This is very dangerous legislation. I am appalled this was even introduced.

This is a terrible bill that would give the Federal govt. jurisdiction over anything that is wet including seasonal mud flats. This means that the Feds could enter into your property and dictate what you can do with your land.

It also means that the Great Lake States and Provinces could not protect the Great Lakes from being pumped dry to feed the growth of California and the Southwest. In particularly that area, Feingold has sold out his own state: Wisconsin.

Bills such as these are why we need term limits on senate and representatives. Also random drug testing every quarter. I really think that senators and representatives should not be full time work. Part time have another career in the private sector. Too much time on their hands, too much tyranny.

trying to squeeze out farmers and ranchers?
This stinks of big business funding

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/625.html

This is Federal Land Grabbing…Trust the Goverment,Ask the Native Americans.

This does not just concern land that is soggy for a few months. It concerns permanent creeks, small waterways, marsh lands, and swamps that are currently not protected but were before 2002. And yes, it protects seasonal waterways as well. Seasonal waterways does not mean the puddle in your backyard or the 6ft stream coming from your gutter downspouts. Anybody saying so is exaggerating. Seasonal waterways includes creeks that run for a few months a year. This could be from snow melt or during periods of heavy rainfall. Almost all of these connect to larger bodies of water, sometimes through the underground water table. Isolated waterways that do not connect to larger bodies of water are not going to be covered. And the most important thing to remember is that this bill is NOT expanding the clean water act. It is simply bringing the clean water act back to the way it was from 1972-2002. If you did not have any problems in this time then NOTHING will change for you.

This bill does not expand the clean water act. It just restores it back to the way it was in the 80’s and 90’s. The only farmers this bill will affect are the factory farmers that wish to dump huge amounts of toxins directly into the water. The bottom line is that if you were able to farm before without issue then this will not affect you.

The Clean Water act of 1972 was hailed as a great environmental success and many other countries have copied these standards and are still using them to this day. Some countries have even tighter regulation.
During the Bush administration there were a couple court decisions that changed the way it was interpreted and this essentially gutted the Clean Water Act allowing unlimited dumping into any waterways that are not considered navigable even if these waterways directly feed the great lakes or other important bodies of water.

The intent of this bill is to restore protections for rivers, streams and wetlands that may be subject to question due to the recent Supreme Court rulings in SWANCC and Rapanos.

Get your facts straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act

Actually, Mcbee, you DO in fact have to claim an injury in order to file a citizen suit under § 505 of the Clean Water Act. The Act cannot abrogate the requirements of Article III standing; plaintiffs must meet the requirements of showing (1) injury in fact, (2) that their injury was caused by the defendant, and (3) that a federal court can provide a remedy. In fact, the Supreme Court has been very careful not to throw federal courts wide open to environmental litigtation. Take a look at Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), to see what I mean.

If you click on the money trail tab on this website its pretty easy to see who is opposing and supporting this bill. Here is what it states.

Specific Organizations Supporting S.787

Ducks Unlimited
Earthjustice
American Whitewater
League of Conservation Voters
American Rivers
Clean Water Action
Sierra Club
U.S. Public Interest Research Groups
Natural Resources Defense Council
Environment America
National Wildlife Federation
Southern Environmental Law Center

Specific Organizations Opposing S.787

National Mining Association
National Corn Growers Association

Firstly the wording in this bill needs significant work – however I agree with the intent. I think people need to stop the senseless “government takeover” nonsense and look at what this bill is really trying to accomplish – protection of water resources in this country. If private owners were meeting their responsibilities, there wouldn’t be a need for expanded regulation – which is what this bill does. As a nation we need to move beyond the “what’s mine” mentality and recognize that water is of such importance that we need to do more to protect it. I’m not saying the federal government is always the best protector, but our EPA does have enforcement capability – and we need it.

You need to be responsible for your runoff and pollution. This bill is very much needed. @Dcoery33 not voting for this bill is voting for Corporations. So many companies are getting away with polluting our waterways. They will say to vote no on this bill. They do not want to put in the measures needed to control their pollution. We need to protect fresh water, our wet lands and habitats from pollution at all cost.

Before you panic, or pass on the received wisdom from some politician or PAC, read the darn bill, and look over the history. Have you read sections 3-13, 3-14, and all of section 6? If so, you’ll see that existing agricultural use is exempted from this bill (and regulated, as always, by a different set of regulations). And the states retain control over the land and the waterways—they can meet federal standards as they (and their citizens) see fit.

This bill resets the status quo to the way it was from 1972 through 2000 (or really, through 2005, when the Rapanos / SWANCC decision upset 30 years of interpretation and introduced an entirely novel redefinition of the law as applying only to navigable waterways).

If you feel we were a Communist nation until 2000, your inflated rhetoric about this “land grab” is consistent. If, like most US citizens, you feel that the USA was the USA during this period, you might want to moderate your reactions.

All of you conspiracy theroist’s should back up and take a look at how goofy you make each other sound. Every one of you are trying to hide behind words that you think makes yourself look imprtant.

There has been a bill like this in place already, and its time is nearly run out. This bill Reintroduces that original bill. If you all hate America so much that you want to see her polluted and messed up by toxins that slowly strangles the life out of the people living here, then move to another country. From there you’d have a better chance of getting your way.

You people are stupid. The govt already has jursidiction over your property. If you murder someone in your backyard, you can still be prosecuted. This bill is about extending the power to prosecute in cases of polluting american waters. That is, if a chemical plant dumps waste into a creek. That plant can still be prosecuted despite the fact that the creek is not navigable. It is important that this passes so we and our children and grandchildren dont have to drink water with inumerable poisons in it.

