The NEW EPA Clean Water Act?

I have been trying to bring this up on as many forums as I can because this new law has gone largely under the radar, was passed by the EPA and not Congress, and supersedes existing laws.

The law was filed on May 26th 2015 and will become effective on July 27th 2015. The biggest problem I have with the new law that replaced the 1986 CWA is that instead of the original 726 pages it is now well over 2000 pages and you cannot get access to the law until after it becomes law.

From what I can tell, and I will post a article from the National Law Review, is that all forms of dredging in US Waters will require an EPA permit, but it also restricts digging in or adjacent to waterways and they have expanded on the definition of what Navigable Waters are, to include stock ponds, culverts, every last stream or creek in the US, and so on. But you just cant find a copy of the law to see what all they are going to make illegal or require a permit.

I would like to buy a dredge, but if it is going to be made illegal and give the EPA Jurisdiction over all the water you and I like to play in there is no point in buying it. Once the EPA has authority over all the water in the US they will come down on violators with extreme prejudice.

You can visit their website, you can like them on social networks, and they have a link to turn in EPA violators, but they don't have a single option for reviewing the new law that comes into effect at the end of July.


www.natlawreview.com/article...risdiction

"On May 27, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers released a Final Rule defining “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”). The new definition modifies the rule that has been in place since 1986 and changes the scope of federal jurisdiction under the CWA. Lewis Roca Rothgerber is issuing this alert because the new definition affects clients in the real estate, construction, mining, manufacturing, state and local government, utility, oil and gas, and agriculture sectors that develop, own or operate real property.

The CWA generally regulates discharges to “navigable waters.” Navigable waters are defined in the CWA to include the “Waters of the United States,” yet Congress did not define “Waters of the United States” in the CWA. The most recent Supreme Court decisions addressing the extent of federal jurisdiction over water bodies under the CWA created considerable uncertainty. This new rule is the government’s attempt to clarify that federal jurisdiction by defining which waters are “Waters of the United States.”

The new definition affects the permitting and compliance requirements under a number of CWA programs, including, for instance, wastewater discharge permitting, Stormwater permitting and “dredge and fill” and wetlands regulation. The rule will become effective 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

While most navigable waters such as large rivers and lakes have always been clearly regulated under the CWA, the new rule clarifies and extends federal jurisdiction to include remote tributaries, adjacent waters and wetlands, and certain kinds of region-specific features such as “prairie potholes” and “western vernal pools” that are not themselves navigable. The new definitions are potentially far-reaching, and provide the agencies with considerable latitude to require permitting before any discharges (including dredge or fill activities) are made into these jurisdictional waters. The agencies take enforcement of these permitting processes seriously, and developers or other regulated parties must remain vigilant in considering the jurisdictional status of any water or drainage features on project sites in order to avoid potential civil and criminal penalties.

While the new rule is designed to clarify (or, some would argue, expand) the agencies’ already broad jurisdiction, it also contains several new jurisdictional exceptions that will allow many activities and projects to move forward without obtaining federal CWA permits. The agencies have clarified that some types of ditches are non-jurisdictional, and have also made exceptions related to other man-made features associated with mining and construction activity. Of particular interest to clients in the arid west will be the exclusion for certain types of erosional features, such as gullies, and other ephemeral features. These exclusions, however, are not as clear as the agencies believe, and the challenge for the regulated community will be to navigate the complex set of inclusions and exclusions to decisively identify the features on a particular project site as jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional. "

You need to be a member of Goldprospectorsspace to add comments!

Join Goldprospectorsspace

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • idaho is 1 of the largest farmming cominutys in the country this should have a big impact on them 2

    • This is going to effect everybody, but I can think of many ranching states that are going to be greatly effected, not to mention mining states.

      I just moved from Texas to Colorado, and I can see some serious legal battles coming out of both states when this law goes into effect.

      But how is it going to effect us small time miners? We cannot know that because the law has not been published before it becomes law.

      I have specifically left politics out of this conversation, what we are seeing is the EPA declaring Legal Authority over public and private lands across the nation without Congress having a say. I don't care what party you belong to, if you are a miner or a land owner you should have serious concerns.

  • Well the majority of the fights right now are in the western United States; CA, OR, ID.  Be assured the other states are watching very close.  It doesn't matter which one a person joins, just join one of them and be involved.

    • I hope other people in other states wake up, because this is about to be shoved down the throat of every American.

  • We already have PLP Public Lands for the People, AMRA American Mining Rights Association, Western Mining Alliance, and a few others.  We just need more to join and help the fight.

    • Which body represents the small miner the best, nationwide?

  • need to find out who owns the water ways in every state idaho says they do fed gov says they do my claims are  on un navigateable water which in my opinion is not under control of the epa

    • Well, you can join many in this lawsuit, and I am sure this will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Just go to their website and read the feel good pages, but it will cost you over $500 dollars to file under the Freedom of Information Act and get it, but you won't get it before it is law.

  • My biggest fear Ron is that they have modeled this law off of what California is doing, but besides that they have just given themselves Jurisdiction over every body of Water in the US, even if it exists on private lands. If your tank to water your cattle has the possibility of running over during heavy rains the EPA now has Jurisdiction of what you do with your own property.

    Maybe it is time for a New Organization to come together with financial backing, call it MOA, Miners of America, and make it a body that large mines and the individual miners can pay a small fee to have great Lawyers representing them. Many small organizations have grown into very large and supported political action groups that have made considerable contributions to our society, I don't see why a small time mining organization to protect our rights can't grow, especially if it includes large mining organizations.

  • Idaho is in the fight right now... 

This reply was deleted.