WASHINGTON – The Trump administration is moving forward with a significant rollback of an Obama-era clean water regulation that has become a rallying cry for farmers and property-rights activists opposed to federal overreach.
The new proposal, unveiled Tuesday morning by acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and other administration officials, wouldease Washington’s oversight of small bodies of water, undoing a regulation President Donald Trump has called “a massive power grab.”
The new rule would replace an Obama administration regulation, known as the “Waters of the United States” rule that expanded federal protections to smaller rivers and streams.
Awesome!
Trump just keeps on winning!
k:
Anytime you want to debate the merits and public benefits of water quality, wetlands, surface/ground water, the CWA, or the WI constitution, just let me know.
Will you preach your religion at me, on how cost prohibitive regulation with little to no benefit is a good thing?
He’ll also lie through his teeth, be a hypocrite, and probably have his dentures fall out at one point.
k:
Didn’t know you were so against safe drinking water for poor folks.
j:
No dentures, no lies, no hypocrisy, no bad language, no name calling, respect for truth, liberty and the American way. A philosophy you could benefit from.
>no name calling
More lies than all the politicians since Washington. Overachiever!
Being against EPA “overreach” does not mean you favor dirty water.
This article is about painful, costly, read, that produce little to no discernible benefit.
I know in your liberal mindset, you enjoy inflicting pain and misery, but can you step back from your religious commandment to inflict pain on others, to have some compassion for the water bills on the poor?
“This article is about painful, costly, read, that produce little to no discernible benefit”.
I not exactly sure what you mean here, but the “no discernible benefit” part leads me to believe you are clueless about the value of wetlands on water quality. I’ll make it as simple as I can for you; the dirtier the water at the source (either surface or ground water as a drinking water source) the more $$ it costs to make it potable. Hits ya right in the pocketbook. Just ask the poor folks in Kewaunee orLaCrosse counties.
And I didn’t need to invoke religion, just a little science and prudent fiscal management.
Sorry, that should be “I’m not”….
Nord,
Then the EPA should focus up on you dolts dirtying the water up there rather than cranking phosphorus standard down 10 times more strict on burbs around here, costing millions, but producing no discernable water quality benefit!
If you dirtied the water up by you, why do you need the EPA to clean it up? shouldn’t you just clean it up as a good citizen?
So you denounce MMSD for the horrendous amount of pollution they admit but get away with it?
k:
You just won’t give up on your victimhood will you? But if you want to learn about the impacts of P on water quality there are dozens of scientific studies easily found on-line. You obviously are lacking even a smidgen of knowledge on the subject.
You have never seen or heard me defend the MMSD discharges. But the conditions are way better than they were in the ’70’s.
Folks in Kewaunee and LaCrosse counties have been trying to get the drinking/ground water cleaned up, but have been stymied by the walker/stepp DNR and by the soon to be forgotten AG. If you paid any attention at all you would know that.
Nord,
You just like to play victim status, don’t you?
Out politics nearly always revolves around victimhood?
EPA overreach has nothing to do with the local government problems in those 2 counties.
k:
No victimhood here, we are fortunate to have safe drinking water at our house. As you probably do as well. I am more concerned about those less fortunate, those adversely affected by poor public policy decisions, and those without recourse in our current political climate.
I’m not sure what “out politics” means, can you mansplain for us all?
The polluted drinking water problems in Kewaunee and LaCrosse counties has nothing to do with local government. It does have to do with relaxing regulations by the current administration, taking away local control from the locals, and lack of enforcement of what laws are remaining by DNR and DATCP, and abetted by the AG. And all that information, data, etc. is out there for your edification if you so chose. But it appears truth is a hard pill for you to swallow.
It is not easy to live in a world where facts can make you angry and throw you into denial. Can you imagine?
Jjf,
What facts?
Nord is conjecturing relaxed regulation. “Policy” and development is largely a local decision.
If he has stupid local politicians in his area greenlighting bad development, that is hardly Walker’s fault.
Given the fact Nord is allegedly elected, sounds like that area has been making stupid decisions on a Chicago-type level for some time.
Climate change, for example. So disturbing! Doesn’t agree with Biblical dominion! Can’t be true! Far easier to imagine a global conspiracy of scientists!
Claims of polluted water tables in the karst of Kewaunee! Can’t be true! Walker good! Scientists bad!
Jjf,
So you are still carry water for secular religious conviction that man can control the climate?
Testify!
“Control” is different from “have an effect on”, right? The former implies some intent, doesn’t it? You don’t think man has had an effect on climate? What sort of evidence would satisfy you? Can you imagine any? What would it look like?
k:
Policy and enforcement of water pollution is a state responsibility. There was a time when locals had some say in CAFO siting, but your “conservative” legislators and grifter governor took that authority away. But you know that and just refuse to acknowledge your error. Why must you be so disingenuous? Isn’t bearing false witness a sin in your book???
Jjf,
The solutions the warming cult proposes moves from having an effect on, to complete sanctimonious conviction, man can control the climat/weather by policy…even if it means great suffering of others.
