Obama’s EPA has declared that the city of Riverton, Wyoming, with over 10,000 people is no longer part of the United States and have given it to the Indians. In essence, all Americans living in Riverton are no longer living in the United States and are not eligible for state or federal services. They can also be tossed off land they bought and paid for since their deeds do not have to be recognized by the Indians. The Indians have argued for years that they should get full ownership of 1 million more acres of land because it should be part of their reservation.
The problem is that congress decided the borders in legislation passed in 1905. If this ruling is allowed to stand, the EPA can arbitrarily take land away from its owners and give it to anyone they choose to. The governor of Wyoming, Matt Mead is threatening to refuse to recognize the EPA’a authority.
“My deep concern is about an administrative agency of the federal government altering a state’s boundary and going against over 100 years of history and law. This should be a concern to all citizens because, if the EPA can unilaterally take land away from a state, where will it stop?”
The Wyoming delegation to congress has sent a letter to the EPA demanding they reverse their decision. All parties agree the final decision must be made in the federal courts.
It is unclear whether the EPA is considering turning over all 1 million acres the Indians are requesting.
Sen. Leland Christensen argues:
“This is an alarming action when you have a federal agency step in and start to undo congressional acts that has really been our history for 108 years … with the stroke of a pen without talking to the biggest groups impacted, and that would be the city of Riverton and the state of Wyoming.”
The EPA refuses to comment on their decision.
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)