Author Topic: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"  (Read 1117 times)

Online taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22217
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
This is one of those things that was so stupid that only a Marxist idiot could love it.  Of course, they try to cloak it under a label of "Clean Water", so if you kill it, you hate clean water.

http://therightscoop.com/breaking-trump-just-revoked-epa-clean-water-rule/

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62318
  • Gender: Male
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2017, 12:44:29 PM »
Clean water, as in "Flint Michigan Clean"?
#WWG1WGA

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12045
  • Gender: Male
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2017, 12:50:07 PM »
Trump supposedly is going to announce a 25% cut in the EPA budget tonight. With actions like this he won't have to fill the openings of people working at the EPA who become unhinged and can no longer work there.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Offline topside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
  • Gender: Male
  • Work with what is and toward what should be.
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2017, 02:02:49 PM »
Thanks again President Trump for taking the government out of the way so states and individuals can work locally to do what makes sense. For those who aren't familiar with the Clean Water Rule ... like me ...

I did a search via Google and there were pages and pages - this EO seems to have gone viral with liberal reporting. I'm sure that the MSM will be using this to prove to Joe clueless that Trump is basically all about business and will destroy the environment in the US. All most will hear is "clean water rule under attack". That is SOOOO wrong! It was difficult for me to find good material from people want to ditch the rule - and why. The MSM and their supporters are dominating the sites.

I looked at the Clean Water Rule for the first time in my life just today. Good luck understanding it's 72 pages. It's not even a law. I looked further.

My understanding is that it is guidance of what constitutes relevant waters for the Clean Water Act of 1972. So it's not a law - wasn't voted in by congress - but was represented as to be used as guidance by the EPA but, in reality, puts the government in control of much of the waters and land in the country. Yes, even land. If a relevant body of water dries up and you dig a ditch where the water was / could be in the future, you'd be subject to these regulations. So it's a far-reaching federal control document.

I liked this discussion on why the rule is bad:

https://www.mofb.org/NewsMedia/CuttotheChase.aspx?articleID=475

It's an article with some specifics on why federal control of water is bad for local decisions. That may seem obvious ... but apparently not to a gaggle of libs.

My view is that the Clean Water Rule is just about Marxist's getting more federal control of the land to do their bidding. The Conservatives want clean water - we just won't support a bureaucrat being involved every time we want to dig a trench in our back yard. 

Just to finish, I am obviously a novice here. Others may have better support for why what Trump is doing is most excellent for our republic - getting government out of the way. More common sense, less government.

Offline Bronx

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • Gender: Male
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2017, 02:24:04 PM »
A President that works. Who would have thought.
People sleep peacefully at night because there are a few tough men prepared to do violence on their behalf.

Bowtech Experience  70lb, QAD HDX, HHA DS 5519, 400 gr Black Eagle Carnivores, 100gr Grim Reaper, True-Fire Hardcore 4 thumb.

Offline ldub23

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2017, 03:17:30 PM »
Can Trump cancel any regulation by executive order? I hope that is the case.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62318
  • Gender: Male
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2017, 03:27:44 PM »
Can Trump cancel any regulation by executive order? I hope that is the case.
YES! Regulations are not actual laws.
#WWG1WGA

Offline topside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
  • Gender: Male
  • Work with what is and toward what should be.
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2017, 05:38:49 PM »
I decided to chase back on some of the detail of the Clean Water Act from 1972.

U.S. Code 33 is the section of law that discusses Navigation and Navigable Waters. I believe that the Federal Laws should primarily be about protecting the citizens and maintaining overall infrastructure. So the waterways are a major part of the infrastructure and it seems right that insuring that the waterways are maintained is part of maintaining infrastructure. But there are so, so many sections that deal with minutea of waterways and this goes way back.  It seems like the law went way beyond the intent of federal law.

But Section 1251 is the Clean Water Act (a law) seems mostly about government regulation of pollutants. 
I couldn't find it, but from what I read in other laws, it seems likely that the EPA has the authority to define, under this law, what constitutes a Navigable Waterway. So that's how the Dim's are manipulating with the Clean Water Rule - they are using it to manipulate more control of waters and the land. Trump's is stopping the rule cold which mitigates the additional government control impact ... thank you President Trump!

