The EPA pushed to control every waterway in the United States of America, and now they do own every body of water. The signs shown in the video below are undeniable proof that America is under total tyranny. The EPA can now potentially prosecute any individual who uses any stream, pond, waterway, puddle, and wetland; that is not in line with their regulations. The federal government does not own the water; the people do, and it is time the people are aware of just what their government is doing.
[fvplayer src=”https://player.vimeo.com/external/155592276.hd.mp4?s=c83375614130ba717f59220be52ab412da197b97&profile_id=113″ splash=”https://christianjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/12659768_1063988596997370_1262844962_n-1.jpg”]
Two Republican lawmakers on the House Science Committee are accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of pushing through a rule that could potentially expand the agency’s regulatory authority over streams, wetlands and other bodies under the Clean Water Act.
Reps. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and Chris Stewart, R-Utah, on Friday sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concern over the proposed draft rule, which they say would give the agency “unprecedented control over private property across the nation.”
The rule, which aims to clarify the agency’s regulatory jurisdiction over different types of water bodies, was sent to the Office of Management and Budget in September for review. The agency has said the scope of the proposal is limited to clearing up confusion caused by Supreme Court decisions involving the Clean Water Act. –MORE
CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE GOV IS DOING.
The long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) redefining the term “waters of the United States” under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) was released on March 25, 2014, by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) (collectively referred to as “the agencies”). The proposed rule seeks to clarify which streams, wetlands and other waters are considered “waters of the United States” and, thus, subject to permitting requirements under the CWA. The joint proposed rule will affect project development and operations across the energy, water, construction, building, agricultural and transportation sectors. Supporters of the NOPR have estimated that it would extend the jurisdictional scope of the CWA to an additional “20 million acres of wetlands and more than half our nation’s streams.” The agencies’ proposal expands the types of waters that will be considered jurisdictional and subject to CWA permitting requirements to include:
All “tributaries” of jurisdictional waters, and all waters located within a riparian area or a floodplain, which have historically been subject to case-by-case determinations;
Certain “isolated” wetlands and ditches dug in uplands, which were categorically excluded from jurisdiction under prior agency guidelines and case law; and
Certain “other” waters that are deemed to have a “significant nexus” to jurisdictional waters.
Concurrent with the NOPR, the agencies also announced the issuance of an “Interpretive Rule.” The Interpretive Rule addresses certain agricultural permitting exemptions under CWA section 404(f)(l)(A) and, according to the agencies, is intended to incentivize conservation practices.Structure of the Proposed Rule
Under both the current and proposed regulations, there are multiple categories of “waters” that comprise the universe of what may be considered “waters of the United States.” (Please see our December 2013 Alert for a lengthy background on these dynamic issues). While the regulations provide for seven categories of “waters,” the definition for “waters of the United States” proposed in the NOPR can more helpfully be grouped into four categories: (1) waters that are jurisdictional by rule; (2) so-called “adjacent” waters, which may require a case-specific analysis; (3) “other waters” that would require a case-specific “significant nexus” analysis; and (4) excluded waters, which are never jurisdictional.
Jurisdictional “by rule.” Waters considered jurisdictional “by rule” means that EPA and the Army Corps have determined that the scientific and legal literature supports a finding, without the need for case-specific analysis, that such waters are “waters of the United States” for purposes of triggering CWA permitting requirements. Under the NOPR, this category would include waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, interstate waters, territorial seas, all impoundments of defined waters, and tributaries of each of these waterbody types. The agencies’ proposed treatment of tributaries as jurisdictional “by rule” represents a significant change from current regulations.
Adjacent Waters. EPA and the Army Corps also characterize “adjacent” waters to be “by rule” jurisdictional waters of the United States. However, the determination of whether a water is adjacent for purposes of meeting the definition of “waters of the United States” may require a case-specific analysis regarding its hydrologic connection and contiguous relationship to jurisdictional streams, riparian areas, floodplains, and other waters. Importantly, the agencies have proposed a broader “adjacent” inquiry under the NOPR by treating waters located “within the riparian area or floodplain” as “adjacent” waters and by treating all adjacent “waters,” not just adjacent “wetlands,” as being jurisdictional if they are adjacent to another jurisdictional water.
Waters Subject to Significant Nexus Analysis. A key element of the “waters of the United States” definition is the “other waters” category for which a jurisdictional determination will require a “significant nexus” analysis. This category primarily covers wetlands, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and other similar waters. As proposed in the NOPR, a significant nexus exists where:
the water “either alone or in combination with other similarly situated waters in the region” significantly affects the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of a water that is; (i) used in interstate or foreign commerce; (ii) is an interstate water or wetlands; or (iii) a territorial sea; and
the identified effect is “more than speculative or insubstantial.”
The NOPR further explains that the determination of a significant nexus will be based on a record that documents the scientific basis for concluding which functions are provided by the waters and why their effects on a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas are significant, including that they are more than speculative or insubstantial.