RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Supreme Court Says "Fuck You" To Individual Property Rights

Quote:

---

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America — was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Among those still pending for the court, which next meets on Monday, is one testing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commands on government property.

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote.

Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects that benefit the lower and middle class.

They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights. Critics had feared that would allow a small group of homeowners to stymie rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs.

"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote.

O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

___

<sup>On the Net:

The ruling in Kelo v. New London is available at: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf</sup> />

---

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
Wonder what the President thinks of this...

---

Quote:

---

klinton said:

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
Wonder what the President thinks of this...

---

The man who has no problem occupying an entire nation for oil monies, while ignoring important homeland interests? I'm sure he's okay with it.

---

Quote:

---

Residents Asking Supreme Court to Block Eminent Domain in the Name of Development
By Matt Apuzzo Associated Press Writer
Published: Feb 19, 2005



NEW LONDON, Conn. (AP) - Fifteen houses are all that remain of Fort Trumbull, a once vibrant immigrant neighborhood flattened into expanses of rutted grass and gravel.

The homes stand in defiance of New London's plan to pave the way for a riverfront hotel and convention center, offices and upscale condominiums.

Refusing the city's efforts to get them to leave, seven families are going before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, arguing that the city has no right to take their private property solely for economic development. The rebellious homeowners include an elderly Italian immigrant, a mechanic and a former deli owner.

"It's a case of the rich eating the poor," said Matthew Dery, who lives in one of four houses on a compound his family has owned since 1901. "Sometimes the poor are difficult to digest."

Leading the charge is Susette Kelo, a 47-year-old nurse who bought her home in 1997.

"They have over 90 acres now," Kelo said. "It's more than enough room to build on. We never said they can't build. We just said 'We want to stay.'"

But Kelo's apricot-colored house, with a decorative outhouse in the front yard and wind chimes made of silverware, doesn't fit in the city's development plans.

"They just would not be compatible with all the other uses," said Edward O'Connell, an attorney representing the New London Development Corp., the quasi-public agency behind the redevelopment effort.

Whether building highways or public offices, laying railroad tracks or eliminating blight, governments have long relied on eminent domain laws to allow them to take private property.

The Fifth Amendment allows governments to take private property for "public use."

New York used eminent domain to improve Times Square, expand the New York Stock Exchange and build the World Trade Center. Baltimore replaced a downtrodden waterfront with a bustling harbor development.

But Fort Trumbull is not besieged by blight, poverty or crime and New London is not building a highway or government building, and the residents' appeal asks if "public use" allows governments to seize unblighted taxpayer property solely to encourage private development.

The Supreme Court has given governments broad power to take private property through eminent domain, provided the owner is given "just compensation." But in recent years many cities and towns have been accused of abusing their authority.

[COMMENT: This is an example of civil government not sticking to its task of referee and colluding with the very businesses they are supposed to be refereeing. It means the end of free market enterprise. E. Fox]

New London officials say the taxes generated by redeveloping Fort Trumbull ultimately will benefit the public, and the state Supreme Court ruled that was enough to justify the condemnation.

City officials have worked to remake the area since 1996, when the Naval Undersea Warfare Center left town with its 1,400 jobs. When pharmaceutical giant Pfizer opened a $350 million research center nearby that year, city officials saw an opportunity to create high-end housing, retail shops, a business park and a hotel.

All that was standing in the way were 115 homes.

Most owners accepted the city's buyout offers. Those who remain fall into two categories - people who simply won't leave and people who feel they're being cheated out of the fair value of their homes.

"The sentimental holdouts are the more difficult to deal with," O'Connell said. "No matter what you offer, they won't consider that sufficient or appropriate. They're just not motivated by the logic of the marketplace."

Kelo says it's not about the money for her. She was raised nearby, and when her children moved out she wanted a house by the water. Her small but cozy house has a front porch with a a great view of the Thames River.

Dery is upset that the city wants to take his property before putting a developer under contract and deciding exactly what will replace his neighborhood.

"What they're saying," Dery said, "is that anything that we put there will be better than you."

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:
heh, when you put it that way it's funny. But most of the justices that voted for this are Democrats or lean to the left........I'm shocked. I guess it would go with their Big Government party platform.

---

Quote:

---

PrincessElisa said:
Emminant Domain has been a while along time though: government's always paid people for the use of their homes (although I'd be thoroughly pissed if they seized mine without paying me something DECENT for it).

As for local governments seizing my property......note to self: write sweet lil' notes to local officials ;p Doesn't hurt to be rich either.......

---

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
Since we all want balanced journalism, here is a broader perspective of the issue. Anyone ever hear of economic obsolescence?

---

Quote:

---

PaulWellr said:

Quote:

---

PJP said:
heh, when you put it that way it's funny. But most of the justices that voted for this are Democrats or lean to the left........I'm shocked. I guess it would go with their Big Government party platform.

