June 1, 2009
The proposed Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) now under consideration in Congress, is “patently unconstitutional” and would “push the limits of federal power to an extreme not matched by any other law, probably in the history of this country.”
So argues Pacific Legal Foundation Principal Attorney Reed Hopper. Hopper was the successful lead attorney at the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 2006 Clean Water Act case, Rapanos v. United States, which reined in overbroad federal regulation under the Clean Water Act. [Hopper is available for media comment about the ominous legal and constitutional implications of the Clean Water Restoration Act.]
Currently the Clean Water Act applies to “navigable waters.” The proposed Clean Water Restoration Act would remove the phrase “navigable waters” and replace it with the broader phrase “waters of the United States.” “This change would expand the reach of federal land use regulation to an unlimited extent, subjecting every pond, puddle, and ditch to control from Washington, D.C.,” said Hopper.
In response to what he calls “this breathtaking scheme for limitless federal land-use control,” Reed Hopper has issued a list of “False Claims” about the legislation.
“The ‘Clean Water Restoration Act’ is misleadingly named; it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” said Hopper. “Contrary to its supporters’ claims, it wouldn’t ‘restore’ federal authority that was stripped away by court decisions. Rather, it would push federal power to new, unprecedented and unconstitutional extremes,” said Hopper.About Pacific Legal Foundation:
Pacific Legal Foundation is the oldest and most successful public interest legal organization that litigates for limited government, property rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations, in courts nationwide. Among PLF’s noteworthy victories: Rapanos v. United States, which reined in overbroad use of the Clean Water Act to regulate property with no direct connection to navigable waters.
S. 787 would infringe on the rights of property owners across the nation and result in an unprecedented expansion of the regulatory authority of the federal government.
The Clean Water Restoration Act (H.R. 2421, S. 787), re-introduced by Sen. Russell Feingold, seeks to re-establish the nearly unlimited powers of the Clean Water Act lost due to U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006. While the bill aims to restore protection of wetlands and waterways, S. 787 mandates all waters be placed under regulatory control of the federal government, leaving property owners vulnerable to a potential federal “land grab.” PRA is concerned that S. 787 exceeds the original objective of the Clean Water Act by giving the federal government the power to regulate all interstate and intrastate waters, including non-navigable waters.
Over the 37-year history of the Clean Water Act, confusion and uncertainty led to extensive abuse by the federal government. By using a broad reach to define what is navigable, the government was able to exert its regulatory power and, as a result, diminish property values.
This uncertainty was remedied when two U.S. Supreme Court cases clarified the scope of federal jurisdiction over wetlands and other "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. The Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) and Rapanos v. U.S. (2006) have significantly reduced the potential for abuse under the Clean Water Act by limiting the previously broad definition of navigable water.
Property Rights Alliance urges all members to uphold the Court’s decision and oppose S. 787.
The Privatization of Public Resources (A Detailed Report on the History of Water Privatization)
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Clean Water Restoration Act (S. 787) by a vote of 12-7 on June 18, 2009. This bill would place virtually all the waters of the United States under federal control. Among other things, S. 787 would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (enacted in 1972) by striking the term “navigable waters” from the bill and replacing it with “waters of the United States." What does that mean to you? This bill would federalize virtually every water deposit (including private wells) in the nation and therefore threaten both private property rights and states' rights. - Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association, June 25, 2009
Agenda 21 is to implement a New World Order by:
- Controlling the water,
- Abolishing private property,
- Reducing human population, and
- Then controlling the people.
World Bank Must Tackle Pressing Water Issues: Report
Governments and development groups warned that drinking water is threatened by climate change and that 700 million people in 43 countries were facing stress on water supplies.