EPA biggest attemted land grab in history

[+OverSword]

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

[ninjadude]

seriously now you're using world nut daily as a source?

[MiskatonicGrad]

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

[+OverSword]

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

[Jeremiah65]

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...

[SHaYap]

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' ~

~

[MiskatonicGrad]

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.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Until The Republicans do it, it's not a bad thing as far as Ninjadud is concerned.

Fixed that for you.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Incidentally, the "largest land grab in the history of the world" is what the British Empire did in 1770 "Terra Nullus" and all that.

[acidhead]

google: Agenda 21

[Guest]

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

[acidhead]

Jurisdiction deprives individuals of property rights.

[Guest]

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

[acidhead]

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.

[Merc14]

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

[Guest]

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

[Merc14]

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

[+OverSword]

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.

[Jeremiah65]

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!

[Guest]

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

[Yamato]

[NiteMarcher]

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

[Guest]

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

[Dan'O]

There is a super clean up site not far from here. The EPA can't even handle that. Enough said?

[Guest]

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