Is the EPA really looking out for us?

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:18 pm

You make the call.

...and they say business interests are evil.

http://www.silvertonstandard.com/news.php?id=847

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:28 pm

I wonder if this could be a case of "Betteridge's law of headlines", but in this case, forum titles instead of headlines.

For context:

Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no." The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bull★■◆●, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.

Of course, this is to imply that I actually did look into the facts, and they support what Betteridge's law answers.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:42 am

I have to wonder if the EPA will fine itself and fire the people responsible.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:11 am

Also curious how the environmental left is not making a outcry over this but instead are providing cover:

“Blaming the EPA for #AnimasRiver spill is like blaming a doctor for the disease,” Conservation Colorado said in a Wednesday tweet.

Said Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar, a Democrat, on Twitter: “Focus of #AnimasRiver contamination should be on mining companies and their mining practices, not EPA, yes?”

The Sierra Club Rocky Mountain chapter posted a link to an article titled “9 things you need to know about the Animas River spill.” The list includes “The EPA messed up, but they’re not the root cause” and “This isn’t the first time this has happened, nor is it the worst.”

Yeah, I wonder if they would be saying the same things if it was a private company responsible for the mess.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:32 am

The EPA screwed up, but one mistake doesn't mean we condemn an agency that by and large has made our water and air FAR safer over the past decades.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:51 am

The EPA has gone way beyond what it was intended for. And are you saying that past performance means they are above the law?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:46 am

woodchip wrote:The EPA has gone way beyond what it was intended for. And are you saying that past performance means they are above the law?

of course not. No one should be above the law. We will see, in this case, how that statement reflects in reality. Not sure what laws could have been broken, but if someone is responsible for doing so, let the chips fall where they may. On the other hand, I read that we have around 10,000 similar mine sites in the West which are ticking time-bombs of poisons waiting to be released. Cleaning that stuff up is going to take serious money(Federal money in most part) and may well lead to further accidents.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:52 am

by the way, Woody, could you explain exactly HOW the EPA has exceeded original(or at least legislated) intent? I'll look forward to reading it this evening once we make it home.........

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:37 pm

This mess gets even murkier. Apparently, the EPA has pushed for 25 years to get many of these old, leaking mines put on Superfund Status. That would have brought in enough federal money to do a major, comprehensive cleanup with the proper equipment and personnel. But guess what, the local authorities, who have continuously spurned any full scale federal intervention with mine cleanups, thought that they could do things their way cheaper, so that left the operation to a bunch of locals working with a smaller local EPA team. THEY were the ones who screwed up.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-exper ... 015-8?op=1

Same article if link above limits views.

http://newserdevweb.cloudapp.net/cdn/ar ... ttoms.html

Which brings into question privatized profit and public risk. Most of these old mines where opened up during the 1800's, the Wild West of gold and silver mining. No one thought about or cared about what would happen after the mines had panned out and were abandoned, filling with water in the meantime. No one thought, or cared, that the water would eventually leach out heavy, toxic metals and poison rivers until it was too late. The prospectors and mining companies are now long gone and it's not their problem or concern anymore. But today, it's become a big, expensive problem for the public taxpayer, hasn't it?

At least Colorado had the presence of mind to realize that this problem WAS going to become a BIG, EXPENSIVE problem for them with future mining operations in their state. Colorado law now requires any mining company to post a bond to cover the cost of cleanup. They had to tighten up the requirements for this bond in the 1990's when the Summitville Consolidated Mining Company declared bankruptcy and couldn't pay to clean up their site (of course). But the Gold King Mine that leaked into the Animas River this week closed in 1923, well before that law went into effect. So since efforts at putting abandoned mines like this on Federal Superfund Status have been continually rebuffed by many states or buried by Congress because of expense (pun intended), the locals were working WITH a smaller local EPA crew to do the job. Epic fail. And yes TB, big business is evil because they DID create this problem in the first place and never cleaned up their OWN MESSES after making profit from it.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinio ... o_tabulate

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 6:26 am

callmeslick wrote:by the way, Woody, could you explain exactly HOW the EPA has exceeded original(or at least legislated) intent? I'll look forward to reading it this evening once we make it home.........

