Nightmare Is Over,' EPA Repeals WOTUS

Cypress said:
Army corps still has authority to make determinations of WOTUS , only now it will be more arbitrary and capricious .Clean Water Rule intended to make it less arbitrary
Click to expand...
translation . EPA lawyers in DC will be making determinations, instead of the states who are closest to the mater.

Have you ever tried to deal with the DC bureaucracy?
it would take years and piles of money an lawyers to rty to appeal their ruling

The underlying legal framework of WOTUS has not been repealed still exists pursuant to CWA 1972 >> WOTUS is all navigable waters including hydrologically connected tributaries and wetlands
Click to expand...
that is the legal authority, but in practice that authority has always been delegated to the states,
unless it is an interstate issue (waterway) or the states are unable to handle the matter
 
Cypress said:
Army corps still has authority to make determinations of WOTUS , only now it will be more arbitrary and capricious .Clean Water Rule intended to make it less arbitrary

The underlying legal framework of WOTUS has not been repealed still exists pursuant to CWA 1972 >> WOTUS is all navigable waters including hydrologically connected tributaries and wetlands
Click to expand...

One could make a case for ALL tributaries and wetlands are connected. Including Old MacDonald's irrigation system
 
dukkha said:
translation . EPA lawyers in DC will be making determinations, instead of the states who are closest to the mater.

Have you ever tried to deal with the DC bureaucracy?
it would take years and piles of money an lawyers to rty to appeal their ruling

that is the legal authority, but in practice that authority has always been delegated to the states,
unless it is an interstate issue (waterway) or the states are unable to handle the matter
Click to expand...

Most states ARE unable to handle their own water quality problems.

For instance, backflow devices are required in watering systems. I know of NOBODY that has EVER been checked because the resources don't exist.
 
domer76 said:
One could make a case for ALL tributaries and wetlands are connected. Including Old MacDonald's irrigation system
Click to expand...

Naturally, you are correct at the broadest scale of the hydrologic cycle

From the perspective of the Clean Water Act, the legislative intent is to regulate waters in direct hydrologic communication with navigable waterbodies.

The federal government does not want to get in the business of regulating isolated irrigation ditches, retention basins or stock watering ponds.

States have authority to take a more expansive view of water resource regulation , and some do
 
domer76 said:
Most states ARE unable to handle their own water quality problems.

For instance, backflow devices are required in watering systems. I know of NOBODY that has EVER been checked because the resources don't exist.
Click to expand...
so your answer is to turn that enforcement over to the EPA itself?
Do you ever think before you post? no.
 
Cypress said:
Naturally, you are correct at the broadest scale of the hydrologic cycle

From the perspective of the Clean Water Act, the legislative intent is to regulate waters in direct hydrologic communication with navigable waterbodies.

The federal government does not want to get in the business of regulating isolated irrigation ditches, retention basins or stock watering ponds.

States have authority to take a more expansive view of water resource regulation , and some do
Click to expand...

Water quality issues require determination of a baseline and continuous monitoring. I doubt there are ANY states that have the resources to adequately accomplish that.

I'll give you a couple of examples in my state. Lake Coeur d'Alene in north Idaho, a perfectly beautiful lake. Lined with homes, both residential and vacation. Guess where their waste goes? There was a massive die off of swans near there this spring. Now, do you think Idaho has near the resources to tackle the problem?

https://www.hcn.org/issues/51.11/pollution-a-dangerous-cocktail-threatens-the-gem-of-north-idaho

Same with two other water bodies. Lake Lowell in SW Idaho and Lake Cascade in central Idaho.

