Nightmare Is Over,' EPA Repeals WOTUS

anonymoose said:
Yes, I lived there once. Nice place, nice city. If dumber does indeed live there he does not fit in.
Portland is more his style.
If he does live there I can understand why he's so bitter.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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...
:laugh:So JPP (and all the perfect strangers here) is your only connection to the real "world"?
 
Dark Soul said:
Worked with it throughout my 40 year career. ..
Click to expand...
The Clean Water Rule was only adopted in 2015.

But its clear you do not grasp the distinctions between the Clean water Rule, the Clean water Act, and the laws, regulations, rules, and policies that underlie the WOTUS.

Your post proves my point that wingnuts are whining about stuff they don't understand.
 
Cypress said:
The Clean Water Rule was only adopted in 2015.

But its clear you do not grasp the distinctions between the Clean water Rule, the Clean water Act, and the laws, regulations, rules, and policies that underlie the WOTUS.

Your post proves my point that wingnuts are whining about stuff they don't understand.
Click to expand...

It's all the same thing. The Corps of engineers has incrementally revised the definition of navigable waters to keep themselves busy for decades. Now that stops.
 
anonymoose said:
lol, I know very well what WOTUS was from Day One. My home and yard were affected.
Also anyone living in AK knows about the militarization of the EPA under Obama. What was that all about?
Click to expand...

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
 
Dark Soul said:
It's all the same thing. The Corps of engineers has incrementally revised the definition of navigable waters to keep themselves busy for decades. Now that stops.
Click to expand...
Code of federal regulations has not been changed and still define WOTUS as navigable rivers and hydrologically connected tributaries and wetlands. Revoking Clean Water Rule does not change the legal definition of WOTUS
 
anonymoose said:
Yes, I lived there once. Nice place, nice city. If dumber does indeed live there he does not fit in.
Portland is more his style.
If he does live there I can understand why he's so bitter.
Click to expand...

My legislative district has 2 House members and 1 Senator. All three are Democrats and female.

My old high school, recognized as the best in the state, is located in the most liberal part of the city. The dumbfuck districts are the bastions of conservatives. Funny how that works. :rofl2:
 
Cypress said:
Code of federal regulations has not been changed and still define WOTUS as navigable rivers and hydrologically connected tributaries and wetlands. Revoking Clean Water Rule does not change the legal definition of WOTUS
Click to expand...

My point is that the interpretation was broadened without consent of congress.
 
I personally like drinking dirty water and breathing dirty air too?!!
69218227_2718268618206361_9055468811632771072_n.jpg
 
Cypress said:
You presented yourself as a 40 year lifetime expert on the Clean Water Rule. Which I am able to easily tell vastly overstates your knowledge and experience
Click to expand...

You misrepresent my claim and vastly overstate yours.

Are you denying that the Corps changed the meaning of "navigable waterways" without the consent of Congress?
 
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...

Yada, yada. I can read Wikipedia too. This is far too simplistic.
 
What it was:

Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.
Click to expand...

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

What it became:
1986/1988 Regulatory Definition of "Waters of the United States"
40 CFR 230.3(s) The term waters of the United States means:

All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
(From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section;
The territorial sea;
Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.
Click to expand...

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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top