EPA's Massive Power Grab of Private Property Across the U.S

[Jroc]

Another massive power grab from Obama and his cronies

WASHINGTON — While the country is immersed in Obamacare headlines and a congressional tussle over delays and mandates, the Obama administration is stealthily moving toward unprecedented control over private property under a massive expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act authority.

The proposed rule, obtained by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee in advance of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s testimony at a Thursday oversight hearing, widely broadens the definition of waterways over which the federal government has jurisdiction to as little as a water ditch in a backyard.





The Clean Water Act redefinition of “waters of the United States” would include all ponds, lakes, wetlands and natural or manmade streams that have any effect on downstream navigable waters — whether on public lands or private property.

And, committee Republicans note, the administration is trying to move forward with the rule at a breakneck pace, relying on the findings of a scientific report that hadn’t undergone peer review at the time the rule was submitted to the White House for approval.

“The EPA’s draft water rule is a massive power grab of private property across the U.S. This could be the largest expansion of EPA regulatory authority ever,” Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said after seeing the proposal. “If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams.”

“The Obama administration’s latest power play to regulate America’s waterways is an unprecedented effort to control the use of private property,” Smith added, promising to question McCarthy this week about her agency’s “ever-expanding regulatory agenda.”

PJ Media » EPA Stealthily Propels Toward ?Massive Power Grab of Private Property Across the U.S.?

 

[RoadVirus]

The EPA needs to be neutered. It is getting way to big for it's britches.

 

[OKTexas]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

This says congress has no legislative authority over private lands, it's time people stand up for themselves.

 

[Jroc]

I have low areas that hold water on my property..or is it my property anymore?

 

[R.C. Christian]

Just wait until the Agenda 21 agents start talking to you local city councils about "smart growth". As Van Jones stated, and I paraphrase, the fundamental change will be centered around green technology. This will enable them to create the collectivist state they're hoping for. They'll force people like me out of the country, destroy the burbs, and pack us like Jews in big cities under a giant surveillance grid. Already happening.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I have low areas that hold water on my property..or is it my property anymore?

Not in Oregon.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If you're pouring gasoline or oil into the river = should be illegal
If you're pumping out coal smog = should be illegal

 

[OnePercenter]

The EPA needs to be neutered. It is getting way to big for it's britches.

You think it's OK for people to toxic dump in wetlands?

 

[Jroc]

If you're pouring gasoline or oil into the river = should be illegal
If you're pumping out coal smog = should be illegal

That's not the issue is it? too much government overreach too much power in the hands of a few bureaucrats

'Little guy' wins high court fight over property rights

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

The justices unanimously ruled Chantell and Mike Sackett can appeal a compliance order that said wetlands on their residential lot were improperly filled with rocks and dirt. A building permit was then revoked.

"Since the agency's decision was final and since the Sacketts have no other adequate remedy in a court, they may bring their suit" under federal law, said Justice Antonin Scalia.

The couple's supporters had billed this as "David vs. Goliath" fight against the Environmental Protection Agency.

"We're here to stand up for the property rights and the constitutional rights of all Americans," Mike Sackett told CNN in January, when the case was argued at the high court. "We felt blindsided by the EPA, and we remain determined to fight.

"

'Little guy' wins high court fight over property rights - CNN.com

 

[Contumacious]

Another massive power grab from Obama and his cronies

Abolish the EPA and Save Lives

Laurence M. Vance


Not just because Obama wants to use the EPA to force power plants to abide by even tougher emission standards in the name of fighting “climate change,” but because 2,700 people die every day of malaria throughout the world because Nixon’s newly-formed EPA banned DDT in 1972 and other countries followed America’s lead. If this article from the New American (“DDT Ban Breeds Death”) doesn’t make you despise the EPA even more then nothing will. And I did not realize that Rachel Carson was a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."

.

 

[daveman]

The EPA needs to be neutered. It is getting way to big for it's britches.

You think it's OK for people to toxic dump in wetlands?

Yes. We also think people should be able to own nuclear weapons, and all women should be legally required to be pregnant all the time.

Or you could just stop your moronic bullshit binary thinking.

 

[Contumacious]

the epa needs to be neutered. It is getting way to big for it's britches.

you think it's ok for people to toxic dump in wetlands?

yes. We also think people should be able to own nuclear weapons, and all women should be legally required to be pregnant all the time.

Or you could just stop your moronic bullshit binary thinking.

huh?

.

 

[daveman]

you think it's ok for people to toxic dump in wetlands?

yes. We also think people should be able to own nuclear weapons, and all women should be legally required to be pregnant all the time.

Or you could just stop your moronic bullshit binary thinking.

huh?

.

