The Daily Sheeple
www.TheDailySheeple.com
June 9th, 2015
By Paylie Roberts
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. This is for informational purposes only. Any use of this information is solely the responsibility of those doing so. This article is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of those editing, publishing, or reprinting it.
To anyone living in the western US, the “water wars” are not new in the sense of legal battles between users over water rights. Similarly, unaccountable regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state level equivalents have been harassing water users for years about regulatory compliance. However, what has changed recently – as explained by Jeremiah Johnson here -is the ferocity with which such oppressive agencies have been attacking any type of water use. And this is not just occurring in drought-parched California, or Montana as Mr. Johnson describes: it is occurring across the US. People in southern Oregon are experiencing something similar under the auspices of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).
This has resulted in what amounts to a massive theft of land by the mafia bureaucrat agency known as the supposed “Environmental Protection Agency.” I prefer to call such agencies “Terrorcrats” – short for terrorist bureaucrats, because they use perceived bureaucratic authority to terrorize the public. The EPA long ago abandoned the role of legitimate protector of the environment and has since moved on to becoming a tool of special interests to oppress the public at large for the benefit of a few well-connected groups. The effects that their arbitrary and oppressive rules have on people are in many cases barely short of terrorist acts when it comes to logistical and financial survival. No on can survive without water: farmers, ranchers, homesteaders, preppers, and basically everyone else. Anyone who owns any land inside the US is affected by this.
I want to briefly point out that one of the primary weapons or tools that politicians, bureaucrats, and assorted tyrants use against the people is that of words or language. If they can use language to enslave people, then they never need to employ their additional tools of fear, propaganda, economic warfare, problem reaction solution, or physical violence. My response to this is if they are going to abuse language to help them further their propaganda and tyranny, then the liberty movement can use language even better to restore our liberty and rights, by calling a spade a spade. Hence,the term terrorcrats.
There are a few common techniques that the EPA has been using to control water. One is the use of the Endangered Species Act as an excuse to restrict water use, regardless of whether the peer reviewed scientific evidence supports this or not. A second technique is to use Native American tribes as water rights patsies for the Feds, offering promises of forty acres and a carrot for their cooperation. I have also noticed a trend that the EPA seems to have particular interest in water in areas that are favored by a significant number of liberty minded individuals, such as Montana, and southern and eastern Oregon.
But now the EPA has degraded to the point that they are no longer even pretending to use such facades to cover their agenda. They have moved on to flagrant and blatant theft. Their most recent rules change basically amounts to this: “All the water is ‘owned’ by us.” These new rules basically state that any “body of water,” anywhere in the US, is under the highly bureaucratic regulation of the EPA. To make matters worse, the EPA does not have firm definitions or guidelines for these new rules, and are handling them on a case by case basis, making them completely arbitrary. As I write about in Chapter Nine of my book Memories of Poland, Lessons From Growing Up Under Communism, this will ultimately lead to selective enforcement of the rules based on special interest beneficiaries, political targeting, and double standards: a rule by men and not by laws, which is exactly the type of unjust “royalty mentality” that the Founding Fathers rebelled against in the first place.
As Joshua Krause of the Daily Sheeple explains here, this regulatory change potentially includes the mud puddle in your driveway, the groundwater supplying your well, and the snow melting off of your roof into a rain barrel. What this basically amounts to is that the EPA is laying claim to regulate all land use in the US – not just water but also land – in excruciating detail. Let’s be real here: in most cases, water can not very easily be separated from the land on or under which it is found, and land is often of little use without said water.
To anyone who values property rights, self-reliance, and liberty, this is not only completely unacceptable, but threatening the legitimate water supplies of all Americans is almost akin to a terrorist act. Of course, the mainstream media and the EPA thugs will dismiss these actions as “for our own good” and to “protect” us. (Oh, yes they need to “protect” us from the water by not letting the public have any.) But I think the mindset of these elitists is more along the lines of the water is “theirs” and they don’t want the plebeians using “their” water. Additionally, this is an Agenda 21 method to drive people from rural areas into more urban ones, where they can more easily be controlled. Because tyranny is always about control.
I do realize there are real water shortages in some areas and voluntary water conservation is necessary. I am also aware that that there are real environmental concerns, such as water contamination with toxic metals and chemicals in other areas that need to be addressed. But I think it is important to point out that conservation measures are best undertaken at the local level or at the level of users of a particular waterway or aquifer, not at the Federal level. Similarly, environmental or water contamination needs be addressed by those responsible, those affected, and potentially the courts, not by oppressive centralized bureaucrats and politicians. These new rules are a gross overreach of questionable “authority.”
In any case, what I have described above is how I currently perceive the problematic situation. What I write below are some steps that I have taken to address the problem. I hope others facing this will consider some or all of the ideas below.
I generally think that the best course of action is to minimize interaction and communication with terrorcrats as much as possible. However there are times, such as this, where it is inevitable and necessary to communicate with them. With that said, here are some things I have done regarding this water rights issue.
It is common for “regulatory agencies” to have “public comment periods” where they accept, or at least pretend to accept, input or feedback from we plebeians about proposed rule changes. Even if no such public comment period is offered, such agencies almost always provide contact information by which individuals can provide comments to the regulatory bureaucrats.
We can use these to our advantage. This is not to say that I think providing comments to tyrants is actually going to change their policy. Like voting, I think these comment venues are more of a tool to make the public think they have a say in how things are done, when in reality they do not. Alternately, they serve as an outlet for people to complain about how they are being screwed, but in the end this only serves to dissipate energy that could be channeled into something more productive. Why then do I bring this up? Because we can use these venues to bring public attention to these issues, and to put the tyrants on notice of our stances, both legally and practically. We can use these as a communication venue to let the tyrants know that they are not dealing with sheep who will quietly comply with every edict, but instead make them accountable (or just plain miserable) for their actions by pushing back and being noncompliant every step of the way. And we can use these to create a public record that we think they are violating the law and our rights. However, if one is to use this technique it is important to do so in a manner that is mature, professional, makes rational arguments, and is not overtly threatening (although it is always possible that language could be interpreted in unintended ways).
In the short term such comments may not make any difference. But they lay an important groundwork for the future, and it puts us on the moral high ground for any future push-back activities that we may be forced to engage in. This is similar to what Cliven Bundy did with the BLM. He put them on notice with rational arguments so that when he pushed back (with Oath Keepers’ assistance) he had the moral high ground. And the mainstream media not withstanding, the people often saw him as having the moral high ground. This is a key to success, because if the public sees the liberty movement as being in the wrong, they will support aggressive government action against us. If the public sees the liberty movement as being justified and in the right, it will be very difficult for the Feds to cross the line. This is currently a battle of public relations, similar to what Gandhi fought against the British. The Powers That Be may control the media, but we are the ones speaking the truth. These same principles apply regardless of whether the topic is water or any other government oppression.
Here are the comments I personally made to relevant government agencies regarding proposed water grab regulations:
I consider the proposed rule changes to be theft of private property under any rational definition of property rights.
Rural groundwater can not practically be separated from the land under which it exists in the definition of property rights (even though this is common today). I am familiar with groundwater hydrology and that groundwater sources can be connected. Despite what you may argue, this is actually irrelevant to the issue of property owners having the right to use groundwater from their own property – because they own the property.
Surface water that is self contained on my property (such as rain runoff or ponds) is part of the property rights and does not fall into the same category as major surface water bodies that flow across many owners’ properties, such as rivers or lakes.
Any oversight of large surface water bodies (such as rivers or lakes) that is performed by government agencies – such as water rights adjudication or environmental monitoring – is performed in the role of public servant custodians of the water, and not as owners of the water. The people ultimately own such waterways, not any government agency.
Any claim made by any government agency to the groundwater under my property or self contained surface water on my property is in my opinion null and void and violates both state eminent domain laws and state economic use doctrine laws, which both require just compensation for the taking of property.
Similarly, any claim made by any government agency to the groundwater under my property or self contained surface water on my property violates my 5th Amendment Constitutional rights under the just compensation clause or the “taking clause”. Any common sense reading of the just compensation clause would be interpreted this way and only corrupt politicians and judges would twist it to mean anything other than this.
Based on number six above, if an individual had the means and were so inclined, they could potentially take a court case all the way to the US Supreme Court to argue this matter. [Note that I did not say that I was such a person.]
If a government agency is going to claim that the water on or under my land belongs to a government agency or some third party, then the government or those other parties need to get “their” water out from under and off of my land, as those mud puddles are interfering with my use of my land. Since I do have legitimate ownership of my land.
If those government or third parties are unwilling or unable to remove “their” water out from under and off of my land, I will be charging a $10,000 dollar per day per acre storage fee for storing “their” water on or under my land. If individuals can be fined for collecting rainwater, then those individuals should be permitted to charge a fine or storage fee for holding water on their land that “belongs” to “others”. See this Oregon case, or this Wyoming case.
If the government or third party fails to remove “their” water from my land, and fails to pay this fine or storage fee, then all government or third party claims to said water shall be null and void.
If any attempt is ever made to either meter or prevent my household non-commercial water use, particularly for drinking, bathing, or family food production (gardening or livestock), there will be consequences for trespassers on my private property.
You may say I am crazy, you may say I am gutsy, but yes, I really did send the above comments to relevant government alphabet agencies. This is a personal line in the sand for me. I will not back down. I will not give up. I hope others who are affected by this issue will not back down either, and I hope other such individuals will consider implementing some of these ideas or techniques as well.
I will conclude this by pointing out that predators prefer easy prey. Make no mistake about it, governments at all levels have very much become predatory upon the people rather than being servants of the people. If you make yourself a difficult target, they will often back down and look for easier prey. And if enough people take on strategies and stances like this, the fedstapo will either be forced to back down, or will obviously reveal themselves to the public at large as the tyrants that they have become.
The more the terrorcrats reveal their true nature to a slowly awakening public, the less the public will support them, and the more the public will support advocates of liberty. At present, this “war” is one primarily of public relations. So when liberty advocates have a significant amount of public attention and public approval, or at least acceptance of our individual rights, we win. If we repeat that process enough times, either we will restore our rights and liberties, or the shooting war will be started by The Powers That Be as a desperate measure because they are losing. Either way, we will at least maintain the moral high ground in the struggle.
Paylie Roberts is the author of the recently published non-fiction book Memories of Poland, Lessons From Growing Up Under Communism. She is also the author of two novels: Bugging Out to Nowhere , and Life After Bugging Out. She has a Bachelor’s degree in biology, and lives with her husband, two German shepherds, and various livestock, somewhere between the Cascade Range and the Rocky Mountains.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-water-terrorcrats-have-crossed-my-line-heres-what-i-am-doing-about-it_062015#sthash.M00q2a73.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment