- Ohio university quiz implies atheists are naturally smarter than Christians
- Rep. Henry Cuellar on border crisis: ‘Playing defense on the one-yard line’
- Activists vow to occupy fast-food restaurants to get higher pay
- Rep. Luis Gutierrez: Senate Dems wary of immigration politics
- Summer camp for 1 percenters: Sushi, limos and shopping at FAO Schwarz
- Colorado gun crackdown law found to be built on faulty data
- Hank Aaron steps to fundraising plate for Democrat Michelle Nunn
- ISIL terrorists blow up burial site of Jonah, vow more of same
- Impeach Obama, say 35 percent in new poll
- Taliban yank 14 Shiites off bus, bind and shoot them on Afghan road
ISTOOK: Watch where you spit! EPA may declare it a wetland
Question of the Day
Be sure not to spit too much. If you do, you might create a wetland in the eyes of the EPA. And it’ll want to regulate it.
Claiming they want to “clarify” their jurisdiction under the 1972 Clean Water Act, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have given the public until July 21 to comment on proposed new regulations to expand their power, by adding small, temporary and seasonal flows of water.
Like places where somebody has spit. Or could spit in the future. And of course mud puddles. Might kids splashing in a puddle become a federal offense?
Claiming it’s all necessary to protect us from dirty water, the bureaucrats are marching forward with their power grab, an overreach so severe that they someday might require federal approval to water your lawn and garden.
The Constitution provides federal authority over “navigable waters.” The EPA and Corps of Engineers seem to think that means wherever the tiniest of toy boats might float. The Corps has even argued to the Supreme Court that their jurisdiction over water is unlimited.
The agencies’ rationale is that even small and temporary flows lead to permanent and navigable waters. Eventually. After all, doesn’t all water flow downhill? Just like all power flows to Washington, D.C.? And like the interstate commerce clause means anything that might affect interstate commerce (which is to say, almost anything).
How big is this expansion of jurisdiction? Roughly speaking, 60 percent more power for EPA. That’s based on EPA’s announcement in April that “60 percent of stream miles in the U.S. only flow seasonally or after rain,” but would henceforth be regulated.
The EPA claims its efforts are all based on sound science. Except that they aren’t. The agency announced its work is based on a “draft” scientific assessment, a report which won’t be finished until after the time expires for public comment.
Yet the bureaucrats want to rush their regulation before all the facts can be reported and debated publicly. And before this fall’s elections might get in the way.
That EPA draft report (“Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters”) simply confirms the obvious: Streams of water flow into each other. That’s not rocket science.
But the Water Advocacy Coalition and other critics comment that the report never considers which of those water connections are significant. Water from a mud puddle, a watering trough or a farmer’s fishing pond may eventually flow into a river, but that doesn’t make the quantity or quality meaningful.
Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, describes it in practical terms: “South Dakota is scattered with creeks, stock ponds, and ditches These small and seasonal bodies of water have typically been regulated at the state level, but a costly new power grab from the EPA could have devastating economic impacts on South Dakota farmers, ranchers, homeowners, and businesses.”
Led by Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, Pennsylvania Republican, 14 senators wrote the EPA that “this proposal will negatively impact economic growth by adding an additional layer of red tape to countless activities.”
Rep. Jason Smith, Missouri Republican, wrote that the proposal would require federal permits for “every pesticide and fertilizer application,” even for homeowners.
About the Author
Ernest Istook spent 25 years in public office, including 14 years in Congress. He was rated one of the top 25 conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then was a Heritage Foundation fellow and a fellow at Harvard’s Insitute of Politics, where he led a study group on Propaganda in American Politics Today.
Now as a radio host and ...
- ISTOOK: Lower health care costs, don't subsidize them
- ISTOOK: The secret is out: 'Unaccompanied minors' are only one-fourth of illegal border-crossers
- ISTOOK: Obama makes asylum the new amnesty, complete with freebies/giveaways
- ISTOOK: Most border invaders are not children; they’re working age
- ISTOOK: Phony numbers still haunt Obamacare, just like immigration
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- Presidents of Honduras, Guatemala blame U.S. for border children crisis
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- EDITORIAL: Detroit's water 'spigot bigots'
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- PRUDEN: The Democratic-wannabe mice under Hillary Clinton's feet
- Obama takes aim at 'corporate deserters'
- Crime-ridden U.S. cities differ on ways to fight gun violence
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq