It seems like the Obama administration is interested in grabbing as much as they can, and putting it under the control of the federal government.
Via WND:
In a move lawmakers and farmers are
calling “the biggest land grab in the history of the world,” the
Environmental Protection Agency is requesting jurisdiction over all
public and private streams in the United States that are “intermittent,
seasonal and rain-dependent.”
The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in late March jointly released a proposed rule, Waters of the United States, in an effort to clarify which streams and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act.
A statement issued by the EPA says “the
proposed rule will benefit businesses by increasing efficiency in
determining coverage of the Clean Water Act.”
But some lawmakers strongly disagree.
According to congressional budget
testimony last week, Waters of the United States would give the EPA
authority over streams on private property even when the water beds have
been dry, in some cases for hundreds of years.
Calling it “the biggest land grab in the
history of the world,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep.
Harold Rogers, R-Ky., said the “economic impact of that would be
profound.”
“A community needing to build on private
land that had on it one of these so-called streams that you considered a
waterway under the new rule would have to travel thousands, hundreds of
miles to D.C., to get approval,” Rogers said.
The congressman argued it “would absolutely freeze economic activity in this country.”
Rogers said the proposal is “proof in and of itself of the mal-intent of this administration toward the private sector.”
The Independent Journal Review has more:
Several lawmakers have noted that the measure, if approved, would give the EPA control over private property such as ponds and creeks:
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, the top
Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
charged, “The … rule may be one of the most significant private property
grabs in U.S. history.” He stated that the EPA was “picking and
choosing” its science while trying to “take another step toward outright
permitting authority over virtually any wet area in the country.”
Vitter also noted that if the EPA gets its way, more environmental
groups could sue private property owners.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was also
furious, saying that the EPA grab “could result in serious collateral
damage to our economy.” She added of her home state, “If EPA is not
careful, this rule could effectively give the federal government control
of nearly all of our state — and prove to be a showstopper for both
traditional access and new development.”
The EPA argues that the change is meant
to simply clarify the scope of powers that the organization already has,
and that those powers are necessary because more than 115 million
Americans receive their water from those temporary or seasonal sources.
What do you think of this, government overreach on a massive scale,
or as the EPA contends, necessary to protect Americans and help
businesses?
No comments:
Post a Comment