Sign Petition to end water rights grab by EPA
Last Post 01 Jan 2016 12:27 PM by D M TURNEY. 9 Replies.
Printer Friendly
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
BRAD JONESUser is Offline

07 Nov 2014 11:20 AM

    The Obama administration is currently proposing a new rule to regulate every ditch and puddle in the nation as a “water source” under the Clean Water Act. Even worse, they want to bypass Congress and sidestep the Supreme Court along the way. If they get away with this scheme, we can expect new layers of red tape and control over people responsibly using their own land. It must be stopped!  Please sign CFACT's petition and together let's tell EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to “ditch” this ill-conceived land grab.

    Sign the petition:

    The public comment deadline is less than 30 days away and we need your help to swamp the administration with these petitions!

    For environmental extremist ideologues dreaming of using the Clean Water Act to redefine the “waters of the United States” and bring vast amounts of land under control of the Environmental Protection Agency — this proposed water rule is a dream come true.

    But, the EPA is already out of control. It slapped a fine of $75,000 (PER DAY!) on Wyoming homeowners Katie and Andy Johnson for building a pond on their own property! How's a hard-working welder like Andy Johnson supposed to stand up against that?

    Those who understand what this new proposed rule would really do want no part of it. That’s why the bureaucrats want to keep their science secret and speak a language all their own. That’s also why farm bureaus across the nation kicked off their “ditch the rule” campaign, which CFACT is proud to advance.

    We need as many signatures as we can get. Please sign CFACT’s petition today and circulate it to as many people as possible.

    CFACT is the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, one of the nation's premier organizations dedicated to bringing a positive, market-oriented, and scientifically sound perspective to environmental issues.

    Since its founding in 1985, CFACT has fought tirelessly to protect American families, jobs, and businesses from the economy-crippling regulations being pushed by environmental extremists — regulations just like this insane land grab proposed by the federal government.

    Miners, farmers and ranchers are especially threatened. This rule can literally cost them their farms - not to mention impact everyone's food prices.

    But they’re not alone.

    Over 26.1 million U.S. homes rely on septic systems to process household waste. That’s more than 20 percent of all the homes in the nation the EPA will be able to target for control if they have standing water on their property or live anywhere near property that does.

    This rule will also hammer communities and businesses across the country. As the President of the American Farm Bureau recently noted, this “proposed rule would impact everything from local governments trying to start or expand infrastructure projects to community gardens ... the rule will dictate land use across the United States.” Even fireworks could be halted altogether in some places! Millions of homeowners are in for a bureaucratic nightmare!

    State and local governments have our non-navigable waters well in hand. They know better than bureaucrats in Washington what oversight homeowners, farmers, businesses and developers need to responsibly use their own land.

    The EPA has no valid scientific basis for pushing this rule. The EPA’s cost-benefit analysis is deeply flawed, employing decades-old cost estimates that were not adjusted for inflation, nor current economic and market conditions.

    Let’s cut to the chase: This rule is not about the environment. It’s an attack on property rights and giving radical green gadflies power to interfere with how other people responsibly use their land. Will you stand by and let them succeed?

    Stand up for your property rights, your neighbor’s ... everyone’s.

    Sign CFACT’s petition opposing this foolish land-grabbing water rule today and help us get thousands of signatures more. Together let’s tell the Obama administration to “ditch this rule.”



    JOHN DORVALUser is Offline

    07 Nov 2014 03:46 PM
    I signed it Brad. Do you have this posted on Facebook, if not could you so that we may share this far and wide.
    John Dorval
    BRAD JONESUser is Offline

    07 Nov 2014 05:48 PM
    I have it on my Facebook page, and I have forwarded the link to GPAA Web Content Manager Nicole McCleaf to post on the official GPAA Facebook page.
    JOHN DORVALUser is Offline

    07 Nov 2014 07:19 PM
    Sounds good Brad.
    John Dorval
    WALTER EASONUser is Offline

    11 Nov 2014 06:52 AM
    signed the petition, this is a grab that reaches much farther than most people think. Thanks Brad for the heads up. Needs to be spread around also.
    If you notice an error in the Online Mining Guide or with claim information please add in the updated information into the online mining guide to inform other members. Thank You Walter H. Eason
    joseph LoydUser is Offline

    11 Nov 2014 07:45 PM
    Finally got puter fixed and signed it.
    Member LDMA and several other clubs in CA.

    03 Jun 2015 05:02 AM
    According to the latest newsletter from my GA Congressman, the EPA has pushed out the regulations
    during the Memorial Day weekend to implement the control of all water runoff into all waterways and
    lakes. The new rule is suppose to clarify the previous Supreme Court rulings about the EPA Clean Waters Act
    definitions of waterways, ponds and wet lands.

