EPA waters rule not about water–“it’s about power”
The Obama EPA’s “Waters of the U. S.” power grab has come under a lot of scrutiny and resistance, and rightly so. In addition to citizen outrage and push back from Congress, the EPA is now facing two lawsuits filed by the Attorneys General of 16 states.
Texas and 15 other states filed suit to block the new “navigable waters” rule as soon as it was published.
The EPA legal eagles have not one lawsuit to worry about, but two. Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi have filed suit in Houston. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming have filed suit in a separate case to have the rule overturned.
“The EPA’s new water rule is not about clean water — it’s about power,” Paxton said. “This sweeping new rule is a blatant overstep of federal authority and could have a devastating effect on virtually any property owner, from farmers to ranchers to small businesses.”
Paxton said the rule violates the U.S. Constitution, federal law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and places costly burdens on landowners in Texas.
“If it moves forward, essentially anybody with a ditch on their property would be at risk of costly and unprecedented new regulations and a complicated web of bureaucracy. Texans shouldn’t need permission from the federal government to use their own land, and the EPA’s attempt to erode private property rights must be put to a stop,” Paxton said.
Obama EPA administrator Gina McCarthy says the states’ Attorneys General are “wrong” and . . . Climate Change! Kackley continues:
McCarthy said the new rule is actually a good thing for businesses and landowners because it ensures that waters protected under the Clean Water Act are more precisely defined and predictably determined, making permitting less costly, easier, and faster.
She also said the rule is grounded in law and the latest science, and is shaped by public input.
“Protecting our water sources is a critical component of adapting to climate change impacts like drought, sea level rise, stronger storms, and warmer temperatures,” said McCarthy, “which is why EPA and the Army have finalized the Clean Water Rule to protect these important waters, so we can strengthen our economy and provide certainty to American businesses.”
Again from Kackley:
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) doesn’t believe McCarthy.
“From the beginning, I have explained that this rule from the EPA and the (Army) Corps goes beyond the intent of Congress under the Clean Water Act and will negatively impact Arkansas’s agriculture community, a community that accounts for one in every six jobs across the state,” said Rutledge.
“I am confident that the courts will once again affirm that local oversight and local control is the best way to protect our waters.”
Louisiana Attorney General James “Buddy” Caldwell (R) joined the other attorneys general who argue in the suit that the rule violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and the federal Administrative Procedures Act, and that the rule infringes upon states’ sovereignty rights granted under the 10th Amendment.
“Our farm ponds and drainage ditches, even our backyards, could be subject to costly and burdensome federal regulation under this absurd rule set forth by the EPA,” Caldwell said. “We are confident that the courts will recognize this as an illegal power grab and will prevent the federal government from intervening in state matters. This rule would require the states to spend our scarce tax dollars regulating dry creek beds, for example.”
Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) said her state, often seen as one of the more environmentally aware of the 50 states, knows well how important water is as a resource.
She also said, thank you very much, but Colorado does not need the EPA’s help in keeping its water clean.
Actually, none of the 50 states need the EPA anymore. Maybe it’s time to do something about that.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.