thought to have some bearing on the case being tried. Government attorneys do not have
to go to those lengths, all they need is to have the bureaucracy issue a new regulation--even if it flies in
the face of reality.
The point today is an individual's right to do on his property what he wants. The EPA is once again
stepping up its attack on an owner's right to impede on anything that might be construed as "connecting
with navigable waters."
The EPA wants to significantly increase its authority over a larger percentage of streams and wetlands that
provide habitat for wildlife and sources of drinking water. President Barack Obama is expected to skirt
around Congress on the issue with another executive decision but this could directly affect every
American, no matter where they live.
When the EPA began, America had polluted itself especially in the Industrial Belt along the Great Lakes'
states. Water wasn't fit to drink and the air unfit to inhale in the 1960s. America clearly needed something
to be done. The EPA was born.
But, over time, the good intentions were expanded. Now the EPA is a law unto itself.
Former Justice Department prosecutor David Uhlmann, currently a law professor at Michigan, said, "There
is nothing complicated about the idea we should protect the tributary system that flows into our nation's
rivers. What is more difficult is deciding when to protect wetlands, which perform essential ecological
functions but often make it impossible for landowners to develop their property." On that point he and I
agree.
The EPA is claiming 60% of the nation's streams and millions of acres of wetlands lack clear protection
under existing regulation. Why? Because the word "connection" necessary to fall under EPA control has
never been clearly established. Currently only those wetlands or waterways that "connect with navigable
waters" fall under EPA control.
Under the proposed regulation, concocted by the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA, all water can be
connected to navigable waterways. That is absurd.
That means if you are sitting in the middle of the Great American Desert, you can't do anything to disrupt
the natural flow of water onyour property even though no water there can connect to a navigable source
without manmade intervention by canals or pipelines. The Continental Divide splits and surrounds the
area meaning no water can possibly escape naturally by any means other than vaporization.
The American Farm Bureau is leading the opposition to this proposal. "The proposed rule provides none
of the clarity and certainty it promises. Instead it creates confusion and risk by PROVIDING THE
AGENCIES WITH ALMOST UNLIMITED AUTHORITY TO REGULATE AT THEIR DISCRETION."
The government is heading for another power grab designed to whittle away once again at the
Constitution-guaranteed freedom of each person. If a land owner anywhere you will lose your right to
pursue happiness on your own property doing what has always been done with the acres you have
acquired.
If the rule is allowed to go through, as written, any low spot that collects rainwater during a rain shower
could fall under the control of the EPA and prevent the landowner from controlling his own property. Even
more appalling, every manmade device to deliver this vital element to urban households could also be
subjected to the whims of the EPA in the future as for the first time sewer systems could, legitimately, be
considered "connected to a navigable waterway."
If you wanted to install a lawn-watering system for your yard, you could need approval from and then
purchase a permit from the EPA. How much would that add to the cost?
This very problem was put into a letter sent by Arizona Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain. Writing for
Arizona, the letter stated, the "vast majority of Arizona's waters are part of ephemeral systems and often
found at substantial distances from traditional navigable or interstate waters. Every small ephemeral
system of limited function with no practical ability to influence the physical, chemical or biological
integrity of those downstream waters, would be regulated."
The proposed ruling had one big supporter in another dry state, New Mexico. Sanders Moore, the director
of Environment New Mexico, claims waterways there had been put under risk due to narrow interpretation
of the existing laws. She claims the off-and-on dry stream beds are a significant danger to all-year
waterways. "When those dry beds run with snow melt, they pick up all those pollutants and carry them to
larger rivers."
They do. But that is a natural occurrence found almost everywhere water is scarce. So now an
environmentalist wants to alter nature itself.
In essence that is what the EPA is planning. The ruling has two benefits for government that cannot be
overstated. It extends its reach even further into every individual's daily life and extends their power and
revenue base even more broadly than it already has through selling permits to a favored few.
How much more will it cost to build a home or a business when the nebulous connection to a navigable
waterway is in the grip of someone who doesn't truly care what the facts are but is pushing an agenda
only? That is another cost America's economy cannot afford--at any point.
"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas
Jefferson