Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Eldorado

Trump scales back US water protections

Recommended Posts

Eldorado

"The Trump administration on Thursday will finalize a rule to pare back the types of waterways protected from pollution under federal law, a move intended to ease burdens on industries like agriculture and mining."

At Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-water/trump-environmental-agency-to-scale-back-us-water-protections-idUSKBN1ZM1OM

"The Environmental Protection Agency is dramatically reducing federal pollution protections for rivers, streams and wetlands – a move welcomed by many farmers, builders and mining companies but opposed even by the agency's own science advisers. "

At NPR: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/23/798809951/trump-administration-is-rolling-back-obama-era-protections-for-smaller-waterways?t=1579804394032

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
and then

Under Obama, people couldn't develop their own property if it had low spots that filled when it rained.  Paring back madness like THAT is just fine with me.  The definition of "wetlands" was so invasive to people's property rights that it never should have been allowed in the first place.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
10 minutes ago, and then said:

Under Obama, people couldn't develop their own property if it had low spots that filled when it rained.  Paring back madness like THAT is just fine with me.  The definition of "wetlands" was so invasive to people's property rights that it never should have been allowed in the first place.  

It started before Clinton and had to be wet for 3 to 6 months out of the year. I went through this with a 5 acre section of my farm that I used as a grass hay field during the summer when it was dry.  I couldn't get preservation money for it. Or develop it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
1 hour ago, and then said:

Under Obama, people couldn't develop their own property if it had low spots that filled when it rained.  Paring back madness like THAT is just fine with me.  The definition of "wetlands" was so invasive to people's property rights that it never should have been allowed in the first place.  

The article says...." Dramatically reducing federal environmental protections for RIVERS , STREAMS and Wetlands". . and that       the move is "opposed even by the agency's own science advisors".

i say if "AGRICULTURE" can't produce without Killing rivers and streams, then " agriculture " needs to change.

(I hear it coming). .    So don't tell me that enough food cannot be produced without GIANT poisonous producers involved.  Because it could and can. We simply need to change our ways.   If we don't we will wake up all alone on this planet, if we live that long.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
58 minutes ago, lightly said:

i say if "AGRICULTURE" can't produce without Killing rivers and streams, then " agriculture " needs to change.

This is just common sense. We are living through the death of reason in this nation.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

With half of my relatives from Montana, i get sensitive about this.   If I were a mine owner or a farmer pre-Nixon,I could just about dump anything in the water I wanted.  Excess fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, mine tailings, industrial waste, in it all went.  A good many of those pristine looking streams  around my in-laws old ranch could not be fished because of arsenic in the water.  For a while now people and businesses have not been allowed to flush whatever they wanted into the rivers. How long has it been since the last time the Cayuhoga river caught on fire?  It was 1969 and that helped spur the  Clean Water Act and the creation of the EPA under Nixon in 1972.  After that industry and agriculture had to start taking responsibility for their own poisons, and waste. And real estate developers, lets not forget those guys.  Anybody remember the Love Canal?   It was a toxic dump, got filled in by Hooker Chemical and given back to the city,  Next thing you know a sharp real estate developer buys it for a great price and builds  a school and about 100 houses on the site. (late50's) In the 70's you might remember the birth defects and miscarriages associated with this site. Eventually, the site was evacuated, the state had to buy out over 200 families.  

We learned those lessons once, or at least our parents did. I would prefer not to go through that again.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
Quote

All states have their own protections for waters within their borders, and many regulate more broadly than the federal government," Wheeler told reporters on a conference call before the announcement.

"Our new rule recognizes this relationship and strikes the proper balance between Washington, D.C., and the states," he added. "And it clearly details which waters are subject to federal control under the Clean Water Act and, importantly, which waters falls solely under the states' jurisdiction."

 

This seems dumb to me. Protecting us from polluted water does not sound like a state rights issue to me. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 1/23/2020 at 2:31 PM, Piney said:

It started before Clinton and had to be wet for 3 to 6 months out of the year. I went through this with a 5 acre section of my farm that I used as a grass hay field during the summer when it was dry.  I couldn't get preservation money for it. Or develop it. 

