Thursday, March 20, 2014

Senators John Barrasso, David Vitter and Mike Enzi warn of EPA moves to control all water

By Ron Arnold | MARCH 18, 2014
Wyoming welder Andrew Johnson had a state permit, so he thought he was building a perfectly legal stock water pond for his livestock where Six Mile Creek runs through his private farm in Uinta County.  But U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcers said Johnson was actually building a dam in violation of the Clean Water Act.
Johnson’s permit from the Wyoming State Engineer’s office to build a “stock reservoir” is dated June 28, 2010, reflecting years of his careful preparations for the pond, including visits by EPA and Army Corps of Engineers agents to see the work, followed by a cordial multi-agency conference call in mid-2013 in which everything seemed fine.  Then, on Jan. 28, without notice and without due process, EPA regional bureaucrat Andrew M. Graydosh issued a compliance order requiring Johnson to return the creek to its original condition in 60 days…
They also called it “an ominous signal of EPA's intentions for its current ‘waters of the United States’ rulemaking.” Ominous indeed, for this vicious government surprise attack against a private citizen represents a potential threat against everybody.  The “rulemaking” the senators referred to is Big Green’s years-long campaign to remove the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act, so that all water, not just navigable water, falls under its regulatory authority…How long before private water wells become subject to the EPA regulating…..To Read More….
My Take – This business about wells falling under the Clear Water Act may seem farfetched speculation and a misunderstanding of what’s going on in government, but a man in Oregon was jailed and fined for collecting rain water.  Admittedly that was a local law, but the law was never intended to used in such a way. Someone decided to ‘make up their own rules’ regarding interpretation. 
EPA is already doing that and now want Congress to agree to it.  If that should occur, then where would it end?  This would make the federal government the de-facto owner or all the water in the nation.  This would lay the foundation for any new ‘rule’ restricting anything that may appear in that water, and by application of the Precautionary Principle, those substances would be become unusable.
 Does anyone really believe pesticides could be used anywhere in the nation without some microscopic amount appearing in some water source somewhere? Does anyone really believe the undercover green activists disguised as government bureaucrats at EPA and other agencies won’t make that case? 

Every professional industry, trade and manufacturing association in the nation needs to take notice of this - be concerned - be very concerned - and then act on those concerns. 

No comments: