Home | About | Donate

Trump's Attack on Clean Water: What You Need to Know


#1

Trump's Attack on Clean Water: What You Need to Know

Jon Devine

What Is the Clean Water Rule and Why Is It Important?

The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted the Clean Water Rule in May 2015 to clear up longstanding confusion over which water bodies the landmark 1972 Clean Water Act protects. The rule more clearly defines what kinds of waters get guaranteed coverage and which ones are exempt.


#2

A little common sense might go a long way. The new EPA rule was a clear over reach to me. The smallest wet spot in the field, the runoff ditch next to your barn, ect. Private property used to mean something in this country. We have gone from " do whatever the hell you want, we don't care if it hurts others" to " you pay for it, you maintain it, but it's not yours...it's ours. " . Happy median might be nice.


#3

Bullshit.

So you are reserving the right to dump toxic waste directly in a ditch? What do you think that ditch or wet spot connects to? You could be a mile from teh nearest perennial creek and dump teh waste on dry ground and rest assured, that toxic crap will make it there - then out of people's taps, sooner rather than later

If that is what you mean by "private property" then maybe we need to abolish "private property" - always something only available to the rich, white and privileged anyway - altogether.


#4

Why the lack of comments to this monumental story? Becasue it is too "complicated" for the readership here?


#5

Well, someone has obviously never owned any property. I guess all rural people that do so are "rich" in your book. I'll bet you are against people collecting water in a rain barrel too. As far as abolishing private property, you might be happier in North Korea...it doesn't exist there. Government over reach.


#6

Yes, in my state anyway, most rural people are rich.

All land ownership is a piece of paper with lines and angles drawn on it. The landowner does NOT own the air that blows across it, the water that flows across or percolates into and under it, the wildlife that wanders across it, and numerous other things valuable to the greater community.

You comment on collecting water in rain barrels is disingenuous and shows that you are scientifically illiterate too - you apparently have never heard of the hydrologic cycle? Collecting water in rain barrels has considerable environmental and social benefit - especially in urban areas where it reduced stormwater runoff and associated dangerous urban flooding and non-point-source pollution. if it used widely enough, it would even provide summer groundwater recharge and low-flow stream augmentation and improve water supply reliability. In many urban areas it should be mandatory with the barrels provided by the government. But yes, because you don't won the water that falls from the sky - it is a common resource owned by all - should the laws of physics magically change and the water collected in a rain barrel vanished from existence forever, or the rainwater was unavoidably polluted in the process, then of course rain barrel water collection would need to be restricted.

I really think you are on the wrong forum here. let me suggest "Reason" or "Free Republic".


#7

Well, then perhaps you could explain the laws against collecting rainwater in a barrel that are all in vogue in the Western states? The ones that do not differentiate between Urban or rural ? Or is that too "scientifically illiterate" for you?


#8

You are right! While this is less exciting than "Russiagate" or Hillary-bashing, it is ultimately much more important. The "General Welfare" includes protection of fresh water resources, if it includes anything.


#9

A great reply to Libertarian exaggeration and over-simplification!


#10

Mineral rights use to be part of the deal when land was purchased but today it is a considerably more complicated. In mineral rich areas water is considered a mineral or mineral right that can be separated and sold. Check out mineral rights you might be surprised. I was. I deleted my example because it wouldn't print properly.