I'm as adamant as the next person about actually keeping waterways and real bodies of water as clean as possible but in my humble opinion, what Obama did was to use the EPA to come down so hard on business that it nearly crippled our country.  It forced many into poverty or worse poverty than they were in prior to him and he did it to make government larger and make more people think of it as the solution, not the problem.  I hope Trump shows some restraint and doesn't go too far in the opposite direction because he doesn't need to give his enemies real ammo.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
39 minutes ago, and then said:

I hope Trump shows some restraint and doesn't go too far in the opposite direction 

Too late......:hmm:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

"We have enough clean water for everyone, I tell ya. Lots of clean water, everywhere. All over the country. Water, clean water, For everyone and everywhere. Dont you know? Look at the hundreds of thousands of supermarkets in our beautiful country. They are full of clean water. Billions over billions of gallons of clean water. Its such much, we could never drink it all. It will last forever. For all of us and our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren and so on. Clean water for everyone. Its cheap and there is enough of it. Clean water. I like to drink clean water, its available everywhere. For everybody. Refreshing water, clean water. "

- Donald J. Trump -

Edited by toast
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
10 hours ago, toast said:

Clean water. I like to drink clean water, its available everywhere.

For some, it doesn't come out of a plastic bottle supplied by an aide it comes out of a tap and it is not so clean.  There was a time when the municipal water systems in the United States  were justifiably the envy of the world.  That is as much due to the quality of the infrastructure as the quality of the water.

The past has brought us both good and bad.

We are living off the investments our great grandparents and grandparents made in this country's infrastructure.

We are also living with the burden of the waste they discarded.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Doug1029
On 1/23/2020 at 2:15 PM, and then said:

Under Obama, people couldn't develop their own property if it had low spots that filled when it rained.  Paring back madness like THAT is just fine with me.  The definition of "wetlands" was so invasive to people's property rights that it never should have been allowed in the first place.  

A farmer in Colorado was not allowed to repair a leaking ditch because that would have dried up the wetland thus created, no matter that he owned the water.  The rules were put in place way back during the reign of Papa Bush, but the original authority was granted in the Republican-sponsored Environmental Protection Act (1972). 

The Colorado State Forest Service had to stop dynamiting pot holes for duck habitat because that would alter a wetland.

And Weyerhauser had to quit channeling water into tree plantations in North Carolina because that would raise water levels in a wetland.

Note that these rules only apply to watersheds that flow into a navigable stream.

All these examples do is prove that one size does not fit all.  Laws are written for everybody and creating exceptions for all the reasonable alternatives is a nightmare. 

Dam these Republicans and their EPA!

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
12 hours ago, and then said:

what Obama did was to use the EPA to come down so hard on business that it nearly crippled our country.  It forced many into poverty or worse poverty than they were in prior to him

Did Obama go to far?  Maybe.  My experience is limited.  The two companies I worked for prospered greatly under Obama.

The second company hired me to help with expansions.  We built new buildings and doubled our work force.  That was made possible by buying a 20 acre parcel next to our campus.  Part of it was wetland.  I admit it was a hassle getting the permits, took about a year. But we made an exchange and converted our parking lot drainage into 30' wide natural swales covered in grass and reeds.  During rainy season they filled partially with water.  Lots of waterfowl even in the middle of a big parking lot. We also had to put a natural buffer around the plant site, which we made into a nice walking trail. That allowed us to fill about two acres for the building site we needed.  You can see why from my own personal experience, I thought the Obama years were pretty prosperous.

Your experiences seem to be different.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

"Our new rule recognizes this relationship and strikes the proper balance between Washington, D.C., and the states," he added. "And it clearly details which waters are subject to federal control under the Clean Water Act and, importantly, which waters falls solely under the states' jurisdiction."

 

Those waters are ones that flow into a navigable stream.  The states have jurisdiction over the others.  But many whole states drain into the Mississippi.  The Atlantic and Pacific are navigable waters and except for a few blind basins like the Great Divide Basin, Great Salt Lake and Death Valley, receive water from the entire continent.  As a result, there is not much that doesn't contribute to waters used in interstate commerce.

Even the Red River is navigable, even though I waded over to Texas and back a few years ago.  There is a wrecked steamboat a few miles above the place where I waded across, proving that the river was navigable once.

It seems to me that the states don't have much to say when it comes to which waters fall under the act.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.