“inexplicable, arbitrary and devoid of reasoned process,”
Do you have a spring or pond on your property? You may get a visit from the EPA as they are claiming control. No, I am not kidding. Luckily a federal judge recently issued a temporary injunction to prevent the EPA from it’s latest effort to control virtually ALL US waterways. Judge Ralph Erickson of North Dakota has at least for the time being halted an initiative which would allow in the EPAs wants to use in order to “claim oversight of millions of acres of land that contain small bodies of water.”
And they are doing this without the approval of Congress. Yep, this is another attempt by President Obama to bypass Congress. It seems to be another example of overreach in order to protect and care for us because we cannot be expected to care whether the ponds, lakes or streams on our property are polluted or send pollution downstream. Yes, I want to have a polluted stream on my property for my family, pets, garden and stock to use. (please inflect sarcasm as you read that last sentence.)
According to Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama, “Some legal scholars believe the regulation is so broad that it could lead to the EPA regulating bodies of water as small as ditches or puddles in a farm pasture.” So far 13 states have issued suits to block the EPA from implementing this new rule. But that leaves 37 states where the EPA has stated they will IMMEDIATELY put these changes into effect.
The Washington Times reports that Judge Ralph Erickson has issued a temporary injunction that prevents the EPA “from claiming oversight of millions of acres of land that contain small bodies of water.”
Critics of the EPA initiative have argued that the far-reaching new rule would give Obama’s official environmental activists vast new powers that would threaten water rights and usage by untold numbers of individuals, including farmers.
The Times article notes the critics’ argument that “the EPA would control lands near ditches with no possible connection to the rivers and lakes that the [original] law was designed to protect.”
The rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote and intermittent waters. No evidence actually points to how these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to a navigable-in-fact water.
The Washington Times reports:
“In all other respects, the rule is effective on August 28,” the agency said in a statement. “The agencies [EPA and Army Corps of Engineers] are evaluating these orders and considering next steps in the litigation.’”