WWTBAM Bored

Spock wrote: The Trump Administration just made farmers of all political stripes very happy.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: The Trump Administration just made farmers of all political stripes very happy.

I wonder how people who are interested in having clean drinking water feel about this.

Jeemie wrote:This was the one where Obama tried to claim federal juridstiction over any body of water down to a puddle or the runoff from my hose when I washed my car.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: The Trump Administration just made farmers of all political stripes very happy.

I wonder how people who are interested in having clean drinking water feel about this.

BackInTex wrote: I don't wonder. I am interested in having clean drinking water. And I approve of this repeal.

James Salzman, a professor of environmental law at the University of California, Los Angeles, says Trump’s order suggests the future rule will likely lift controls on these smaller “ephemeral and intermittent” streams—those that typically flow only when it rains, and those with segments that only flow certain times of the year, such as when snow melts. Even though ephemeral and intermittent streams do not run continuously—which some argue is why they do not qualify for protection—scientists have found they are still key to water quality of the larger bodies in which they flow. “These streams are connected” to waters downstream, says Ken Reckhow, professor emeritus of water resources at Duke University—and they can carry pollutants to places where communities may draw their drinking water.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: I don't wonder. I am interested in having clean drinking water. And I approve of this repeal.

Not surprisingly, actual scientists do not agree with you, Spock, and Trump. Of course, you might be among the 2/3 of Americans not affected by the repeal of this regulation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... er-supply/

James Salzman, a professor of environmental law at the University of California, Los Angeles, says Trump’s order suggests the future rule will likely lift controls on these smaller “ephemeral and intermittent” streams—those that typically flow only when it rains, and those with segments that only flow certain times of the year, such as when snow melts. Even though ephemeral and intermittent streams do not run continuously—which some argue is why they do not qualify for protection—scientists have found they are still key to water quality of the larger bodies in which they flow. “These streams are connected” to waters downstream, says Ken Reckhow, professor emeritus of water resources at Duke University—and they can carry pollutants to places where communities may draw their drinking water.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: The Trump Administration just made farmers of all political stripes very happy.

I wonder how people who are interested in having clean drinking water feel about this.

Appa23 wrote: Probably feel that they are glad that they actually research things before they post on the internet , because they learned that their state actually has environmental agencies that handle things outside of federal jurisdiction.

jarnon wrote:What does earendel think about this rule?

silverscreenselect wrote:

Appa23 wrote: Probably feel that they are glad that they actually research things before they post on the internet , because they learned that their state actually has environmental agencies that handle things outside of federal jurisdiction.

But the whole point of this regulation is that these things are in federal jurisdiction, and the water cleanliness is something that states, even if they were so inclined (which a number of them aren't due to lack of funding or a lack fo desire to take on business interests), can't always handle because a lot of pollution occurs before the water gets to that state.

And, as the article I cited indicated, a lot of the problem occurs in the waterways that Trump has just turned his back on.

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Appa23 wrote: Probably feel that they are glad that they actually research things before they post on the internet , because they learned that their state actually has environmental agencies that handle things outside of federal jurisdiction.

But the whole point of this regulation is that these things are in federal jurisdiction, and the water cleanliness is something that states, even if they were so inclined (which a number of them aren't due to lack of funding or a lack fo desire to take on business interests), can't always handle because a lot of pollution occurs before the water gets to that state.

And, as the article I cited indicated, a lot of the problem occurs in the waterways that Trump has just turned his back on.

Spoken by the Atlanta liberal who has never met a regulation that he doesn't like. It is likely that the blowback against the Obama rule is one reason that Trump's margins were goosed in many rural areas.

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
But the whole point of this regulation is that these things are in federal jurisdiction, and the water cleanliness is something that states, even if they were so inclined (which a number of them aren't due to lack of funding or a lack fo desire to take on business interests), can't always handle because a lot of pollution occurs before the water gets to that state.

And, as the article I cited indicated, a lot of the problem occurs in the waterways that Trump has just turned his back on.

Spoken by the Atlanta liberal who has never met a regulation that he doesn't like. It is likely that the blowback against the Obama rule is one reason that Trump's margins were goosed in many rural areas.

That may be. But that doesn't mean the regulation was unnecessary or that its expense was unwarranted. It may well mean that rural voters were perfectly willing to externalize the cost of polluting intermittent waterways because (by definition of "externalize") someone else would end up paying the price.

How much pollution does enter other waterways and water supplies from these intermittent waterways? How much does it cost to prevent or ameliorate that pollution at the source? If not prevented or ameliorated, what's the cost of that pollution to others? I'm guessing that these answers can be found in the paperwork supporting the regulation in the first place. I'm fairly confident that competing answers supported by sound science cannot be found in the present-day EPA. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
But the whole point of this regulation is that these things are in federal jurisdiction, and the water cleanliness is something that states, even if they were so inclined (which a number of them aren't due to lack of funding or a lack fo desire to take on business interests), can't always handle because a lot of pollution occurs before the water gets to that state.

And, as the article I cited indicated, a lot of the problem occurs in the waterways that Trump has just turned his back on.

Spoken by the Atlanta liberal who has never met a regulation that he doesn't like. It is likely that the blowback against the Obama rule is one reason that Trump's margins were goosed in many rural areas.

That may be. But that doesn't mean the regulation was unnecessary or that its expense was unwarranted. It may well mean that rural voters were perfectly willing to externalize the cost of polluting intermittent waterways because (by definition of "externalize") someone else would end up paying the price.

How much pollution does enter other waterways and water supplies from these intermittent waterways? How much does it cost to prevent or ameliorate that pollution at the source? If not prevented or ameliorated, what's the cost of that pollution to others? I'm guessing that these answers can be found in the paperwork supporting the regulation in the first place. I'm fairly confident that competing answers supported by sound science cannot be found in the present-day EPA. --Bob

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:
Spoken by the Atlanta liberal who has never met a regulation that he doesn't like. It is likely that the blowback against the Obama rule is one reason that Trump's margins were goosed in many rural areas.

That may be. But that doesn't mean the regulation was unnecessary or that its expense was unwarranted. It may well mean that rural voters were perfectly willing to externalize the cost of polluting intermittent waterways because (by definition of "externalize") someone else would end up paying the price.

How much pollution does enter other waterways and water supplies from these intermittent waterways? How much does it cost to prevent or ameliorate that pollution at the source? If not prevented or ameliorated, what's the cost of that pollution to others? I'm guessing that these answers can be found in the paperwork supporting the regulation in the first place. I'm fairly confident that competing answers supported by sound science cannot be found in the present-day EPA. --Bob

If the waters are so dirty and the rule was so necessary, why did the Obama team wait until 2015 (or so) to do the rule? Why not 5 years earlier?

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: The Trump Administration just made farmers of all political stripes very happy.

I wonder how people who are interested in having clean drinking water feel about this.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Well, I represent the large group of people who desire dirty, slimy and poisonous drinking water with several lethal chemicals mixed in.