clean water act gutted ? - Spey Pages
 85Likes
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 31 (permalink) Old 01-31-2020, 04:09 PM Thread Starter
registered text offender
 
matuka mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Orewashingontanaho
Posts: 1,328
clean water act gutted ?

?????????????????

insta-release not Insta-gram !!

Dog is my co-pilot !
matuka mike is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 (permalink) Old 01-31-2020, 04:18 PM
Registered User
 
kootenaybow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: BC - Upper Columbia
Posts: 38
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...partisan-trump

"In some states out west, 80% of stream miles would lose their protection. Drinking water sources for millions of Americans would be at risk from pollution. The administration’s redefinition would leave millions of acres open for destruction – wetlands that buffer communities from storms, serve as homes for wildlife and nurseries for fish and shellfish, and act as natural water filters.

This is the single largest loss of clean water protections that America has ever seen. And the timing couldn’t be worse. From lead contamination in drinking water to the proliferating threat of toxic industrial chemicals, new threats to water quality are emerging daily."
Jason and steelguy like this.

working on my 10,000 hours...
kootenaybow is offline  
post #3 of 31 (permalink) Old 01-31-2020, 11:08 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OR
Posts: 3,073
Come November, decide what you care about.
jstroke, MaeWest, Jason and 2 others like this.
SLSS is offline  
post #4 of 31 (permalink) Old 01-31-2020, 11:14 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: WY/MT
Posts: 65
The sky is falling get a grip
Scandiman is offline  
post #5 of 31 (permalink) Old 01-31-2020, 11:22 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Kalama River
Posts: 309
Don't wait until November. Send comments to Congress now... then follow up with voting choices in November.
fishinfool, SSPey, jstroke and 5 others like this.
kalamaman is offline  
post #6 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-01-2020, 03:18 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: your home waters
Posts: 1,711
today's snews= one's opinion
the guardian?... give me a break. I'd sooner ask a child with a brain injury.

and who exactly will run against the devil? sanders? ha ha ha ha.

so... who's on first,
roll on november,
shawn
mitchaka2fish is offline  
post #7 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-01-2020, 04:23 AM
Registered User
 
HumberRskagit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Humber river ontario
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchaka2fish View Post
today's snews= one's opinion
the guardian?... give me a break. I'd sooner ask a child with a brain injury.

and who exactly will run against the devil? sanders? ha ha ha ha.

so... who's on first,
roll on november,
shawn

Yeah that article scared me. Then I read this one https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-rel...ht-11579803684

I am still not in agreement with the Fed but its nowhere near as bad as it sounded ( could be the journal's and/or my bias)..Anyone can correct me if im wrong but The 1972 clean water act seemingly wasn't gutted. They just rolled back the 2015 increase from the last admn. These protections over flooded ditches Etc have basically never been there. They were put in place by the last admin 2015 and only 20 states adopted it due to property laws. Basically 20 states are Taking a step backwards to 2015. I don't mean to say that too lightly.

Question cannot each specific state can step up and increase there oversight? Can they not make laws ? These state laws are so strong they prevented this act in over half the country. cannot they implement that power in the opposite manner?From what what ive seen the states are no push overs. You'll see them do sanctuaries and gun laws. I am Canadian (and a bit slow) that's why i ask. I am sure if someone is using there rain ditch for poison the state could react even faster. Personally i always lean to the more local government to react.
On the bright side for those very worried this can also be fixed swiftly by the next admin. I am sure the democrat after mr trump now or later will seek to destroy his legacy. The same way he slashed the previous admins.
Seems like trout unlimited could get involved as they commented so negatively. donating might be way to help besides politics

''Fish on''
HumberRskagit is offline  
post #8 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-01-2020, 10:04 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: N.Cal
Posts: 1,001
It is a redrawing of lines in terms of which streams and wetlands are under federal protection, which have been debated and contested for years, but the implications are not trivial. What developers and the ag industry consider to be “insignificant ditches and swamps” should not be the deciding criteria for what is impactful to fish and wildlife. If anyone thinks this will not negativity impact fish and wildlife habitat, or clean drinking water, better look a bit further. The EPA science advisory board called the rollbacks “in conflict with established science”, and have been highly critical of a dramatic push back overall from the administration.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...what-they-said

