The feds, the EPA - our eco-friendly overseers - they're here, they're there, they're everywhere. In a wet place like Whatcom County, each day presents a new opportunity to snoop and harass the public. Seems like any puddle may be enough to lord over.
Reposted from Pacific Legal Foundation's PLF Sentry
July 24, 2014 - "Troubled Waters"
When federal regulators at the EPA step out of line and assume power they don't lawfully possess, PLF hauls them into court to stop them - as we did in our unanimous 2012 victory at the Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA.
Well, the EPA is at it again. Last March the agency proposed a new rule to redefine "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act. The feds claim the new rule "clarifies" which waters are regulable without expanding the scope of the Act. But PLF Principal Attorney Reed Hopper stated in a recent blog post* that "this is utter nonsense, which only the uninformed believe."
Be assured that PLF is watching the EPA's new rule like a hawk, and we're prepared to challenge it in the courts, if necessary. Stay tuned.
*[Here's that recent blog post] by Reed Hopper, "More EPA Spin ..."
We have documented here and here how the EPA is misrepresenting its proposed rule to redifine “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act. The Administration unabashedly claims the new rule is compelled by Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Act and that the rule will not expand the government’s jurisdiction. But this is utter nonsense, which only the uninformed believe. So we give kudos to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for calling the EPA on its blatant misrepresentations.
Yesterday, the committee issued an interesting Fact Check showing how the actual language of the rule is contrary to the EPA’s claims about the rule, including such claims as;
The rule does not regulate new types of ditches;
The rule does not regulate activities on land;
The rule does not apply to groundwater;
The rule does not affect stock ponds;
The rule does not require permits for normal farming activities; and,
The rule does not regulate puddles.
The Fact Check is revealing. Check it out here.
Reposted from Pacific Legal Foundation's PLF Sentry
July 24, 2014 - "Troubled Waters"
When federal regulators at the EPA step out of line and assume power they don't lawfully possess, PLF hauls them into court to stop them - as we did in our unanimous 2012 victory at the Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA.
Well, the EPA is at it again. Last March the agency proposed a new rule to redefine "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act. The feds claim the new rule "clarifies" which waters are regulable without expanding the scope of the Act. But PLF Principal Attorney Reed Hopper stated in a recent blog post* that "this is utter nonsense, which only the uninformed believe."
Be assured that PLF is watching the EPA's new rule like a hawk, and we're prepared to challenge it in the courts, if necessary. Stay tuned.
*[Here's that recent blog post] by Reed Hopper, "More EPA Spin ..."
We have documented here and here how the EPA is misrepresenting its proposed rule to redifine “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act. The Administration unabashedly claims the new rule is compelled by Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Act and that the rule will not expand the government’s jurisdiction. But this is utter nonsense, which only the uninformed believe. So we give kudos to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for calling the EPA on its blatant misrepresentations.
Yesterday, the committee issued an interesting Fact Check showing how the actual language of the rule is contrary to the EPA’s claims about the rule, including such claims as;
The rule does not regulate new types of ditches;
The rule does not regulate activities on land;
The rule does not apply to groundwater;
The rule does not affect stock ponds;
The rule does not require permits for normal farming activities; and,
The rule does not regulate puddles.
The Fact Check is revealing. Check it out here.
RSS Feed
