The EPA Legally Controls All Water, Food Production, and Private Property
Mike and Chantell Sacket, from Priest Lake, Idaho, were preparing an 0.63 acre plot of land for the construction of their new home when an order by the EPA was issued to remove piles of fill material and replant the vegetation that they had removed from their property. The couple paid $23,000 for their property.
The order from the EPA was issued after the couple had gone through the process of acquiring all of the necessary permits to begin construction. Failure to comply with the EPA order would have resulted in a daily fine of up to $37,500.
The Idaho couple sued, in an attempt to prove that their land did not meet the criteria for being declared a wetland by the EPA; however, the lower court refused to hear the case. Fortunately, the Supreme Court sided with Mike and Chantell as well as several other property owners who had been the victims of EPA tyranny. The details of the case are provided here. READ MORE... http://epaabuse.com/14617/news/epa-legally-controls-water-food-production-private-property/
Water rights are an interesting field of study because they are not absolute rights of control and usage. In fact they are pass through rights, that is to say you have a right to use them and then through either evaporation or discharge, or percolation they leave your control. A car, a piece of land, a house or an animal are not this way. You have absolute control and usage and may transfer said rights to another. Each year your water right must be renewed by purchase and according to the clouds. Other property rights are not like this. Which makes for an interesting conundrum. Just how much "contamination" does a water right confer upon the holder of that right? The supreme court has repeatedly said that unless all waters remain on your property in perpetuity, the EPA has a right to regulate those activities which affect the potability, swimability, and fishability of the waters of the United States, The end being that with the exception of the great basin, all waters of the U.S. drain to the ocean. Previous water law has held that a body of water is considered waters of the state if one can navigate down a stream or river, and became waters of the US when it was navigable by commercial vessels or was an interstate water body like the Columbia or the Colorado river. Yet it cannot be denied that all watersheds are affected by human activities.
The EPa's redefinition of waters of the US is a power grab from the states and from landowners, trashing over 225 years of water law precedent. They do not have this right and the every state should sue the EPA not just under the 10th amendment but under the commerce clause, which is what the EPA will use to justify their conduct. Scientifically all watersheds are connected but the EPA is to be a font of scientific knowledge to assist states in implementing the Clean Water Act. And the citizens of the state are supposed to hold those public officials accountable for having clean water with the boundaries of the state. If they don't want clean water then they pay the price, not every US taxpayer.
The question then becomes a matter of return on investment. Are we increasingly spending more and more money while getting less in return which is exactly what the new regulations seem to imply, or do we hit a limit at which we must say, we have done all we reasonably can and we must let nature finish cleaning up our mess. Under this administration the interpretation of the clean water act has come to mean that every vestige of human impact must be absolutely removed no matter what the cost to the taxpayer or the return on our investment.
To push farmers and near waterbody landowners into onerous regulatory environments is not the answer. I personally favor using the NRCS and local NR boards to educate landowners and land users on the best available practices to protect the resource. In my experience NRCS is the best and most knowledgable and best equipped agency to deal with the clean water acts requirements to address non point source water pollution. They are the ones who by their mandate must address the fundamental economics of resource conservation. The are the ones who over the last 80 years have done more for the conservation of agricultural, water and soil resources than all the other land management agencies combined. The forest service and BLM are making efforts and have made improvements as the science has improved but it has yet to be a steady progress. But with the NRCS being in the best position to work directly with landowners, to help finance multi year projects, and to show new landowners the success of their efforts. No other agency in the US government is so positioned. NRCS should have the authority over the non point source section of the clean water act, and this would eliminate the need for the above discussions. (END QUOTE)