Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I believe they were voting on appealing the clean water act that just passed today, does anyone know what they decided or if the clean water act is still safe? Or has it been compromised by our lovely republican representatives?
There is no attempt to repeal the Clean Water Act to my knowledge. The Senate Environment and Public Works committee did approve a bill to nullify the Clean Water Rule which was written by the EPA without congressional oversight. The Clean Water Rule gives the EPA sole jurisdiction over lands on which water flows or standing water pools. That's pretty much every piece of private property in the nation. The bill still needs approval of the full Senate and House.
At issue is whether the Executive Branch has the right to usurp congressional authority and override the will of the people, through their elected representatives, by executive order. If the Clean Water Rule, which was issued by the EPA in May, is allowed to stand, congress is telling the Executive Branch it has the right to legislate without the consent of the governed.
As a farmer, I'm not a real big fan of the EPA. They typically overstep their authority and overlook data from sister agencies like the USDA and NRCS on their way to somehow legislating themselves. That being said I am an environmental protection fan, just dislike the agency. Some of the wording in the act leaves some things undefined or atleast enough to allow for encroachment on gray areas. I do beleive it is a win for wildlife but urban areas are not imuned from it either. Here in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, municipalities are already fealing the strain of EPA regs. Blame thhe republicans for holding things up for sure, but they also keep things in check from going too far left. The same thing I would expect the democrats to do in reversed roles.
To reiterate I am not completely opposed to the act or environmental protection measures, I've just kinda had my fill of federal regulations handed down to me by the EPA who is supposed to be an enforcement agency. The one thing I say about things such as environmental regs, pesticide use, gmo and other hot button issues is this. If you want to restrict American farmers and ranchers fine, but don't import from unregulated countries because its cheaper, those commodities or product should meet the same standards. I don't feel that this beleif is an unreasonable compromise.
As a farmer, I'm not a real big fan of the EPA. They typically overstep their authority and overlook data from sister agencies like the USDA and NRCS on their way to somehow legislating themselves. That being said I am an environmental protection fan, just dislike the agency. Some of the wording in the act leaves some things undefined or atleast enough to allow for encroachment on gray areas. I do beleive it is a win for wildlife but urban areas are not imuned from it either. Here in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, municipalities are already fealing the strain of EPA regs. Blame thhe republicans for holding things up for sure, but they also keep things in check from going too far left. The same thing I would expect the democrats to do in reversed roles.
To reiterate I am not completely opposed to the act or environmental protection measures, I've just kinda had my fill of federal regulations handed down to me by the EPA who is supposed to be an enforcement agency. The one thing I say about things such as environmental regs, pesticide use, gmo and other hot button issues is this. If you want to restrict American farmers and ranchers fine, but don't import from unregulated countries because its cheaper, those commodities or product should meet the same standards. I don't feel that this beleif is an unreasonable compromise.