The nitty gritty of how it all plays out will be typically messy politics: First will be the nearly certain lawsuits and court battles, then there’s the issue of state protections, then there’s the possibility of one state attacking another, or even the federal government fighting individual states (i.e. California vehicle fuel efficiency standards). The battles of state rights vs federal are often thorny, in this case unfortunately the net impact is that without a consistent federal standard those streams and wetlands will not be “safe” from potential pollution. Any state level protections can/will be challenged. Of course which ever administration is at the helm will make a dramatic impact on where things go too. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people have forgotten how and why the clean water act came about, and what things would look like if we go back to the days of letting industry police itself. It would be a very good thing for us and fish and wildlife to expand those safeguards; not cut them.
kalamaman likes this.
Jason is offline  
post #9 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-01-2020, 10:16 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: GL, Iceland
Posts: 476
The Guardian is a left wing newspaper so you are not reading non partisan news they have an agenda. That being said as Humber noted above nothing was gutted they just eased back on some of the regulations added a few ago under the last administration. It had gotten to the point that if you had a puddle or ditch on your property it was now a wetland. Which created huge amounts of red tape if you wanted to do anything on that property or even adjacent properties. This impacted businesses and farmers as well as homeowners. One good thing to keep in mind is the USMCA treaty just passed from what I have heard now requires all countries in the treaty to perform environmental impacts, etc and adhere to the same regs. This helps to create a level playing field and help the environment. I also read that in the treaty there are regs on plastic entering oceans, etc I was pleased to hear the various things in the treaty.
One of the issues impacting water quality out west is the amount of homelessness and people living on the streets or tents. I saw a piece on this and they identified the amount of trash and feces that were entering the watersheds due to this was quite high. If you take the amount of people (tens of thousands) it is equivalent to small towns or cities dumping sewage directly into watersheds/ocean. So not only polluting watersheds but the ocean as well.
john8 is offline  
post #10 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-01-2020, 11:02 AM
loco alto!
 
SSPey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,967
This rollback is sold as helpful to farmers, but it is all about helping rich developers carve up more land with sloppy sprawl at the expense of conservation. Gutting the headwaters that feed all our waterways.

Real estate developers by far have the most $$ to gain from this. Trump is a real estate developer. That’s why he ignored his own industry-heavy advisory board on this issue.

.
jstroke, SLSS, matuka mike and 3 others like this.

CF Burkheimer fly rods advisory staff
Nextcast lines pro staff
SSPey is offline  
post #11 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-01-2020, 05:41 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: WY/MT
Posts: 65
A clear definition of 'navigable waters' has been sorely needed since the enactment of the CWA. There has been confusion and lawsuits since the CWA became law. The 1986 migratory bird rule adopted by the EPA asserted that the CWA covers isolated waters where migratory birds that cross state lines might land and use as habitat, the rule being overturned by the Supreme Court in 2001. In 2006 the US Supreme Court tried but failed when using the term 'significant nexus' for guidance. In 2015 the past administration muddied the waters further by claiming jurisdiction hundreds of miles from recognized navigable waters which created even more confusion and lawsuits. This new ruling is welcome relief to many private property owners who have been impacted by an overly aggressive Federal agency, an agency who's agenda was more about control than water quality.
klickrolf and john8 like this.
Scandiman is offline  
post #12 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-01-2020, 09:27 PM
Registered User
 
RogueZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Rogue River and a few others
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by john8 View Post
The Guardian is a left wing newspaper so you are not reading non partisan news they have an agenda. That being said as Humber noted above nothing was gutted they just eased back on some of the regulations added a few ago under the last administration. It had gotten to the point that if you had a puddle or ditch on your property it was now a wetland. Which created huge amounts of red tape if you wanted to do anything on that property or even adjacent properties. This impacted businesses and farmers as well as homeowners. One good thing to keep in mind is the USMCA treaty just passed from what I have heard now requires all countries in the treaty to perform environmental impacts, etc and adhere to the same regs. This helps to create a level playing field and help the environment. I also read that in the treaty there are regs on plastic entering oceans, etc I was pleased to hear the various things in the treaty.
One of the issues impacting water quality out west is the amount of homelessness and people living on the streets or tents. I saw a piece on this and they identified the amount of trash and feces that were entering the watersheds due to this was quite high. If you take the amount of people (tens of thousands) it is equivalent to small towns or cities dumping sewage directly into watersheds/ocean. So not only polluting watersheds but the ocean as well.

It doesn't matter who wrote it. What are the facts? We gotta stop worrying about the messenger and start worrying about the facts of the message again. We agree on way more than we disagree.

I learned to fly fish at 9 years old because putting a worm on a hook is gross. It still is.
RogueZilla is offline  
post #13 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-01-2020, 09:34 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clearwater, Ronde, OP
Posts: 605
How anyone that fishes for trout, salmon or steelhead could think that any rollback of clean water protections are not that big a deal is beyond me.

Sometime not too far down the road, the same folks will say where'd my fish go? Someone bring me back some more fish to catch...
Attack is offline  
post #14 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-01-2020, 09:47 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clearwater, Ronde, OP
Posts: 605
p.s. This is actual news with real facts. It has been reported by every major news agency, just cause the guardian is too "liberal" for some of you doesn't mean the facts are "fake news."

"protections for roughly half of the nation’s wetlands and one-fifth of the millions of miles of waterways."

https://apnews.com/2386f9f4af34d81ae32629dead464af3
Attack is offline  
post #15 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-02-2020, 09:50 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: N.Cal
Posts: 1,001
The Guardian isn’t the only source sounding the alarm on this. As I stated above, the EPA’s own scientific advisory board was disturbed by this change. We should question the motives and integrity of any and all sources, but to me the sources that have proven to be completely unreliable are those coming from the current administration. Some of the defenses of this move sound pretty much inline with the propaganda being pushed by the whitehouse, which do absolutely nothing to inspire any sense of confidence that this will work out well for the fish and wildlife (or the vast majority of people for that matter).
Attack, SLSS, MaeWest and 3 others like this.
Jason is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Spey Pages forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome