I don't either, but I want to live in a country where a reasonable man theory is applied case by case and not this unwavering (zero or one) letter of the law BS backed up and enforced by the power of the federal government and its ability to fine and imprison. I also don't want to live like a mindless sheep in a high-rise where every aspect of my life is controlled, monitored, and enforced... "for the greater good". Which unfortunately, anyone with any vision can see that's where this country is heading. There's a lot of different reasons people voted for Trump. That's one of mine. See that levy below? Obviously he used his tractor to build it. Fine this man... that's an illegal pond! Lock him up, take his land, and re-program that child. (Euthanize that Lab too. It pissed in the pond and it could overflow into a stream at any time) Call Animal Services and the ASPCA too. They'll have some fines. That fish is obviously suffering and the dog isn't wearing a life-preserver. Nor is the kid for that matter. He needs to be in a foster home.
Oddly enough, your side has no problem with the feds seizing the land of border land ranchers which will then be redistributed at pennies on the dollar to the highest bidder/developer once the next POTUS scraps Trump's pet project. All for "the greater good". Need I go on with which party expanded federal surveillance of its citizens or gains the most from their incarceration now that you've decided to spin onto that tangent?
First of all... "my side" is a party of one. How many times do I have to write it here(?)... I don't wear a jersey. I'll call out both sides. Now... which Party expanded surveillance? The Patriot Act passed the Senate 98-1. 48 Dems, 49 Pubs, 1 Indy. At least some Dems objected in the House. 63 Dems voted nay, 1 Pub. Obama renewed it in 2011 with certain provisions allowed to expire ... but then in 2015, he signed The USA Freedom Act, which restored all those provisions. That one passed the Senate with 43 Dems voting yea, and only 23 Pubs, 1 Dem voting nay, and 30 Pubs voting nay. Soooo.... I'd say pretty much both party's were/are complicit. Pennies on the dollar?! They'll be paid top dollar for the narrow strips of land involved, and if it does get scrapped, they'll probably have first dibs to buy it back... less than what they sold it for. Eminent domain is required for "the greater good". That's why we have interstates.
Wtf is unsubstantiated about it?! A feel good opinion? Come on H4... really? ___________________________________________________________________________________ Urban runoff is surface runoff of precipitation created by urbanization. This runoff is a major source of flooding and water pollution in urban communities worldwide. Impervious surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, rooftops and sidewalks, are constructed during land development. During rain storms and other precipitation events, these surfaces carry polluted stormwater to storm drains, instead of allowing the water to percolate through soil. Most municipal storm sewer systems discharge stormwater without treatment to streams, rivers and other water bodies. Urban runoff carries a mixture of such pollutants as sediment, fertilizers, bacteria, metals and more. Water running off these impervious surfaces tends to pick up gasoline, motor oil, heavy metals, trash and other pollutants from roadways and parking lots, as well as fertilizers and pesticides from lawns. Roads and parking lots are major sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are created as combustion byproducts of gasoline and other fossil fuels, as well as of the heavy metals nickel, copper, zinc, cadmium, and lead. Roof runoff contributes high levels of synthetic organic compounds and zinc (from galvanized gutters). Fertilizer use on residential lawns, parks and golf courses is a measurable source of nitrates and phosphorus in urban runoff when fertilizer is improperly applied or when turf is over-fertilized. Runoff can also induce heavy metal poisoning in ocean life. Small amounts of heavy metals are carried by runoff into the oceans. These metals are ingested by ocean life. These heavy metals cannot be disposed so they accumulate within the animals. Over time, these metals build up to a toxic level, and the animal dies. This heavy metal poisoning can also affect humans. If we eat a poisoned animal, we have a chance of getting heavy metal poisoning too. A 2008 report by the United States National Research Council (textbox below) identified urban runoff the leading source of water quality problems. _____________________________ Inb4 H4M says... "Trump owns golf courses."
Yet here you are; defending the worst roll back on water protections in 50 yrs, because "orange man not bad you guise, I swear". I too, call them like I see them. Or need I post every "MAGA" shitty defense you've made of Trump in this forum? Penned by a Republican, introduced by a Republican, pushed by fear mongering lying Republican intelligence heads, & signed & not vetoed by a Republican president. True, Obama rolled back some provisions in no small part due to the Snowden leaks, though there's a few details you fail to mention on the 2015 Freedom Act (also abysmal legislation), such as stopping bulk collection of citizens phone communications. I won't defend the shitty decisions of Obama for not stripping the whole program down to the last brick though, just as I won't defend the stripping of immigrants' rights at the border under the same fear mongering umbrella of "national security". So federal overreach is OK when dubious claims of national security and economic impact of migrants are made, but not OK when solid claims by scientists on environmental impact are made? You may need to re-read your argument. I never contended that vehicle fluids off old cars aren't a source of water pollution, I merely corrected your misinterpretation of what I said, that vehicles OFF THE LOT are not allowed to leak by regulation. Hence anything after that statement/paragraph is feel good unsubstantiated opinion. So now that you've 'substantiated' your assertion that humans as a group pollute with an article, I say, no shit Sherlock.
