Trump to withdraw clean water rule

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I'm sure many of you will say that this is great for states rights or some other nonsense but the truth is that everyone lives downstream of someone and unless the state above you has more stringent standards than yours you are going to be dealing with all their crap. Sometimes literally.

What this really means is that factories , plants and companies will be able to shape legislation in states they are in that allows them to dump with states that are effected having no say or recourse.

Say goodbye to all the hard work that has gone into cleaning up the bay.


You would think this wouldn't be a partisan issue. Everyone should want clean water to recreate , drink and eat food from

"In reality, however, restoring “power” back to the states means that more waterways will become polluted. States that are not reliant on fracking, coal mining, or petrochemical industries will likely keep their streams protected, but other states that receive considerable income from these groups – and states with lawmakers that are lobbied by the fossil fuel industry – will likely remove their protections."


http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/trum...ough-epa-to-rescind-obama-era-water-rule.html
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Sorry, shortbus..what this REALLY means is that the EPA cannot trample on the rights of the average property owner just because they have a pond or a swampy pasture.

It does not actually reverse ANYTHING. Squat...zero. Your own brain dead state can be excused for not knowing that the provisions of the overreaching 2015 rules were stayed by a court order. Never went in to effect. You mewling wimps of the left and your false dilemmas..I swear..:lmao:
 
Last edited:

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
Sappy,

You would be able to pee outside if this went into effect.......

You must sit down so it probably doesn't bother you.....
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
You people are so blind with your loyalty to Trump you don't care about the consequences.

I really try to give you guys the benefit of the doubt but you really are not very bright.

Doesn't it bother you the same company that donated a million dollars to his election parties is now getting their pesticide ban reversed?

How could you possibly not want cleaner water and healthier kids?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Montana farm groups, attorney general praise repeal of Obama-era clean water rule


This state and 26 others sued the federal government in 2015 to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers from expanding the federal control of waterways under the Clean Water Act. The so-called “Waters of the United States” rule sought to establish federal control over streams and waterways considered navigable.

Montana farm groups, home builders and county governments feared the new rule, established by presidential executive order without Congressional approval, would ultimately require federal approval for water bodies as small at roadside barrow pits and stock ponds.

“The EPA was adopting rules and those rules would have seriously impacted counties' ability to make roads,” said Harold Blattie, director of the Montana Association of Counties. “Their rule would have really hamstrung counties' ability to do routine maintenance.”

Imagine applying for a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers any time a barrow pit was constructed to catch storm water along a two-lane road, Blattie said. Because the permits can take several weeks, if not longer, counties found the decision easy to join a lawsuit opposing the Waters of the United States rule.


more background .........


The WOTUS Rule: Overdue Necessity Or Unnecessary Overburden?


The Clean Water Act (CWA) gives the federal government jurisdiction over navigable waters, and this has long been understood to include a certain amount of upstream (tributary) water in order to protect larger water features. However, “navigable waters” is defined as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” which is where interpretations start to get muddy. Years of jurisprudence have created a near impenetrable morass of definitions and elemental tests. The new rule is an attempt by the agencies to bring clarity to a question that has vexed courts (and everyone else) for some time now.

The rule—both in proposed and final version—has been summarized and analyzed in numerous places by various interests (see, for example, the American Water Works Association, The National Law Review, Center for Progressive Reform, or Environmental Law Prof Blog), so this description will be brief. The rule identifies six types of waters[1] that are categorically within the agencies’ jurisdiction and two categories of waters for which a case-by-case determination is required. Case-by-case analysis would be required if the water in question is either (1) a member of a series of named formations such as prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva Bays, pocosins,[2] western vernal pools[3] in California, or Texas coastal prairie wetlands, or (2) a water body that, due to its location within a certain distance from a high tide or high water mark of a jurisdictional water, has a “significant nexus” to that water. Having a significant nexus means “that a water, including wetlands, either alone or in combination with other similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affects the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of [waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, interstate waters, and the territorial seas].” An effect is significant if it is more than speculative or insubstantial.

The philosophy behind the new rule seems very much in line with the Obama Administration’s prior environmental policy initiatives. The directional objective can be seen in actions such as the recent revision by the Council on Environmental Quality of the Principles, Requirements and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies and the issuance of an executive order directing agencies to “use natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches when developing alternatives for consideration.” The administration’s policies have attempted to give more recognition to the interconnected nature of the effects that human activity can have on the environment, as well as nature’s value to humankind. The changes to the WOTUS rule underscore the importance to the administration of a more complete approach to analysis and understanding of ecosystems and the environment. As humans’ understanding of nature and ecosystems improves, pretending we can separate elements for regulations without impacting other elements is both naïve and foolhardy.


URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/05/on-the-misuse-of-environmental-history-to-defend-the-epas-wotus-rule/?utm_term=.7de72678ffeb"] On the misuse of environmental history to defend the EPA’s WOTUS rule [/URL]

So Boxer is wrong to suggest that curtailing federal regulatory authority would “[take] us back … to the day when rivers caught on fire,” as federal regulation had nothing to do with eliminating the problem of river fires. Whatever else the CWA has done for environmental protection, it had nothing to do with the end of river fires.

Boxer’s claim is wrong in a second way insofar as it suggests that voiding the new WOTUS rule would represent a significant rollback of environmental protection — to the levels that persisted in the 1960s. This too is wrong. The WOTUS rule is a brand-new regulation. It is a response to Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006. So rejecting the WOTUS rule would restore the status quo ante that has existed for nearly a decade, leaving the Army Corps and EPA with the same regulatory authority that they enjoyed for the first six years of the Obama administration. Whether or not one believes this is sound policy, it is not turning back the clock on environmental protection to the days of river fires.
 