---

Yeah. I completely agree. They dropped the ball on this one. Dropped the ball and screwed people for a long time to come.

But as with most bad Supreme Court descisions, it's nothing that some good sound Congressional legislation can't remedy.

---

Quote:

---

PaulWellr said:
Well the point behind my opposition to this is not removed or inconsistent.

This is going to benefit big business to the detriment of average Americans.

whether a liberal or a conservative did the screwing is irrelevant to my feelings on the subject.

---

This will fuck democrats and republicans equally. This is why I vote Republican .........I believe our tax codes are evil and help no one except scum politicians.......When it comes to taxes this just shows you that both parties will fuck over anyone just to keep that tax revenue coming in. This is a horrible blow for the "little guy". Fuck Big Business and Fuck our Government. This is so wrong on so many levels and goes against basically everything that this country was founded on.

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
Since we all want balanced journalism, here is a broader perspective of the issue. Anyone ever hear of economic obsolescence?

---

So we hear from the lips of a good liberal concerned with social justice that someones rights can become economically obsolete. You heard it here folks!

---

WBAM, I didn't just make that up. It's a term used in real estate appraisal to describe a property that has outlived it's viable function. Don't lose sight of the fact that there were 115 homes. With the exception of less than a dozen owners, all reached settlement with the city and moved on. The city has decided to hang it's hat on Pfizer as the future of the city. It wants to provide accomadations to the company, hence a hotel, office complex is developed. I find it funny that no one noticed that the majority was comprised mostly of Republicans! Justice Stevens was appointed by that liberal Richard Nixon. Justice Kennedy was appointed by the Grand Pubah of conservatives, Ronald Reagan. Justice Souter was appointed by King George I.

I've not been to New London, CT but a Google search yeilded that the Thames Riverfront area is home to many anti-poverty services. The coincidence of names produces a question for Paul. Would you say your London is better off since the Canary Row redevelopment project? Has it been an overall benefit to the city or do you long for the delapidated wherhouses it replaced?

BTW, I consider myself more an anarchist than a liberal.

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Some of them may have been appointed by Republicans, but that doesn't mean they're consevitives. I've nover run into anyone who would claim that Stevens or Kennedy were conservitives. You're just trying to play guilt by association.

---

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Some of them may have been appointed by Republicans, but that doesn't mean they're consevitives. I've nover run into anyone who would claim that Stevens or Kennedy were conservitives. You're just trying to play guilt by association.

---

Gosh, Wbam, no one would ever claim that Byron White was a liberal though he was a Kennedy appointment. Stevens and Kennedy just happen to put the law ahead of politics. I haven't read the entire decision but the jist of it seems to be that Federal courts should not intervene in emminent domaine issues. That local government and state courts are better equiped to handle issues of planning and development and bars action in Federal courts. Unlike Schiavo, the court said litigants may not go from court to court until they find one that's sympathetic to their position. Sounds to me like they yielded to local soverignty. What's so dispicable about that?

---

Quote:

---

Proposal Made to Seize Souter's Property

WEARE, N.H. - Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.

The letter dubbing the project the "Lost Liberty Hotel" was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh's Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe" an a museum focused on the "loss of freedom in America."

A message seeking comment from Souter was left at his office Wednesday morning. The court has recessed and Souter was still in Washington, one of his secretaries said.

A few police cruisers were parked on the edge of Souter's property Tuesday.

"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.

Clements is the CEO of Los Angeles-based Freestar Media that fights "abusive" government through a Web site and cable show. He plans to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project, a group that supports limiting government powers, the Monitor reported.

The letter was passed along to the board of selectmen. If the five-member board were to endorse the hotel project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to get approval from the planning board. Messages seeking comment were left with Laura Buono, board chairwoman.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

Souter's two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at a little more than $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year.

The Supreme Court case involved the city of New London, Conn. The justices ruled that City Hall may take over property through eminent domain to make way for a hotel and convention center.

In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

---

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
I love it!

Hit them where THEY live.

Anybody else wonder, on the heels of the decision that prompted this kind of response, of Bush's declining numbers, the war on terror and that things in Iraq are a mess and Osama bin Laden reminas at large, that we're headed for another revolution?

How soon before we declare, and back it up with action, that we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore?

---

Jim Jackson is Howard Beale reincarnated! Alert the media!

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
Jim Jackson is Howard Beale reincarnated! Alert the media!

---

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
Jim Jackson is Howard Beale reincarnated! Alert the media!

---

Given who Howard Beale was, this remark is dripping with irony.....

---

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
You're welcome.

I also like to say 'dripping'.

I don't know why.

---

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was right when she wrote in her dissent to Kelo vs. City of New London that now “the specter of condemnation hangs over all property.” She was also quite correct to note that the decision undermines an important Constitutional protection that all Americans had taken for granted over the past two centuries.