    President Obama said this about the rules and their clarification:
    "“Too many of our waters have been left vulnerable to pollution,”
    Obama said in a statement, adding that the federal agencies wrote the rule to
    “restore protection for the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of our nation’s water resources,
    without getting in the way of farming, ranching, or forestry.

    I noticed he didn't mention mining activities or other recreational activities in those waterways.
    It does mention permits ($$$) and fines ($$$$$$$$$$$) for activities the EPA and the Corps of Engineers
    that violate the new rules.

    The GA Congressman, Mr. Woodall, did mention there is a House bill to restrict or overturn the EPA's authority
    in implementing any of the new regulations.

    I can appreciate the need for clean water and regulations to curb pollution. But, some of the regulations
    punish everyone that want to use the waterways in constructive and productive ways without polluting the waters.
    EPA figures the best way to stop pollution is to keep everyone away from the water sources.

    Most of the "science" at this Agency is based on "Climate Change" and "Global Warming/Cooling".
    Most of which based on the reports I have read say Mankind has no chance of changing or stopping.
    The Sahara Desert was thriving green area with lakes and other wetlands 12-15 thousand years ago.
    The change to a desert was brought on mostly by the Earth's Precession of it's axis.
    A complete rotation of which takes 26,000 years. I can see an EPA ruling to stop that !

    What was President Nixon thinking when he created this 15,000+ employee monster in 1970?
    The EPA does not have Cabinet authority. It has an Administrator appointed by the President who can give them
    Cabinet level ranking and the Congress has given it the authority to make rules concerning the Environment.
    The EPA seems to like making Rules. But, does not like being told by Congress to remove or stop enforcement
    of certain regulations. Even when it is a Law that Congress has passed that says it must cease enforcing. those regulations.
    Sounds like certain other U.S. Government Bureaus (BLM, USFS).

    Anyway write your Congress person and Senator and ask that they impose more oversight on the EPA' actions.
    Local control is a better solution. Your State knows what is best for it's citizens than some agency that thinks
    it can influence the Earth's natural processes.

    Regards and Happy Trails !
    Bob Scarborough P O R (Press On Regardless)

    Robert J. Scarborough
    WILLIAM HALLUser is Offline
    Lost Dutchman
    Lost Dutchman

    03 Jun 2015 03:32 PM
    In days coming soon, even the puddle of water in your driveway will be considered EPA water, not yours.

    So much river....So little time....Get out there
    D M TURNEYUser is Offline

    31 Dec 2015 08:34 AM

    The Power of Mining Districts

    The 1872 Mining Act was Congressional acceptance that miners can make needful federal rules and regulations governing their activities on federally managed lands. Specifically codified under 30 U.S.C. sections 22 and 28. Section 22 states:

    “Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States.”

    Essentially, this is by the miners, for the miners. This grant from Congress enabled miners in their respective mining districts to regulate their own pursuits subject to the laws of the United States. Most of the previous rules and regulation by miners in their respective mining districts were reabsorbed into state law. With the miners choosing to organize the traditional mining districts, they shall have federal supremacy over conflicting state and federal law upon federal lands.

    1) The Mining Districts shall override conflicting state and federal laws that stand as obstacles to the full Congressional objective of the 1970 National Minerals, Mining, Reclamation and Policy Act (30 U.S.C. section 21a) and the 1955 Multiple Surface Use Act (30 U.S.C. 612 sections a - b).
    2) The Mining Districts shall intervene upon the miner’s written request to resolve conflicts that unreasonably interfere with the miners right to extract, as defined in U.S. v. Shoemaker. Said in another way the miners will police themselves, and the Mining Districts will have the first right to mitigate any claim disputes before going to the Interior Board of Land Appeals or any other federal or state court.
    3) The Mining Districts shall be the arbiter of reasonable environmental and safety regulation(s) (see footnote1)
    4) And most importantly, the Mining Districts can open the federal land to Multiple – Use by the Public on principles of inclusion rather than the present day exclusions carried out by the extremist environmental lobby groups that work inside and outside all the other various agencies. (See footnote )
    Jefferson on Good Government

    “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits” Thomas Jefferson, 1801

    Miners, in their respective Mining Districts have the ability to duly elect representatives to make rules and regulations governing their mining activities (customs of miners) in contrast to executive agencies of today that answer to the whims of the President and the bureaucracy. These duly elected representatives will have a proposed term of 4 years such that they will be accountable to their constituents – the individual miner, just as it worked in the 1800’s. And quite successfully I might add.

