They come for your guns, they come for your energy, they come for your water;
A river runs through it — and Uncle Sam isn’t far behind.
That’s what several Republican lawmakers and even state farming groups and local governments are warning, after a draft rule from the Environmental Protection Agency proposed expanding which waterways are federally protected under the Clean Water Act.
The concern is that the move could give the feds authority over virtually any stream or ditch, and hand environmentalists another way to sue property owners. In other words, critics say, the government might soon be able to declare jurisdiction over a seasonal stream in your backyard.
If so, good luck getting a permit to expand building space on your property, or marketing your land to prospective developers.
Silly people, that would never happen!
Jan Goldman-Carter, senior wetlands and water resources counsel with the National Wildlife Fund and supporter of the new rule, says the EPA is doing just what Justice Kennedy suggested — establishing, with scientific criteria, the kind of wetlands and water bodies that have a “significant nexus” to protected waters. These waters and wetlands are in the floodplain of “navigable waters,” and would meet the test anyway, she insists. Now it’s in black and white.
“Navigable waters”. What could go wrong?
This argument goes back all the way to the Water Quality Act of 1972. What is a navigable waterway?
As it happens, the US Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over such waters, already regulates land use activities next to intermittent streams that enter rivers. A couple of years ago, a farmer in Mt. Vernon, Ohio, was fined by the Corps because while clearing some trees off a field he allowed soil to erode into an intermittent stream and enter the Kokosing River.
On a related note, if you live in beaver country, in most places beavers are a protected species, and they can do whatever they want to any stream on your property, and they can use your trees to do.
This argument goes back all the way to the Water Quality Act of 1972. What is a navigable waterway?
As it happens, the US Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over such waters, already regulates land use activities next to intermittent streams that enter rivers. A couple of years ago, a farmer in Mt. Vernon, Ohio, was fined by the Corps because while clearing some trees off a field he allowed soil to erode into an intermittent stream and enter the Kokosing River.
On a related note, if you live in beaver country, in most places beavers are a protected species, and they can do whatever they want to any stream on your property, and they can use your trees to do.
No doubt, the environmental wackos at EPA will write an expansive rule, but it might not change current practice much. Stream order (technical term) might be increased, so direct discharge to a permanent river is not necessary for regulation.
For Enviro wackos a “navigable” waterway is one which a turtle can go through.
Welcome back to feudalism.
On your knees serfs!
When did Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged stop being a cautionary tale and become a blueprint for this madness?
The second link talks about PM Harper taking Oceans and Fisheries off the backs of prairie municipal councilors. The councilors were extremely happy about that as they no longer had to repair broken or collapsed culverts at night when the Oceans and Fisheries bureaucrats were in their beds.
An example of how the NIMBYs and envirowhackos would use this regulation.
When the Ottawa Senators wanted to build the Palladium, a group tried to block it saying it would interfere with ‘a navigable waterway’ as there was a seasonal stream on the site that filled during the spring melt. Eventually a government employee had to attempt to navigate the stream in a canoe during the summer. He failed as it was too shallow so it was deemed not a navigable waterway. The next claim was it was ‘irreplaceable wetlands’ because some geese stop there when they migrate. This too was disproved. The two suits delayed the start of building for over a year.
Under socialism you can own whatever you want – land, a house, a business but the state controls your use of it so tightly that you can only choose to do what the state wants you to do. There is no freedom in that situation.
UN Agenda 21 is a reality that will take all the lands out of private hands eventually.
Google pollution in China or pollution in India.
Then tell me we have a problem
The agenda for the eco-nutters and envirofascists has always been to turn Canada, beyond the urban areas, into one giant park, where Robert Kennedy and his whacko effete American tourist friends can snap pictures of cuddly bears, and stuff, while watching aboriginals flaunt the rules because ‘they were here first’ or something like that.
The ALR in BC is a prime example of nutjob thinking, where plots of land that are 50% non-arable, for example (also called bedrock) cannot be turned into developments, because they are within a plot of land that is arable, and also cannot be subdivided……bedrock preserved for what, again? Ah yes, a bureaucrat deemed it so.
Despite the ‘arable’ land not being farmed at all, for decades, if at all ever. Because some ‘expert’ has deemed it may be farmabale one day, potentially, if you threw enough money at it…..
The B.C. government is contemplating ending the ALR or at least altering it. As it’s still in the talking stage, the Enviro-zealots haven’t taken to the streets with torches and pitchforks just yet, but wait for it.
Years ago,when I lived in Abbotsford,a developer tried to build on some mountain top land he owned.There was a huge outcry from the usual suspects as the land was in the ALR,though it was so rocky it was useless for growing anything but dandelions.
He circumvented the rules by clearing the trees,ostensibly for sheep grazing land,then applied for and got his development permits. Now there is a big development up there, visible from the Freeway,and all the real agricultural land in the Valley is still being used for farming.
City folks can’t tell desert from prime grain growing fields,or,as my Dad used to say,”shit from shinola”.
“Under socialism you can own whatever you want…”
Technically, Al, what you described is fascism. Under socialism, actual private ownership is not supposed to exist but for practical reasons has usually been allowed at token levels to stave off starvation. The thought police of our dominant leftist culture doesn’t approve of the use of the word fascist despite its overwhelming existence with their support. The genius of the left is that the failures of fascism are used as arguments against capitalism.
