WOTUS Water Runs Down Hill
So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?
I DON’T NEED AN APPLE TO FALL ON MY HEAD TO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)
Last year the administration wrote new definitions that would have subjected all waters (running down hill) within 4,000 feet of a navigable water to EPA review and control.
USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL ” water returns to the earth from precipitation falling on the land, where “GRAVITY” either takes it into the ground as infiltration or it begins RUNNING DOWNHILL as surface runoff”
USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL “NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, IT TRIES TO FLOW DOWNHILL”
(SO DO WETLAND WATERS JUST SEEP DOWNHILL?)
The Environmental Protection Agency says ANY BODIES OF WATER near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will (RUN DOWN HILL AND) fall under federal regulation.
NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, GRAVITY RUNS WATER DOWN HILL
Indeed, science has proven that each water basin has its own land area of the water cycle, including its rainfall, its snow melt, recharging the aquifer, surface water, groundwater, rain that is absorbed into the soil RUNS DOWNHILL. Rain that is not absorbed by soil RUNS OFF DOWN THE HILL
But how does much of the water get back into the oceans to keep the water cycle going?
Indeed, the U.S. Geological Survey science tells us that 93 to 97 percent of well water used for domestic or irrigation purposes, RUNS DOWN HILL and is returned to the watershed in the proximity of where it was withdrawn.
And, ALL precipitation, rain and snow melt do the same, GRAVITY TAKES WATER DOWN HILL as infiltration or surface runoff.
The EPA says, the new rule applies to tributaries and ANY BODIES OF WATER (that runs downhill) near rivers that (run down hill and ) “COULD” seep into waterways and “AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT”
PLF UNDERSTANDS THE GRAVITY OF (WOTUS)
Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
“waters of United States” power grab
WOTUS rule – Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation
PLF Principal Attorney M. Reed Hopper, who successfully argued the … We will alert you when we file our lawsuit — and keep you posted along the way, as we …
Judge blocks Obama EPA rule as federal power grab over state waters A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.
THE SUIT IN QUESTION WAS FILED BY 13 STATES (ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, IDAHO, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA AND WYOMING),
which claimed, among other things, that the WOTUS rule is a threat to state sovereignty because it asserts federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)that should be subject to state government control. As a general matter (and as the Supreme Court has recognized) land-use control is generally beyond the scope of federal power. In this case, the district court concluded that the states were likely to succeed on the merits as the EPA had adopted an “exceptionally expansive” view of its own jurisdiction under the CWA. According to the court, the WOTUS rule “allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the ‘chemical physical, and biological integrity’ of any navigable-in-fact water,” and therefore exceeds the limits on federal regulatory authority identified by the Supreme Court in Rapanos.
The EPA, said it will only honor the injunction in the 13 states that had sued, and will move forward with the rules in the rest of the country.
OUR WA State legislators “DID NOT OBJECT” to WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)
Washington State attorney General “DID NOT” file a law suit against WOTUS on behalf of the citizens of WA State.
Washington State attorney General “DID” file lawsuits against ONE Superbowl ticket vendor, Arlene’s Flowers, and Hanford.
A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.
WA STATE IS NOT PART OF THE WOTUS LAWSUIT
WA STATE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE GRAVITY FED TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT of WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS.
Indeed, WA State Dept. of Ecology MUST FIRST ADOPT AND DESIGNATE THE SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BODIES OF WATER, within 4,000 feet of a navigable water, including wetlands near a river, lake, saltwater, or standing water, that (run down hill) can affect waterways (run down hill and) “COULD” affect the environment, that shall fall under the WOTUS Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act and become subject to EPA review and control.
So, September 2, 2015 WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY filed the following rulemaking with the Office of the Code Reviser: Rule preproposal
(using only online public notification?)
ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE (WAC 173-22)
What’s Up With WOTUS?
Implementation of the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” (usually referred to as the WOTUS rule) was set to become effective on August 28, 2015. Several lawsuits were filed by agricultural groups, among others, requesting a preliminary injunction, or order, to halt the rule’s implementation until lawsuits could be settled. Late in the afternoon on August 27, a District Court judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction stopping the WOTUS rule from going into effect for thirteen states, including Nebraska.