Now I do have to make another point which I'm not settled on but it will draw some attention from my Conservative friends. I think the management of waterways crucial to the safety and protection of our citizens should be managed by Federal Law. But as a conservative, I would say that the management of water quality should be left to local considerations - hence the Clean Water Act should not have been. However, the air and water quality of the nation was severely on the slide in the 70's and I think you can make a very strong case that air and water quality across the US (reduction in pollution) has improved since then. So, here's the question. We all want clean water for the citizens of our country. The degree is in dispute - clean enough to drink? Clean enough to keep some rare species of algae from going extinct in one body of water in a given state? But let's say at least clean enough where it doesn't damage the primary ecosystem which maintains the body of water.

Was there a better way to get states and localities to step up and improve water quality without legislating a federal law and taking on all the regulations and rule watchers that go with it?

How would the law be simply structured and maintained with the states and local governments so those who let their water go to bad would have to correct. Is there another example law that sets a better example of how it should be done?

This seems very complex. I'm just fishing for thoughts to shore up a hole in my conservative foundation.


Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62318
  • Gender: Male
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2017, 05:58:37 PM »
I decided to chase back on some of the detail of the Clean Water Act from 1972.

U.S. Code 33 is the section of law that discusses Navigation and Navigable Waters. I believe that the Federal Laws should primarily be about protecting the citizens and maintaining overall infrastructure. So the waterways are a major part of the infrastructure and it seems right that insuring that the waterways are maintained is part of maintaining infrastructure. But there are so, so many sections that deal with minutea of waterways and this goes way back.  It seems like the law went way beyond the intent of federal law.

But Section 1251 is the Clean Water Act (a law) seems mostly about government regulation of pollutants. 
I couldn't find it, but from what I read in other laws, it seems likely that the EPA has the authority to define, under this law, what constitutes a Navigable Waterway. So that's how the Dim's are manipulating with the Clean Water Rule - they are using it to manipulate more control of waters and the land. Trump's is stopping the rule cold which mitigates the additional government control impact ... thank you President Trump!

Now I do have to make another point which I'm not settled on but it will draw some attention from my Conservative friends. I think the management of waterways crucial to the safety and protection of our citizens should be managed by Federal Law. But as a conservative, I would say that the management of water quality should be left to local considerations - hence the Clean Water Act should not have been. However, the air and water quality of the nation was severely on the slide in the 70's and I think you can make a very strong case that air and water quality across the US (reduction in pollution) has improved since then. So, here's the question. We all want clean water for the citizens of our country. The degree is in dispute - clean enough to drink? Clean enough to keep some rare species of algae from going extinct in one body of water in a given state? But let's say at least clean enough where it doesn't damage the primary ecosystem which maintains the body of water.

Was there a better way to get states and localities to step up and improve water quality without legislating a federal law and taking on all the regulations and rule watchers that go with it?

How would the law be simply structured and maintained with the states and local governments so those who let their water go to bad would have to correct. Is there another example law that sets a better example of how it should be done?

This seems very complex. I'm just fishing for thoughts to shore up a hole in my conservative foundation.
But once you understand just how overreaching the CWA is, as in "vernal pools", pretty ominous sounding name, right?
Well don't get excited, it's a mud puddle after a rain, and yes, the EPA claims territorial rights over it.

EPA considers any waterway connecting in any way to a larger body of water is considered to be navigable water and inherently controllable by the EPA via the Clean Water Act.  In other words, puddles that flow to ditches and dry washes can be considered navigable waterways.  Including irrigation and farm irrigation ditches, this includes the ditch along the road. 
If it feeds a water system that eventuates into the ocean, it's a navigable waterway.
#WWG1WGA

Offline topside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
  • Gender: Male
  • Work with what is and toward what should be.
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2017, 07:40:54 PM »
But once you understand just how overreaching the CWA is, as in "vernal pools", pretty ominous sounding name, right?
Well don't get excited, it's a mud puddle after a rain, and yes, the EPA claims territorial rights over it.

EPA considers any waterway connecting in any way to a larger body of water is considered to be navigable water and inherently controllable by the EPA via the Clean Water Act.  In other words, puddles that flow to ditches and dry washes can be considered navigable waterways.  Including irrigation and farm irrigation ditches, this includes the ditch along the road. 
If it feeds a water system that eventuates into the ocean, it's a navigable waterway.

I agree with what you are saying. Maybe even to a greater extent as I question the Clean Water Act from 1972 (Section 1251 of USC 33). I'm asking a deeper question in the post. I'm unsettled on my personal viewpoint regarding this use of law and how to achieve critical improvements nationally yet leaving the power locally - looking for other points of view. On one hand, I think we shouldn't write unnecessary federal law but on the other hand I wonder if we would experience results like cleaner water across the country without federal law, like the Clean Water Act, if the states and/or locals decided for themselves.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62318
  • Gender: Male
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2017, 08:27:52 PM »
I agree with what you are saying. Maybe even to a greater extent as I question the Clean Water Act from 1972 (Section 1251 of USC 33). I'm asking a deeper question in the post. I'm unsettled on my personal viewpoint regarding this use of law and how to achieve critical improvements nationally yet leaving the power locally - looking for other points of view. On one hand, I think we shouldn't write unnecessary federal law but on the other hand I wonder if we would experience results like cleaner water across the country without federal law, like the Clean Water Act, if the states and/or locals decided for themselves.
I live in the Sierra Nevada, where we have virtually every freakshow ecogroup watching everything that goes on up here, problem is, they don't live here, they don't know what it's like to live in such an oppressive Gestapo style climate being overseen by the USFS.
Point is, who would you rather have monitoring your local environment, the heavy hand of the Fed, with it's all oppressive over regulations, one size fits all, be it farm or desert land?
Or a sympathetic local entity that understands your erosion problem, as well as a beaver invasion on your creek while the locust eats all your crops during a drought?

You just dug a large pond hoping to catch rain water for your livestock. Who is going to be more sympathetic to your plight, the Fed or your local County office?
#WWG1WGA

Offline topside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
  • Gender: Male
  • Work with what is and toward what should be.
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2017, 05:53:48 AM »
I live in the Sierra Nevada, where we have virtually every freakshow ecogroup watching everything that goes on up here, problem is, they don't live here, they don't know what it's like to live in such an oppressive Gestapo style climate being overseen by the USFS.
Point is, who would you rather have monitoring your local environment, the heavy hand of the Fed, with it's all oppressive over regulations, one size fits all, be it farm or desert land?
Or a sympathetic local entity that understands your erosion problem, as well as a beaver invasion on your creek while the locust eats all your crops during a drought?

You just dug a large pond hoping to catch rain water for your livestock. Who is going to be more sympathetic to your plight, the Fed or your local County office?

Yes - I am in strong agreement with you still. It's sad to hear your experience and that is definitely a broken use of law.

But hang with me for one more post. I'm trying to synthesize logic for the level to which a federal government should act in order to balance too much power nationally with too little interaction locally.

An extreme position is that the fed doesn't get involved at all at the local level. That just doesn't work. Using the Clean Water issue, if a state just dumps pollutants into the waters and there is no local correction, our citizens are not safe in that state and potentially in other surrounding states. So fed action is warranted to a degree in this situation.

The position that I'm hovering on now is more common sense than common practice and is meant to be general but uses the Clean Water Act to illustrate the point. 

My (current) Position: Government intervention should be limited to national issues - military, commerce, and infrastructure that affect the ability to protect the entire nation the safety of our citizens. Other than that, the feds should stay out and leave decisions to the locals (states, locals). However, sometimes, things will go wrong in local governments. And if there are conditions that "cross a threshold" to the extent where the citizens are threatened, then the federal government should take action to aid in specific correction.

Under this position, the Clean Water Act would identify Navigable waters as you did - very simple definition - and the law would allow feds to protect these for travel and access as infrastructure. Short and sweet.

Clean Water would be addressed in another section or even another part of the code of law. It would stipulate that water would be maintained so not to be harmful to the health of the citizens and then harmful would be defined to a broad degree. Then the states would manage their own ecosystems. But if, for example, a state let companies dump crap into the rivers, nothing would be done by the feds for awhile. We would count on the locals to clean it up. But if it went to the point where it became "harmful to the health of the citizens" then the feds would step in.

With this position, if a state went wrong (bad leadership), the damage to water would get worse before it got better compared to if there were continual fed oversight via EPA. But, IMO, the risk of damage from an over reaching fed far exceeds the material damage of a poorly managed state that will eventually get corrected by the feds if the state doesn't meet some simple, minimal guidelines.

