NC Angler Forums banner

Stream & River Anti-Pollution Laws Being Repealed

4K views 23 replies 11 participants last post by  DMYankee15 
#1 ·
#2 ·
From the article:
"Make no mistake about it, this Obama administration rule is not designed to protect streams. Instead, it was an effort to regulate the coal mining industry right out of business," said Rep. Bill Johnson, R


Perhaps you should get your news from someplace other than liberal facebook pages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NC Buck and dbeam
#5 ·
Evan - Look up the bill and the reasons for it on multiple sources... Basically, IMO, this was a big overreach by the EPA. It is possible to see it differently, of course... This came from web site "The Hill" discussing the original rule.

The GOP says the administration is seeking to assert federal control over puddles, ditches, areas that are occasionally wet and other large sections of private or state land in violation of the intent of the Clean Water Act.
They say the rule would be disastrous to farmers, developers, landowners and other businesses that would need a federal permit for routine tasks such as digging ditches.
“The federal government shouldn’t be regulating every drop of water,” said House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), whose panel has authority over water policy.
“Just about every wet area in the country is open to federal regulation under this rule,” he added. “The rights of landowners and local governments will be trampled.”
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called the rule a “power grab” in a Wednesday op-ed.
“The EPA claims it is only clarifying the law, but Congress never intended the federal government to oversee tiny streams and ponds on private property,” he wrote in the Omaha World-Herald in agriculture-heavy Nebraska.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbeam and NC Buck
#6 ·
Interesting, biglenr chastises OP for only using liberal sources, then proceeds to post only conservative sources for his response. Face palm, guess this is the new normal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crabman00
#8 ·
No... At least I say that there are other sources out there. I was providing the alternate viewpoint to the original post.

Personally, my belief in any source is just about nil these days. I go to multiple sources, and I try to judge what the reality is.

In this case, my understanding of the reality is that the Obama administration was overreaching.

My pet peeve is those who read only the headline of an article and then re-post it. I have had that discussion with the original poster in another venue
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbeam and NC Buck
#9 ·
I can see both sides, just using a little reason and logic. It can appear to be over reach due to it being somewhat all encompassing, however consider the following. Every little ditch and pond feeds into a stream which feeds rivers, lakes etc, which are our drinking water supplies, and ultimately feeds into our oceans. Having local or state regulations means a wide variance on the controls, going from almost no regulation in some cases, to potential over regulation in others. But he water supply crosses borders, municipal and state, so those downstream have little say in what happens to their own water supply. Hence, regulations at the Federal level make sense. So without Federal regulation, then using the language of the conservatives, the rights of those downstream of others will be trampled.

The argument stating that the Federal gov't wants to regulate ditches and ponds is crafted to make it sound bad, while ignoring the bigger issue. It is like stating that the Federal tax system is over reach because it wants to tax high school students with summer jobs, this is ignoring the big picture and real issue, but appeals to people who can not think it through and just have an emotional reaction.

Additionally, using the argument that regulation will be onerous is again just a way to divert from the real issue. Instead of trying to kill the regulation, the effort should be on making the execution of the regulation more agreeable. Should we just decide that building roads is too difficult and costly and not build them? No, we figure out how to reduce cost and fund them, because you can not just ignore the real issue.
 
#11 ·
For the record... A website called allsides rates sources... It rates the hill as "center"

http://www.allsides.com/news-source/hill

While Time rates as far left.

I have found that the ratings on this site about agree with my takes on the sources that I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbeam
#12 ·
biglenr, please read my post #9 and then explain to me how your post #5 makes any real sense, other than diverting from the real issue by going out on tangents. You have to peel the onion to see the inside.
 
#15 ·
So please explain how you regulate things like air and water pollution locally? The problem is that air and water are not local entities, they cross borders and affect others that have no control over their neighbor's regulations. I am all for local control of local issues, but air and water are not a local issue.

