Jump to content


The Republican Utopia


Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, Scarlet said:

I'm guessing this is a loaded question?  If so, care to unload it?

It's not a loaded question, I'm just not familiar with the case or the ruling. From the tweet it says Alito states that US waters have to have a continuous surface connection. That would completely exclude springs, underground aquifers, and cave systems. 

 

I guess I have some research to do. On the surface (no pun intended) I don't completely disagree with the ruling because this case sounds more like a watershed management issue than an EPA pollution prevention or major tributary disruption, but from what little verbage I've seen quoted it seems like the court threw the baby out with the bath water... I'll see myself out with all the puns.

Link to comment

5 minutes ago, ZRod said:

It's not a loaded question, I'm just not familiar with the case or the ruling. From the tweet it says Alito states that US waters have to have a continuous surface connection. That would completely exclude springs, underground aquifers, and cave systems. 

 

I guess I have some research to do. On the surface (no pun intended) I don't completely disagree with the ruling because this case sounds more like a watershed management issue than an EPA pollution prevention or major tributary disruption, but from what little verbage I've seen quoted it seems like the court threw the baby out with the bath water... I'll see myself out with all the puns.

Ok I see.  Ground water isn't regulated under the Clean Water Act in all cases.  But in 2020 the Supreme Court (surprisingly) ruled that certain discharges into ground water are cover under the act. 

 

Something like 700 billion pounds of pollution have been diverted from our waterways since the Clean Water Act was adopted in 1972.  I guess now the fallback for drinking water safety now is the Safe Drinking Water Act but relying on that seems to be trying to close the barn door after the horses are out.  

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, teachercd said:

Wait...people thought that the wetlands were protected and not polluted?  

 

Have you ever seen wetlands on a golf course?????

 

 

 

 

What would the water quality be like in adjacent waters if those wetlands weren't there?  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

What would the water quality be like in adjacent waters if those wetlands weren't there?  

Horrible

 

Look, I get it, you love anything D...that is awesome.  But our water supply is never going to have a real issue in your lifetime and you know it and you don't care about it for real, neither do I.  

 

So...my advice...stop.

  • TBH 2
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Look, I get it, you love anything D...that is awesome.  But our water supply is never going to have a real issue in your lifetime and you know it and you don't care about it for real, neither do I.  

 

So...my advice...stop.

 

You live in Nebraska, yeah?

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scarlet said:

Ok I see.  Ground water isn't regulated under the Clean Water Act in all cases.  But in 2020 the Supreme Court (surprisingly) ruled that certain discharges into ground water are cover under the act. 

 

Something like 700 billion pounds of pollution have been diverted from our waterways since the Clean Water Act was adopted in 1972.  I guess now the fallback for drinking water safety now is the Safe Drinking Water Act but relying on that seems to be trying to close the barn door after the horses are out.  

Alright, after spending far too much time researching this, and now knowing exactly where the property is located, it's pretty obvious it's part of a wetland system that has been in confirmed to existence for nearly 100 years. The major issue is that if you don't understand how wetlands work, then you would consider the property isolated from the main wetland on the other side of the road which feeds into a drainage channel, that feeds into a large creek, which feeds directly into the lake (US Waters); because it's intersected by a man made road. Just one look on google maps tells you that these two systems are historically and currently one. They no longer have an above ground connection, since the flow was diverted by the road and drainage channel, but there is no other way for the wetland on the property in question to exist unless it's linked to the major wetland on the other side of the road underground some how (that's basically what the EPA's field report said as well).

 

While I agree that there needs to be a reasonable limit to how far the EPA can take their claims of US Waters, Alito is an idiot and this ruling literally doesn't pass the eye test. That being said, there should have been better communication with the property owners since they got the necessary permits from the state, but the EPA came in after the fact with threats and no realistic form of resolution outside of a massive cost to the owners. Clearly it wasn't a major environmental issue as the land still hasn't been cleared some 15 years later.

 

 

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

Horrible

 

Look, I get it, you love anything D...that is awesome.  But our water supply is never going to have a real issue in your lifetime and you know it and you don't care about it for real, neither do I.  

 

So...my advice...stop.

This could be your worst take yet, and that's really saying something... Remember that Erin Brockovich movie? Remember Flint? Try searching for stories around the Detroit area about chemicals being dumped into  creeks and streams.

  • Plus1 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment

12 hours ago, teachercd said:

Horrible

 

Look, I get it, you love anything D...that is awesome.  But our water supply is never going to have a real issue in your lifetime and you know it and you don't care about it for real, neither do I.  

 

So...my advice...stop.

 

Yep. Just what the world needs. More selfish ambivalence. 

  • Plus1 1
  • TBH 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...