FOR ALL OTHER STATES WHO DIDN’T HAVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS ISSUED, THE RULE TOOK EFFECT AS PLANNED ON AUGUST 28, 2015.
Why were lawsuits filed against the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers (CORP) following release of the final WOTUS rule? Several lawsuits were filed following publication of the final WOTUS rule in the Federal Register.
Twenty-seven states, along with industries from petroleum to construction, and agricultural groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, and National Pork Producers Council all filed separate lawsuits. These numerous lawsuits have since been consolidated into a single lawsuit that identifies three arguments for vacating the rule.
The first argument is that the finalized WOTUS rule exceeds the intended purposes of the Clean Water Act and represents an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government on land. Second, the rule-making process is designed to give the public an opportunity to comment on all aspects of a rule. In this case, EPA added items to the final rule that were not in the proposed rule.
The third, and perhaps most concerning argument, is that the EPA may have inappropriately worked with environmental activists to lobby for the rule and support the agency’s agenda. If true, this represents an abuse of the federal rulemaking process by the EPA.
What does the temporary injunction mean for Nebraska farmers? It means that, for now, the status quo will be maintained. So current guidance documents and existing regulations for making “jurisdictional determination” will continue to be used by the Corp. New definitions and parameters outlined in the WOTUS rule will not be part of the Corp’s checklist when making these determinations in Nebraska. Jurisdictional determination simply means that the Corp reviews the necessary checklist regarding features of a water body, and possibly conducts an on-site inspection, to make a decision about whether the water body should be under their jurisdiction as “waters of the U.S.”
The temporary injunction does not halt the rule entirely; it simply postpones implementation of the rule until legal proceedings are completed (which could take months or even years as we saw with the new AFO/CAFO regulations a few years back).
If the pending lawsuits are not successful, and the WOTUS rule is eventually implemented in Nebraska, it remains to be seen what parts of the rule will remain and which will not. In Nebraska, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
Source: Amy Millmier Schmidt, UNL Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer
By Jonathan H. Adler August 28, 2015
UPDATE: On Friday, the plaintiff states informed the court that the U.S. EPA had announced it would continue to apply the WOTUS rule in states that did not challenge the injunction.
Late Friday, the district court responded with an order for supplemental briefing on whether the injunction “applies nationally or in a limited geographic area.” Briefs are due on Tuesday, September 1.
CALIFORNIA IS NOT PART OF THE LAWSUITS
California Farmers Claim EPA Water Rules Extend To Dirt Fields
August 31, 2015 6:22 PM
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY (CBS13) — Farmers say federal regulators are going too far and are taking away their water and chipping away at their property rights under a new rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency says any bodies of water near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will fall under federal regulation.
Since the 1980s, the EPA has regulated any water you can navigate through, including rivers and large lakes. But the new Clean Water Act Rule will add smaller bodies of water to the government’s oversight.
Bruce Blodgett with the San Joaquin Farm Bureau says the new rule would include any standing body of water, and dry land that can potentially hold water.
“This field is a great example,” he said. “This dirt field would now be ‘waters of the U.S.’ under this proposed rule.”
The bureau says the new rule allows the government to require farmers to get permits to farm from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
“We have a lot of fields that are fallow, sitting idle this year, because of the drought,” he said. “That will enable the Corps to come after those lands when they try to bring them back into production next year saying, ‘No, those are now waters of the U.S.’”
Under the new Clean Water Act rule, the bureau claims any private property with a pond and any farm with an irrigation district is now under federal regulation.
But the EPA says, that’s not true. It says the new rule applies to tributaries and water near rivers that could seep into waterways and affect the environment . The agency says it’s not going after ponds and won’t interfere with farm irrigation. It says ditches that are not constructed in streams and that flow only when it rains are not covered.
A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit. California is not part of the lawsuits, but farmers are watching.