Situations such as these are proof the concept of “the rule of law” in the Western world is a crock.
dm
Locally, the ALR does fall under some municipal discretion. I believe the changes to the ALR contemplated will remove a step from the bureaucracy, but not the whole ALR per se, it is a ‘holy grail’ like ICBC, et al, for the rabble and babble, as you say, pitchforks in the streets. (still waiting for the canes in the streets, regarding the 1/2 price seniors ferry fares, -how outrageous- …..but I digress).
For example, here in the CRD (Communist Regional District), Langford, the most business friendly jurisdiction, sees the light. Land that will NEVER be farmed (too small, never been farmed, or just grazing land) is being converted to development land, raising the tax base, and keeping residential, and biz taxes down. Langford therefore also raises generous funds to increase its facilities, supported by development only. BTW, -NO CUPE in Langford-. Things get done there.
The other munis loathe Langford, openly. Deep down they are envious, publicly, their self-righteous nimbyism is hypocritical.
Highlands and Metchosin? Raise the drawbridges, and shut it down. Two backward, leftwing nutjob munis where nothing happens, except taxes go up, and their infrastructure (what little there is of it) is falling apart, with no means to fund it, other than res. tax increases. Business is evil after all, dontcha know?
Saanich? The holy grail of enviro-weenies everywhere. Development is evil in a muni of over 100,000 people….oh wait! CUPE runs it. Taxes increase at many times the rate of inflation. But gubmint jobs MUST be protected, what with so many gubmint employees living in Saanich, they bow to their god of government, because all gubmint good! Getting anything done there, is a morass of endless bureaucracy, and extreme expense. The citizenry wants more, more, more (gubmint employees after all), but development is evil , especially in an urban area……..and all bedrock must be protected, especially if only 10% of the land is arable. Why, a grow-op could be established, eh wot?
Is it wrong, that I’m just dying to work the word “nexus” into a comment ?
UK, I’m trying to work it into a song: “Oh, Texas is nexus to Arkansas…” I admit, it needs work.
See here for the consequences of getting on the bad side of the EPA.
http://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.ca/2013/11/new-epa-attempt-to-seize-power-yes.html
Mr. and Mrs. Hage of Pine Creek Ranch in Nevada were targeted for a campaign of harassment by the Feds. In 1991 they filed suit. In 2008 they won the suit, although they couldn’t really enjoy the victory because of being dead. Currently, the appeals are still grinding through the courts. The Hage’s estate has yet to receive any recompense, if I’m reading the articles correctly.
By the way, EPA “inspectors” don’t need a warrant to walk all around your place. I put the word “inspectors” in quotes because of late the EPA is starting to use SWAT teams. Like with “assault weapons”, body armor, black outfits, masks, helmets etc.
Basically EPA have stopped pretending they’re protecting the environment, now they’re just beating you up and taking your stuff.
“Technically, Al, what you described is fascism.”
I highly recommend that SDA readers find a copy of Elizabeth Nickson’s book “Eco-Fascists” at their local library or bookstore. She lives on Saltspring Island, which is under the tight control of the Islands Trust – a body that decides everything for everybody living on any of the gulf islands.
In addition to weaving a tale of her own experiences with the local eco-fascists, she enlightens her readers on what has taken place in not only the US, but internationally, with huge well funded groups like the WWF and Intn’l Conservation. The links and co-operation between them are absolutely part of Agenda 21 and they seem to be winning the major battles.
Ironically, they end up destroying much of what they claim to save. Forests and ranch land all go to ruin due to lack of human care and intervention. They have lots of money to buy vast tracts of land, but either do not care about it afterwards or simply believe that what nature does is by very definition, what is best for the land. PUblic lands that once grazed thousands of cattle and was effectively used to turn over new forage has now gone to invasive, scrub species that benefits no one. Forests that once supplied mills and thousands of well paying middle class jobs are now diseased, overgrown tinderboxes ready to develop into super fires – that will be blamed of course, on global warming.
Fascism is entirely accurate.
The Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) was never meant to be a environmental protection piece, but became tied to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), through what was called the Lawlist. The NWPA dates back to 1882 and actually amalgamated two existing Acts. The purpose of the NWPA was to protect the Common Law right of navigation, which incidental also covered the floating of logs down a river.
Quite right, Colin. Anyone who scoffs at the idea of using a canoe to test navigability is forgetting about three hundred years of our history, in which commerce was conducted by canoe. And very effectively, too. Of course, a canoe doesn’t need perfectly clean water filled with endangered species before it can float. Or at least it didn’t then.
Also navigable waters have other effects, on access, land rights and fishing rights. We had a court case here about 15 years ago, a reserve wanted a river deemed “Non-navigable” to stop non-native fisherman from fishing “their” river. A determination of navigable meant the river was not part of the reserve and people could use it.
always be careful what you wish for, because you might get it. I also find it ironic that Municipalities are complaining of to much red tape. I so want that letter so I can tell the Bylaw officer to go pound sand and take a copy of this letter to your boss. In my experience it’s the Municipal government that is the most intrusive of them all. (Barring Strata corps)