Try these:

"the EPA is using the regulatory process to require greenhouse gas emission reductions even as Congress has been unwilling to take such drastic actions.”

"The EPA has also exceeded its mandate with regard to standards for ground-level ozone, which is a main component in smog."

" The third overreach examined in the report is a proposed rule that would expand the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA), forcing private property owners “to obtain permits from the federal government far more often than they already do now when seeking to use and enjoy their land.

Under the new rule, the definition of “navigable waters” would include man-made ditches and “tributaries that have ephemeral flow, such as depressions in land that are dry most of the year except when there is heavy rain.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/19/repor ... z3in91YwRk

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 6:33 am

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:by the way, Woody, could you explain exactly HOW the EPA has exceeded original(or at least legislated) intent? I'll look forward to reading it this evening once we make it home.........
Try these:

"the EPA is using the regulatory process to require greenhouse gas emission reductions even as Congress has been unwilling to take such drastic actions.”

"The EPA has also exceeded its mandate with regard to standards for ground-level ozone, which is a main component in smog."

" The third overreach examined in the report is a proposed rule that would expand the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA), forcing private property owners “to obtain permits from the federal government far more often than they already do now when seeking to use and enjoy their land.

Under the new rule, the definition of “navigable waters” would include man-made ditches and “tributaries that have ephemeral flow, such as depressions in land that are dry most of the year except when there is heavy rain.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/19/repor ... z3in91YwRk

that is one person's opinions(not even your own, except for the cut and paste), and frankly, given the actual mandate of the EPA, NONE of them exceed a very general mandate to protect the air and waters of all people. Take that last one: just because something only has water seasonally does not mean that the runoff doesn't flow INTO navigable water, potable water areas. There should be ZERO issue with that unless one wishes to embrace the concept that private citizens are going to be allowed to poison thousands or more fellow citizens.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 6:41 am

You say it is only a opinion. Easy thing to say to try and refute something. Please link something, anything that aids your assertion and what the reporter is saying is untrue. For one the issue with clean water act and land owners has been in the news quite a bit so not a opinion.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:02 am

from the legal dictionary definition:
"The Environmental Protection Agency was established in the Executive Branch as an independent agency pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, effective December 2, 1970. The EPA was created to permit coordinated and effective governmental action on behalf of the environment. The EPA endeavors to abate and control pollution systematically, by proper integration of a variety of research, monitoring, standard setting, and enforcement activities. As a complement to its other activities, the EPA coordinates and supports research and antipollution activities by state and local governments, private and public groups, individuals, and educational institutions. The EPA also reinforces efforts among other federal agencies with respect to the impact of their operations on the environment, and it is specifically charged with publishing its determinations when those hold that a proposal is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. In all, the EPA is designed to serve as the advocate of the public for a livable environment."

nothing really mandated as on or off-limits, with the only restrictions imposed by Congressional Acts(laws). Otherwise, the EPA is merely charged with acting in the interest of the greater public, Woody.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:28 am

I know what they are charged with. What they are attempting to do goes way beyond their mandate. As a regulatory agency they can only regulate laws passed by congress...not make up laws or regulations on their own. They are not helping John q Public by regulating water runoff in the ditch running through your property that only carries water after a rainstorm..

