Property of Corp USA

Water is necessary for sustaining life as well as growing food, and should not be something that we are forced to pay for or go without. S 787, introduced by Senator Russ Feingold, attempts to make all waters that fall from the sky onto our land property of the Federal Government. This is unnacceptable.

Let me put it another, more direct way. If water falls out of the sky and into a pool of water on my property, I’ll be damned if I am going to pay the Feds, Corp USA, one red cent to drink it. Do you hear that Senator Feingold? You can take your S 787 and shove it!

Read the bill HERE.

Here is a quote from the video post:


Senate Bill 787 will change federal jurisdiction over “navigable” water, to give the federal government control over all water everwhere, in municiple reservoirs, and on private lands, and in private wells. This bill ignores state water law authority and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The only thing I will disagree with in this presentation is the statement that ground water will be affected differently by this proposed legislation. Ground water is water underground, such as well water, and the bill states:

Ground waters are treated separately from waters of the United States for purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and are not considered waters of the United States under this Act.

Ground water is already controlled by nature since you have to drill to get to it, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which this bill amends, already controls just how, when, and where you can access it. The states enforce these regulations, and have the leeway to add their own rules as long as they do not conflict with Federal regulations.

For example, in Oregon we have to pay to get a permit to drill a well to use ground water. No permit, no water. And, if you have ever had a well drilled, you know that it is quite spendy. Therefore, since it is already under control through State and Federal regulation, and is so expensive to get to, there was no need to address it in this new bill. It is not free for the taking like surface water is.

However, water that falls off my roof is a different story. At present, I don’t have to buy a permit to use it because I can freely take it and use it any way I want to. Not anymore, if this bill passes. If the Feds own the water, then they can do anything they want to with it, and I have to ask permission to get a drink or water my animals.

This new proposed legislation also begs the following question:

If the Feds want to own the water that falls on my land, can I bill them for storage? Just a thought…

(C) Barbara H. Peterson

[email_link]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , ,

13 Responses to “S 787 Federal Water Theft”

  1. […] yeah, and remember S 787, the attempt by the Feds to grab water that falls off your roof onto the ground, and classify a dry […]

  2. Old Crow says:

    This bill is an attempt to expand Federal control and jurisdiction over surface water in the U.S. There are at least two relatively recent Supreme Court decisions (SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK CTY. V. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – 2001 and RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES – 2006) limiting and reiterating Federal jurisdiction over wetlands under the Clean Water Act, so the new bill attempts to redefine the term “public waters” – previously defined as “navigable waters” – new bill would redefine as “all surface water”. Bad news for all private property owners – especially bad news for farmers.

  3. Karen says:

    So you trust the govt? The govt. will use your money to throw you in jail and you won’t have enough money to fight them.
    The 1972 Clean Water Act was originally meant to pertain to navigable waters,but was broadly applied to ” inconsequential drainage ditches or temporary puddles and even to completely dry land.. ”

    The S.787 will apply to “mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds”.(any standing body of water) The Federal govt. will use it’s full power and your taxes for enforcement. It is no surprise that the sponsor is Russ Finegold of Wisconsin and supported by 24 Senators,all Democrats.

  4. William D Caruso says:

    Please donot pass bill787 Thank you.

  5. laurel says:

    I had to remember where I had heard, took a while, We in aust have the same stupid rule, not enforced as yet, they can tax us for water on the calculated size of the roof and runoff.And tax us on the size and capacity of the dam on property.
    Whom do we have to thank? whoever was in power in the 70’s that signed the LIMA Agreement, in our case it was Bob Hawke i think, for you guys, no idea.
    check Lima agreement, it was the start of the downhill slide with NWO type agendas being set, and we had no net, little idea what our governments were doing to do us the dirty!Like NAFTA. etc.

  6. LibertyTreeBud says:

    Just in case, I will defend the old laws about our water and fight against anything that is as absurd as Law of the Sea treaty. A bunch of greedy power hungry yah-hoos in economic and monetary control will have to work very hard to get Americans to hold to ‘that line of BS’. Realize that the polluted water will be purified and sold to you for a lot of money. Hands off the good stuff, that belongs to the power-hungry bastards. Give them what they deserve, injections of fluoride.