    Once the organized Mining Districts take shape, the Minerals and Mining Advisory Council (MMAC) can and will submit to Congress for a budget for the administrative functions and clarifications of the Mining District’s relationship with the other federal and state agencies. The MMAC website will have a resource section which explains what your fundamental rights are as miners. The claim owners in those districts elect all the miners that represent the districts and upper tiers - nobody is appointed.

    Presently, MMAC has developed a draft bill called the Minerals & Mining Regulatory Reform Act – A Clear Path Respecting Mining Rights and handed it to the Congressional House Subcommittee on Natural Resources. This preliminary notice from MMAC to Congress is open for more discussion but covers and fixes many of the problems the mining industry face that has hit most miners especially hard. There are severe ambiguities in law that need to be clarified that stand as obstacles to the accomplishment of the National Minerals, Mining and Reclamation Policy Act of 1970 (codified under 30 U.S.C. 21a).

    The MMAC will need the active participation by every miner, every mining organization, every claim holder and any other group that shares the multiple – use principles of our public lands. The tasks before us are for Americans that strive for accountability, self-determination, and for laws that are for and by the people. It could be said that miners can shine the light on the proper role of government in the darkest of tunnels.

    The Mineral & Mining Advisory Council website is:

    Ben Franklin once was asked to comment about our newly formed government of the United States of America and he said: “It’s a republic, madam – if you can keep it”.
    Now I ask the miners of today, we have the Mining Districts - can we keep and run them?

    Clark Pearson
    Northern Director, PLP

    D M TURNEYUser is Offline

    01 Jan 2016 12:27 PM
    Everyone needs to get involved with "PLP" and "MMAC" - they are fighting for all of our rights including "Water Rights". I am an administrator for Alaska if you have any questions/suggestions. Mac


    The MMAC bill covers this problem for miners in their Mining District.


    -----Forwarded Message-----
    From: Rachel Thomas
    Sent: Dec 31, 2015 7:42 AM
    To: Rachel Thomas
    Subject: Supreme Court must give landowners right to challenge Corps

    Supreme Court must give landowners right to challenge Corps

    Published: December 29, 2015 3:48PM

    The Supreme Court must give landowners the right to challenge deterimination that their property is subject to the Clean Water Act.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take a case that will determine whether landowners can challenge in court a regulatory determination that their properties are subject to the Clean Water Act.

    The government contends, and is backed by the 9th and 5th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, that a regulatory determination by the Corps of Engineers that a property is subject to Clean Water Act restrictions is merely advisory in nature, and is not a final agency decision subject to litigation.

    The 8th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion last year, setting up a clear conflict to be settled by the Supreme Court.

    For farmers, ranchers and other landowners, the stakes are high. Regulatory requirements and restrictions under the act are expensive and can severely limit the owner’s property rights. Property owners should have the right to challenge a jurisdictional determination.

    The government says landowners who disagree with a jurisdictional determination can go ahead with a planned project without a permit and then fight the determination when the government brings an enforcement action.

    Or, the landowner can apply for the necessary permits. If the permit is denied or the landowner disagrees with the government’s findings, the landowner can file suit.

    Neither of these are practical options.

    A landowner would be foolish to expend capital and proceed without a permit if the Corps of Engineers has determined jurisdiction, whether that ruling is a final determination or merely advisory.

    Having determined a landowner needs a permit, by whatever means, the Corps will certainly follow with an enforcement action if a landowner proceeds. Win or lose, the landowner will be saddled with the expense of defending his action. And should he lose, the government can pile on ruinous fines and penalties, and perhaps criminal charges.

    Should the landowner acquiesce to the Corps’ determination, he submits to a costly, time-consuming process. If the permit is denied, or there is an issue with the terms, the litigating landowner walks into court having already conceded that the Corps has jurisdiction.

    The Corps may consider its determinations advisory in nature, but the same can be said of a rattlesnake shaking its tail. Either are ignored only at great peril.

    The rattlesnake’s warning can be appreciated for its honesty, while the Corps’ is veiled by semantics. Having been warned, the landowner will certainly feel the sting of the Corps’ strike.

    The Corps’ determinations are final by any standard of common sense. As such, they should be allowed to be challenged in court without the landowner first being placed in legal or financial jeopardy.

    We are confidant the high court will agree.
    You are not authorized to post a reply.