The federal takeover continues

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Note that none of the sponsors of this debacle are from flyover country. Most are right coast leftists.



Click here to read the bill.


SOURCE

Updated December 14, 2009
Not So Private Property?: Clean Water Restoration Act Raises Fears of Land Grab

FOXNews.com

Upwards of 40 percent of all land in the United States is already under some form of government control or ownership -- 800 million to 900 million acres out of America's total 2.2 billion acres.

The government now appears poised to wield greater control over private property on a number of fronts. The battle over private property rights has intensified since 2005, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo v. City of New London case that the government could take property from one group of private landowners and give it to another.

Outraged over that ruling and a series of recent efforts by government to wield greater control over private property, citizens are fighting back. Fox News' Shannon Bream takes a fair and balanced look at the controversy in a three-part series.



The Clean Water Restoration Act currently pending in the U.S. Senate could reach to control even a "seasonal puddle" on private property.

Eleven senators and 17 representatives in the U.S. House have sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasting the measure as one of the boldest property grab attempts of all time.

This bill is described by opponents as a sweeping overhaul of the Clean Water Act that could threaten both physical land and jobs by wiping out some farmers entirely.

"Right now, the law says that the Environmental Protection Agency is in charge of all navigable water," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Western Caucus and an opponent of the bill.

"Well, this bill removes the word 'navigable,' so for ranchers and farmers who have mud puddles, prairie potholes -- anything from snow melting on their land -- all of that water will now come under the regulation of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency," he said.

Barrasso said the federal government's one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work in the west where the Rocky Mountain states have gone even further than Washington to protect land, water and the environment.

"The government wants control of all water -- that also means that they want control over all of our land including the private property rights of people from the Rocky Mountain west, the western caucus and the entire United States," he said.

But Jan Goldman-Carter of the National Wildlife Foundation said fears by ranchers and farmers are unfounded.

"That amended language is very clear that it preserves long standing exemptions for ongoing agricultural practices, forest roads. There are a number of very generous exemptions in there particularly for ranchers and farmers that I know have been worried about the effect of this legislation, but in fact those worries are largely unfounded," she said.

Goldman-Carter added that the United States has long regulated streams and other waterways that aren't 'navigable' by boat because to do otherwise would be to allow dumping into smaller water sources that lead to the larger ones used for drinking water and other purposes.

"I can't imagine anyone wanting to walk down to the stream and dump their oil or paint," she said. "Even if they did they're not going to be enforced against now and they never were, there simply isn't the ability to do that."

Aside from striking "navigable," the bill defines U.S. water as "all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters."

It adds that any "activities affecting these waters are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."

The legislation, introduced by Wisconsin Democratic Sen Russ Feingold, has the support of 24 senators. It passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in June but has not been scheduled for a floor vote, though it could be tacked onto other legislation as an amendment.


Click here to read the bill.
 
So much for your "land grab paranoia" thing, Jim...it's discounted right in the same article.
 
your going to confuse the Canadians with that right coast stuff :p

East and West are better, but let's just say that an upright map would put the 'right coast' on your Eastern Seaboard. Our 'leftist' coast is on the left. British Columbia. Actually, that wouldn't make sense in your case..isn't California on your West (left) coast?
:rainfrow:
 
The debate continues. This guy is taking his case to the SCotUS.

SOURCE

Updated December 15, 2009
Not So Private Property?: Florida Man Takes Eminent Domain Case to High Court

FOXNews.com

As much as 40 percent of all land in the United States is already under some form of government control or ownership -- 800 million to 900 million acres out of America's total 2.2 billion acres.

The government now appears poised to wield greater control over private property on a number of fronts. The battle over private property rights has intensified since 2005, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo v. City of New London case that the government could take property from one group of private landowners and give it to another.

Outraged over that ruling and a series of recent efforts by government to wield greater control over private property, citizens are fighting back. Fox News' Shannon Bream takes a fair and balanced look at the controversy in a three-part series.



When Congress ruled in 1989 to expand the Everglades National Park in Florida, Gilbert Fornatora's home stood in the way.

Now, after having his private property condemned and seized by the government exercising eminent domain, Fornatora is appealing his case before the Supreme Court in an effort to prove his constitutional rights were violated.

Florida landowners claim that the federal government began pressuring local and state authorities in the 1960s and '70s to change zoning laws so they could more easily devalue and take private property in the expansion zone.

Congress then authorized the expansion of the Florida Everglades in 1989, igniting a heated feud between the government and Floridians whose homes bordered the national park -- a sweeping 1.5 million acre preserve of peaceful wetlands and wildlife.

The government "also put pressure on the local zoning board to do what's called 'down zone' the property, making it also worth less so that when they eventually did condemn it, they didn't have to pay as much in just compensation," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute and one of the lawyers working on behalf of the homeowners.

"We think that this is a violation of the Fifth Amendment takings clause," Shapiro told Fox News.

The high court hasn't decided yet whether it will hear the appeal in the potentially landmark property rights case -- 480 Acres of Land and Gilbert Fornatora v. U.S.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the government, said landowners like Fornatora could not prove that federal authorities manipulated zoning laws so to devalue the properties in question.

"A landowner must show that the primary purpose of the regulation was to depress the property value of the land or that the ordinance was enacted with the specific intent of depressing property value for the purpose of later condemnation," the court wrote in its 2009 decision.

Fox News' Shannon Bream contributed to this report.

FULL COVERAGE: Private Property Rights
 
The coast in Cali is all progressive commie, the central valley is all red babay.

-- here's to hoping the coast/San Andreas does fall off into the sea. *tips coffee cup* (sorry Inky)
 
Back
Top