Lake Lowell is at the tail end of the New York Canal, which is a major source of irrigation water. It originates from the Boise River just a couple miles from my home and is very clean. By the time it gets to Lake Lowell 30 miles away, it is too polluted for swimming

https://www.kivitv.com/news/officials-issue-health-advisory-for-lake-cascade

The same goes for Lake Cascade.

http://deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/recreation-health-advisories/

Note the phrase in this report:

"Remember: Only a fraction of all water bodies in Idaho are monitored due to limited physical and monetary resources."
 
dukkha said:
so your answer is to turn that enforcement over to the EPA itself?
Do you ever think before you post? no.
Click to expand...

That was an EXAMPLE, you fucking idiot, of the inability of states unable to handle even the simplest of water quality issues.

See this from an Idaho water quality report?

"Remember: Only a fraction of all water bodies in Idaho are monitored due to limited physical and monetary resources."

You are truly one illiterate motherfucker.
 
domer76 said:
That was an EXAMPLE, you fucking idiot, of the inability of states unable to handle even the simplest of water quality issues.

See this from an Idaho water quality report?

"Remember: Only a fraction of all water bodies in Idaho are monitored due to limited physical and monetary resources."

You are truly one illiterate motherfucker.
Click to expand...

A perfect argument for strong national environmental laws.
 
domer76 said:
Most states ARE unable to handle their own water quality problems.
Click to expand...
States already handle their own water quality, and quite well for most of them.
domer76 said:
For instance, backflow devices are required in watering systems.
Click to expand...
WRONG. You do not need to place a backflow device in a river. You do not need one on a water sprinkler system as long as it's source is separate from plumbing supplying drinking water.
 
domer76 said:
Water quality issues require determination of a baseline and continuous monitoring. I doubt there are ANY states that have the resources to adequately accomplish that.
Click to expand...
They already maintain their own water quality.
domer76 said:
I'll give you a couple of examples in my state. Lake Coeur d'Alene in north Idaho, a perfectly beautiful lake. Lined with homes, both residential and vacation. Guess where their waste goes? There was a massive die off of swans near there this spring. Now, do you think Idaho has near the resources to tackle the problem?
Click to expand...
Yes.
domer76 said:
Same with two other water bodies. Lake Lowell in SW Idaho and Lake Cascade in central Idaho.
Click to expand...
Yes.
domer76 said:
Lake Lowell is at the tail end of the New York Canal, which is a major source of irrigation water. It originates from the Boise River just a couple miles from my home and is very clean. By the time it gets to Lake Lowell 30 miles away, it is too polluted for swimming
Click to expand...
No, it has a swimming beach and park. It's not much, but it's there.
domer76 said:
The same goes for Lake Cascade.
Click to expand...
Swimming there too. It's also a great place to catch trout.
domer76 said:
Note the phrase in this report:

"Remember: Only a fraction of all water bodies in Idaho are monitored due to limited physical and monetary resources."
Click to expand...
Yeah. The ones near populated areas.
 
Into the Night said:
WRONG. You do not need to place a backflow device in a river. You do not need one on a water sprinkler system as long as it's source is separate from plumbing supplying drinking water.
Click to expand...
many homes in Florida have built in spinkles under the lawn to keep the crabgrass green - it IS a separate water supply-reclaimed water I'm sure
 
domer76 said:
That was an EXAMPLE, you fucking idiot, of the inability of states unable to handle even the simplest of water quality issues.

See this from an Idaho water quality report?

"Remember: Only a fraction of all water bodies in Idaho are monitored due to limited physical and monetary resources."

You are truly one illiterate motherfucker.
Click to expand...
Idaho is some god-foresaken wilderness that is only good for potatos. what population do you have there?
do you even have a million?

For us normal and populous states the waters are monitored, and clean for the most part.
Where the states can't do it -the EPA has Superfunds
 
dukkha said:
Idaho is some god-foresaken wilderness that is only good for potatos. what population do you have there?
do you even have a million?

For us normal and populous states the waters are monitored, and clean for the most part.
Where the states can't do it -the EPA has Superfunds
Click to expand...

No wonder he was reluctant to tell us where he lives, now we know he's just a very angry spudbasher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top