Last edited:

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
You people are so blind with your loyalty to Trump you don't care about the consequences.

I really try to give you guys the benefit of the doubt but you really are not very bright.

Doesn't it bother you the same company that donated a million dollars to his election parties is now getting their pesticide ban reversed?

How could you possibly not want cleaner water and healthier kids?

All of this has zero do do with Trump......it has to do with government overreach.
It does have a lot to do with why Trump was elected. You want government out of your bedroom. We want government out of our farms, homes and businesses.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
How could you possibly not want cleaner water and healthier kids?

yes we want children to die .....



FACT CHECK: Huffington Post Claims Water Rule Protects 117 Million People’s Drinking Water

The Huffington Post claimed Wednesday the EPA will “dismantle [a] rule that protects drinking water for 117 million.”

Verdict: False

The rule in question, known as the Clean Water Rule or the Waters of the United States rule, is not in effect and is therefore not protecting drinking water for anyone.

Fact Check:

The Huffington Post claims the unimplemented rule “protects drinking water for 117 million” both in the headline and the body of the story. “It ultimately protected the drinking water of more than 117 million Americans,” the article states. The second claim includes “protected,” which could refer to the two months that the rule was in effect in 37 states. However, the title clearly states that the rule currently protects 117 million people’s drinking water and there is no mention in the article that the rule is not currently in effect.

The Clean Water Rule was published in the Federal Register late June 2015 with plans to implement the rule set for late August of that year. Hours before the rule was going to be put into effect a federal judge blocked the rule for 13 states that sued. In early October 2015, a federal court ruled that the Clean Water Rule was also unenforceable for the remainder of the states. The Clean Water Rule has been in court ever since and has now reached the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Montana farm groups, attorney general praise repeal of Obama-era clean water rule


This state and 26 others sued the federal government in 2015 to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers from expanding the federal control of waterways under the Clean Water Act. The so-called “Waters of the United States” rule sought to establish federal control over streams and waterways considered navigable.

Montana farm groups, home builders and county governments feared the new rule, established by presidential executive order without Congressional approval, would ultimately require federal approval for water bodies as small at roadside barrow pits and stock ponds.

“The EPA was adopting rules and those rules would have seriously impacted counties' ability to make roads,” said Harold Blattie, director of the Montana Association of Counties. “Their rule would have really hamstrung counties' ability to do routine maintenance.”

Imagine applying for a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers any time a barrow pit was constructed to catch storm water along a two-lane road, Blattie said. Because the permits can take several weeks, if not longer, counties found the decision easy to join a lawsuit opposing the Waters of the United States rule.

I'm never sure why people believe that unless the federal government is in charge of something, chaos will inevitably ensue.
I mean, we might as well hand over the PTA and our property owner's associations.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I'm never sure why people believe that unless the federal government is in charge of something, chaos will inevitably ensue.
I mean, we might as well hand over the PTA and our property owner's associations.



even under previous rules my back yard is classified 'navigable water way'
because rain water collects a couple of times a yr, in the spring and when it rains for more that a could of days and the soil becomes saturated water puddles in places
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
You people are so blind with your loyalty to Trump you don't care about the consequences.

I really try to give you guys the benefit of the doubt but you really are not very bright.

Doesn't it bother you the same company that donated a million dollars to his election parties is now getting their pesticide ban reversed?

How could you possibly not want cleaner water and healthier kids?

You do not, you've got a preconceived notion that you are the smartest person in the room and you are going to talk to everyone like they are a bunch of simpletons. The funny part of it is that the "simpletons" have more of a clue of the real world than you do. Why do we not want clean water? because we do want it, but we don't want the government guaranteeing it by steamrolling over all of our other rights. The EPA has proven itself to be a grasping, greedy, entity. It can't take a relatively innocuous idea like providing clean water without trying to take over every lake, river, stream, watering hole, mud puddle or piss puddle. It's proven itself to be less than scrupulous with its "sue and settle" method of passing regulations. So yes the "Clean Water Act" had to go. Did you know this ridiculous POS regulation Fined farmers for digging a pond on their property because catching rainwater was illegal by rule?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
You do not, you've got a preconceived notion that you are the smartest person in the room and you are going to talk to everyone like they are a bunch of simpletons. The funny part of it is that the "simpletons" have more of a clue of the real world than you do. Why do we not want clean water? because we do want it, but we don't want the government guaranteeing it by steamrolling over all of our other rights. The EPA has proven itself to be a grasping, greedy, entity. It can't take a relatively innocuous idea like providing clean water without trying to take over every lake, river, stream, watering hole, mud puddle or piss puddle. It's proven itself to be less than scrupulous with its "sue and settle" method of passing regulations. So yes the "Clean Water Act" had to go. Did you know this ridiculous POS regulation Fined farmers for digging a pond on their property because catching rainwater was illegal by rule?

Is there any law ever written that cannot be carried too far by a-holes given too much authority for their pea brains to understand.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I'm never sure why people believe that unless the federal government is in charge of something, chaos will inevitably ensue.
I mean, we might as well hand over the PTA and our property owner's associations.

No one believes that. But in this case rivers streams and lakes don't stop at state borders and often run through numerous states. Why you would think it is smart to have each state responsible for its section is what is a puzzlement. Each state then has no incentive to keep their river clean since it will just end up the state below its problem. Especially when a company offers to build a factory on the river now that there is less stringent laws in place and less accountability
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Especially when a company offers to build a factory on the river now that there is less stringent laws in place and less accountability

Why do you leftwing freakazoids ALWAYS resort to spouting false dilemmas in response to everything? Nothing is actually being repealed; all those things that keep "factories" from putting bad things in the rivers are still in place.

Besides, you are stepping all over one of your own narratives: "We don't build factories in the US any more. Those jobs are never coming back".
 
Last edited:
Top