Chilling New Law Gives US Government Ownership Of All Water In Nation

[Panther]

May 8, 2009

 

Chilling New Law Gives US Government Ownership Of All Water In Nation

 

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers (Traducci

[Guest Jules]

I'm with Panther on this one.

[Tweedling]

Who wrote the law?

[Central Scrutinizer]

I'm with Panther on this one.

Sign No. 391 of the Apocalypse.

[Panther]

I'm with Panther on this one.

 

lets go Hawks, I hate vancouver never been a nationhood kind of guy

[isadorah]

so exactly where does it say in the the proposed bill that the U.S. will now own all water? I call bullshit and Russian propaganda on this one. Give me a U.S. source that says "the top elite military-political and corporate classes currently ruling the United States". They're quoting from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which is being changed to the Clean Water Restoration Act and claiming the U.S. is taking ownership of water, to quote the article "latest move by the US Government to take all of its Nations waters away from its citizens".

 

I think one should use google a bit more before blindly trusting something. The Clean Water Restoration Act is being proposed to more clearly define waterways in the U.S. to help reduce pollution in waterways that aren't necessarily used for Navigation.

 

Clean Water Restoration Act

 

Maybe it is just me, but the Clean Water Act seems to be more like a U.S. attempt at making water pure and accessible for all of its citizens. Then again, I am reading the U.S. version of the story not the Russian version.

 

--

the brief version from the link:

 

Passing the Clean Water Restoration Act in 2009 will restore longstanding safeguards for America's water resources and put us back on the path toward protecting all of our drinking water, lakes, rivers and streams.

 

The Clean Water Restoration Act should adopt a definition of "waters of the United States" based on longstanding EPA and Army Corps of Engineers regulations. The new law should delete the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act to clarify that the purpose of the law was to protect the nation's waters from pollution, and no just maintain navigability. Congress should also make findings that the law includes so-called "isolated" waters, headwater streams, small rivers, ponds, lakes and wetlands.

[Gobias Industries]

Been waiting years for this, I'm a fan of this policy.

[Guest Jules]

lets go Hawks, I hate vancouver never been a nationhood kind of guy

[Good Old Neon]

One word

[TCP]

lets go Hawks, I hate vancouver never been a nationhood kind of guy

So when is the next Habs game??? Ohh that's right they got swept in four games.

[Panther]

so exactly where does it say in the the proposed bill that the U.S. will now own all water? I call bullshit and Russian propaganda on this one. Give me a U.S. source that says "the top elite military-political and corporate classes currently ruling the United States". They're quoting from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which is being changed to the Clean Water Restoration Act and claiming the U.S. is taking ownership of water, to quote the article "latest move by the US Government to take all of its Nations waters away from its citizens".

 

I think one should use google a bit more before blindly trusting something. The Clean Water Restoration Act is being proposed to more clearly define waterways in the U.S. to help reduce pollution in waterways that aren't necessarily used for Navigation.

 

Clean Water Restoration Act

 

Maybe it is just me, but the Clean Water Act seems to be more like a U.S. attempt at making water pure and accessible for all of its citizens. Then again, I am reading the U.S. version of the story not the Russian version.

 

--

the brief version from the link:

 

Passing the Clean Water Restoration Act in 2009 will restore longstanding safeguards for America's water resources and put us back on the path toward protecting all of our drinking water, lakes, rivers and streams.

 

The Clean Water Restoration Act should adopt a definition of "waters of the United States" based on longstanding EPA and Army Corps of Engineers regulations. The new law should delete the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act to clarify that the purpose of the law was to protect the nation's waters from pollution, and no just maintain navigability. Congress should also make findings that the law includes so-called "isolated" waters, headwater streams, small rivers, ponds, lakes and wetlands.

 

 

Very good points, its definetly important to note that this is a russian source hopefully no one simply read the headline and freaked out .

And no you probably wont find a U.S soucre that says "the top elite military-political and corporate classes currently ruling the United States" even though its true.

Maybe in the sixities but not today and not on CNN . What you proposed makes sense as far as the motivees being protecting the water but taht is based on trust.

And the opposite view which I hold is based on distrust , this is definetly a debate that needs to happen.

 

Its a debate of motives some may say that seat belt laws are a good thing it saves lives I say it allows the police to pull people over and check there records and last month I got a 100 dollar ticket for not having a seatbelt on, what bullshit. Similar debate, no?

[bleedorange]

It's just a Senate Bill trying to give a broader definition to the waterways that the Federal Government can regulate (unfortunately). It directly refers to Rapanos v. United States, which found that the definitions in the original Act were too narrow to allow the kind of unfettered access the Army Corps of Engineers wanted in that case.

 

Even though I'm no fan of the bill, I'm not sure where the "chilling" aspect comes into play.

