September 23, 2019

Six False Claims the Environmental Protection Agency is Making to Hide Its Attempt to Control America’s Water

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Obama Administration’s Proposed Water Regulation Also Would Make the Environmental Protection Agency the “Lord and Master of Private Land,” New Analysis Says

Washington, DC – Landowners, homeowners, home builders, construction companies, farmers, ranchers, fruit growers, the forestry and mining industries, and just about everyone else engaged in productive activities in the United States are in the crosshairs of the most far-reaching power grab ever undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to a new analysis by Bonner Cohen, Ph. D., senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research and senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

In the name of “clarifying” the federal government’s regulatory authority over certain bodies of water under the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in March unleashed a torrent of proposed regulations that would give Washington final authority over land-use decisions from coast-to-coast.

The regulations cover “waters of the United States” and are commonly referred to as “WOTUS.”

In the analysis, “WOTUS: The Facts About EPA’s Wet Fiction,” Dr. Cohen points out that the EPA contends that its regulatory onslaught is necessary to clear up “uncertainties” arising from U.S. Supreme Court decisions from 2001 and 2006. Those rulings restricted the EPA’s authority and cast doubt over the legitimacy of its schemes to regulate wetlands and intermittent bodies of water.

“Despite losing both cases,” Dr. Cohen says, “EPA now claims that ambiguities in the rulings give it greater authority than ever before to regulate isolated and intermittent bodies of water on private land.”

Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA is authorized to regulate “navigable waters of the United States,” such as rivers, bays, channels, etc. But under the guise of “clarifying” its power, EPA is seeking to effectively delete the word “navigable” from the statute, allowing the agency to expand its writ far beyond congressional intent.

Dr. Cohen’s analysis notes that staffers on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee have rated the following six claims about WOTUS by Obama’s EPA as “NOT TRUE”:

• The EPA says WOTUS does not apply to ditches. (Not true.)
• The EPA says WOTUS will not regulate activities on land. (Not true.)
• The EPA says WOTUS will not apply to groundwater. (Not true.)
• The EPA says WOTUS will not affect stock ponds. (Not true.)
• The EPA says WOTUS does not require permits for normal farming activities, like moving cattle. (Not true.)
• The EPA says WOTUS does not regulate puddles. (Not true.)

In fact, Dr. Cohen says, Obama’s EPA is granting itself the power, under certain circumstances, to regulate:

• Ditches;
• Activities on land including homebuilding, agriculture, ranching, and mining;
• Groundwater;
• Stock ponds on farms and ranches;
• Traditional agricultural activities, such as moving cattle; and
• Puddles.

“If the proposed regulations are allowed to go into effect,” Dr. Cohen says, “the Obama EPA and the Corps will become lord and master over millions of acres of private land in the United States.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Gary Marbut: Ammo Shortage a Supply and Demand Issue

Folks,

Several of you have asked me what the cause of the ammunition shortage is.

The ammo shortage is nation-wide, and pretty much for all calibers. The shortage also includes ammunition components (brass, powder, primers and bullets) and all reloading equipment and supplies.

A part of the problem is the heavy federal government purchases, stressing an already-stressed marketplace.

However, the larger problem is the difference in elasticity between supply and demand.

The supply side is relatively inelastic. Manufacturers cannot increase production more than 30-40% before they begin exhausting their component suppliers. The component suppliers can’t expand more than 30-40% before they max out their material suppliers, all the way to the ends of the many supply chains. This is a usual rule for any type of manufacturing, and applies now in spades to ammunition. Manufacturers are running hard trying to satisfy demand. Hey, they’re in business and want to sell.

However, the demand side is VERY elastic, and driven by the psychological response of Americans to economic and political uncertainties. One supplier says he doesn’t have a shortage of ammunition, but a serious surplus of customers. As long as people have discretionary funds available and are stressed by political and economic uncertainty, or even by perceived political and economic uncertainty, demand for ammo will outstrip supply.

The only thing that would turn this around in the near future is if conditions change to remove or moderate the perception of economic and political uncertainty in the U.S. Frankly, my crystal ball doesn’t see that happening any time soon, unfortunately. If authorities would imprison a slug of high mucky-mucks in D.C., things might cool down, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for that.

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.MTPublish.com

Share