https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ections-102779
I want you to go ahead and read the very first bullet point.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ections-102779
I want you to go ahead and read the very first bullet point.
That's not what Trump says, though.
That's exactly what was addressed with the regulation though, nothing else. It's still illegal to pollute waterways, and Trump has ordered EPA and Army Corp to develop a replacement policy. The only thing that changed was a broad definition of what is a waterway that made farmers not sure what exactly is a waterway.
At any rate, it will be challenged in court and I'm sure we will hear more about it.
Here's the thing. Some people see a "puddle," biologists and hydrogeologists can see hydrogeologically connected wetlands that serve as vital part of the streamway system. These systems work as both flood control and pollution deterrents. There is a lot more going on scientifically than your average joe can see.
I get that. I don't know enough about the details to pick it apart.
From a distance it seems like a very aggressive swing in the opposite direction rather than a more cautious approach with subtle changes over time.
Correct me here if I'm wrong.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Guartz gonna have a good faith argument with an attorney working at a firm litigating the bullshit he's spewing...
(guessing Kaslo won't be able to actually discuss anything)
![]()
Also depends on what you're defining as a "puddle." Here's a picture from one of my jobsites of someone dumping something that made it's way into the stormwater system and down to my site which feeds directly into a drinking water source.
Water shouldn't be milky. I'm not sure what ended up happening with this. Last I was told was that the managing agency was investigating what it was and who did it. This is how dumping something on the street or in a puddle can effect drinking water.
Probably not entirely false. Although golf courses have better perc rates than asphalt/concrete there is still a lot of runoff that puts more pressure on water treatment facilities and existing stormwater infrastructure. If the treatment restrictions are reduced as well you could technically process more water to release into waterways and reduce regulation on runoff control and stormwater pollution protection.
Yeah I can't say much, but I'm trying to see if there is an article or press release for our brief on behalf of Waterkeeper. But this is from a case a few years ago where a mining company was filling wetlands to access areas to pull gravel out of a stream for sale: https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/loca...60117f66c.html
EDIT: Here we go: https://seaturtles.org/lawsuit-chall...t-protections/
Trump reportedly caught on tape by Parnas telling his staff to 'get rid of Yanukovich'. Haven't been able to listen yet but probably nothing to get excited about.
There's a case I studied for environmental law about why this became an issue in the first place and a big reason is these unconnected waterways, seasonal lakes, and "ephemeral" bodies of water are usually crucial for their environment.
If something has been "seasonal" for thousands of seasons chances are the entire local ecosystem depends on its appearance and its removal would drastically affect the surrounding area.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Nothing stopping states from making rules on waterways.
Why are Republicans pro pollution?
As per Mr. Krabs " MONEY ! " For the lot of em being religious right, they really do love worshiping the golden calf...