Argue till the proverbial cows come home looking for their drinking pond. WOTUS was illegal and unconstitutional. It’s scientific merits were not part of the discussion. If you want to fix it, fine, do it in a legal manner. But it’s not Trump that nixed it, this started back in 2015
Try again: The new rule, written by the E.P.A. and the Army Corps of Engineers, will retain federal protections of large bodies of water, as well as larger rivers and streams that flow into them and wetlands that lie adjacent to them. But it removes protections for many other waters, including wetlands that are not adjacent to large bodies of water, some seasonal streams that flow for only a portion of the year, “ephemeral” streams that only flow after rainstorms, and groundwater. Legal experts say that Mr. Trump’s replacement rule would go further than simply repealing and replacing the 2015 Obama rule — it would also eliminate protections to smaller headwaters that have been implemented for decades under the 1972 Clean Water Act.
911 happened on a Pub's watch. It didn't get much resistance in the House or any with a balanced Senate. Case closed there. You made my point. Both sides complicit. Insert Wonder Woman's bracelet. Two different debates. How'd you phrase it(?)... "you're feel good unsubstantiated opinion." Regarding the border. That is just your opinion. Well no shit Sherlock. (Your phrase again) Why even bring it up as its inconsequential to the argument? You could have just as easily said GE refrigerators aren't allowed to leak Freon into the atmosphere when they leave the factory. I mean... what was the point? My point was cars leak all kinds of crap that winds up in the water. That was YOUR retort to that, not mine. Cars leak. Case closed on that. .........I love how you back-pedal your deflections when called out on them.
911 happened on a Pub's watch. It didn't get much resistance in the House or any with a balanced Senate. Case closed there. Patriot act on GOP's watch, case closed You made my point. Both sides complicit. No point was made, I only claimed that surveillance was expanded under the GOP, which it was; case closed Insert Wonder Woman's bracelet. Two different debates. How'd you phrase it(?)... "you're feel good unsubstantiated opinion." Regarding the border. That is just your opinion. You're the only who can bring up tangential examples to make a point? Got it, case closed Well no shit Sherlock. (Your phrase again) Why even bring it up as its inconsequential to the argument? You could have just as easily said GE refrigerators aren't allowed to leak Freon into the atmosphere when they leave the factory. I mean... what was the point? My point was cars leak all kinds of crap that winds up in the water. That was YOUR retort to that, not mine. Cars leak. Case closed on that. You're the one that brought up shitty used cars into the conversation to make a weak counter argument, I never did, case closed .........I love how you back-pedal your deflections when called out on them. lol you wut? Classic con projection; "I'm not deflecting, you're deflecting!". Learn to read maybe?
https://www.krcl.com/articles/environmental/the-unsettled-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states/ Defining WOTUS has been addressed in several US Supreme Court cases, most importantly Rapanos v. United States (2006). Justice Scalia wrote the plurality opinion stating that the CWA confers federal jurisdiction over non-navigable waters only if the waters exhibit a relatively permanent flow, such as a river, lake, or stream. In addition, a wetland falls within the Federal government’s jurisdiction only if there is a continuous surface water connection between it and a relatively permanent waterbody. Justice Kennedy wrote an important concurring opinion in Rapanosstating he believed that a wetland or non-navigable waterbody falls within the scope of the CWA’s jurisdiction if it bears a “significant nexus” to a traditional navigable waterway. Justice Kennedy argued the CWA defines navigable waters as a water or wetland that possesses a significant nexus to waters that are navigable in fact. In 2015, the Obama administration proposed a new expansive definition of WOTUS – the Clean Water Rule (“CWR”). The WR sought to expand Federal jurisdiction based on the “significant nexus” test. The CWR deemed certain waters “by rule” jurisdictional, and other waters “by rule” non-jurisdictional; the CWR also contained a third category of waters that required further analysis – tributaries and adjacent waters. Tributaries includes ephemeral and intermittent drainages even where interrupted. Adjacent waters includes fixed distances for certain types of waters where, if within those distances, the water would by jurisdictional. Court challenges resulted in injunctions preventing nationwide implementation and left the US with a patchwork of regulations and uncertainty – 22 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories use the CWR and 28 follow Justice Scalia’s definition of WOTUS in Rapanos On February 28, 2017, President Trump signed the Executive Order on “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth” by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” The Order directs that EPA and the Army “shall consider interpreting the term ‘navigable waters’” in a manner “consistent with Justice Scalia’s opinion” in Rapanos. As a result of the Executive Order, on October 22, 2019 the EPA and Department of the Army published a rule to repeal the 2015 CWR and return the definitions of WOTUS largely to the definition in Rapanos. The final rule becomes effective on December 23, 2019, at which time the definition will return to the 2006 Rapanos ruling. The Trump administration has proposed a new definition of WOTUS. Under the proposed new definition: Waters identified to be WOTUS include: traditional navigable waters, including territorial seas, tributaries, certain ditches, certain lakes and ponds, impoundments, and adjacent wetland Waters identified to not be WOTUS include: waters not listed as WOTUS, Groundwater, ephemeral features and diffuse stormwater run-off, ditches not identified as WOTUS, prior converted cropland, artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland should irrigation cease, artificial lakes and ponds constructed in upland, water-filled depressions created in upland incidental to mining or construction activity, stormwater control features constructed in upland, wastewater recycling structures constructed in upland, and waste treatment systems. The proposed definitions seek to more clearly define the difference between federally regulated waterways and those waters that remain under state authority. However, the proposed definition has not been approved by the legislature, and several lawsuits seeking to revise or impede enforcement of the new definition are promised and expected. Given the historic splits between the Federal Circuits, the WOTUS definition will likely be tied up in litigation for years.