When the 13 states voted to adopt the Constitution in 1791, they appended to the original document ten amendments guaranteeing certain basic rights to protect ordinary citizens from the depredations of an overreaching government. Among those rights was the Fifth Amendment protection of private property from unlawful seizure by government. Known as the “takings clause,” Americans’ property rights have been secured, until recently, by the phrase “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

But that was then and this is now. On June 23, 2005, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that private property can be taken by government for the purpose of economic development.

There may be a silver lining in all of this: Kelo is not merely a bad decision, but one so utterly repellent that it has flamed a firestorm of anger and rebellion across the nation. Concerned citizens now know that, thanks to Justice Stevens and his colleagues, when the wealthy and powerful covet their property, they are without any protection, stripped of their basic Constitutional rights. Distilled to its essence, Justice Stevens’s ruling has not just entitled the rich to prey upon the poor, but it also supports a process that encourages them to do so and thereby grants planners the resources and violence of the state to facilitate their acquisitive interests. Perhaps not since Dred Scott have the weak been so abused by the nation’s highest court.

So what to do? To his credit Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has lit the match of rebellion with the introduction of the “Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005” to prohibit the transfer of private property without the owners’ consent if the transfer is for economic development rather than public use. And House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) will introduce the “Private Property Rights Protection Act,” which is intended “to restore the property rights of all Americans the Supreme Court took away on June 23.” But more needs to be done, and the Court has handed President Bush an extraordinary opportunity to stand tall in defense of the ordinary people who have stood with him throughout his presidency.

Angered by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sided with a Connecticut city that wanted to seize homes for economic development, a group of activists is trying to get one of the justices who voted for the decision evicted from his own home.

The group, led by a California man, wants Justice David Souter's home seized for the purpose of building an inn called "Lost Liberty Hotel."

They submitted enough petition signatures - only 25 were needed - to bring the matter before voters in March. This weekend, they're descending on Souter's hometown, the central New Hampshire town of Weare, population 8,500, to rally for support.

"This is in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party and the Pine Tree Riot," organizer Logan Darrow Clements said, referring to the riot that took place during the winter of 1771-1772, when colonists in Weare beat up officials appointed by King George III who fined them for logging white pines without approval. "All we're trying to do is put an end to eminent domain abuse," Clements said, by having those who advocate or facilitate it "live under it, so they understand why it needs to end."

Bill Quigley, Weare deputy police chief, said if protesters show up, they're going to be told to stay across the street from a dirt road that leads to Souter's brown farmhouse, which is more than 200 years old. It isn't known if Souter will be home.

"They're obviously not going to be allowed on Justice Souter's property," he said. "There's no reason for anybody to go down that road unless they live on that road, and we know the residents that live there. The last time (Clements) showed up, they had a total of about three or four people who showed up to listen to him."

Clements, of Los Angeles, said he's never tried to contact Souter.

"The justice doesn't have any comment about it," Kathy Arberg, a Supreme Court spokeswoman, said about the protesters' cause.

The petition asks whether the town should take Souter's land for development as an inn; whether to set up a trust fund to accept donations for legal expenses; and whether to set up a second trust fund to accept donations to compensate Souter for taking his land.

The matter goes to voters on March 14.

Clements said participants planned to meet at Weare Town Hall on Saturday morning and divide into teams to go door-to-door to get more petition signatures. He also wants to distribute copies of the Supreme Court's decision, Kelo vs. City of New London, to residents.

The court said New London, Conn., could seize homeowners' property to develop a hotel, convention center, office space and condominiums next to Pfizer Inc.'s new research headquarters.

The city argued that tax revenues and new jobs from the development would benefit the public. The Pfizer complex was built, but seven homeowners challenged the rest of the development in court. The Supreme Court's ruling against them prompted many states, including New Hampshire, to examine their eminent domain laws.

Regional bank BB&T Corp. will make no loans to developers who plan to build commercial projects on land taken from private citizens by the government through the power of eminent domain, the company said Wednesday.

"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it's just plain wrong," John Allison, chairman and chief executive of the Winston-Salem-based bank, said in a statement.

No other large U.S. bank has a similar policy, BB&T spokesman Bob Denham said. The bank declined to estimate how much business they expect to lose as a result of the new policy.

In June, a divided Supreme Court ruled that cities may raze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The 5-4 decision gave local governments the power to seize private property in the name of increased tax revenue.

In a statement, BB&T said 38 states have recently passed or are considering laws to ban the use of eminent domain for private development and similar legislation is pending before Congress.

"While we're certainly optimistic about the pending legislation, this is something we could not wait any longer to address," BB&T chief credit officer Ken Chalk said in a statement. "We're a company where our values dictate our decision-making and operating standards. From that standpoint, this was a straightforward decision; it's simply the right thing to do."

