Nightmare Is Over,' EPA Repeals WOTUS

Dark Soul said:
What it was:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/329.4

What it became:


https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/definition-waters-united-states-under-clean-water-act

And then got worse as it became subject to the whims of regional and local regulators who needed to keep their staff busy in order to justify their departmental budgets, to eventually include drainage ditches, swales, upland areas draining to such sub-tributaries, and eventually every drop of water that is falling from the sky...
Click to expand...
So true. I've worked as a contractor in gubmint agencies and all were constantly looking for ways to justify spending more free money provided by the gubmint.
 
Cypress said:
The legal framework and legal definition of WOTUS has not changed or been revoked. It was codified under regulation in the mid 1970s and remains in force to this day .

All the Clean Water Rule attempts to do is bring clarity and consistency to the application of the WOTUS framework .

Absent clarity and consistency WOTUS is subject to arbitrary interpretation by this and future administrations
Click to expand...
ANY ADMINISTRATION can enforce differently -so much for "clarification".
It was a power grab for the statists. it completely ignore traditional states purview of their intrastate waterways.

It's a terrible over-reach into balance of powers ( federalism)
 
domer76 said:
Why don’t one of you science tards try to address the post?

Oh, that’s right. You don’t even understand the premise. :rofl2:

Portland is a shithole.

I fit in everywhere. Know why? Unlike you RW cocksuckers, I don’t wear my politics on my sleeve. No bumper stickers, no MAGA hats, no T-shirts, no election yard signs, no stupid fucking comments to perfect strangers, no call in radio shows, no facebook posts. But you ignorant RW fucktards can’t help yourselves. I listen to and read your stupidity daily
Click to expand...

You are wearing it on your sleeve right now. Forums. Sure hope you don't walk into the wrong bar and say the stuff you say.
 
anonymoose said:
You definitely fit in with Portland. I don't fit in everywhere, e.g., Portland.
Click to expand...

Portland is a shithole. I live in a near perfect place and have my entire life.

I have 3 reps in the Idaho legislature. All 3 are Dems and female. Looks like a perfect fit.
 
Gonzomin said:
Nope, just what Trump did. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/02/06/dump-coal-waste-into-streams/ Fact is not a talking point. Regulations are what protects the people from the power of corporations. I am not sure why rightys are so anti-regulation. Perhaps they like dirty air, land, and water?
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur fallacy. Corporations do not necessarily produce dirty air, land, or water. Regulations do not necessarily result in clean air, land, or water.
Mine, for example, CLEANS dirty air and water.

Conservatives are not anarchists. Redefinition fallacy (anarchy<->republic).
 
Into the Night said:
Non-sequitur fallacy. Corporations do not necessarily produce dirty air, land, or water. Regulations do not necessarily result in clean air, land, or water.
Mine, for example, CLEANS dirty air and water.

Conservatives are not anarchists. Redefinition fallacy (anarchy<->republic).
Click to expand...

:pleased:
 
The economic analysis supporting the 2015 rule relied on dated estimates employing controversial methods that are not accepted by all economists.
It transferred figures from the contexts for which they were originally derived to waters that would have become jurisdictional under the 2015 rule using poorly explained and apparently ad hoc procedures.
Perhaps most importantly, the methods used might be most appropriately applied to the estimation of intangible aesthetic and ethical values.
This raises the question of when and under what circumstances public policy should compel specific landowners to make concrete sacrifices to serve the less tangible interests of a diffuse public.
https://www.perc.org/2019/04/08/what-went-wrong-with-wotus/

WOTUS was a shell game
 
dukkha said:
The economic analysis supporting the 2015 rule relied on dated estimates employing controversial methods that are not accepted by all economists.
It transferred figures from the contexts for which they were originally derived to waters that would have become jurisdictional under the 2015 rule using poorly explained and apparently ad hoc procedures.
Perhaps most importantly, the methods used might be most appropriately applied to the estimation of intangible aesthetic and ethical values.
This raises the question of when and under what circumstances public policy should compel specific landowners to make concrete sacrifices to serve the less tangible interests of a diffuse public.
https://www.perc.org/2019/04/08/what-went-wrong-with-wotus/

WOTUS was a shell game
Click to expand...

This and other regulations like it were designed to stop development that the bureaucrats, or anyone with power in the GovCo system, personally did not like.

Back when I was working in the field one of my often-used riddles was. 'How does a regulator tell you to go fuck yourself? Answer: "Apply for a permit".
 
Last edited:
dukkha said:
ANY ADMINISTRATION can enforce differently -so much for "clarification".
It was a power grab for the statists. it completely ignore traditional states purview of their intrastate waterways.

It's a terrible over-reach into balance of powers ( federalism)
Click to expand...
WOTUS has not been repealed. That is the premise of the thread.A false premise .

There is nuance here teabaggers do not understand

I try to keep my mouth shut on topics I do not understand
 
Cypress said:
WOTUS has not been repealed. That is the premise of the thread.A false premise .

There is nuance here teabaggers do not understand

I try to keep my mouth shut on topics I do not understand
Click to expand...
sure, it's the Clean Water Rule of 2015 that (I think) the courts let lapse - but it was over-reach of WOTUS
 
Cypress said:
30 seconds before this thread posted you did not even know what WOTUS is, nor could you even remotely begin to articulate the distinction between the Clean Water Rule and the Clean Water Act.

Your opinions do not even belong on this thread
Click to expand...

I know more about it than you poser. Keep trying to bullshit your way through things Democrat. It is enjoyable showing how little you all know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top