- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: US Rep says EPA trying to control private property in US
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:24 pm to bamarep
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:24 pm to bamarep
It's not as straight-forward as all that.
There are three decisions, Riverside Bayview (1985), SWANCC (2001) and Rapanos (2007)that come into play.
Rapanos:
Issue:
Does the CWA cover non-navigable (Waters of the US = Navigable Waters) tributaries and their adjacent wetlands?
Result:
Pluarity: JD if relatively permenant or seasonal rivers, or wetlands with continuous surface connection to those waters.
Kennedy: Wetlands and waters are JD if "significant nexus" to navigable waters (individually or cumulatively), affecting physical/chemistry/biology of navigable waters.
So far, both conditions have to be met - continuous surface connection as well as significant nexus.
But this is not new stuff here, so no, it's not Obama's fault.
There are three decisions, Riverside Bayview (1985), SWANCC (2001) and Rapanos (2007)that come into play.
Rapanos:
Issue:
Does the CWA cover non-navigable (Waters of the US = Navigable Waters) tributaries and their adjacent wetlands?
Result:
Pluarity: JD if relatively permenant or seasonal rivers, or wetlands with continuous surface connection to those waters.
Kennedy: Wetlands and waters are JD if "significant nexus" to navigable waters (individually or cumulatively), affecting physical/chemistry/biology of navigable waters.
So far, both conditions have to be met - continuous surface connection as well as significant nexus.
But this is not new stuff here, so no, it's not Obama's fault.
1
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:26 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Not unless EPA uses it for anything other than what it was intended for, which they have been known to do.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:31 pm to bamarep
quote:
Not unless EPA uses it for anything other than what it was intended for
Can you clarify that? Uses what, exactly, the rule, or the water?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:38 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Local charity received a government grant to expand their operation and build another warehouse to store goods. During a meeting with someone who works for the county, the county worker stated "if you see any frogs or lizards where you plan on building get rid of them before the environmental impact study is done"
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:41 pm to bamarep
Central control...top to bottom...cradle to grave...even to the thoughts we hold if we should choose to profess them. Based on a World Government, agreed upon criteria. All property, belongs to the World Collective. That is where the Progressives want to go. They have lost faith in the larger populous to wisely choose beliefs and actions that will long enable humanity to survive and prosper.
They may be right!
And I can remember when not long after Obama took office, and ramped up, we were slammed at the very idea that he was a *Socialist*.
Chicago Politics. Herding cats; that won't like the cage.
They may be right!
And I can remember when not long after Obama took office, and ramped up, we were slammed at the very idea that he was a *Socialist*.
Chicago Politics. Herding cats; that won't like the cage.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:42 pm to dante
That wouldn't be EPA, that would be F&WS under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Thanks, Nixon!).
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:46 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Or depending on the species of frog could the area be deemed a wetland, thus allowing the EPA to prevent the new building?
That wouldn't be EPA, that would be F&WS under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Thanks, Nixon!).
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:49 pm to dante
That's why you always keep your grass mowed.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:49 pm to dante
People should just admit to the fact that there is no such thing as private property. There are so many laws and regs these days that the government can seize all of your assets at will.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:20 pm to dante
quote:
Or depending on the species of frog could the area be deemed a wetland,
No, a wetland determination has to include soils and flora.
In any case...
Protection of Wetlands
EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 11990
May 24, l977, 42 F.R. 26961
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, and as President of the United States of America, in furtherance of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in order to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or Indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative, it is hereby ordered as follows:
...
JIMMY CARTER, May 24, 1977
All pursuant to:
The National Environmental Policy Act signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970.
So, say it with me, THANKS, NIXON!
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:28 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Have you dealt with a jurisdictional wetland recently?
In the last few years they changed the requirements to classify which has resulted in pretty much the entirety of LA being classified as a wetland.
In the last few years they changed the requirements to classify which has resulted in pretty much the entirety of LA being classified as a wetland.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:38 pm to eng08
quote:
pretty much the entirety of LA being classified as a wetland.
Well, it pretty much always has been.
Don't know why no one saw this coming before Obama took office - I did. I used to work at a firm helping with wetland delineations in the 90's, also had to have a couple done on our farm in the early 90's. I realized back then that virtually all of south Louisiana, at least, could be considered a wetland.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:41 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
No, a wetland determination has to include soils and flora
Isn't there a hydraulic requirement as well?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:44 pm to Rantavious
quote:what is the whole dam deal then?
You are missing the whole damn deal
The EPA does regulate water pollution no matter where it is.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:47 pm to eng08
quote:that is certainly not true, nor should it be
EPA authority is only for "US Waters" which was defined and understood to be navigable us waterways
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:47 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Isn't there a hydraulic requirement as well?
Pretty much in - that the soils have to be considered "hydric", that is saturated for at least part of the year, enough to allow water tolerant, or especially hydophyllic vegetation to grow. There are lists of species to use to identify wetlands, as well as soil profiles to use to ID the hydric soils.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:50 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
that is certainly not true, nor should it be
It's kind of slippery right now, and the courts haven't weighed in on the matter sufficiently to wrap the whole thing up.
In short, all 'navigable waters' are indeed 'water of the US', however EPA's purview extends to, roughly, those waters that affect navigable waters - or have, and get this, a "significant nexus to navigable waters".
IOW, it's still a bit vague and open-ended.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:53 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
In short, all 'navigable waters' are indeed 'water of the US', however EPA's purview extends to, roughly, those waters that affect navigable waters - or have, and get this, a "significant nexus to navigable waters".
Which means tributaries, ditches, sheet flow from parking lots?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 4:59 pm to upgrayedd
That's where it's vague, in the past it has not been construed as some of those.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 5:00 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I realized back then that virtually all of south Louisiana, at least, could be considered a wetland.
So, what have you done about it?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News