"The WOTUS rule was a misguided attempt to control private lands under the guise of clean water.

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by HK_User, Jun 29, 2017.

  1. HK_User

    HK_User A Productive Monkey is a Happy Monkey

    Texas Cattle Raisers commend proposal to repeal harsh 2015 Clean Water rule

    In response to an announcement that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a notice to repeal the so-called Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, TSCRA President Richard Thorpe issued the following statement: "The WOTUS rule was a misguided attempt to control private lands under the guise of clean water. Since 2015, when the rule was implemented, ranchers and private property advocates nation-wide have fought to maintain their rights in the face of this overly burdensome federal regulation. We applaud the EPA's action to ensure ranchers can continue to provide America with a safe and affordable food supply."

    oldawg, Ganado, Tully Mars and 5 others like this.
  2. DKR

    DKR Raconteur of the first stripe

    I wasn't 'misguided'

    It was a raw power grab under the color of Law. The Trumpster may have spiked it, but if the Dems get back in control look for more and worse - BTW - it isn't Power to the People, more like Power to the Elite....
    Ganado and Tully Mars like this.
  3. 3M-TA3

    3M-TA3 Cold Wet Monkey Site Supporter++

    Reminds me of all the BS Bill Clinton tried to pull. I accidentally stumbled across the Jarbridge Shovel Brigade when I was out exploring one Independence Day: The Shovel Rebellion – Mother Jones

    Then there was an attempt by Clinton's Dept of Interior to shut of residents from Idaho's Silver City the same year. Once again people showed up and reopened the roads, and fortunately it was BC's last year so .gov basically gave up.

    It was also the time when severe restrictions were placed on water usage in the Klamath basin using the same endangered species BS as they did in Jarbridge. In Jarbridge the "endangered". The only problem was that the Bulltrout was A) not native, B) a fish the state was paying a bounty on years previously because it was a non native nuisance, and C) "endangered" in virtually every river and stream in Idaho and Nevada. How can something be endangered when it lives everywhere?

    I no longer recall the fish species that was used against the Klamath Basin farmers other than shortly in the Bush administration somebody said "Hey, that's not even a native fish!" and lifted the ban in an unusual display of intelligence by a government entity.

    These are only things I was aware of in a few small parts of the country, who knows how much crap they pulled?
    Ganado, Motomom34, Tully Mars and 2 others like this.
  4. Motomom34

    Motomom34 Monkey+++

    It amazes me that the government feels it cares more about the land and the water then the farmers who making their living off the land. I know some huge farms do not care about anything but profit but the smaller ranches are very connected to the land and the water that flows through it
  5. 3M-TA3

    3M-TA3 Cold Wet Monkey Site Supporter++

    Look to what caused the occupation of Malheur in Oregon. These areas have mineral wealth that can be exploited, but you have to drive people out before corrupt government officials can sell them and get their kickback. In the case of the Malheur area the mineral was uranium that was sold to Russian owned Uranium1. Uranium that could potentially be weaponized and used against us, but hey, no Russian collusion there...

    Secretary of state Clinton got a $30,000,000 dollar kickback/Clinton Foundation donation from that deal, but first the ranchers had to be run off. Similar things were in store for the Bundy Ranch. BTW the kickbacks are why they all have foundations - so the kickbacks can be laundered.
    oldawg, Ganado and Motomom34 like this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary