Subject: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880
To Whom It May Concern:
The Proposed Rule is to “increase clarity” as to the scope of “waters of the U.S.”, and scope of “significant nexus” of same. I strongly disagree that clarification is necessary, as the Clean Water Act already regulates discharges of pollutants into waters of the U.S. and regulates quality standards for surface waters.
The Proposed Rule (PR) is a blatant attempt to undermine and overrule our Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court has already defined Waters of the U.S. to be “navigable” waters, i.e., waters capable of carrying a conveyance with a human navigator. In Rapanos v U.S., the Supreme Court further defined navigable waters as: Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographic features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.
- The Supreme Court has also already defined the “significant nexus” to be:…”a continuous surface water connection to a relatively permanent water body such that it’s difficult to determine where the water body ends and wetlands begin.” All other waters are under the jurisdiction of the States.
This Proposed Rule is in direct violation of the Constitution, and the Separation of Powers. To allow Federal supremacy over State Water Rights is in direct violation of current Federal Law. The unconstitutional and illegal assertion of such authority would overturn western state doctrines of prior appropriations that have guided water policy in those states for more than 150 years. The economic impact of this action will be devastating to those states, and may lead to cost prohibitive Federal Permits. A wide range of state and local governments, farmers, ranchers, public land users, and private land owners are strongly opposed to the Proposed Rule.
In 2010 Congressman Oberstar proposed legislation to delete the term “navigable waters” to vastly re-define “Waters of the U.S.” The Democratic majority in that Congress declined to even hear the bill. We are now faced with this again. The Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to legislate, and they should retain that authority, and not allow the EPA to change the law itself to vastly increase its power and jurisdiction.
This Proposal must be withdrawn, and there is bipartisan support to do just that. It is the sworn duty of every official to abide by the laws of the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court has already given clear opinions as to the scope and definition of navigable waters and the significant nexus thereof, I’m urging you to withdraw this Proposed Rule. It is impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to public interest.
Sincerely,
Wendy Brown-Barry,
Mariposa
Important Notice!
The Environmental Protection Agency has Extended the Comment Period on “Waters Of The U.S.” under The Clean Water Act Until November 14, 2014
There has been strong push back by many private citizens and agencies including the Congressional Western Caucus, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the Public Lands Council, the Rural County Representatives of California, and our own Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, just to name a few. The EPA’s proposal would remove the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act, giving jurisdiction over all U.S. water to the federal government! You still have a chance to let your voice be heard.
Here Is How To Comment:
EPA Definition-“Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act.
Docket ID Number-EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880
· Federal eRulemaking: http://www.requlations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
· E-mail comments to: ow-docket@epa.gov, put EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 in the subject line.
· Mail: Send the original and three copies of your comments to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20460, Attention docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW2011-0880