“Suffer the children for big government” should be liberal motto these days.
Nord,
Quote which law Walker passed that details where Walker forced local officials to pollute water.
Use facts.
k:
I never made that claim so won’t play your silly little game. If you are too ideologically hidebound to comprehend what I wrote there is no need for me to explain it further. Why must you be so deceitful and dishonest when dealing with folks with differing points of view? Are your positions so weak that they crumble under a little scrutiny?
Kevin, tell me how the water table got filled with manure in Kewaunee County. Who was affected? Who benefited?
Nord,
No facts. I knew you were an ideological blowhard.
Jjf,
I know a farmer in Washington county that got whipped in civil court on marginal evidence his farm polluted one well. Don’t act like there is no civil recourse/law to make people while if what you say is true.
Both of you are blaming Walker for something that has nothing to do with him.
k:
You are making stuff up once again. I never made that claim, you did. Why lie?
And if a court convicted someone on “marginal evidence”, then that is on the judge and/or jury. And Washington County is pretty conservative, so you probably have the facts all wrong. And my brother-in-laws sisters cousin says you made that all up. That is where anecdotal “facts” will get you in trouble.
Walker signed the legislation passed by the legislature. It’s all on him. Just like foxconn, KC, lame-duck. If you hadn’t noticed, that is how state government works. You really should get up to speed.
So you say my well water turns brown and I need to spend money to try to sue someone? And then what happens? The water turns clear again?
What if there’s two big CAFOs to blame? What if there’s multiple farmers spreading too much liquid manure? I should sue them all, right? People living in rural former farmhouses down the road from a bigger active farm are well-known for having the means and legal acumen to sue, right?
Nord,
Then name the legislation.
You blame Walker, but yet you cannot point to the law.
Use facts.
Not wild foaming, dripping, ravenous. liberal ideology.
That’s all I ask.
Jjf,
That is precisely what happened in this case.
I sided with the farmer, who lost. (Nord will probably not apologize for his over the top insulting comments above, implying I made this story up.)
http://www.corneillelaw.com/2015/supreme-court-reverses-appellate-decision-to-hold-manure-is-a-pollutant/
k:
You can peruse SS Ch 92 and ATCP 50 for starters. Note the restrictions on local units of government.
And you did know that the SC decision was about what was covered by insurance, and had nothing to do with water quality, right? Did you even bother to read it?
Nord ,
Clearly you are not close to the ground on the facts on this case. (as usual)
This initiated as a DNR investigation (in 2011, DURING WALKER ADMINISTRATION) and resulted in a civil penalty to the farmer. the farmer sued to force their insurance company to cover.
Ch.92 and ATCP 50 is nice…what, precisely, did Walker do to it that changed from this 2011 example.
It is clear the DNR is pounding against farmers, to the point where this farmer was almost bankrupted.
This case, was very questionable, from my perspective.
k:
I try to help you get more in tune with reality, but my good intentions can only help so much. You have to take some responsibility for your unwillingness to learn. Or perhaps it is a pathological fear of facts.
Having said that, check the timelines. The hints are there for your use…..
Nord,
Don’t put your lack of facts on me.
Your attacking Scott Walker on this is awful, just awful.
k:
What facts are in dispute?
“A DNR investigation concluded the manure from the XXXX’s farm had leeched into and contaminated their neighbors’ wells, making the wells unusable and the drinking water undrinkable. One neighbor also claimed that he became sick from drinking the contaminated water, requiring him to be hospitalized”.
Directly from the Cornell analysis, and from the WI SC decision.
But the SC case was regarding the insurance claim, and what was, or wasn’t, covered by the policy. What are you trying to prove?
So I’ll ask again, what facts are in dispute?
Sorry, that should be “Corneille”.
Nord,
Your idiocy that Walker administration is not enforcing this on farmers.
k:
So this single enforcement, of which you provided no details (remember, what you provided is pertaining to an insurance claim) is proof that the laws are still enforced. What were the charges, penalties, remediation?? Did they correct the problem, replace the affected wells, pay for damages??
And your claim of “marginal evidence” isn’t supported by the finding of three courts, including a very conservative SC justice.
And if you are siding with the farmer in this case, does that mean you are opposed to safe drinking water for rural residents? What if they are poor folks?
And you still didn’t address the timeline.
Nord,
You were claiming Walker gutted the enforcement of this issue.
That is BS.
These poor farmers were literally strung up in the town square over this regulation.
Burden is on you to put evidence where your pontificating mouth is.
k:
Enforcement (or lack of) on a single case means nothing. Your example looks pretty egregious as multiple wells were affected. But the information you provided was a civil matter regarding insurance coverage. You provided nothing to support that there were any penalties on the well contamination.
But it is telling that you are in favor of unsafe drinking water.
I’m done trying to walk you through this single. Have a great day, and stay in the dark.
Nord said,
“Enforcedment ( or lack of) on a single case means nothing.”
But yet, you make global disparaging remarks against Walker, over what you admit is a local official problem in Kewanee.
That is reprehensible.
Why do you have to tell lies? I said no such thing.