Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by chuam, Jun 28, 2017.
Why don't you just tell me how you feel? Because you obviously don't think.
How can you add uncertainty when you remove a rule that was never in effect?
I'm surprised that so many sportsman here choose politics over conservation. I see nothing wrong with the clean water rule. Can some of the naysayers shed some light on me? Save the political talking points of "less government" blah blah blah.
this was a new law that would have given the feds control over almost all water and the areas where it formed. It went so far as to include little low spots that might get a small amount of standing water for short periods in wet years. It was more or less a massive over reach of power and a straight up liberal power grab from privet land owners.
The way I understood it was it was there to protect the headwaters. If you want clean water and protected areas that our fish and wildlife like to use it starts with the headwaters.
What's wrong with the Feds controlling it? Is that the issue? Do people wish states who are already overburdened control them? What about waters that run through multiple states? Or border states? Again, so the Feds control the protection of the headwaters to keep them safe. Why is this bad specifically? Once again, save the "big government, political/party line" bs.
The question is are we getting our $8,100,000,000 worth from the EPA as it stands now, IMO I don't think so.
That's how much the clean water act costs? I understand your opinion and that's fair. However, it would be ignorant for me to state we aren't getting a return worth the money on them because I don't have the full knowledge on every project they do. I'm not so sure anyone here does.
That's their budget for the year, from what I can see around 50% of that goes into clean water initiatives. Part I like is 22% is operational/administrative costs for the EPA. $1,700,000,000 in payroll..must be nice.