Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by chuam, Jun 28, 2017.
In regulation/oversight/control/etc. No clue on the number of employees.
Do you disagree?
But in what sense? Because the law didn't do a good job defining headwaters or because it was preventing people from polluting their own land that is either adjacent to a headwater or has streams or anything of the such that could tie into a main body of water above or below ground?
Isn't that basically what happened or is happening to I believe duke energy in NC? Their waste pit started contaminating all of the underground wells and surrounding bodies of water. Who paid the price? The citizens in that area.
I believe regulation and oversight could be considered true in certain areas. I believe some is necessary and some isn't. When it comes to controlling bodies of water that flow through many states or border states than that makes it next to mpossible to be reverted back to the states. Hence for regulation on the federal level.
As far as the size in reference to employees? No it hasn't.
I guess you could compare regulating water on the federal level to waterfowl. States have some distinct rights but in general they have a guideline in place by the Feds.
I certainly don't think we need a free for all with no rules or regs, and I'm not saying this is a bad one. But good or bad more rules & regs is more rules & regs no matter how you slice it. Add that constant growth to plenty of useless and overreaching regs and it's easy to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. That was my my only real point.
The law was so encompassing as well as nebulous in potential stipulation(s) that individual private citizens would/could be infringed upon in ways no reasonable person would ever conceive of operating. Holding people liable for perceived contamination caused by rainwater runoff from their rooftop? Really? Have you ever had to defend yourself in a civil action? It starts at $15K in legal costs and accelerates from there upwards.
The Duke situation (IIRC) was a breach in their fly ash containment areas which escaped into an adjacent river. They allegedly had violated existing (pre-2015) regs in the location and construction of said pit.
That comparison is, IMO quite the leap in logic from Duke's incident to homeowner rooftop rainwater runoff.
I fully agree that rainwater runoff from a rooftop is asinine.
Buck you really have no clue. States control waters by the Constitution, navigation waters h as 've fallen under Fed control by seizure and states captulating for federal dollars for floid control.
Until you have actually dealt with them I suggest not trying to defend the Fed's or EPA. People who are not polluters and trying to do the right thing get crapped on.
Umm no. Thanks for that very informative post as usual though.
I will defend the Feds and the EPA when it comes to POLLUTION. Have you forgotten your schooling on these subjects? Surely you've seen what can happen without any regulations.