Editors Note: Since the Clean Water Act became effective in October 1972, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have overstepped their jurisdiction numerous times, greatly affecting many land owners, farmers, etc. The Supreme Court has reprimanded their overstepping actions time and again, so they have finally succeeded in expanding their jurisdiction from ‘navigable waters of the United States’ to essentially all waters of the U.S..
To understand the danger of this seemingly small change, you need to understand how the federal government has continually made moves to expand their power in every aspect, understand the new world order devised by communistic elite hell-bent on ruling the world and their Fabian socialistic gradual decay of our rights and liberty. As planned, they will control all water, food, information, and property, period.
President Obama’s administration claimed dominion over all of America’s streams, creeks, rills, ditches, brooks, rivulets, burns, tributaries, criks, wetlands — perhaps even puddles — in a sweeping move to assert unilateral federal authority. The EPA, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, says it has the authority to control all waterways within the United States — and will exercise that authority.
Under the Clean Water Rule, all “tributaries” will be categorically regulated by the federal government. Tributaries — which quite literally mean anything with a bed, banks and an “ordinary high water mark” — are now under federal control. Not my words; the Environment Protection Agency’s (EPA). This includes ditches and less.
Under the same rule, the word “adjacent” is stretched from the Supreme Court’s definition of actually “abutting” what most Americans regard as a real water of the United States to anything “neighboring,” “contiguous,” or “bordering” a real water, terms which are again stretched to include whole floodplains and riparian areas. Floodplains are typically based on a 100-year flood, but a separate regulation would stretch that to a 500-year flood.
And, finally, under the rule, the EPA cynically throws in a catch-all “significant nexus” test meant as a shout out to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Rapanos v. United States when, in fact, the EPA’s rule makes a mockery of Kennedy’s opinion and of no fewer than three Supreme Court rulings.
Under the three approaches, no land or “water” is beyond the reach of the federal government, never mind the traditional understanding of private property or state and local control of land use.
Farmers, ranchers, dairymen and others, on and off the farm, are in a widespread panic with the finalization of this rule because not only does it allow the EPA onto their land, but it throws the gate wide open to environmental group-led citizen lawsuits that promise to carry the rule’s reach beyond what even the EPA had envisioned. That is because even though the EPA may have intended to show some restraint in the exercise of its newfound powers, the rule itself is virtually boundless and citizen suits are controlled only by the rule. This rule carries with it fines under the law to the tune of $37,500 per day, but comes with absolutely no clarity for farmers as to what side of the law they are now on.
I started work as an legislative assistant covering agriculture for Sen. John Tower (R) of Texas back in 1971 before serving nearly 20 years in Congress, and I have never seen a bigger land grab by the federal government than the Clean Water Rule.
Like Tower, and like most Texans serving in Congress today, I was consistently ranked as one of the most conservative members in Congress. And that is why it appalls me that instead of libertarian groups announcing that their No. 1 objective is to overturn this rule and protect the private property rights of every American citizen — which is at the very heart of a free society — these groups were reported on June 24 in The Washington Post as saying that their No. 1 objective is, of all things, killing U.S. sugar policy.
No wonder rank-and-file conservative Americans are so disgusted. Of all of the maladies in government and society today, the only thing that these groups in Washington, purporting to carry the conservative banner and armed with billions of dollars, can muster is an attack on farmers. What is their next act? To disappear?
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), one of the most committed conservatives in the House of Representatives, has introduced legislation — backed by conservative groups that make decisions based on principle rather than a rich donor base — that proposes to do what any conservative American would do. Yoho’s bill would zero out U.S. sugar policy when America’s biggest foreign sugar competitors do the same. Any real conservative and any ordinary American would reasonably wonder if that’s really too much to ask of our trading partners. The Yoho bill should be the model legislation for all of American agriculture, which is hit hard every day by high and rising foreign subsidies, tariffs and other barriers to trade imposed by countries like communist China.
Yet some libertarian groups reject this commonsense approach and look instead for new ways to assail a policy that, in the case of sugar, did not cost taxpayers a dime last year, will not cost taxpayers a dime this year and is projected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to cost zero dollars for the next decade. The same policy has been demonstrated to have resulted in lower costs on the grocery shelf than what foreign consumers pay.
That’s why these libertarian groups were jubilant to read the news in The Washington Post that an agribusiness may be inviting commodities to join in on the attack against one of their own, with the lead of one of these libertarian groups glibly predicting that this division would bring about the fall of all U.S. farm policy. Of course, tragically, such tactics would obviously imperil important farm policies for all of America’s farmers and ranchers, including those whom agribusiness depends on for business. What a dangerously shortsighted strategy.
Together, these libertarian groups and this particular agribusiness criticize the political involvement of farm families who participate in the very process they vociferously argue every citizen has an inviolable First Amendment right to exercise, and even when their combined political power and spending would swamp a boat like sugar’s.
What is sad is that this enormous fortune that they sit upon is not being used to join in battle for things as important as the defense of private property — an absolutely essential cornerstone of American freedom — but is instead being squandered to wage war on the backbone of a great country: farmers and ranchers.
