Wow...Obama did right for once

duramax · Postby **duramax** » Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:43 am

I may rile up some feathers with this, but it makes it a challenge for me to keep on board with republicans when they do stuff like this. Trying to repeal the Clean Water Act, of all things. Not to mention a lot of them being on board with Pebble Mine in Alaska. I'm glad to see Obama vetoed the Republicans attempt on this. Especially after the Flint Michigan finding that they town had lead in their water, one would think by now we would know better.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

420 racin · Postby **420 racin** » Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:17 am

Well let me say, not because I am a Republican, but because I deal directly with the enforcement of the Clean Water Act, and dabbled in the new Clean Water Rule, that Obama just vetoed. That rule was pushed down to the Districts from Washington almost overnight, the “Rule” was written behind closed doors with little to no involvement from the regulatory agencies responsible for enforcing and implementing the rule. It was a back door deal that they constructed to, Clarify the definition of what a tributary is, because by definition in the Clean Water Act, a tributary of a TNW is jurisdictional automatically and does not require a Significant nexus review. This rule was pushed won and the regulatory agencies started working under it and not the Rapanos Rule which they had previously been working under. They said the new rule was simply a clarification and not a new “Rule” so to speak and that it would not expand regulatory jurisdiction. That’s a lie, period. The new Rule would expand the jurisdiction, we were working under this rule for a while until the 6th circuit court decided to hear the case, then it was stayed nationwide pending court review. This Congressional Review Authority they tried to do would have just killed the new Rule and we would not have to wait on the court to rule on it. This is no way was going to or attempted to abolish the Clean Water Act, things are still business as usual with regard to the Clean Water Act. I, would not be opposed to a new Rule or clarification of some things that are in the regulations, but it needs to be developed with input and insight from the folks that deal with this every day and needs to be focused on water quality and environmental protection, not based on some political agenda. The people writing this stuff are politicians, they don’t know about the environment or how it functions or how things interact. They have no idea about river geomorphology or floodplain development or wetland functions or stream dynamics and on and on. They know about political points against the other side. That new Rule was written with that mindset. It was a bad rule, poorly written, and shoved down from Headquarters nearly overnight with no training or implementation guidelines. Again, I think we can do better and develop more tools for helping protect the environment, but it needs to be focused in a different direction, politics have no room in the environmental protection…the two are at odds with one another. I believe the new Rule needs to be abolished and they need to start over if they want to make things better.
For the record, I deal with this stuff every day and am part of a national team tasked with the development some of the tools that were to be used in the implementation of this new rule. Currently we are on a hold awaiting the court rulings.

duramax · Postby **duramax** » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:44 pm

420 racin wrote:The people writing this stuff are politicians, they don’t know about the environment or how it functions or how things interact. They have no idea about river geomorphology or floodplain development or wetland functions or stream dynamics and on and on. They know about political points against the other side. That new Rule was written with that mindset. It was a bad rule, poorly written, and shoved down from Headquarters nearly overnight with no training or implementation guidelines. Again, I think we can do better and develop more tools for helping protect the environment, but it needs to be focused in a different direction, politics have no room in the environmental protection…the two are at odds with one another.

You certainly have a more in depth knowledge of the law, and I agree wholeheartedly that a lot of the input from lobby's on both sides of the isle is what dictates these laws. But such is the nature of the beast. You can't say politics has no place in the environment, when politicians write laws. Without the law, there is no protection of the environment. It is what it is. Men being swayed by lobby groups to vote a certain way so they can get donations for their campaigns to stay in office. In this particular case, it's certainly not a perfect law, but in my opinion I feel it is necessary until we can have a bipartisan, good for the gander revisions to adjust where it's not ideal. Our fresh water resources are far to precious to risk. Wetlands are still being drained at a dramatic rate, and rivers are being polluted.

stang67 · Postby **stang67** » Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:45 pm

duramax wrote: republicans .. Trying to repeal the Clean Water Act

Wait, wait. You think they wanted to REPEAL the ACT?

Not even close!

This legislation is a successful attempt to apply Obamacare-level ambiguity, make-it-up-as-we-go, and big GOV "just trust us" doctrine to the EPA's jurisdiction over "waterways." Your duckholes are in their court now; I'm sure they have your best interests at heart.

This has NOTHING to do with pollution.

