WARNING:EPA wants your puddle

[dozedotz]

The EPA is proposing to take control over ALL water. This includes ponds you constructed, drainage ditch, run offs, wet weather creeks, etc. EVEN Democrats are raising the alarm about this. IF IT MATTERS TO YOU: now is the time to contact your congressman or senator (even if they are democrat)
The public comment period will not last long!! The small farmer, the small businessman is who will be hit by this. BIG AG will NOT!
WARNING: I am a political person!!! Just so you know. Do NOT read beyond the above announcement if you are offended by a political stance. The EPA has been approved by the Supreme Court to have the jurisdiction to do exactly as they propose. ONLY the Congress (that means the democratic Senate as well as the Republican House (no problem there) will have to go against the EPA or this will fly. YOU do not have the $$$ to fight this...most small landowners will be at the mercy of the EPA...forced to fence off your
pond that you created to feed your livestock, forced to destroy that same pond or face huge fines every single day. I believe that the aim of the democrats (and certainly Obama) is to drive the little guy off the land...make it so difficult and so expensive that he/she cannot continue. Why? To appease the environmentalists, the conservation depts., who want the land for themselves and wildlife, period. They do not want the land divided, split up by little plots of 10, 20 or 250 acres because it causes fragmentation of the eco system. Whether you believe that or not, do you really want some Fed telling you that you have to fence off for over 200 feet (yes, over 200 feet) a wet weather creek on your property that runs maybe 3 times a year?? THAT is what we are talking about here. If you are concerned about your lifestyle then you better contact your reps FAST...

[TeenyTinyFarm]

Please post a link to the actual Supreme Court or EPA documents you are referring to so that I can read them. Thanks!

[dozedotz]

Sorry, I do not know how to do that...if you google "Supreme Court ruling April, 2014, on EPA jurisdiction re: Clean Water Act, it will take you to it. The discussion period is until June 6 I think. Are you telling me that you have NEVER heard of this? It has been known for some time...but Obama is acting now.

[Alice In TX/MO]

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidan.../CWAwaters.cfm

[dozedotz]

LOL! Thanks Alice! I know this isn't your favorite conversation. There is an article in the scienc/health section of the Wasington Post (for the left wingers who do not trust other sources) that is pretty fair.

[Alice In TX/MO]

Activities that are exempt from the new regulations:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production...404_exempt.pdf

[Alice In TX/MO]

Map that shows percentage of intermittent streams. VERY slow to load.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidan...ntage_high.jpg

[Alice In TX/MO]

From the questions and answers page.....

Q. 2. What does this IR (Interpretive Rule) do?

A. 2. The IR clarifies section 404(f)(1)(A) by recognizing that specific NRCS conservation
practices implemented in waters of the United States are exempt from permitting requirements
under CWA section 404.

The list of exempt conservation practices clarified by the IR can be found at:
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidan.../CWAwaters.cfm. It is critical to emphasize
that this list is in addition to all previously exempt agriculture, silviculture, and ranching
practices covered by section 404(f). The

[||Downhome||]

rule by administration needs to be challenged, as does rule by bench... I'd love to come into these peoples life's... umm your doing what? aww no your not!

[dozedotz]

While it is certainly helpful to read what the government (EPA) is proposing, I would strongly suggest that you read other sources, too. The government claims to be "clarifying what waters are covered under the Clean Water Act" but what they are doing in expanding from major waterways and streams to include even dry creeks or other areas that are only wet a few times a year, drainage ditches and private ponds. MO and AR just fought and defeated the Blue Way which would have required among other things that the landowner who had a wet weather creek on their property fence it off from any livestock/people for over 200 feet on all sides for the length and width of their property. How many people on this forum are worried about fencing? Cost? Now, think about fencing off a wet weather creek that runs through your land. Think about having the feds visiting you regularly to see if you have a "run off" (who doesn't??) that might empty into a "stream" several miles away?? This is over reach and it should not be Constitutional IMO.

[fellini123]

They, the EPA is also including us in their clean water act. All access for animals to have to the river must be blocked off, there must not be wildlife access to river water. Now how we can keep the beavers and the deer out of the river I have no idea, but since we dont own them I guess it is someone elses problem,
We cannot have straight line water systems and we must pump out our septic system every 4 or 5 years. Now how that effects the river I do not know. But those are the rules they are trying to inforce around here,
.We had aa meeting on the 14th to tell us what to do.

Alice in Virginia

[TeenyTinyFarm]

Originally Posted by dozedotz

Sorry, I do not know how to do that...if you google "Supreme Court ruling April, 2014, on EPA jurisdiction re: Clean Water Act, it will take you to it. The discussion period is until June 6 I think. Are you telling me that you have NEVER heard of this? It has been known for some time...but Obama is acting now.