Combest represented the 19th Congressional District of Texas from 1985 to 2002 and chaired the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Agriculture Committee. He is now a principal at Combest Sell & Associates.
Download pdf of Final Clean Water Rule
With meticulous detail and an abundance of original research, Patrick M. Wood uses Technocracy Rising to connect the dots of modern globalization in a way that has never been seen before so that the reader can clearly understand the globalization plan, its perpetrators and its intended endgame.
In the heat of the Great Depression during the 1930s, prominent scientists and engineers proposed a utopian energy-based economic system called Technocracy that would be run by those same scientists and engineers instead of elected politicians. Although this radical movement lost momentum by 1940, it regained status when it was conceptually adopted by the elitist Trilateral Commission (co-founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller) in 1973 to be become its so-called “New International Economic Order.”
In the ensuing 41 years, the modern expression of Technocracy and the New International Economic Order is clearly seen in global programs such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Councils of Governments, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Total Awareness surveillance initiatives and more.
Wood contends that the only logical outcome of Technocracy is Scientific Dictatorship, as already seen in dystopian literature such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932) and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (1948), both of whom looked straight into the face of Technocracy when it was still in its infancy.
With over 250 footnotes, an extensive bibliography and clarity of writing style, Wood challenges the reader to new levels of insight and understanding into the clear and present danger of Technocracy, and how Americans might be able to reject it once again.
This publication is a series of critical commentary regarding the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which includes specific goals. These goals are part the draft resolution which was referred to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015, titled, “Transforming our world: the 20310 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. Author and commentator Patrick Wood, author of “Technocracy Rising”, comments regarding “soft” or “reflexive law” to explain how sustainable development is being implemented. Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center, and Mary Baker of “Citizen Ninga” activist training fame, offer a compelling critiques of “Agenda 2030” and its goals. U.N. Agenda 2030 is an international wealth redistribution scheme to transfer wealth from “rich” nations to poor nations. Unlike U.N. Agenda 21, which was installed worldwide at the local level, this new scheme seeks to transform the economic structure of the world from a priced-based system or capitalism, to a socialist carbon-based currency system, using strict conservation rationing system, or technocracy.
An unprecedented land grab is taking place around the world. Fearing future food shortages or eager to profit from them, the world’s wealthiest and most acquisitive countries, corporations, and individuals have been buying and leasing vast tracts of land around the world. The scale is astounding: parcels the size of small countries are being gobbled up across the plains of Africa, the paddy fields of Southeast Asia, the jungles of South America, and the prairies of Eastern Europe. Veteran science writer Fred Pearce spent a year circling the globe to find out who was doing the buying, whose land was being taken over, and what the effect of these massive land deals seems to be.
The Land Grabbers is a first-of-its-kind exposé that reveals the scale and the human costs of the land grab, one of the most profound ethical, environmental, and economic issues facing the globalized world in the twenty-first century. The corporations, speculators, and governments scooping up land cheap in the developing world claim that industrial-scale farming will help local economies. But Pearce’s research reveals a far more troubling reality. While some mega-farms are ethically run, all too often poor farmers and cattle herders are evicted from ancestral lands or cut off from water sources. The good jobs promised by foreign capitalists and home governments alike fail to materialize. Hungry nations are being forced to export their food to the wealthy, and corporate potentates run fiefdoms oblivious to the country beyond their fences.
Pearce’s story is populated with larger-than-life characters, from financier George Soros and industry tycoon Richard Branson, to Gulf state sheikhs, Russian oligarchs, British barons, and Burmese generals. We discover why Goldman Sachs is buying up the Chinese poultry industry, what Lord Rothschild and a legendary 1970s asset-stripper are doing in the backwoods of Brazil, and what plans a Saudi oil billionaire has for Ethiopia. Along the way, Pearce introduces us to the people who actually live on, and live off of, the supposedly “empty” land that is being grabbed, from Cambodian peasants, victimized first by the Khmer Rouge and now by crony capitalism, to African pastoralists confined to ever-smaller tracts.
Over the next few decades, land grabbing may matter more, to more of the planet’s people, than even climate change. It will affect who eats and who does not, who gets richer and who gets poorer, and whether agrarian societies can exist outside corporate control. It is the new battle over who owns the planet.
As a young, black, MIT-educated social scientist, Marsha Coleman-Adebayo landed her dream job at the EPA, working with Al Gore’s special commission to assist postapartheid South Africa. But when she tried to get the government to investigate allegations that a multinational corporation was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of South Africans mining vanadium—a vital strategic mineral—the agency stonewalled. Coleman-Adebayo blew the whistle.
How could she know that the liberal agency would use every racist and sexist trick in their playbook in retaliation? The EPA endangered her family and sacrificed more lives in the vanadium mines of South Africa—but her fight against this injustice also brought about an upwelling of support from others in the federal bureaucracy who were fed up with its crushing repression.
Upon prevailing in court, Coleman-Adebayo organized a grassroots struggle to bring protection to all federal employees facing discrimination and retribution from the government. The No FEAR Coalition that she organized waged a two-year-long battle with Congress over the need to protect whistleblowers—culminating in the passage of the first civil rights and whistleblower law of the 21st century. This book is her harrowing and inspiring story.