  7. Nathaniel Grundy says:

    The feds already have jurisdiction over these waters. Wetlands, Intermittent streams, ephemeral streams etc… It has only been in the last 15 years that they relinquished jurisdicional on isolated waters (waters with no direct surface water connection to a Waters of the United States). Don’t be misled, they already have jurisdiction under section 404 of the clean water act. If you doubt it, call your local Army Corps of Engineers office and ask them. Any changes would come through how they permit activities involving these resources. Sure, a few things would change, but the majority of this nightmare is already in place. THIS IS NOT NEW!

  8. T. McKinney says:

    [riffly_audio]55A4DBB23D3C11DEB8C4C94D49680BD4[/riffly_audio]

  9. laurel says:

    ground water and underground difference.
    So?? is this? how they manage to avoid responsibility for perchlorate and nitrites contaminating it?? oh , dear, well it isnt our department….

  10. P.S. Please look up the meaning of “ground waters.” The term “ground waters” specifically means water underground as in well waters. This was addressed in my article.

  11. Here is a portion of the text relating to the change in wording, placing surface water and land that might contain surface water at some point in time under jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and out of the jurisdiction of individual land owners:

    (8) this Act will treat, as ‘waters of the United States’, those features that were treated as such pursuant to the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers in existence before the dates of the decisions referred to in paragraph (10), including–

    (A) all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

    (B) all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

    (C) all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds;

    (D) all impoundments of waters of the United States;

    (E) tributaries of the aforementioned waters;

    (F) the territorial seas; and

    (G) wetlands adjacent to the aforementioned waters;

    Here is a working link to the bill, that was included in the article: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s787/text

    By placing all surface waters under the authority of the Federal government, we must comply with Federal government rules and regulations for that water, no matter what they are, or how they may impact us.

    For example, in my neck of the woods, the Klamath Basin, we had a Federally induced water crisis that wiped out farmers. The “reason” the Feds cut off our farmers’ water supply was to supposedly protect an endangered sucker fish. This was ridiculous on many levels, one being that they were not endangered in the first place.

    We met with county officials, and the subject came up regarding water ownership. I personally asked one official what he meant when he said in his speech that the state of Oregon owns the water on my land. Yes, he said that. He replied that Oregon does own the water on my land, and that any water that runs into ditches off my land that has been around horses, cattle, or other livestock, could be considered a contaminant and subject to regulation.

    Now it seems that the Feds want to get in on the action and outright own the water on my land, trumping state ownership.

    If the Feds step in and “own” the water, which they will if this bill passes, we are in for a hard ride, especially if we have animals or grow our own food. Not to mention the possible prospect of having to pay for using surface water, and not being able to dig a pond without Federal approval. So please, read the bill again carefully, and understand the wording before you make unfounded accusations regarding hysteria and misinformation.

  12. Claudia says:

    Since I hadn’t yet heard that Sen. Feingold had lost his marbles, I back tracked this law and found its primary concern is to prevent water pollution. The text of the Bill isn’t that long, so check it out at:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:s787:

    One item I noticed directly refutes the claim that the Feds would ‘own’ well water: see Sec 3 (9) which says: “ground waters’ are treated separately from ‘waters of the United States’ for purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and are not considered ‘waters of the United States’ under this Act;”.

    This ‘uproar’ seems to be very similar to other uninformed oversimplified hysterias about the Federal government. Nowhere in the Bill is there any attempt to assert ‘ownership.’ It only speaks to the right of the Federal government’s environmental protection policies.

    Mis(dis)information seems to be the curse of both the Internet and the modern world.

  13. dee says:

    That is BS,, and I mean bull sh@@!!!!!What are they thinking,,it falls from the sky,, no one owns it,,but they peoples land of where it lands on,, simple,, just like when it snows,,it is on your property,,it is the land owners,, it is like they want to,, for example,, like say I buy a house,, and the feds say,,well I own all the tree’s on your land,,all you bought was the house,, not the land or tree’s..,, come on Feds,,get your head out of your ass and be real!!!!! stop STEALING from us AMERICANS!!!!!!!!