420 racin · Postby **420 racin** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:43 am

stang67 wrote:
duramax wrote: republicans .. Trying to repeal the Clean Water Act
Wait, wait. You think they wanted to REPEAL the ACT? Not even close!

This legislation is a successful attempt to apply Obamacare-level ambiguity, make-it-up-as-we-go, and big GOV "just trust us" doctrine to the EPA's jurisdiction over "waterways." Your duckholes are in their court now; I'm sure they have your best interests at heart.

This has NOTHING to do with pollution.

Stang is right, I tell you this, all of your duckholes are already within the jurisdiction of the Corps and EPA, what this rule would do is put that little swale in your front yard or the roadside ditch or the farm ditch or possibly even a water furrow through a corn field within the jurisdictional authority of the Corps and EPA.

donia · Postby **donia** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:22 am

^^^^that's how it was explained to me also...any depression that water "can" flow into or from

fireplug · Postby **fireplug** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:42 am

Obama's never done anything right in his entire life. Best thing that could have happened to this country would have been for his existence to have rolled down his mother's chin instead of fertilizing an egg.

peewee · Postby **peewee** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:32 pm

420 is correct your duck holes are already regulated. And I can tell you duck hunters are some of the worst about complaining about blocking drains/stealing water etc when it starts affecting them. Often times they have violations themselves but that doesn't matter until Joe Blow next door starts killing their ducks.

That being said if you think many congressional republicans for the most part give a rats ass about the environment your blind. I've never voted for a democrat in my life but working in my field opened my eyes to a view few seldom see. Tim your Sen/(gov. Wanna be) is one of the worst ones I've ever seen. I'm guessing that why he lost to Edwards b/c enough folks had recognized his double standards.

With that out of the way I didn't and don't support the new water rule. I do support change though. Their needs to be solid clarification on what's regulated developed by scientist (not lobbyist). The science is there. To think that regulatory agencies are enforcing laws from judges opinions is crazy. Especially when the judges opinions are split and give no clear direction. You have different agencies working from different interpretations. At this same time the Corps gets thrown under the rug at every chance a politician gets and usually it's due to their own accord. But let's not place blame where it's really due. It's a smoke and mirrors game that the average voter never gets to see the truth.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

stang67 · Postby **stang67** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:55 am

Alright then, substitute "bream pond" for "duck hole." The fact remains that this whole thing has nothing to do with pollution and everything to do with more big .gov. Republicans opposed it, not because they're careless with the environment, but because it spits in the face of conservatism.

420 racin · Postby **420 racin** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:55 am

That Bream Pond is still regulated under Section 404 of the Cleanwater Act, and possibly Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, of course depending on where it is located. Republicans opposed it because Obama Proposed it and it makes no damn sense. I'm with Peewee, we need change but change based on science. Overall, the Republicans are for LESS environmental regulation and the Democrats are for MORE. Having worked in this field for the Federal Gov for nearly 15 years, I can promise you that!

Like Peewee said, Duck hunters are among the worst at committing violations, it's just the nature of the beast, Them and developers!! but it is always the angry neighbor that gets us involved and usually it turns out that both parties involved end up "in trouble"

Wildfowler · Postby **Wildfowler** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:48 am

I always thought it would be a good idea to create some sort of WRP program for stream anf Riverbank frontage.

Wouldn't it be helpful if there was an incentive for people not to plow right to the edge of every ditch stream and river in the Delta? And plus it would look a lot nicer if there was a hardwood buffer along the Corredor's of these kinds of bodies of water.

DanP · Postby **DanP** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:31 pm

^ We have those options in the Conservation Reserve Program. BUT, thanks to the Obama administration get ready to go through the permitting process to install a pipe for wetland restoration. This is a political move that will greatly hinder conservation efforts, even though it is being supported by other "conservation organizations"...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

stang67 · Postby **stang67** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:39 pm

So my examples suck.... If they thought of bream ponds already, why do they need to 'improve' things with another rule? Do the new regs look more like Obamacare or more like thoughtful, transparent, unambiguous steps in the right direction? That's the question at play. Is it a move to further perpetuate big govt bureaucracy that has us in quite a pickle, fiscally, or a move toward a solution to a problem?

Most of all -- no one tried to repeal the CWA!

Maybe when you Corps guys retire, your head will straighten up. I've seen it happen -- there's hope.