We think you're near Los Angeles

Currently in Los Angeles

Location: Los Angeles Current temperature: 55°F: Current condition: Light Rain See Extended Forecast

Congress moves to control all U.S. water

Congress is attempting to expand their power over US waters by including those on private property.
Congress is attempting to expand their power over US waters by including those on private property.
Credits: 
Photo credit: US Congress web site

Civil libertarians are warning Americans about the ambitions of federal lawmakers to control all waters within the United States including those on private property, in the latest power grab by politicians in Washington, DC.

According to the American Land Rights Association, the Obama Administration and Congress are attempting to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009 (S787) that would amend the 1972 Clean Water Act and replace the words "navigable waters" with "waters of the United States." 

"The US Constitution's Tenth Amendment automatically reserves power for controlling waters to the states, not to the Oval Office and US Congress," said political strategist Mike Baker.

"This is just one more power grab by out-of-control politicians who only adhere to constitutional law when it suits them," he added. 

Section 3, Paragraph 8 stipulates that  "this Act will treat, as ‘waters of the United States’, those features that were treated as such pursuant to the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers in existence before the dates of the decisions referred to in paragraph (10), including--

 

(A) all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

 

(B) all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

 

(C) all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds;

 

(D) all impoundments of waters of the United States;

 

(E) tributaries of the aforementioned waters;

 

(F) the territorial seas;

 

(G) wetlands adjacent to the aforementioned waters."

 

After being overuled by the U. S. Supreme Court in two recent decisions that the words "navigable waters" in the Clean Water Act limited federal agencies to regulation of navigable waters only, Democrats and liberal Republicans in Congress are striking back.

They are attempting to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009 (S 787) that would amend the 1972 Clean Water Act and replace the words "navigable waters" with "waters of the United States." 

"The bill also defines "waters of the United States" with such breathtaking scope that federal agencies would be required to regulate use of every square inch of the U.S., both public and private," according to the American Land Rights Association.

"Obviously, those behind this legislation have only contempt for the Constitution, limited government and private property rights.  To understand what the framers of the Constitution intended, one need only look to their writings and the writings of those from whom they took wisdom and direction," said officials at ALRA. 

"This is a terrible bill that would give the Federal government jurisdiction over anything that is wet including seasonal mud flats. This means that the Feds could enter your property and dictate what you can do with bodies of water on your land," said political strategist Mike Baker.

"It also means that the Great Lake States and Provinces could not protect the Great Lakes from being pumped dry to feed the growth of California and the Southwest. In that area, Democrat Senator Russ Feingold has sold out his own state: Wisconsin."

"Senate Bill 787 will change federal jurisdiction over “navigable” water, to give the federal government control over all water everwhere, in municiple reservoirs, and on private lands, and in private wells. This bill ignores state water law authority and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," stated Barbara H. Peterson, a farm lands protection activist.

 

"If the Feds own the water, then they can do anything they want to with it, and I have to ask permission to get a drink or water my animals," she stated. 

 

More information on this subject may be found on these web pages:

www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s787/text

 

www.landrights.org/

 

www.thewesterner.blogspot.com/.../us-senate-moves-to-seize-deserts-under.html

 

 www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_SN_787.html 

www.protectmywater.org/documents/060109_2_pager.pdf 
 

 

 
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he's the former editor for the House Conservatives Fund's weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. 

To subscribe to Kouri's newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write "Subscription" on the subject line.

Advertisement

By

Law Enforcement Examiner

Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National...

Comments

  • Truckingal 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    I find this VERY disturbing and have been fighting against it for a couple of years now. This is nothing brand-new; its what the ultimate goal of the Clean Water Act is all about. Here in Michigan, where many of us live on lakes and ponds, we've been losing our riparian rights on a continuing basis. Recent legislative efforts at the State level (by Dems) have been to take our ground water rights away and give them to the State. Here, they're like mineral rights and never separated from deed rights. This would mean, if you're a farmer, you cant irrigate without 'permission'. If you own forty acres and want to build a house on it, they can 'stop sprawl' by refusing you a permit to drill a well. Without a well, no occupancy permit. Recently, my 80-acre millpond was enlarged on govt docs to 140 acres: they're counting the contiguous wetlands as water surface=more control by govt, less by property owner. This MUST be stopped! Just remember - ALL land is a 'watershed' of something!

  • Paul 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009, as the name implies, would allow the federal government to regulate water resources the same way they did before the 2001 Supreme Court SWANCC decision. Currently federal regulations are difficult to interpret, this act will aide in creating clear and consistent law thereby improving regulatory efficiency and predictability. In addition, it would not allow any state to pump the "Great Lakes dry" as this article irresponsibly asserts.

  • Bruce 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    Property rights advocates selectively use anecdotes to demonstrate their point. Lost in the discussion is the other side, other ramifications that could result if their proposed usage of property were fulfilled. For instance, if I want to build a dam to impound water, would I have any obligation for the downstream property owners? If my impoundment flooded upstream owners, should civil courts decide the matter? Can I divert all of the water crossing my property for my purposes, downstreamers be damned? Regarding the 10th Amendment assigning rights over navigable waters to the states, what about states that border a river, or the many states on the Mississippi/Missouri watershed? The federal government should have a role in such matters. What you do here may affect me there. Ultimately, the CWA Restoration Act would be of great benefit to most and a minor impediment to some. Ideology should be left out of this picture.

  • Wetland Willy 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    "This article is right on! If I want to fill my wetlands and flood my neighbors property I should be able to do it. This is America damnit! If you are smart you'd live UPSTREAM like me!!

  • Space Tiga 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    This article sucks. I'd rather have regulations that protect water quality, than private interests polluting water as they deem fit. Wetland Willy is a moron.

Add a new comment

Join the conversation! Log in here or create a new account if you've never registered before.

Got something to say?

Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!

Don't miss...