Pardon me for not knowing about something. That is why inquired for more info. I purposefully avoid the majority of media because the goings on with the gov't puts me in such a tizzy. But I do appreciate fact based information when I can get it.

[where I want to]

Having been round the block repeatedly about the miserable effects of bureaucrats armed with an assumed authority over whatever they please under the Clean Water Act and not having any structure for keeping them to their own law except for runinous court cases, anything the Feds write as expansion of regulation should be resisted because, sooner or later, everyone with a small holding will run across someone who will decide you to be dragged into their idea of compliance. If for no other reason than to protect you from yourself according to their lights. And being unable to afford their solution is no excuse.

[dozedotz]

Sorry, did not mean to offend...what I was trying to say and could have said better is: Has there been nothing about this in your local news? I truly believe that the news does a very poor job of informing the general public about what the government agencies are pulling over on the public. The important parts here I think are that 1) "clarifying" a tributary is really expanding "tributary" to mean EVERYTHING and 2) the word "adjacent" when applied to a major waterway to your little run off creek can be as many miles away as the EPA wants...in their view all is connected and it does not matter the extent of the "connectedness" or the size of the runoff.

[Alice In TX/MO]

I don't have local news (TV) anymore.

I wish someone would post a link to the other article Dozedotz mentioned. I haven't had time to look.

[dozedotz]

OK...sorry I am so computer illiterate...I need my kids to get the thing turned on! LOL
The article Alice refers to is from the Washington Post, by Juliet Elperin and Daryl Fears, in the Health and Science section, entitled EPA Proposes Greater Protections for Streams, Wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
I quote from the article: "All ephemeral and intermittent streams, and all wetland that are connected or next to them, will be subject to Federal oversight..."
"About 60% of the miles of stream making up the US streams ONLY FLOW SEASONALLY, OR AFTER RAIN..."
"...EPA has added just about everything into its jurisdiction by expanding the definition of "tributary"...ditches, man made canals, ANY OTHER FEATURE THAT A REGULATOR DETERMINES TO HAVE A BED, BANK AND HIGH WATER MARK..."
This is a pretty fair article for the Washington Post IMO. Obviously as a conservative I would never rely on this paper for my coverage of anything the government does...however, I think that since so many democrat representatives are saying that this is an over reach and not to be tolerated, some of the lefties among us might see this (like the VA) as something that none of us can tolerate and would believe the Post before they would say, Fox News (a great news source IMO..LOL). Anyway, right or left this will mean that many of us will not be on the land in the future. The regulation, fees, fines and interference will drive us off and that IMO is EXACTLY what the greenies want. As I said at the beginning of this thread, fragmentation is the key word. Private landholders on small plots (even of hundreds of acres) is seen to be as bad as over population of humans for the environment. Many of these people are serious environmentalists - it is their religion - but many are simply control freaks who want to get all of us into the ghettos where we are easier to manage. And by ghetto I mean the well intended "old folks" high rises, the conveniently located, within walking distance of the green grocery place that should fulfill our every desire...and of course, like most liberal wet dreams, does not...

[TeenyTinyFarm]

Eh..it may be on the local news, but I wouldn't know. I stopped watching when they started reporting on things like American Idol, Miley Cyrus or whatever other drivel they could come up with to distract the mob.

[TeenyTinyFarm]

It is interesting that there are two distinct sects of environmentalism; one that believes we can coexist harmoniously with nature (thinking or the permaculture movement here) and the other that prefers to think of humans as a parasite and burdensome to the environment and that population and it's impact on the environment must be strictly controlled. I feel very strongly that we are stewards; borrowers of this earths resources and it is our responsibility to use those resources frugally and wisely so that they will continue to be useful for future generations.

[dozedotz]

There are lots of versions of what is an environmentalist, etc. Our kids say that their dad and I are the "greenest" people they know by the way we choose to live. Interesting to me since 2 of our sons live in CA and WA. Like I said, there are people who believe that humans are not natural and contaminating and then there are people who will use any pretext to control you. At this age (over 70) I think that it is good to care for the earth but it is also good to not be a sucker.

[where I want to]

For one thing, without having an obligation to respect people, there is employment for university indoctrinated people to use regulation like a weapon. And they tend to take the easy way as public employees. So what really happens is that some person shows up to kindly inform you that you are on some list and you need to do the following things. Most people either ignore them- some try to do what they want. And, since they only provide sketchy definitions of the laws anyway, and no real review process, few people sit down and figure out whether they have it right at all.
The next thing that happens is that they show up months or even years later to tell you you did not meet the requirements and are now subject to fines and, by the way, other things are now being added to that list that didn't make them happy in the first place. And dismiss all concerns you might have as irrelevant- you are basically an inconvenience.
They treat everyone as if they were a government entity with unlimited funds. Do what they want and they will come back for more. Don't do what they want and the same happens.