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

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

  1. buck_master_2001

    buck_master_2001 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,914
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2000
    Location:
    Southern Mitten
  2. 10GAGENUT

    10GAGENUT Elite Refuge Member Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    11,308
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Location:
    JeffcoMO
  3. JP

    JP Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,541
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Location:
    Indian Territory, Oklahoma
    Most government bureaucracies are run for their own self-edification first, with any mission statement as an ancillary concern.

    How many remember (~25 years back) when the EPA's HQ in D.C. was discovered to be so contaminated it was unsafe for the people working there.

    This 2015 regulation(s) would have intruded into the daily lives of any citizen that had rainwater runoff. It would have been a major extension of Nanny State control over us with any actual environmental protection as simply the cover story.

    Environment Protection?

    A capitalist approach would make it profitable to nurture and grow a given resource. Got ducks?

    A socialist approach makes the resource a catalyst for expansion of a command and control central government. Got Venezuela?
     
    Damian Wiening likes this.
  4. fishnfool

    fishnfool Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,472
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I understand it's easy to demonize any government agency. I understand that it's much easier to cling to ideology than to research facts. I understand that the less one knows about any single topic, the more simplified the solution seems.

    I also engineer and implement remedial systems for contaminated groundwater and soil. The work is mandated by the EPA or state agencies. My salary, the litigation, and the cleanups are paid by the polluter when still existent and solvent, and when not (which is often) by our tax dollars. I deal directly with the regulations, the regulators, the costs, the cleanups, the repercussions, the restorations, and in some cases with those affected by the problems.

    There's A LOT I would change about the EPA and even environmental regulations. But I'd start with changing the public ignorance about environmental issues looooong before I start pontificating about regulation X or Y or this dollar or that.

    I could show countless examples of sites destroyed by the capitalist approach (that in many cases we are all now left paying for). I could show countless examples of people directly hurt (healthwise, property value wise, etc.) by the capitalist approach. I could show countless examples of research showing impacts to humans and environments from contaminants that were either previously unknown or not properly researched.

    What I've never heard from anyone is who pays for the cleanup of such sites, the research on these contaminants, and enforcement and proper practices in the capitalistic approach? My job has never made a profit for any of the responsible parties, or the taxpayers.
     
    riverrat47, cast&blast, chuam and 5 others like this.
  5. slimm21

    slimm21 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,971
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Location:
    WI
    I'm still waiting for a nice, fact based rebuttal to this....
     
  6. buck_master_2001

    buck_master_2001 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,914
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2000
    Location:
    Southern Mitten
    There isn't any....
     
    riverrat47 likes this.
  7. JP

    JP Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,541
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Location:
    Indian Territory, Oklahoma
    So far, we've established the three (3) posters above favor the Socialist Approach.
     
  8. fishnfool

    fishnfool Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,472
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    And we've established that you're more interested in schoolyard name calling than actually engaging in discussion or answering an honest question.

    What I favor is clean water, soil, and air. What I favor is restricting the ability of another to harm the air I breath, the water I drink, and the soil I contact. That's completely in line with a libertarian philosophy.

    I'm happy to discuss the proper means to go about that protection (LOTS of room for discussion there, and if you note, I never advocated the current approach, or any other in my post above). In fact, that's exactly what the question I posed above is getting to. But if you'd rather dodge and resort to childish name calling that's up to you. Enjoy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2017
  9. slimm21

    slimm21 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,971
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Location:
    WI
    So you are unable to post a fact based response to the Lake Erie comments?
     
    riverrat47 likes this.
  10. Porter Bayou

    Porter Bayou Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    511
    Joined:
    May 22, 2014
    Location:
    Mississippi
    No I haven't, but those aren't the rules being repealed. Those same laws will still be in effect. This is a discussion about the repeal of rules that haven't even been implemented yet.
     
    JP and brake man like this.

Share This Page