A deviation from the norm this week. The letter shown here appeared in yesterday’s (9/14) Grand Junction, Colorado Daily Sentinel letters to the editor. It is obvious to me that Mr. Trammell (angler that he is) has no real concept of water law and water management, not to mention the EPA’s never ending push for more and more and more control over state and private property. Hence my letter to the Sentinel Editor below, submitted today.
Editor – Grand Junction [Colorado] Daily Sentinel:
John Trammell needs to talk to people that understand how the state of Colorado manages and protects Colorado water that belongs to all the stakeholders (citizens) of Colorado. The Federal 1948 Pollution Control Act was expanded in 1972 by the then new (founded 1970) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to form the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA was implemented to control pollution of “navigable waters” – which as implied by the “navigable” adjective are waters that flow interstate and fall within the Interstate Commerce allowances of federal jurisdiction.
Since that first expansion of federal control over the nation’s water resources, the EPA’s attempts to redefine “Navigable Waters” to their jurisdictional advantage has been challenged in the federal courts and been struck down at least twice (the last in 2008 – re: Federal Court Vacates EPA’s Definition of “Navigable Waters” Under SPCC Rule). This latest 2014 “ruling” proposed by the EPA reaches deeper than ever (both literally and figuratively) to change the court’s previous explicit definitions.
Colorado’s non-navigable waters and the uses thereof are very well managed by the State Engineer under the guidance of the Colorado Water Courts. There are no EPA overeducated under experienced bureaucrats in Washington DC that will ever understand source waters as well as these true experts located here in Colorado.
The EPA’s stated new definition of “navigable waters” in the subject proposed ruling directly affront the previous court decisions and go so far beyond the federal government’s previously adjudicated definitions there is no question of the intent – and the intent goes way beyond just preventing pollution.
There are state resource rights and private property rights at severe risk. Rep. Tipton and others in Congress understand this risk and recognize the need to stop this now!
With deeper federal intervention – what could possibly go wrong?
Tom Howe – Hotchkiss, Colorado