[Panther]

So when is the next Habs game??? Ohh that's right they got swept in four games.

 

 

That hurts, Im acutally a bit multi personality onthis I want Bobby Lu to win a cup but now Mats Sundin and you guys already got the Olympics so fuck

[bleedorange]

Very good points, its definetly important to note that this is a russian source hopefully no one simply read the headline and freaked out .

And no you probably wont find a U.S soucre that says "the top elite military-political and corporate classes currently ruling the United States" even though its true.

Maybe in the sixities but not today and not on CNN . What you proposed makes sense as far as the motivees being protecting the water but taht is based on trust.

And the opposite view which I hold is based on distrust , this is definetly a debate that needs to happen.

 

Its a debate of motives some may say that seat belt laws are a good thing it saves lives I say it allows the police to pull people over and check there records and last month I got a 100 dollar ticket for not having a seatbelt on, what bullshit. Similar debate, no?

 

This may be one of your more coherent posts. And I'm with you on the seat belt laws.

[TCP]

Yeah but Sundin isn't really an important part of this team. If anything he is an anchor on that second line. I guess he brings veteran presence.

I do love how everyone says that he went for the money over a championship when he picked the Canucks over the Habs and Rangers.

[jff]

This law is all wet.

[Panther]

One word

[cryptique]

I wish I'd had the foresight to put all my money into the conspiracy theory market back before this boom got underway.

[bleedorange]

exactly you know whats going on ........... have you ever read John Pilgers "the new rulers of the world" its also a documentry.

I think you would enjoy it. I was thinking about starting athread and posting entire pages at a time like a series or soemthing.

It really explains globilization western control and how these people have no morals, their is a chapter called the great game where

he speaks of a "new world" of western controll where nations states simply play a role in the world dominated by one power.

So its far far away from the sensationalism of many nutjob theories about a oneworld goverment ..but its really the same thing.

 

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

[Panther]

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

 

don't be so sure about anything just remember you and me both know NOTHING

[Good Old Neon]

don't be so sure about anything just remember you and me both know NOTHING

 

You can say that again, and again, and again and...

[isadorah]

Its a debate of motives some may say that seat belt laws are a good thing it saves lives I say it allows the police to pull people over and check there records and last month I got a 100 dollar ticket for not having a seatbelt on, what bullshit. Similar debate, no?

 

No. because clean water has an impact on entire ecosystems, people's health, the health of unborn babies, animals, plants...the list could go on and on. I am just never going to see the connection or leap of how having a law to keep pig farms from dumping their waste into a neighboring wetland is the U.S. government trying to own the water. Can you give one solid argument on how having clean water is a motivation of limiting water from the American people? Just one? I guess under your logic the U.S. government already owns the air with the Clean Air Act.

 

Now the article that was posted a while ago about the state that is trying to ban rain barrels because people are collecting water that should end up in streams that are irrigated onto farms and are therefore tealing water, that is government trying to own the water.

 

Living in a major city that has severe lead, pharmaceutical, and god knows what other contamination in its drinking water, the cleaner our water can be the better. there is a court case pending here because 2 little boys drank DC tap water a few years ago and now have serious developmental disabilities, all the while the head of the water treatment authority knew the lead levels were toxic for children. there is an ongoing investigation to figure out how many other children were affected by the water. WHO exactly is clean water going to hurt. ???

 

not everything is a conspiracy.

[Panther]

No. because clean water has an impact on entire ecosystems, people's health, the health of unborn babies, animals, plants...the list could go on and on. I am just never going to see the connection or leap of how having a law to keep pig farms from dumping their waste into a neighboring wetland is the U.S. government trying to own the water. Can you give one solid argument on how having clean water is a motivation of limiting water from the American people? Just one? I guess under your logic the U.S. government already owns the air with the Clean Air Act.

 

Now the article that was posted a while ago about the state that is trying to ban rain barrels because people are collecting water that should end up in streams that are irrigated onto farms and are therefore tealing water, that is government trying to own the water.

 

Living in a major city that has severe lead, pharmaceutical, and god knows what other contamination in its drinking water, the cleaner our water can be the better. there is a court case pending here because 2 little boys drank DC tap water a few years ago and now have serious developmental disabilities, all the while the head of the water treatment authority knew the lead levels were toxic for children. there is an ongoing investigation to figure out how many other children were affected by the water. WHO exactly is clean water going to hurt. ???

 

not everything is a conspiracy.

 

Thats a hillarious argument your on the side of clean water wow how brave of you, let me ask you this why is their floride in the water

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Mind control, obviously.

[Sir Stewart]

let me ask you this why is their floride in the water

Please clarify whether you've misspelled "fluoride" or "Florida" here. Thanks.