Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






“EPA is literally treating water itself -- the very substance the Clean Water Act was created to protect -- as a pollutant,” the lawsuit says.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
EPA Wants to Regulate Water
As a Pollutant in Virginia

The Washington Post
Fairfax County and the state of Virginia have accused the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of “massive” and expensive regulatory overreach in its attempts to control sediment buildup in the Accotink Creek watershed, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday.

The lawsuit -- which was filed by the county and by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s (R) office in federal court in Alexandria on behalf of the Virginia Department of Transportation -- says the federal agency has gone too far by requiring the county to control the flow of water itself as a way of managing sediment discharges.

If the county were to comply with the EPA, the financial impact on homeowners and property owners would also be significant, county officials said. Building any new impervious surface, for example, including a home addition or new residential development, would require taking steps to retain all storm water runoff from the expanded area.

Although county officials have talked about increasing tensions for some time with the EPA over managing the Accotink Creek watershed, the Democratic-led Board of Supervisors wrestled with taking legal action against the federal agency or teaming with arch-conservative Cuccinelli, particularly in an election year when Virginia is a swing state and the EPA has been a periodic campaign issue. But board members, meeting in closed session during the board’s regular meeting Tuesday, said they thought that the county had to take legal action, and felt that joining with the state would strengthens the board’s case, officials said.

“A political body could make a decision based on politics and how things look, or they could do what’s right for Fairfax County. That’s what we’re doing here,” Board of Supervisors Chairman Sharon S. Bulova (D) said. “We happen to be intertwined with the the Commonwealth of Virginia on this. It would be very difficult for us to challenge the EPA on something we just think is wrong, all by ourselves.”

The Accotink Creek watershed is Fairfax’s second largest, covering 52 square miles. The principal stream winds 23 miles before entering Accotink Bay on the Potomac River. The county has been in talks for several years with the EPA and had warned that conflicts over sediment management could lead to legal action.

In asking for declaratory judgment and an injunction, the state and county’s lawsuit argues that the EPA’s proposed restrictions on water flow exceed its authority under the Clean Water Act and would divert public funds that could be spent more effectively on restoring Accotink Creek and other waterways. They said the EPA would require the county to cut the flow of water by half at a cost that could reach as much as $500 million.

“EPA is literally treating water itself -- the very substance the Clean Water Act was created to protect -- as a pollutant,” the lawsuit says.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 12/13/2012








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server