Maybe that is what it is intended for but what I don’t think that you understand on the farmer/rancher’s part is that the change in this bills wording,(changing the word navigable to US Waters), would allow the EPA to have control of basically all waters in the US, including farm ponds or cattle watering ponds. And what worries us about that is the fact that the EPA is basically unregulated, I am meaning that there is no one that really controls them. This means that the EPA could require every pond, slough, stream, creek, basically every body of water to have buffer strips, setbacks of so many feet, etc. They could do almost anything that they want, and quite frankly I do not think that many at the EPA have any idea what some of these things could mean for farms and ranches.

Jason
Agronomist/Farm Supplier

Define “poison”? Under the current CWA, “pollutants” include sand, dirt and rocks. However, the CWA does not include E-coli, bacteria, oil from storm drains or raw sewerage from “recreational watercraft” (these are exempt). There are no “limits” (parts per million) similar to the Clean Air Act; therefore any amount of zinc, copper, or even round-up is illegal to use in or near drainage ditches. Oddly, municipalities are exempt from poisoning streams with pharmaceuticals discharged from sewerage plants. A new energy technology growing E-coli in holding ponds, is exempt from the CWA. This while any property owner grading his land or altering a drainage ditch could be criminally charged under this ridiculous expansion of the Clean Water Act. Our waters should be clean, but this alteration of the CWA is nothing more than a property grab for federal agencies and the special interests that control them.

The bill does not just protect water quality, if it did I would be arguing for the bill. The bill seeks to claim lands and waters that are currently private property. The bill could be fixed to NOT GRAB property…but then it would be a pointless bill.

You should not be so naive about the true intention of this bill. The goal of the bill is to expand government jurisdiction to all land that water might flow across (even temporarily) or remain damp longer than a few minutes. The 1976 CWA currently protects all waters and headwater streams; these sensitive areas are already protected from pollution even though the land is privately owned. This new bill Claims the water by changing the definition of all surface water to read “Waters OF the United States”; the key word is “OF” (a possessive). The bill shifts the water, and land over which it flows, from private property to being a free-for-all public quagmire, over peoples yards and under many state laws considered “public highways”. The bill is a WOLF that being pushed by the uninformed Lemmings that think they are saving the world.

About regulation, not ownership.

You own the water way, but you do not have the right to do as you please to the water. Eventually that water will end up in other waterways. This bill is about pollution and polluters and regulating what they can do to waterways, not a land grab.

Having worked in industry for many years I have noticed the expansion of federal jurisdiction from “navigable waters” to all waters of the United States. The bill further sanctions the expansion of powers. The Army Corps of Engineers has become a major obstacle for any use of lands that are even near a stream or a mudflat. This bill would make the situation worse by increasing delays for new projects whether they be industrial, commercial, agricultural or residential. The Corps is understaffed for even the current workload. The bill is shaping up to be another unfunded mandate and an unnecessary expansion of federal powers.

One has to be in a state of wonderment as to how our elected officials continue to churn out one abomination like this after another. On top of that they pass these things without even reading them. This leads me to say, “kick them all out”. 2010 can’t come soon enough….

I don’t think many of you understand the intent of the bill.

Many of the corporations you are blaming for this bill are getting away with environmentally destructive practices because the government only has jurisdiction over “navigable waters” and so they can dump their mining waste and other harmful materials as “fill” into areas where it can flow into a larger water source.

The government neither cares about controlling homeowners property or that of small rancher nor does it have the resources to do so.

This bill was introduced as a method to curb mountaintop removal, which is a very destructive form of mining which ruins the natural beauty of the appalaichians and I support this bill.

This Bill is laughable. This is either another attempt to stifle our property rights or an attempt to put more unenforceable legislation on the books. Either way, the Bill sponsors should be ashamed of themselves.

If they want my rainwater, come and get it! They won’t have my vote……or my water in the end!

This is absolutely critical legislation. Businesses continue to exploit the language of the Clean Water Act by dumping their waste into those areas undefined by the original bill. All of this ends up in our drinking water.

If you think this is irrelevant to you, the New York Times released a feature on toxic water in the US. Please read it, and use the interactive feature that will show you exactly what businesses are responsible for contaminating the water in your community.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&hp
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/polluters

You call it a corporate interest bill or a marxist landgrab but that is just retarded. It doesnt GIVE all water to the federal govt, just the right to make laws regarding that water.

How can so many people here believe everything the right-wing media says? The brasschecktv.com video sited states that this law will give the Federal Government “ownership” over all these waters, and then complains that this is unreasonable seizure without just compensation. But if you read the bill… (Read the bill! How come so many people are so sure of their opinions here and have never BOTHERED to read the bill?!)…it doesn’t say anything at all about ownership or about giving the government any new authority over these waters. It just restores the government’s ability to keep people from pouring chemicals into waters that will poison our drinking water. Do you want to drink poison? THINK about it. A little thinking here would do people a lot of good.

And to those who claim this is a land grab? How on earth could you think this? The clean water act allows the EPA or army corps of engineers to decide what you can dump in the water and how much. It does not allow them to take your land. Where would you get this ludicrous idea?

There are already laws regarding pollution. This is a law designed to further regulate small farmers and personal property out of existence. It is designed to ENHANCE the consolodation and incorporation of large farming operations at the expense of the small traditional family farms. Despite the sunshine being blown up everyone’s pants, the ABUSE of the law has to be considered because THAT is how it will be enforced when politics become involved. Low income, effectively defenseless, farms and other small struggling businesses will be run out of business by these regulations because they will not have the income and resources to accomodate and incorporate them inth their operations. Large corporations have been hiding behind these same sorts of regulations for years to create an unfair environment that prevents new competition from being created or growing to become a threat.