Latest news with #Oberstar

Yahoo

Newspaper served as Oberstar mouthpiece

To the editor: The Daily Journal should decide what it is. Is it an independent newspaper or is it a mouthpiece for Jim Oberstar? Its Oct. 4th editorial left no doubt. It's 'opinion' came right out of Jim Oberstar's press releases. Unfortunately, for landowners and public lands user (e.g., trail riders, hunters, etc.), the paper rendered a flawed opinion. Bottom line: If the Oberstar bill passes, a 'wetland' could be most mostly dry land. If the Oberstar bill passes, clean fill would be a 'pollutant' and anyone depositing clean fill on mostly dry land without a permit is guilty of a federal felony of 'discharging pollutants'. If the Oberstar bill passes, 'activities affecting these waters' (e.g., building a driveway), done without a federal permit, will subject you to a federal felony offense. And the feds won't have to prove you actually polluted any water! How do we know this? The above scenarios are exactly what had been happening to many citizens — until the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006 said federal agencies' enforcement of the Clean Water Act were in violation of the law and of citizens' fair treatment. Amazingly, the above scenarios are exactly what Jim Oberstar wants to see continued with passage of HR 2421. Rulings that defy commonsense. Heavy-handed enforcement actions. Fines despite no evidence that any pollution has occurred. This bill is much worse than Minnesota's WCA. Why? Because there are no limits to the definition of wetlands, no limits to the definition of pollutants, no limits to the crime of discharging pollutants, and no limits to the definition of 'activities affecting these waters'. If you violate this law, you'll fight federal agencies with unlimited deep pockets. To fix this bad law, you'd have to go to Washington, DC, not the county board or your state capitol. Note to the editor: Yes, the bill does not specifically list all of the above scenarios. It doesn't have to. In the law, a simple word 'including' followed by examples means that the list is not exclusive. Therefore, ditches, pipes, gutters, run-off from trails, etc., essentially, anything wet (or even, mostly dry) would be controlled by the federal government though not specifically listed in the law. Finally, even the personal attack on Linda Runbeck, Don Parmeter and the organization we represent, came right out of Oberstar's playbook. No surprise. It's the tactic used when you have no real arguments to put up. So much for an independent newspaper! Linda Runbeck, American Property Coalition St. Paul, MN