BB&T is the nation's ninth-largest bank

President Bush declared yesterday that the federal government can seize private property only for a public use such as a hospital or road.

The president signed an executive order in response to a Supreme Court decision granting local governments power to bulldoze people's homes to make way for private development.

It came on the first anniversary of the controversial Supreme Court decision in a case involving New London, Conn., homeowners.

The majority opinion from the divided court limited homeowner rights by saying local governments could take private property for projects purely related to economic development.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) welcomed Bush's executive order. But since the federal government has only a limited role in these types of projects, he said Congress must do more. Cornyn has introduced legislation that would also bar federal funding for any local projects in which land was obtained through eminent domain.

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
Yet another example of Repuglicans trying to look as though they'd done something in the last 2 years. Property rights...

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
Yet another example of Repuglicans trying to look as though they'd done something in the last 2 years. Property rights, gay marriage and fictious news of an improved situation in Iraq all serve that purpose. The chorus of Republicans whistling past the graveyard sounds like the British POWs whistling "Colonel Bogey" in the final scenes of Bridge Over the River Kwai.

---

You know, reasonable people can disagree over gay marriage or the war in Iraq, but when you start attacking a President for supporting property rights, one of the most basic individual rights, predating even the U.S. constitution, you really start to look like, to put it kindly, an extremist.

---

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
Yet another example of Repuglicans trying to look as though they'd done something in the last 2 years. Property rights, gay marriage and fictious news of an improved situation in Iraq all serve that purpose. The chorus of Republicans whistling past the graveyard sounds like the British POWs whistling "Colonel Bogey" in the final scenes of Bridge Over the River Kwai.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
Yet another example of Repuglicans trying to look as though they'd done something in the last 2 years. Property rights, gay marriage and fictious news of an improved situation in Iraq all serve that purpose. The chorus of Republicans whistling past the graveyard sounds like the British POWs whistling "Colonel Bogey" in the final scenes of Bridge Over the River Kwai.

---

You sure find some fancy ways of saying nothing.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
Yet another example of Repuglicans trying to look as though they'd done something in the last 2 years. Property rights, gay marriage and fictious news of an improved situation in Iraq all serve that purpose. The chorus of Republicans whistling past the graveyard sounds like the British POWs whistling "Colonel Bogey" in the final scenes of Bridge Over the River Kwai.

---

You sure find some fancy ways of saying nothing.

---

The state at the center of a national property rights battle moved Saturday night to limit the use of eminent domain, two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that homes can be taken for private development projects.

Unlike other states, however, the Connecticut measure does not expressly ban using eminent domain for economic development. Instead, it prohibits property from being taken solely to boost property taxes.

Despite the 132-7 vote Saturday in the state House of Representatives, many lawmakers complained the bill would not have stopped the taking of Susette Kelo's famous pink cottage in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London.

Kelo was the main plaintiff in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, in which justices ruled 5-4 in June 2005 in favor of the city of New London.

An amendment to prevent the taking of owner-occupied dwellings for economic development purposes narrowly failed on a 67-72 vote Saturday night.

• New London never actually received those taxes. The case's notoriety dampened interest in doing business at the stolen property, and then the economic downturn killed the project. Journalists visiting the scene have found the land to be "barren."
  
  That means the city lost money on the deal: the cost of the legal battle plus the potential tax revenues from homes and businesses forced out and never replaced.
  
  Since the Kelo decision, dozens of states have revised their laws, either through the legislature or through citizen initiatives, to outlaw land grabs of the sort perpetrated in Connecticut. At least one bank -- BB&T -- announced it won't fund projects on land seized for economic development.
  
  Outright theft of land to increase tax revenues is unpopular, and probably politically less supportable now, because people like Susette Kelo fought New London to keep their homes.

• The Clean Water Restoration Act currently pending in the U.S. Senate could reach to control even a "seasonal puddle" on private property.
  
  Eleven senators and 17 representatives in the U.S. House have sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasting the measure as one of the boldest property grab attempts of all time.
  
  This bill is described by opponents as a sweeping overhaul of the Clean Water Act that could threaten both physical land and jobs by wiping out some farmers entirely.
  
  "Right now, the law says that the Environmental Protection Agency is in charge of all navigable water," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Western Caucus and an opponent of the bill.
  
  "Well, this bill removes the word 'navigable,' so for ranchers and farmers who have mud puddles, prairie potholes -- anything from snow melting on their land -- all of that water will now come under the regulation of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency," he said.
  
  Barrasso said the federal government's one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work in the west where the Rocky Mountain states have gone even further than Washington to protect land, water and the environment.
  
  "The government wants control of all water -- that also means that they want control over all of our land including the private property rights of people from the Rocky Mountain west, the western caucus and the entire United States," he said.