Much of Raleigh is in the Neuse and Cape Fear water basins, the water quality plans are administered by the state of NC and funded by the Federal gov't, per EPA regulations. Are you advocating that this should be regulated by municipalities and/or the state? If so, where does the funding come from? Should Wake County be concerned about polluting the Cape Fear river below Jordan Lake? Just so long as it goes in below the Jordan Lake dam it does not affect Raleigh's water supply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crabman00
#14 ·
Streams and rivers are already pollution magnets, allowing more pollution into them is just a bad policy, I don't care what side of the fence you're on. Maybe you shouldn't assume things about others.
 
#16 ·
I appreciate the civility so far...I hope it continues.

As I see it, and this is not as a moderator but as a concerned citizen, I believe more regulations are not the answer. We have so many regulations on the books now and adding more only adds more hands in the pot, so to speak.

The only people/companies/entities that follow regulations and laws are those who consider themselves law abiding and want to follow the laws. Not everyone is like that, so really, no matter the regulations, there are many who will skirt the laws and do what they want anyway.

There are already AMPLE regulations and laws on the books that would keep the country cleaner, or safer or whatever other descriptor can be added. The solution is not to keep adding more costly and intrusive regulations but to enforce the regulations already on the books. If those regulations were correctly and passionately enforced, things would be much better for all of us.

We can put all the rules on our kids that we want, but if we don't discipline them when they cross a line and instead, draw a new line for them, then we never really meant what we told them in the first place.

Anyway, to me, enforcement of existing rules goes a whole lot further than new rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbeam
#17 ·
I agree with you for the most part. But we must acknowledge that situations change and new sources of pollution are created and new technologies are developed to address pollution. So the regulations should be modified accordingly. My point being that we should not just kill a regulation that we think is not perfect, we should work to clarify and modify it. The practice of ditching wetlands to turn it into farm land has gone on for a long time, but we now know it is a harmful practice, hence new regulations were needed as we gained a better understanding of our surroundings, so existing regulations are not always enough.

For the life of me I can not understand why environmental protection has become such a political issue, we all live on the same planet and therefore should have the same concerns. People more concerned about their wallet than the environment is just a foreign concept to me. Money won't do anyone much good when the food and water you drink and the air you breath is loaded with toxins.

There are already warnings in some areas about eating wild game and fish due to high levels of heavy metals and toxins, guess people will only become concerned when it directly affects them, but then it is too late.
 
#18 ·
I think it becomes an issue when people start losing their incomes and jobs over regulations that can be hastily made and unevenly enforced. You take people's money away, it makes a difference. Unfortunately, that happens a lot.

Also, the metal in the water already has regulations against it...has had them for quite a while, yet it continues to find it's way there. Goes back to the enforcement of the existing regs.

It would really be nice if, when a new regulation is proposed, they undergo due diligence and research what is on the books, how to adapt and apply what is needed and unwanted, keeping in mind the lives of the people affected, and pass something actually worth more than the paper it's written on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbeam
#19 ·
Think we are saying the same thing, we need regulations that are effective, executable and enforceable. In order for that to happen they need to be modified on an ongoing basis.

People need to stop listening to talking points with agendas and start thinking it through themselves. Also do not be petty and dislike a regulation just due the Administration that implemented it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spider Crack
#20 ·
Stream & River Anti-Pollution Laws Being Repealed

I think we are sorta kinda saying the same thing.

I think that if the existing rules were enforced, we wouldn't have to add much more to the mix.

I also think that too many rules tie the hands of businesses and when that happens, employees and customers lose.

I would like to see less regulation and more enforcement.

Common sense would dictate that pollution is unwarranted. You really don't have to write too many lines of regulation that would cover that.

Enforcement of that would make sure things stay relatively unpolluted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#22 ·
Coal is dying, with or without regulation. So much cheap gas out there now it's hard to imagine coal ever being as competitive as at it was even 10 years ago again. Why sacrifice clean water just to save a few union jobs and coal companies? It only delays the inevitable.
My guess would be there is a politician or two with coal-black palms.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top