|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
Federal Fertilizer
"New
Clean Water Legislation Redefines the Term 'Navigable'
"ISSUE:
Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), Chairman of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, is circulating a 'Dear Colleague' letter
encouraging Members to cosponsor the Clean Water Authority Restoration
Act (CWARA), which would delete the word "navigable" from the
Clean
Water Act (CWA)."
"IMPACT:
Under this proposal, the regulatory reach of the CWA would undergo its
greatest expansion since the law took effect in 1972. The CWARA would
grant the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of
Engineers federal regulatory authority over all "intrastate
waters."
This proposal would move the CWA beyond protecting wetlands and
waterways, and create legislation that would regulate nearly every wet
area in the nation. This could include ditches, farm ponds and possibly
groundwater."
This very current proposal has a history that most people should
understand
before they jump to support it or yawn and wonder if it has anything to
do
with them.
The term "Navigable Waters" first appears in the records of
the US Senate on
during the Civil War. The term then goes on over the years to
repeatedly,
in Appropriations Bills and New Laws, appear to authorize Federal
dredging
and "improvements" to "Navigable" waterways to aid
and abet "Interstate
Commerce".
The Constitution (Article I Section 8) gave Congress the
"Power", "To
regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States". From
this original charge for Congress to "regulate" things like
harbors and
rivers for purposes of "commerce" evolved the simple practice
of Federal
regulation of interstate commerce by, among other things maintaining
safe
and deep channels in "Navigable Waterways" for commerce.
Also, one of the
stated purposes in the Preamble of the Constitution is for the Federal
government to "provide for the common defense".
Additionally, in Article II
Section 2 of the Constitution it states that "The President shall
be
Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the
mandates came the established practice of the US Army Corps of Engineers
dredging "Navigable" rivers and bays and coastal channels for
the purpose of
sheltering and moving a Navy and providing defensive capability for the
nation.
For many decades States were happy to have the Federal government
maintaining water control structures like locks and dams, water levels,
navigation aides, and channels themselves up the
and up the
supportive of this important and beneficial function of government.
From
the
"Navigable Waters" were integral and welcome factors until
somewhere around
the 1960's.
Environmental claims arose in the 1960's that challenged everything from
logging and ranching to hunting and fishing. Federal authority
creation
became a popular and effective tool to enforce the "new
values". Federal
authority over "Endangered Species" and "Marine
Mammals" and "Animal
Welfare" was created out of thin air and under questionable
circumstances
for murky purposes. Also, lawsuits in certain more
"radical" courts began
to get decisions that "Navigable Waters" (those under Federal
jurisdiction
and regulations for most purposes) weren't "only" the waters
that were
"navigable" or used for "commerce" or necessary for
"defense": indeed,
"Navigable waters" included streams and creeks and marshes and
ponds and
intermittent wetspots and everything in between. Radical
environmentalists
and Federal bureaucrats hailed this new concept (as more new legislation
like the "Clean Air Act" and the "Clean Water Act"
were being drawn up and a
new federal agency, the Environmental Protection Act, was being birthed.
For instance an Hungarian immigrant in
tires in a wetspot behind his business while the entire
"Conservation
Community" and State fish and wildlife agencies hailed the new
Federal
authority over everything "wet" as the "only hope"
for
wildlife.
Only thing is that, unlike Roe v. Wade, this Court finding that
"Navigable
Waters" meant everything damp was itself all wet and under constant
challenges. Hence this latest move by the long-serving and
esteemed
Congressman from Northern Minnesota to just drop the word
"Navigable" from
the Clean Water Act thereby just making this Act "cover" all
water as being
under Federal authority.
This convenient "switch in the night" is virtually unopposed.
Why? Could
it be because the state fish and wildlife agencies and State Natural
Resource Departments that "regulate" state waters are in the
pockets of
Federal bureaucracies? Is it because state politicians see this as
"good"
for getting "more" Federal grants" or having
"federal regulators" take the
heat for planned water takeovers and shifts? Is it because
environmentalists see this as a way for Federal controls over
shorelines,
and development, and water use, and "riparian areas", and
water-associated
wildlife and fish, and human activities to be strengthened at the
expense of
state authorities, local authorities, and private property owners?
Could it
be that waterways are ideal units to piggyback future
"corridors" and
"Wildlands" schemes on for Federal land acquisitions and
easement programs?
Could it be that a state like
who wrote the letter above is from there) thinks that with
"all" their lakes
they will get "lots" of whatever Federal largesse is made
available (too bad
about all those lakefront owners and farmers though)?
Think of what this will do in the Northwest where environmentalists and
animal rights groups want to destroy dams and stop salmon fishing and
irrigation and gain more "control of headwaters". Think
of what this will
do on the Platte Rivers in the face-offs between landowners and
agriculture
versus the state and Federal politicians and bureaucrats in the hire of
the
radicals. Think about the few privately owned marshes left in the
or the wet woods in
claims like Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the woods or the
"need" for black
bear or panther habitat in
areas in
for
All of these areas of contention between the forces of freedom and
oppression will noticeably tilt in favor of a more powerful and
unresponsive
central government controlled by radicals. Yes, all because of
"one little
word". With the removal of that word it becomes feasible to
claim Federal
jurisdiction to adopt "Native ecosystem" standards and
"Invasive Species"
requirements over much broader "Federal Waters". With
the removal of that
one little word private property rights are further jeopardized, local
governments become more irrelevant, state governments become more
acquiescent (to Federal direction), and like Zimbabwean government
claims of
owning everything our Federal government takes one more step toward
despotism. While Mugabe claims to do it for one race of citizen; we
abandon
the tried and true concept of Federal defense of the nation and
fostering
interstate commerce for the smoke and mirrors of the radical
environmental
socialism of the New Millenium.
Thus does the Federal government grow. Just as laws that ignore
Constitutional guarantees and roles and private property grow Federal
power;
so too can a simple erasure of a word in established law serve as a
venue
for growing Federal power. Both methods are much like manure and
liquid
nitrogen causing growth and then destroying everything as it is
overdone.
Jim Beers
-
- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)
- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net
- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife
Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional
Fellow.
He was stationed in
Pacific and on
Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security
Supervisor in
twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45
to 60
Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to
expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in