Green groups feeling pretty jazzed about the EPA’s latest “wetlands” power grab
posted at 6:41 pm on November 6, 2013 by Erika Johnsen
Last month, we caught wind of the Environmental Protection Agency’s latest attempt to further expand the already extravagant bounds of their authority with some, ahem, “clarifications” to the Clean Water Act that would more specifically codify precisely the types of bodies of water that fall under their esteemed jurisdiction. The EPA has had to deal with the ever-so-droll inconvenience of several high-level lawsuits stemming from their unscrupulous rulemaking, and they really want to lock those challenges to their righteous regulatory prowess down.
Because this is the EPA we’re dealing with, I’d hazard a guess that neither pond nor puddle is quite safe from this “clarification” process, and the well-monied and self-titled environmentalist lobby — ever-confident in the wildly misguided notion that big government bureaucracy is the best method of effective environmental stewardship — is pretty thrilled about it. Via The Hill:
Green organizations are cheering an attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to solidify its authority over smaller streams and wetlands.
The period for the public to comment on the agency’s draft report, which makes the case for new rules, ends on Wednesday. The agency has received more than 100,000 comments on the study. …
Environmentalists agree with the EPA that oversight of those waters is necessary to protect the larger water sources.
“For too long these vital water bodies have been without Clean Water Act protection and have been at risk of contamination,” a coalition of organizations including the Sierra Club, Earthjustice and League of Conservation Voters said in a statement. “We are glad that EPA has restarted this stalled process and urge the Agency to release the proposed rule quickly.”
Yes, because what good environmentalists wouldn’t love that. Gotta’ keep all those mindless private-property owners and clearly deficient state regulators in check, ya’ know?