kurtster wrote: 
It must be hard to be Kurt some days. Throw out a platitude like this, thinking "no one can disagree with that" and have it rebutted instantly.

Left-wing rag
Right-wing rag

 steeler wrote: 
Yeah like that's ever going to happen.  If I lived to be 100, Congress would still not have acted.  The environmental lobbies are too strong,  too deep and cannot be reasoned with.  They truly believe that all science of these subjects is settled in their favor and will not budge one mm.

One of the reasons we have a POTUS. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Laugh all you want.  But in your stated quest to understand Trump supporters, this is a key issue.  

No one is in favor of pollution.  

This is probably one of best examples of over reach and swamp draining.  Countless people have been abused by extreme interpretation of this and similar EPA rules.  Its so bad that we feel that the baby is so hopelessly mutated that it has to be aborted with prejudice and thrown out with the bath water.  If the EPA had stuck to its primary mission, well ok.  But it has strayed so far into bizzaro land that it must be killed.  The people responsible for this over reach will simply go underground and wait for the next administration to come along and begin again.  These people can't be fired because of the Civil Service.  The only way to get rid of them is to eliminate their jobs by closing it down and starting over.

If you or anyone else really wants to understand what we are all about, I suggest looking at this example from a different point of view than the one that you already have.  But then if you don't see over reach or abuse because you're an ends justifies the means kinda environmentalist, then there is nothing further to talk about.  Just stand by and watch it happen, be clueless as to why its happening and get angrier than you already might be. 

But should you like the EPA as is, then I hope you never have a vacant property you might want to build a house on someday.  All's it takes is for someone to take a picture of a puddle after a rain storm 10' in diameter, doesn't matter that its 2" deep, and suddenly have it declared a wetland.  You will not be allowed to build and your property value will drop, making it unsaleable in some cases and worst of all, subject to seizure by the government.  This is not an imaginary scenario.  It actually happens on a too much regular basis.

 kurtster wrote:

  

The linked story talks a lot about a litigated jurisdictional dispute about whether District Courts or Circuit Courts have jurisdiction, one of those very technical legal issues that can delay resolution of the merits.  After setting out the twists and turns regarding this particular regulation, legal challenges to it, and Executive Orders, the story also includes this line, which dovetails with what I said in my original post:   

Alternately, Congress could act to vacate the rule and provide direction on issuing a new rule.

  

 kurtster wrote: 
Oh those crazy environmentalists on their band wagon again! 

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Well, that's comforting to hear.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
If there were it'd be a government conspiracy, so better to have shortwave radio hosts keep an eye on it.

 steeler wrote: 
Looks good on paper.  The specific regulation I speak of was created to be a Gordian Knot full of vagary which has been exploited beyond anything reasonable.  Go ahead, speak up against it, still gets passed, go to court against it and it becomes a how deep is your pocket thing to fight it.  Should you win in court against the EPA, the EPA still refuses to accept a courts finding.  I have been following this thing for years and it has been the poster child for bureaucratic over reach and zealotry by the environmental wacko's to use a familiar to all term.  Needing a permit to plow your field is an example of extreme harm in my book.

Bullshit.

This process and over reach has led to this executive order and also the following ... 

U.S. Supreme Court’s 'Waters of the U.S.' gift to the Trump administration

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
I had a friend who worked for the NYC DEP, and the primary function of his department was water supply.  They monitored chemical levels and watershed affects around the reservoirs, and the aqueducts had monitoring stations every 50 miles or something. I know another guy who worked for an EPA entity for the state of Florida and they had to monitor things like pesticide levels in the water supplies. I would imagine some places are more thorough than others, depending on population and tax base. I suppose if the contamination were more widespread then the Feds would be called in anyhow.

 kurtster wrote:

  

Arguing against problematic regulations, and agency overreach by regulation, all fair and fine. Arguing that agencies promulgating regulations are unaccountable holds no validity.  I have been over this with folk here; perhaps you as well.  A statute always trumps (no pun intended) a regulation.  If Congress wants to undo certain regulations, all it has to do is prohibit the activity or requirement or whatever that is being put forth by those regulations.  The agency heads, of course, are put in place by the President..  They answer to the President. It would  be absurd to require the agency heads and the "bureaucrats" to be elected.  And the whole legislative system would come undone if regulations were no longer permitted.  Many legislative acts require regulations to be implemented; those regulations fill the gaps in the legislation.  That is the system.  And regulations are required to be promulgated pursuant to a public comment period.  There at least is some transparency.  By contrast, agency policies can be implemented without going through the rulemaking process.

Argue against particular regulations, making your specific arguments.  Arguments that imply, if not state, that the whole system is corrupt add nothing. 

                  

 Lazy8 wrote: 
That's what I'm talking about.  

 Proclivities wrote: 
so no risk of waterborne chemtrails then?

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Some states and municipalities have their own EPAs (or similar agencies) - especially for things like water supply, but their reach and authority likely varies.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Out here in flyover country the impact is more like not having to get a federal permit to plow a muddy field or re-route an irrigation ditch.

 kurtster wrote: 
This is a prime example of overinflating the Pro side of your argument and diminishing the Con.  

 kurtster wrote: 
Does this mean you can pollute the ground water from your own private property? 

 kurtster wrote: 
And what about all those runoff streams that dump directly into the ocean from various properties that are not navigable?  No need for them to be clean or up to EPA standards I guess.

Trump just signed an executive order reversing the Waters Of The US rule and limiting the EPA to regulate only navigable waters.

This is a prime example of bureaucratic over reach where rules are invented by unaccountable people that cause extreme harm to all private property owners.  The EPA can no longer regulate a puddle on your property which they can and have done.

This is one of the reasons I voted for Trump.  Another promise kept. 

“Massive” Pro-Trump Rallies Mercilessly Mocked on Twitter

‘It’s got bad karma’: Trump-branded hotel grand opening shunned by Vancouver officials