Contact Representatives to Protect your Private Property Rights


The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) plans to hold a mark-up of S. 787 – the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009 – next Thursday, May 7, 2009. This bill would take away your rights to manage the water on your private property! WE NEED YOUR HELP to defeat this bill by calling the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today and telling them NOT TO MARK-UP S. 787.

Currently, waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act are defined as “navigable waters of the United States.” The Clean Water Restoration Act would remove the word “navigable” from the definition which would give the federal government, for the first time, the power to regulate all waters within a state including: small and intermittent streams, mudflats, sloughs, mud holes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural and manmade ponds including stockponds, groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, gutters, ephemeral drainages, wet farmland, drain tiles, and more.

This would take authority away from state governments and private property owners. Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction would be brought all the way to the ranch, and would amount to a huge land grab on the part of the federal government!

Please tell the Environment and Public Works Committee NOT TO MARK-UP S. 787 by calling 202-224-8832 today!

Should the bill be passed by the Committee, it will then be voted upon by the Senate. To urge your Senators to oppose S. 787, please CLICK HERE!



Filed under legislation, Take Action

2 responses to “Contact Representatives to Protect your Private Property Rights

  1. Facts about the Clean Water Restoration Act
    What is being said here is not true, and not in the best interest of landowners. It is a complete myth that CWRA will negatively impact agriculture. In reality agriculture will only get a black eye if we go down this road. CWRA specifically includes a “saving clause” that will preserve all existing exemptions, including those for ongoing farming and silvicultural activities.

    Another myth- some groups are claiming that federal agencies will have unlimited regulatory authority over all intrastate waters. This is NOT the case. CWRA simply returns the Clean Water Act to jurisdiction it had in 2001, before the Supreme Court’s changes. CWRA language is no broader than CWA’s historic scope.

    It’s my hope as a Farm Bureau member and someone that was considering joining NCBA that you would stop spreading these lies, and get out of bed with developers and attorneys that are using farmer dollars to give us a bad name. We should be out front on this issue so we maintain our exemptions, and don’t gamble them away with the changes we have seen in Congress and the White House. I’m embarresed agriculture is in bed with folks that can’t see the big picture.

    If you don’t post my comment it will just be another reminder of your lack of willingness to truly work on this issue, and I’m sure my local paper in Arakansas will be more than happy to publish the way I see things.


    H.A. Taylor Phillips
    Phillips Farms

  2. Thank you for your comment. I encourage discussion from those holding opposing opinions on my blog. We won’t always agree as an industry and discussing differences is important. However, I continue to be concerned with this legislation. For me any legislation with the potential of expanding federal regulation should be considered carefully. Removing the term “navigable” from waters has the potential to provide a regulatory opening for the federal government over waters they previously had no jurisdiction over.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s