Comments on: “Clean Water Restoration Act” Would Expand Goverment Powers, Threaten Property Rights

By: Tom Remington

Tom Remington — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:48:53 +0000

I think you have answered all the questions to include any and all scenarios. Here’s the deal. I think you are right for the most part that THE Clean Water Act has helped clean up the waters BUT, that certainly doesn’t mean more is better. Of course we can only speculate as to what could happen, as is written in the article, it states that certain scenarios are possible by way of the text of the Clean Water Restoration Act.
Personally I believe from what I have read that the CWRA would now include all waters, which could open a can of worms.
I certainly have no faith that our government should be given the task of cleaning up or keeping anything clean. That’s up to you and me and the guy next door.
I can personally account for how individuals can effect change by working together and with existing organizations to clean up water. I’ve been involved in such.
What makes much of this kind of reporting difficult is that people assume that if you are against the expansion of the powers of government, and in this case dealing with clean water, it means I don’t care about the water, pollution, etc. That’s not true. I just believe there are better ways to accomplish it than to put it into regulations=environmentalists=lawyers=courts=a lot of money spent and nothing accomplished.
So, in answer to your question – ha ha – there is obviously a certain amount of trying to look into a crystal ball and predict what could happen.

By: jes

jes — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:43:40 +0000

Tom, after reading the bill itself, and checking in on The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, I am more than ever convinced that any backlash from hunters, fishermen, and sportsmen in general is a put-up affair…This organization has really been working hard and with great accomplishment to promote and propect hunting and fishing in all aspects…Check it out for yourself:
http://www.trcp.org/ch_wetlands.aspx
and the link to the bill at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2421:

By: jes

jes — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:34:29 +0000

Are we dealing in facts here, as in examples where the Clean Water Act has already been used in making “incremental decisions” which have affected sportsmen in general? (examples, please) Or are we using our general mistrust of federal power, or even more likely, a general dislike of private property rights being threatened. And much more likely, a profit motive by big business who are threatened by cleaning up their act, and the cost of it…Lest we be swayed by reports and/ or hysteria promoted by people who have a large finanical stake in it…
Believe it or not, our water is our source of life, and we are polluting it at an unbelievable rate…most of it going unseen into our aquifers, taking years before we become aware of it. Then not being able TO do anything about it…There are some priorities, Tom, and the wildlife and our own health are not going to survive without our help in this..
There comes a time when, if people or businesses are not showing responsibility for the good of others by polluting your and my water, then something needs to be done about it, and who is going to do that BUT the federal government!
Private business has lot of power, and “perhaps” some of these reviews are influenced by that money and power…Can’t say I know one way for sure, but most of what I’ve read of the Clean Water Act has been for the best…What do you think, do all these reviews seem emannating from the influence of some big business lobbys? Or what? Maybe to protect our waters we need to look at the abuse of private property rights….and do something about it

By: jes

jes — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:33:33 +0000

One more thing…Whether or not this bill could help the wetland in Florida might be debatable, but one thing is for sure: the wetlands in this state,(Florida) need all the help they can get. I have seen cypress swamp after cypress swamp, clear cut to the ground. And that is a great waste of a wild system that filters and preserves the water levels throughout the state. Not only that, but it destroys the wildlife that depend on it. Between that and development, you eventually will not have any wildlife..except in the areas that are preserved. The state water management districts are doing a reasonable job buying up areas of concern..but they don’t have enough time, before development or clear cutting cypress won’t leave anything for them to protect….And why are they clear cutting cypress? Mostly all is going for MULCH… very little is even used for lumber! What a waste!
One the other hand, pine timber resources are probable the leader in preserving wildlife habitat..until they are sold for development..so keep wiping your butt,and asking for paper bags in the market! The only bad news I’ve seen in pine forest management is the new practice of poisoning oak trees, by air..not only polluting water but depriving wildlife of their most needed and dependant food source: acorns…We need to prevent these practices even at the expense of more legislation. That’s my soapbox. Thanks.

By: jes

jes — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:06:46 +0000

It’s gotten to the stage where you have to be a lawyer, just to know what the laws are to begin with. I’ll bet if I read almost any of these original bills, I would’t have the faintest idea what they were talking about, much less, it’s ramifications…..Have we gotten to the point where we need to determine what the effects of legislation are by asking the lobby groups that would be effected by it…no, I guess not, we’ve been at tha stage for a while now! Obfusation is the byword for all those exploiters, especially in our own government….