What about wildlife? The "definition of harmful" would include some need for preservation of wildlife because it is important to the ecosystems and, therefore, the health of the citizens. Hopefully states and locals would care for their wildlife, but there would be no guarantees until it reached a point that required specific fed intervention. But more species would be lost - not preserved. That would be accepted under this philosophy against the risk of over reach by fed government. That's unfortunate but part of the trade offs and implications of the philosophy identified above.








« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 06:16:02 AM by topside »

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62318
  • Gender: Male
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2017, 06:28:53 AM »
Yes - I am in strong agreement with you still. It's sad to hear your experience and that is definitely a broken use of law.

But hang with me for one more post. I'm trying to synthesize logic for the level to which a federal government should act in order to balance too much power nationally with too little interaction locally.

An extreme position is that the fed doesn't get involved at all at the local level. That just doesn't work. Using the Clean Water issue, if a state just dumps pollutants into the waters and there is no local correction, our citizens are not safe in that state and potentially in other surrounding states. So fed action is warranted to a degree in this situation.

The position that I'm hovering on now is more common sense than common practice and is meant to be general but uses the Clean Water Act to illustrate the point. 
In what reality does a state not look out for it's best interests?
Flint Michigan, where the Fed was the polluter and the state had little say in the matter.

Quote
My (current) Position: Government intervention should be limited to national issues - military and infrastructure that affect the ability to protect the entire nation and to protect the safety of our citizens. Other than that, the feds should stay out and leave decisions to the locals (states, locals). However, sometimes, things will go wrong in local governments. And if there are conditions that "cross a threshold" to the extent where the citizens are threatened, then the federal government should take action to aid in specific correction.
That was the original charge of the federal govt, anything else was an overreach.
It's one thing to have Federal laws governing air and water, it's a whole other monster when an agency is charged with enforcing rules they've created out of thin air.
Lawsuits are to be worked out in court, not some bureaucrat's office desk.

Quote
Under this position, the Clean Water Act would identify Navigable waters as you did - very simple definition - and the law would allow feds to protect these for travel and access as infrastructure. Short and sweet.

Clean Water would be addressed in another section or even another part of the code of law. It would stipulate that water would be maintained so not to be harmful to the health of the citizens and then harmful would be defined to a broad degree. Then the states would manage their own ecosystems. But if, for example, a state let companies dump crap into the rivers, nothing would be done by the feds for awhile. We would count on the locals to clean it up. But if it went to the point where it became "harmful to the health of the citizens" then the feds would step in.
No, courts would step in with an injunction to cease and desist order.

Quote
With this position, if a state went wrong (bad leadership), the damage to water would get worse before it got better compared to if there were continual fed oversight via EPA. But, IMO, the risk of damage from an over reaching fed far exceeds the material damage of a poorly managed state that will eventually get corrected by the feds if the state doesn't meet some simple, minimal guidelines.
Backup nearly a century. It was this thinking that created the fed bureaucracy in the first place, with the Interstate Highway system, "Hoover dam, and dams all across the US, now in total need of repair and no money left to fix them outside of printing more and stealing the next unborn generations inheritance and sticking them with the bill.
We either stop giving the fed all this power or we kiss states Rights goodbye.

Quote
What about wildlife? The "definition of harmful" would include some need for preservation of wildlife because it is important to the ecosystems and, therefore, the health of the citizens. Hopefully states and locals would care for their wildlife, but there would be no guarantees until it reached a point that required specific fed intervention. But more species would be lost - not preserved. That would be accepted under this philosophy against the risk of over reach by fed government. That's unfortunate but part of the trade offs and implications of the philosophy identified above.

Oh, like all the wind farms the fed funded and helped construct around the country? You know, the libs Eagle Cuisinart, bat grinders, bird blendomatics, or Riparian zones like the ones on the West coast where the army corp of engineers and their good intentions meant well but failed to deliver, that kind of oversight?
Point is, no one cares more for their environment than the locals that live there and the further away a govt entity gets from any given location, the more detached it becomes from the problems it creates.

