Is self-sufficiency really under attack?

Is self-sufficiency under attack? I have asked this question time and time again. Like others, we have all read about those stories of people living off grid being attacked by the political machine, governments and even neighbors. Of course more people are leaning more to an eco-friendly lifestyle not only out of environmental concerns but with major financial benefit it can have in the long run.

I have heard many different sides to this tale and the sides against are often weak.  I mention this to some in urban areas and often the comments are the same, “You live in the city and the services are there, and why not use them?”  Why not use them?  That does not change the burden on the infrastructure, the environment or our wallet.  Most municipalities, including Troy, NY are antiquated infrastructures.  In Troy you can often find wooden water and sewer lines dating back 175 years or more.  The rate of failure is high and while safe drinking water is a must whether on or off the grid we have seen recently a number of surrounding areas that are testing positive for known carcinogens in their public water as well as well water.  We have seen water supply mains fail causing disruption in services, property damage and a loss of millions of gallons of water.  Property owners pay for water and sewer as a combined service to our municipality and proceeds are to go for upkeep of that infrastructure, of which less than 6% is used just for that, hence the continued failure of the system.  Another fine example is cost, and I am focusing on water and sewer because that is where most of the arguments seem to be coming from.  Recently in budget planning it was noted the manager of the Sewer and Water Department wanted to raise the water and sewer rates 100%.  His argument was because residents are conserving more water therefore the department is not bringing in enough revenue………..I give long pause so you can digest that statement.  Residents are conserving more water.  What would be next?  Raise the trash rates because residents are recycling more or now home composting?

Honestly if money was of no concern, I would introduce a composting toilet system, grey water recycler, methane digester to fuel, cistern and water filtration system as well as full solar and get the heck off the city grid.  Arguments have been out there that you have to use the municipal sewer.  Why?  Because it is the law.  Where?  It is a health law.  How is a composting toilet unhealthy?  The arguments are weak and short sighted.  The truth is it cuts into revenue for the municipality.  Power companies are doing the same thing, pushing for localized taxing for those on full solar and off the electric grid.

Some say if you want to be off the grid you need to move to the backwoods and to that I say bull.  Technologies out there now can get everyone off the grid partially if not fully in any area, urban or rural.  Zoning laws are the tools municipalities like to use to control residents, but remember this, almost everyone serving on a zoning board is a political appointee to help carry an agenda, or know nothing about zoning in the first place or both.  They base a lot of decision on popular belief, not fundamental modern practices.

Relying on your municipality to provide sewer and water service is expected, especially if you’re paying for it, but should not be your only option as restoration of services is at a best effort, not a guarantee.  Rain collection, generator, human waste recycling, grey water recycling are all affordable items that can be installed in your home, usually cheaper than solar for all of them.  Add into that producing your own food, storage of root vegetables, chickens and other micro-livestock like fish and you should be able to weather most situations just fine and put yourself on the path of self-sufficiency and living off the grid, even in an urban environment on a 120x25 single family lot.

More from the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers on the water grab

The feds have launched a new power grab, and it’s coming at the expense of property rights.  But is water actually property?  This falls in the same category as local and state taxation for residents who install solar...or raise water fees all because people are using less.  Question being how long before we have to apply for a permit to have a blue barrel collecting rain water?  I fear the answer would be soon.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers have proposed a new rule to define “waters of the United States.” This definition is supposed to clarify what “waters” are covered under the Clean Water Act and therefore what these two agencies can regulate.

Most people would consider a water body to be a river, a lake, maybe even a pond. But the feds are casting their nets much wider than that. Their proposal could cover almost any type of water. Almost all ditches, including man-made ditches, could be regulated. Depressions in land that only sometimes have water in them could be deemed a tributary and covered under the rule, even if the depression is bone-dry almost every day of the year. The sheer overreach of the proposed rule is breathtaking.

Under the Clean Water Act, property owners are often required to obtain costly and time-consuming permits if engaging in activities that affect jurisdictional waters. We’re not talking toxic waste disposal being required to trigger the need for a permit. The statute would even prohibit actions that cause absolutely no environmental harm. For example, someone might need a permit for kicking some sand into a jurisdictional water.

The EPA is promoting the rule by cynically asking, “Do you choose clean water?”  The real question posed by the proposed regulation is: Do you choose federal regulation of almost all water?

Common activities, from farming to home building, could require a permit. Individuals who want to use their property for ordinary, everyday uses could be forced to get a permit. Sackett v. EPA offers one egregious example of overzealous regulatory enforcement. In this 2012 Supreme Court case, the EPA sought the power to impose fines of $75,000 per day on a couple for placing gravel on virtually dry land to build a home in a built-out subdivision. This proposed rule will likely lead to even more Sackett-type abuses of regulatory power.

Put simply, this rule is an attack on property rights. As EPA and the Corps of Engineers claim jurisdiction over more and more waters, property owners will have to secure more and more permits—or simply forgo projects because of the additional cost and time required to secure a permit.

And there’s a growing risk of “gotcha” enforcement. It’s already tough for property owners to know that their property has a jurisdictional water. Because the proposed rule is so broad and vague, this problem is only going to get far worse. The existence of a jurisdictional water may be far from clear—even to the EPA and the Corps, at least until they subjectively decide that a water is jurisdictional after all. Through this water (and land) power grab, the EPA and Corps will have the power to limit severely how people can use their property.

Furthermore, the proposed rule ignores the important role states play in protecting water resources—a role stressed in the Clean Water Act itself. States have a better sense of their specific environmental needs than the federal government and can provide a tailored approach to regulation. Yet the EPA and Corps proceed as though they know best, no matter what the law says about state power.

The EPA is promoting the rule by cynically asking, “Do you choose clean water?” As if critics of the rule want dirty water. The real question posed by the proposed regulation is: Do you choose federal regulation of almost all water? The Clean Water Act rejects this federal power grab.

At the start of April, the agencies sent a final version of the rule to the Office of Management and Budget for its approval. Congress must act quickly to stop this rule from going forward.

Ultimately, Congress should develop legislation that clearly defines what waters are regulated under the Clean Water Act. But for now, lawmakers should pass legislation directing the agencies to withdraw their proposed rule immediately. Property owners shouldn’t have to walk on egg shells, afraid of overzealous agencies going after them for simply using their land for ordinary activities and making an honest living.

Originally published in The Washington Times