1%er is using typical prog non-thinking: "If you disagree with the EPA, you obviously want to force everyone to drink toxic waste!!"

Either-or. Black-and-white. No reasonable balance in between.

Binary thinking. What they always accuse conservatives of, but practice themselves.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

This says congress has no legislative authority over private lands, it's time people stand up for themselves.

No, that describes the creation of Washington DC as the nation's capital, putting it under the direct control of Congress.

It says nothing like what you're claiming...

 

[OnePercenter]

If you're pouring gasoline or oil into the river = should be illegal
If you're pumping out coal smog = should be illegal

That's not the issue is it? too much government overreach too much power in the hands of a few bureaucrats

'Little guy' wins high court fight over property rights

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

The justices unanimously ruled Chantell and Mike Sackett can appeal a compliance order that said wetlands on their residential lot were improperly filled with rocks and dirt. A building permit was then revoked.

"Since the agency's decision was final and since the Sacketts have no other adequate remedy in a court, they may bring their suit" under federal law, said Justice Antonin Scalia.

The couple's supporters had billed this as "David vs. Goliath" fight against the Environmental Protection Agency.

"We're here to stand up for the property rights and the constitutional rights of all Americans," Mike Sackett told CNN in January, when the case was argued at the high court. "We felt blindsided by the EPA, and we remain determined to fight.

"

'Little guy' wins high court fight over property rights - CNN.com

So Mike Sackett wants everyone to believe that the owner of the property, the escrow company, the contractor, and the county new nothing of EPA regulations regarding their land? Please!!!!!

 

[Moonglow]

All I have is pee puddle on my land, they are welcomed to that.

 

[Jroc]

If you're pouring gasoline or oil into the river = should be illegal
If you're pumping out coal smog = should be illegal

That's not the issue is it? too much government overreach too much power in the hands of a few bureaucrats

'Little guy' wins high court fight over property rights

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

The justices unanimously ruled Chantell and Mike Sackett can appeal a compliance order that said wetlands on their residential lot were improperly filled with rocks and dirt. A building permit was then revoked.

"Since the agency's decision was final and since the Sacketts have no other adequate remedy in a court, they may bring their suit" under federal law, said Justice Antonin Scalia.

The couple's supporters had billed this as "David vs. Goliath" fight against the Environmental Protection Agency.

"We're here to stand up for the property rights and the constitutional rights of all Americans," Mike Sackett told CNN in January, when the case was argued at the high court. "We felt blindsided by the EPA, and we remain determined to fight.

"

'Little guy' wins high court fight over property rights - CNN.com

So Mike Sackett wants everyone to believe that the owner of the property, the escrow company, the contractor, and the county new nothing of EPA regulations regarding their land? Please!!!!!

EPA Regulation is bullshit

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Just wait until the Agenda 21 agents start talking to you local city councils about "smart growth". As Van Jones stated, and I paraphrase, the fundamental change will be centered around green technology. This will enable them to create the collectivist state they're hoping for. They'll force people like me out of the country, destroy the burbs, and pack us like Jews in big cities under a giant surveillance grid. Already happening.

it's all related....since the Agenda 21 idea is to remove people from the countryside and 'stack 'em and pack em' in the cities...how easy is it to take someone's property if you fine them $35,000 a day for breaking some stupid water rule they made up....?

the Clean Water Act was originally for protection of waterfowl and wetlands.....it has been warped to outlandish ends in order to control all water....and when the EPA controls the puddles in your yard it pretty much controls all private land...and controlling land in turn also means that it can control food production...a necessity people need to live...

once the socialist ghoulbalists control all water, food production, and property.... the world will become their slaves....

 

[OnePercenter]

That's not the issue is it? too much government overreach too much power in the hands of a few bureaucrats

"

'Little guy' wins high court fight over property rights - CNN.com

So Mike Sackett wants everyone to believe that the owner of the property, the escrow company, the contractor, and the county new nothing of EPA regulations regarding their land? Please!!!!!

EPA Regulation is bullshit

So it's OK to dump toxic chemicals in water lands where people get their drinking water?

 

[Jroc]

So Mike Sackett wants everyone to believe that the owner of the property, the escrow company, the contractor, and the county new nothing of EPA regulations regarding their land? Please!!!!!

EPA Regulation is bullshit

So it's OK to dump toxic chemicals in water lands where people get their drinking water?

why do you keep bringing straw men argument that aren't relevant to the situation?

The Sacketts bought a small parcel of about two-thirds of an acre in the Idaho Panhandle in 2005, near the shores of the resort community of Priest Lake. They hoped to build a three-bedroom home, surrounded by neighbors' houses, and had obtained a county permit. Gravel had already been laid for the foundation when EPA officials told them their land was a wetland. That barred any development.