What we need is a solid set of guidelines and a private entity to oversee it, and keep it out of the hands of bureaucrats.
The left loves to grow govt, the right believes people can better manage issues so we believe the private sector has a better approach, where people can actually be fired for their mistakes and corruption.
#WWG1WGA

Offline topside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
  • Gender: Male
  • Work with what is and toward what should be.
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2017, 07:08:27 AM »
In what reality does a state not look out for it's best interests?
Flint Michigan, where the Fed was the polluter and the state had little say in the matter.
That was the original charge of the federal govt, anything else was an overreach.

I had Cleveland in mind - the dumping in the Cuyahoga River got so bad it caught on fire. The state was asleep at the wheel.

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63#.WLbjRH_YGQw

Quote

It's one thing to have Federal laws governing air and water, it's a whole other monster when an agency is charged with enforcing rules they've created out of thin air.
Lawsuits are to be worked out in court, not some bureaucrat's office desk.
No, courts would step in with an injunction to cease and desist order.



Makes sense - the courts are where the controversies need to put a stop to nonsense. A bureaucrat has no real guidance and can shoot off any direction and few seem to have much common sense.

Allow me to make a definition to aid precision of the discussion:
Bureaucrat: an official in a government department concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs.

Quote
Backup nearly a century. It was this thinking that created the fed bureaucracy in the first place, with the Interstate Highway system, "Hoover dam, and dams all across the US, now in total need of repair and no money left to fix them outside of printing more and stealing the next unborn generations inheritance and sticking them with the bill.
We either stop giving the fed all this power or we kiss states Rights goodbye.

Oh, like all the wind farms the fed funded and helped construct around the country? You know, the libs Eagle Cuisinart, bat grinders, bird blendomatics, or Riparian zones like the ones on the West coast where the army corp of engineers and their good intentions meant well but failed to deliver, that kind of oversight?
Point is, no one cares more for their environment than the locals that live there and the further away a govt entity gets from any given location, the more detached it becomes from the problems it creates.

 [\quote]

Yeah - the wind farms are such a fiasco in about every way imaginable.

Locals SHOULD care more but things do go wrong even WITH all the fed regs. But there are occasional exceptions; some areas can get out of control - again the Cuyahoga  River near Cleveland comes to mind and the crime problems in Chicago (similar in other cities). I think there comes a time that if a state doesn't take care of the safety of it's citizens and a threshold is crossed then the feds have to act - but only in specific instances, in a very limited manner, and as protection of the citizens. So light fed government with very limited power.

Quote

What we need is a solid set of guidelines and a private entity to oversee it, and keep it out of the hands of bureaucrats.
The left loves to grow govt, the right believes people can better manage issues so we believe the private sector has a better approach, where people can actually be fired for their mistakes and corruption.


Excellent point. I hadn't factored in private sector interaction and I don't see that the use of private sector has been employed much over the history of our government. That's a very important piece that would seem to add a great local value and eliminates the bureaucrat because if someone in the private sector gets focused on the procedures instead of the results (becomes a bureaucrat) then they lose their job. Not so in government - in government, bureaucrats just keep on sitting at their desk wasting our taxes. Competition, as prevalent in the private sector and absent in government, works well as people are motivated to keep their jobs - a self-correcting impetus.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62318
  • Gender: Male
Re: President Trump signes EO killing EPA wrongly named "Clean Water Rule"
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2017, 07:30:35 AM »
I had Cleveland in mind - the dumping in the Cuyahoga River got so bad it caught on fire. The state was asleep at the wheel.

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63#.WLbjRH_YGQw
 

Makes sense - the courts are where the controversies need to put a stop to nonsense. A bureaucrat has no real guidance and can shoot off any direction and few seem to have much common sense.

Allow me to make a definition to aid precision of the discussion:
Bureaucrat: an official in a government department concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs.

Excellent point. I hadn't factored in private sector interaction and I don't see that the use of private sector has been employed much over the history of our government. That's a very important piece that would seem to add a great local value and eliminates the bureaucrat because if someone in the private sector gets focused on the procedures instead of the results (becomes a bureaucrat) then they lose their job. Not so in government - in government, bureaucrats just keep on sitting at their desk wasting our taxes. Competition, as prevalent in the private sector and absent in government, works well as people are motivated to keep their jobs - a self-correcting impetus.
You need to fix your post, that's the second time you've run them together.
#WWG1WGA

 

Powered by EzPortal