+OverSword Posted April 16, 2014 #1 Share Posted April 16, 2014 It seems like our government does nothing that doesn't rub me the wrong way these days. From the article: 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.” Read the rest here 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted April 16, 2014 #2 Share Posted April 16, 2014 seriously now you're using world nut daily as a source? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiskatonicGrad Posted April 16, 2014 #3 Share Posted April 16, 2014 seriously now you're using world nut daily as a source? are any of these acceptable? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/25/epa-land-grab-agency-claims-authority-over-more-streams-wetlands/ http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/25/EPA-Proposes-Huge-Land-Grab http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2014/04/epa-largest-land-grab-in-the-history-of-the-world-is-china-involved-we-think-so-2451712.html http://washingtonexaminer.com/proposed-giant-epa-land-grab-is-rigged-conflicted-and-corrupted/article/2537428 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-25/anglers-cheer-epa-water-proposal-senator-calls-land-grab.html 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted April 16, 2014 Author #4 Share Posted April 16, 2014 seriously now you're using world nut daily as a source? If you don't like the message attack the messenger. Fail. Pull yer head njd 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremiah65 Posted April 17, 2014 #5 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Until MSNBC covers the story, it's not news as far as Ninjadud is concerned. I'll have to research this myself but I am not doubting it out of the gates. Sounds exactly like something I would expect from an overreaching fed gov. I'll reserve comments for now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted April 17, 2014 #6 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Not exactly new or recent actually ~ I read somewhere last year ( memory fail ) ~ that Agro land in the US highly diminished and what is currently in use is practically 'dead' from chem poisons / fertilizers and useable water sources are too polluted for raw usage ~ And the pollinator population is practically 'gone' ~ ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiskatonicGrad Posted April 17, 2014 #7 Share Posted April 17, 2014 the way I read it the government in this case is kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't. for along time the term waterway was rather constrictive not really allowing the fed to do much. so they made it more inclusive. which kind of opened a huge can of worms. crap, I have an intermittent stream on my property that may now be deemed a waterway I only own 5 acres am I going to have to plunge through the red tape to clear my tree line which runs along the creek? I kind of see both sides of the argument. I know the water situation in America is poor and probably not getting better I just don't feel this is the best way of going about it. this kind of legislation usually ends up hurting farmers more than anyone and that is one part of our society we need to be helping not hurting. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted April 17, 2014 #8 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Until The Republicans do it, it's not a bad thing as far as Ninjadud is concerned. Fixed that for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted April 17, 2014 #9 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Incidentally, the "largest land grab in the history of the world" is what the British Empire did in 1770 "Terra Nullus" and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted April 17, 2014 #10 Share Posted April 17, 2014 google: Agenda 21 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2014 #11 Share Posted April 18, 2014 (edited) Juristication is not a land grab. Juristician means that they can take actions to protect them from pollution or mismanagement. Its just an article using any excuse to bash the EPA, again. It belongs in the same section as the Agenda 21 is a Eugenics program. Br Cornelius Edited April 18, 2014 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted April 18, 2014 #12 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Jurisdiction deprives individuals of property rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2014 #13 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Jurisdiction deprives individuals of property rights. By your logic you should be able to store nuclear waste on your own land without controls. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted April 18, 2014 #14 Share Posted April 18, 2014 By your logic you should be able to store nuclear waste on your own land without controls. Br Cornelius Of course not. No controls on liability? Currently the GOV controls a limited liability on nuclear power plants by subsidizing private industry on the backs of taxpayers. If these plants were 100% private they would bear the full responsibility of actual or potential liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted April 18, 2014 #15 Share Posted April 18, 2014 (edited) By your logic you should be able to store nuclear waste on your own land without controls. Br Cornelius Nice straw man argument. Get a grip on yourself and debate the topic at hand, not your ridiculous straw men. Ninja attacks the source and corny raises straw men and now you see how the left likes to argue when they haven't a leg to stand on. Edited April 18, 2014 by Merc14 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2014 #16 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Nice straw man argument. Get a grip on yourself and debate the topic at hand, not your ridiculous straw men. Ninja attacks the source and corny raises straw men and now you see how the left likes to argue when they haven't a leg to stand on. It is a logical extension of not accepting that society has a legitimate right to control certain activities even when on private property. It is in no way a strawman. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted April 18, 2014 #17 Share Posted April 18, 2014 (edited) It is a logical extension of not accepting that society has a legitimate right to control certain activities even when on private property. It is in no way a strawman. Br Cornelius No, it isn't. Who the F wants to keep nuclear waste on their property? Edited April 18, 2014 by Merc14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted April 18, 2014 Author #18 Share Posted April 18, 2014 It is a logical extension of not accepting that society has a legitimate right to control certain activities even when on private property. It is in no way a strawman. Br Cornelius But what is ridiculous is giving the EPA control of land because of a stream bed that has been dry for over a century. No reason for it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremiah65 Posted April 19, 2014 #19 Share Posted April 19, 2014 There is speculation among some of the think tanks that in the very near future, clean, fresh water will be the cause of wars, not food and not oil...can't grow food without clean water and with no water, oil is pretty useless cause you gonna die very soon. I know some of you will have a heart attack over the source, but check this little bit of info the USA media seems to not be talking about (OH what a surprise)... http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/water-managementprivatizationworldbankgroupifc.html Not sure how many of you have looked into agenda 21 and all the tentacles it has... Enjoy! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2014 #20 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Agenda 21 is about ensuring that development is localized and built in a sustainable way such that in a resource scare future people can still function. It has become something of a right wing hobby horse because some of what that involves is to restrict the freedom of developers to build unsustainable developments which would be profitable but would ultimately place a burden on society to support them (suburban sprawl would be a classic example). Its about planning for the future which has already been predicted and not assuming that an unsustainable lifestyle/society can carry on in the future. Almost all of the propaganda against Agenda 21 is financed and motivated by those developers who will see their freedoms curtailed. It precedes on the basis that we have no ecological/resource crisis to deal with and that society as currently operating is sustainable into the future. that is a false premise. As to the water courses, a better example would be, if a land owner decided to bury his car mechanic waste in the dried up creek bed because its a hollow which can be covered over simply because it is on his land and because it hasn't flooded for 20 years. When it floods again all of that toxic waste will be flushed out of his dump and will be transported down stream to multiple other land owners potentially causing adverse health effects or destroying their livelihood. It is a perfect example of where the concept of absolute property rights is both a fiction and a bit ridiculous when you consider that no individual or location is an island which doesn't effect numerous other people. This is why in the modern world the most important area of environmental legislation is in the field of transboundary treaties. As I keep remind you all - it is joke to imagine that you do not operate solely with the legal and moral consent of your society and you only have rights and freedoms which are sanctioned by society. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted April 19, 2014 #21 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NiteMarcher Posted April 20, 2014 #22 Share Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) The United Nations "Agenda 21" plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation. Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans. Agenda 21 policies date back to the 70's but it got its real start in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro when President Bush signed onto it. President Clinton took office the following year and created the President's Council on Sustainable Development to implement it in the United States. Made up of federal agencies, corporations, and non-profit groups, the President's Council on Sustainable Development moved quickly to ensure that all federal agencies would change their policies to comply with UN Agenda 21. A non-governmental organization called the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI, is tasked with carrying out the goals of Agenda 21 worldwide. Remember: UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a global plan that is implemented locally. Over 600 cities in the U.S. are members . Regime Change is UN Agenda 21. Anything to destroy the equilibrium of the status quo. Whether it's Arab Spring or Ukraine or the United States, the goal is to gain control of power and direct it to a more technologically controllable outcome. Restricting our access to land, rights to water, property ownership, free speech, assembly, privacy--all is UN Agenda 21. Move over guys as "Our NWO" is already partially in the making...(ObamaCare, GMOs, etc.) Edited April 20, 2014 by NiteMarcher 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2014 #23 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) That is a gross distortion of what agenda 21 actually is and i suspect its directly lifted off an anti-agenda 21 website. The only way to counter this paranoid BS is for people to read the actual treaty- so here it is, read and learn how you have been deceived; http://sustainablede...ts/Agenda21.pdf Here is a summey in the form of the rio declaration; REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT* (Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992) Annex I RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992, Reaffirming the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972, a/ and seeking to build upon it, With the goal of establishing a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among States, key sectors of societies and people, Working towards international agreements which respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the global environmental and developmental system, Recognizing the integral and interdependent nature of the Earth, our home, Proclaims that: Principle 1 Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Principle 2 States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Principle 3 The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations. Principle 4 In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it. Principle 5 All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world. Principle 6 The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of environment and development should also address the interests and needs of all countries. Principle 7 States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command. Principle 8 To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies. Principle 9 States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies. Principle 10 Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided. Principle 11 States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries. Principle 12 States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus. Principle 13 States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage. States shall also cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction. Principle 14 States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health. Principle 15 In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Principle 16 National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment. Principle 17 Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority. Principle 18 States shall immediately notify other States of any natural disasters or other emergencies that are likely to produce sudden harmful effects on the environment of those States. Every effort shall be made by the international community to help States so afflicted. Principle 19 States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected States on activities that may have a significant adverse transboundary environmental effect and shall consult with those States at an early stage and in good faith. Principle 20 Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development. Principle 21 The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all. Principle 22 Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development. Principle 23 The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected. Principle 24 Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary. Principle 25 Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible. Principle 26 States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by appropriate means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Principle 27 States and people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of partnership in the fulfilment of the principles embodied in this Declaration and in the further development of international law in the field of sustainable development. * * * * * a/ Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 5-16 June 1972 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.73.II.A.14 and corrigendum), chap. I. Br Cornelius Edited April 21, 2014 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan'O Posted April 21, 2014 #24 Share Posted April 21, 2014 There is a super clean up site not far from here. The EPA can't even handle that. Enough said? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2014 #25 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) There is a super clean up site not far from here. The EPA can't even handle that. Enough said? Some of the messes left by mining concerns are all but insoluable. Is it the EPA's fault that they exist in the first place and would you rather that businesses were left alone to carry on polluting without control ? The EPA does a difficult job of clearing up after business declares itself bankrupt and walks away from its mess - and attacking the EPA will certainly not make your country a safer healthier place. These anti-EPA arguments seem just plain dumb and purely political in nature. Br Cornelius Edited April 21, 2014 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now