Repealing Clean Water Rule Creates Uncertainty for $887B Outdoor Recreation Economy

Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by chuam, Jun 28, 2017.

  1. J.SCOTT

    J.SCOTT Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    551
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2013
    Location:
    TENNESSEE
    Why don't you just tell me how you feel? Because you obviously don't think.:z
     
    Damian Wiening likes this.
  2. Dean Nelson

    Dean Nelson Moderator Goose Hunting/North Dakota Moderator

    Messages:
    8,498
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Location:
    Bismarck North Dakota
    How can you add uncertainty when you remove a rule that was never in effect?
     
    mak2782 and gadwall52 like this.
  3. buck_master_2001

    buck_master_2001 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,260
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2000
    Location:
    Southern Mitten
    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.
     
    riverrat47 and Phytoplankton like this.
  4. JP

    JP Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,634
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Location:
    Indian Territory, Oklahoma
    Bingo!
     
  5. Steve Borgwald

    Steve Borgwald Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,238
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2000
    Location:
    OH
    Bwaahaaahaaaa!
     
    num70 and Ducker 4 Ever like this.
  6. Dean Nelson

    Dean Nelson Moderator Goose Hunting/North Dakota Moderator

    Messages:
    8,498
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Location:
    Bismarck North Dakota
    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.
     
  7. buck_master_2001

    buck_master_2001 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,260
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2000
    Location:
    Southern Mitten
    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.
     
    riverrat47 likes this.
  8. 10GAGENUT

    10GAGENUT Elite Refuge Member Sponsor Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    11,515
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Location:
    JeffcoMO
    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.
     
  9. buck_master_2001

    buck_master_2001 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,260
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2000
    Location:
    Southern Mitten
    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.
     
  10. 10GAGENUT

    10GAGENUT Elite Refuge Member Sponsor Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    11,515
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Location:
    JeffcoMO
    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.
     

Share This Page