Congress is worried

dredgeCongress is worried that the Obama Administration might act to protect our waterways with new regulations. Rep Reed writes:

Congressman Tom Reed today voted in favor of protecting private property rights by supporting 2016 Energy and Water Development Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 2028). The bill passed the House with language preventing the Obama Administration from a power grab of private property relative to waterway regulation. “This bill is a victory for Americans from coast to coast and demonstrates that the House cares about protecting private property rights,” Reed said. “I will continue to work as Chair of the Private Property Rights Caucus to ensure that the rights of property owners are defended.”

So the “House cares about protecting private property rights, but what about the environment? What is in this bill?

That the Corps of Engineers might adopt new regulations? No way! Current regulations are bad enough, some may think.

104. None of the funds made available in this or any other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any change to the regulations in effect on October 1, 2012, pertaining to the definitions of the terms fill material or discharge of fill material for the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

That the Corps. of Engineers might protect additional waterways? Unthinkable!

105. None of the funds made available in this or any other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any change to the regulations and guidance in effect on October 1, 2012, pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), including the provisions of the rules dated November 13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating to such jurisdiction, and the guidance documents dated January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008, relating to such jurisdiction.

A permit to dump dredged material might be required? Horrors!

106. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to require a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.) for the activities identified in subparagraphs (A) and (C) of section 404(f)(1) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(f)(1)(A), (C)).

Finally, this astonishing prohibition:

107. As of the date of enactment of this Act and each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the Army shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm, including an assembled or functional firearm, at a water resources development project covered under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), if—

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the water resources development project is located.

Does Congress wish to promote armed confrontations between government employees and landowners? Really?

Ted Cruz reportedly worries that the Obama Administration plans to declare martial law in Texas. Compared to that, paranoia concerning water quality regulations seem almost reasonable.

© William Hungerford – May 2015

http://reed.house.gov/press-release/reed-protects-community-safety-and-property-rights-ensures-increased-funding-kepp-west

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2028/text

Advertisements

About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Environmental, Political, Reed's Views and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Congress is worried

  1. Except that “waterways” of the United States are not owned by private entities…they are publicly owned. I wonder if other regulators are rolling their eyes like I am right now. I wonder if Tom Reed ever gets a queezy 3 AM feeling about wasting the tax payers money knowing full well that his property rights mission is all about furthering his own political ambitions rather than representing his constituents broadly in all of District 23?

  2. whungerford says:

    I met a county legislator (employed by an energy company) who assured me that he knew and cared nothing for any public interest. His duty, he explained, was to protect private interests.

  3. Anne says:

    Interestingly, today’s headlines also included the story about the first fish with cancer being pulled out of the Susquehanna.

  4. whungerford says:

    Some may have noticed that after a leaky tank polluted W. VA. drinking water, the state passed some regulations which they have since rescinded.

  5. josephurban says:

    Keep reminding yourself…Nixon and the GOP created the EPA…keep reminding yourself…conservatives used to be in favor of “conserving” the environment…

  6. No conflict of interest there, is there? The seizing of all public assets to commoditize every square inch is destroying our country. Even John Locke was opposed to it. Sigh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s