Clean water act?

Oneye

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
683
Location
Utah
I believe they were voting on appealing the clean water act that just passed today, does anyone know what they decided or if the clean water act is still safe? Or has it been compromised by our lovely republican representatives?
 
There is no attempt to repeal the Clean Water Act to my knowledge. The Senate Environment and Public Works committee did approve a bill to nullify the Clean Water Rule which was written by the EPA without congressional oversight. The Clean Water Rule gives the EPA sole jurisdiction over lands on which water flows or standing water pools. That's pretty much every piece of private property in the nation. The bill still needs approval of the full Senate and House.

At issue is whether the Executive Branch has the right to usurp congressional authority and override the will of the people, through their elected representatives, by executive order. If the Clean Water Rule, which was issued by the EPA in May, is allowed to stand, congress is telling the Executive Branch it has the right to legislate without the consent of the governed.
 
If you want to see how the Clean water Act gets trampled you should watch a documentary called "Gasland". It's about how fracking is polluting our water around the country and poisoning the people and animals who live near those wells.
 
I believe they were voting on appealing the clean water act that just passed today, does anyone know what they decided or if the clean water act is still safe? Or has it been compromised by our lovely republican representatives?

Way to stir the political pot with no knowledge of what actually happened or is happening. Not a good start here...
 
I'm sorry the Republican Party has continually stood against sportsmen and our natural resources building up that kind of reputation. Is either side perfect, no they are both good and bad. I'm not saying democrats are angels or that any of our representatives truly care about much besides what's driving their campaigns forward with funding, but republicans have stood in the way of a lot of beneficial things to our wildlife and natural resources.
 
There is no attempt to repeal the Clean Water Act to my knowledge. The Senate Environment and Public Works committee did approve a bill to nullify the Clean Water Rule which was written by the EPA without congressional oversight. The Clean Water Rule gives the EPA sole jurisdiction over lands on which water flows or standing water pools. That's pretty much every piece of private property in the nation. The bill still needs approval of the full Senate and House.

At issue is whether the Executive Branch has the right to usurp congressional authority and override the will of the people, through their elected representatives, by executive order. If the Clean Water Rule, which was issued by the EPA in May, is allowed to stand, congress is telling the Executive Branch it has the right to legislate without the consent of the governed.

I would respectfully disagree with that. Congress gave the executive branch the authority to implement the Waters of the US rule through the clean water act. There was nothing unconstitutional nor illegal about the rule. Congress just didn't like that it restored some of the provisions from the clean water act that were stripped out a few years ago.

There's a lot of misinformation about this, foisted by groups like the Western Energy Association and Farm Bureau.

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-07/documents/ditch_the_myth_wotus.pdf
http://civileats.com/2014/08/15/debunking-the-farm-bureaus-attack-on-the-clean-water-act/

TU and most credible sportsmen's organizations stand behind WOTUS.
 
As a farmer, I'm not a real big fan of the EPA. They typically overstep their authority and overlook data from sister agencies like the USDA and NRCS on their way to somehow legislating themselves. That being said I am an environmental protection fan, just dislike the agency. Some of the wording in the act leaves some things undefined or atleast enough to allow for encroachment on gray areas. I do beleive it is a win for wildlife but urban areas are not imuned from it either. Here in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, municipalities are already fealing the strain of EPA regs. Blame thhe republicans for holding things up for sure, but they also keep things in check from going too far left. The same thing I would expect the democrats to do in reversed roles.

To reiterate I am not completely opposed to the act or environmental protection measures, I've just kinda had my fill of federal regulations handed down to me by the EPA who is supposed to be an enforcement agency. The one thing I say about things such as environmental regs, pesticide use, gmo and other hot button issues is this. If you want to restrict American farmers and ranchers fine, but don't import from unregulated countries because its cheaper, those commodities or product should meet the same standards. I don't feel that this beleif is an unreasonable compromise.
 
It was a "Congressional Act" of which one cannot over ride another,but "must" work in conjunction of others"............that's how our gubbermint is suppossed to work...it was an "Act" presented to Congress by POTUS.Nixon(R).
Controlling the purse strings of the Agencies,Dept.s,etc to get different outcomes and interpretations for personal gain or influence is one both Parties engage constantly now.

As much as I want gubbermint out of my my life,I want to breath clean air , drink clean water and live a safe and prosperous/sustainable life.
And I for one do not think that corperations,industries,lobbyists have the right to decide what is best for me.
 
As a farmer, I'm not a real big fan of the EPA. They typically overstep their authority and overlook data from sister agencies like the USDA and NRCS on their way to somehow legislating themselves. That being said I am an environmental protection fan, just dislike the agency. Some of the wording in the act leaves some things undefined or atleast enough to allow for encroachment on gray areas. I do beleive it is a win for wildlife but urban areas are not imuned from it either. Here in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, municipalities are already fealing the strain of EPA regs. Blame thhe republicans for holding things up for sure, but they also keep things in check from going too far left. The same thing I would expect the democrats to do in reversed roles.

To reiterate I am not completely opposed to the act or environmental protection measures, I've just kinda had my fill of federal regulations handed down to me by the EPA who is supposed to be an enforcement agency. The one thing I say about things such as environmental regs, pesticide use, gmo and other hot button issues is this. If you want to restrict American farmers and ranchers fine, but don't import from unregulated countries because its cheaper, those commodities or product should meet the same standards. I don't feel that this beleif is an unreasonable compromise.

I agree. Some of the terms are so vague... "what actually defines a stream or secondary tributary" . Not against clean water... bills with unthoughtout (apparently not a word) consequences.

LOVE to see the republican bashing. Just throw us all under the bus or shoot us... Mr. Oneye. Really liked this forum once Fin issued the "civility order" a few months back. Let's get back to he civil discussions with facts. Just my thoughts.

good luck to all
the dog
 
Last edited:
As a farmer, I'm not a real big fan of the EPA. They typically overstep their authority and overlook data from sister agencies like the USDA and NRCS on their way to somehow legislating themselves. That being said I am an environmental protection fan, just dislike the agency. Some of the wording in the act leaves some things undefined or atleast enough to allow for encroachment on gray areas. I do beleive it is a win for wildlife but urban areas are not imuned from it either. Here in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, municipalities are already fealing the strain of EPA regs. Blame thhe republicans for holding things up for sure, but they also keep things in check from going too far left. The same thing I would expect the democrats to do in reversed roles.

To reiterate I am not completely opposed to the act or environmental protection measures, I've just kinda had my fill of federal regulations handed down to me by the EPA who is supposed to be an enforcement agency. The one thing I say about things such as environmental regs, pesticide use, gmo and other hot button issues is this. If you want to restrict American farmers and ranchers fine, but don't import from unregulated countries because its cheaper, those commodities or product should meet the same standards. I don't feel that this beleif is an unreasonable compromise.

...well said.
 
...bingo....They have to meet OUR standards if they want to sell here,simple. If not ,go pound sand in some other country.

In this Global/Corperate World I am feeling more like an Isolationist every day......




......from my cold dead hand will you take or buy my country!
 
Last edited:
PEAX Trekking Poles

Forum statistics

Threads
111,079
Messages
1,946,049
Members
35,013
Latest member
lucillewilliams81
Back
Top