S O U N D   O F F

I. Ken Keil, reviewed the farm policy revisions and forwarded the revised policy to 2 friends, one a rancher and the other a former Federal Water Adjudicator on the lower Rio Grande Compact. You may remember from my comments on other issues I treasure our Constitution. With that in mind, the latest proposed policy is another effort by the federal govt. to control all the waters of the USA. This is unconsitutional and illegal. My friends and I are all in agreement on this. Please see the excerpt below from the former Federal Water Adjudicator.
____________________________________________
"While I have not seen the proposal, nor do I currently have time to even look sideways at it, Waters of the U.S. is Constitutionally defined under the Commerce Clause as "any body of water capable of supporting a 13 ton draft vessel". There are many Supreme Court cases going back the the very first cases heard in the late 1700's to early 1800's where the courts declared that "just because the water is capable of floating a canoe or gunship, that does not make it a water of the United States". I've even seen a Congressional commissioned map from the 1800's (Angus McIntosh has it and the book that goes with it) that shows the mapped and identified "Waters of the U.S.". This map covers the entire coastline that we have to this day after the war with Mexico and the other acquisitions. Even the Rio Grande has the first 18 to 20 miles of the mouth listed, but not the entire Rio Grande. There have not been ANY changes to this Constitutional definition ever and this is an agency regulatory attempt to change the definition without a Constitutional Convention and without the approval of Congress! This matter was brought up when the Army Corp of Engineers and the EPA lost their case in Cook County of Chicago about a decade ago when they attempted to fine and regulate a gravel quarry owner of his rock quarry that had filled up with rain and ground water. The quarry owner won his case proving they don't have jurisdiction and Congress never gave them control by any stretch, got the Federal gov't. kicked out and the agencies have sought ever since to change the definitions of "Waters of the U.S." ever since. Many, many, many people, communities and state governments are ignorant of this issue and bend over to take it in the rear. This document you speak of Ken, probably includes converting "Waters of the U.S." to include irrigation ditches, ponds, rain puddles, dry arroyos and ephemeral drainage.

This needs to be stopped dead in its tracks with prejudice!!
______________________________________________

I fully understand non-point source pollution contributes more pollution than point sources. However, giving more power to an over-sized government that really doesn't understand conservation, agriculture, etc. is not going to cure the situation. Why can't nitrogen and phosphorous control work on a regional basis. For example, the states along the Ohio River would work together with the farming and ranching community and municipalities to reduce run-off and let's do it in a way that won't drive the small farmer/rancher out of business.

Additionally, given the sad state of affairs of our governmental finances including federal, state, and county/municipal governments, this is not the time to be implementing additional costs on these agencies, which ultimately affect citizens who many are now in dire financial straits as well.

The proposed policy is another attempt by the federal govt. to usurp power through the EPA. I highly recommend RMWEA consider my thoughts and that we voice our displeasure about the federal government attempting to grow its size and increase its costs during this difficult economic times.

Kenneth L. Keil, P.E.
Vice President Sales - RoeTech
www.roebictechnologyinc.com