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:43 am

woodchip wrote:I know what they are charged with. What they are attempting to do goes way beyond their mandate. As a regulatory agency they can only regulate laws passed by congress

absolutely wrong. They are mandated to act independantly, AND also enforce environmental laws provided by congressional action. They are, in their very definition, charged with CREATING regulations.

oh, and a waterway which carries water in a rainstorm carries it TO someplace, generally a larger body of water which impacts the general public.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 1:09 pm

Slick, what's your opinion of this one. Obama's believes in climate change and and is all for trying to do something about it through government regulation and intervention, but at the same time, he's telling the oil companies to go ahead into the Arctic and drill baby drill for more oil. Seems kind of unprincipled frankly.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 1:11 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Slick, what's your opinion of this one. Obama's believes in climate change and and is all for trying to do something about it through government regulation and intervention, but at the same time, he's telling the oil companies to go ahead into the Arctic and drill baby drill for more oil. Seems kind of unprincipled frankly.

I don't understand that one, myself. Especially given recent reports that some parts of the Artic Ice are melted as is, I can't see where any industrial activity is bright, nor see the need for more oil drilling anywhere. Now, in the real world, I can't see anything past survey activity as it is a financial disaster to try and extract crude from that place when it sells for $38-45 per barrel(and dropping).

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:08 pm

Greenpeace sure as hell took exception. They tried to block a Shell icebreaker ship from leaving Portland after it was repaired in a local shipyard by hanging on long ropes off the St. Johns Bridge in an effort to block it's passage back to the Arctic. The tactic cost Portland a lot of money and didn't stop the ship. Their heart's in the right place, but their protests leave a lot to be desired. I just don't get Obama over this decision either. Being 2-faced is not a good look for him. Either he's for protecting the climate, or he's for big oil. He can't be for both and have any integrity.

http://q13fox.com/2015/07/29/greenpeace ... cebreaker/

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 3:44 pm

being a functioning politician, and leader, sometimes demands that you accede to some of everyone's wishes, while denying others.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:59 pm

callmeslick wrote:being a functioning politician, and leader, sometimes demands that you accede to some of everyone's wishes, while denying others.

The EPA is showing yet another example of BIG GOVERNMENT's real credo: "If it ain't broke, BREAK IT."

Government is the only institution where waste is good and FAILURE is rewarded.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Aug 15, 2015 4:21 pm

TB, the fact that the mining companies and the state of Colorado didn't want EPA Superfund Status because they feared the stigma is the reason this royally screwed up and made an even bigger mess. A small group of local people tried to clean up a mess that really called for a massive effort and lots of money to do right. It's not the "government's" fault as much as it's all the mining companies and Colorado's fault for refusing major help. So why is it that it's always the government's fault, but never the fault of the companies that made the original mess anyway?

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/297560 ... s-for-mine

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Aug 15, 2015 4:24 pm

but, TC, that doesn't fit TB's preconceptions, so it must be wrong, somehow.....

you are exactly correct. They have been trying to get Superfund status for a lot of mines in the central Rockies, yet get thwarted by Congress(guess which party?), and bipartisan pressures by mining interests. Thus, you end up with a half-ass local effort, which, in this case, released a lot of stuff that should have been contained. Hardly any indictment of 'big government', in fact, a demonstration of the need for Federal action to a much more thorough degree.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Aug 16, 2015 4:00 pm

Yep. No snazzy retort from TB. Still waiting for some logical explanation of his views.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Aug 16, 2015 4:59 pm

Of course no one that works for the Federal Government ever makes a mistake.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Aug 16, 2015 5:41 pm

did a single person here imply that, Spidey? No, but the fact that people make mistakes, I repeat for what seems the thousandth time, is NOT a justification for NOT DOING THINGS.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:26 pm

No, the implication is that big government can always do things better.

And I have never made the claim that making mistakes is an excuse for not doing things...hell...that would put the kibosh on my entire career...

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:08 pm

Spidey wrote:No, the implication is that big government can always do things better.

And I have never made the claim that making mistakes is an excuse for not doing things...hell...that would put the kibosh on my entire career...

So, private enterprise never makes mistakes? How do you think this whole polluted mine mess got started in the first place? Who created the Love Canal mess, etc., etc.? It certainly wasn't the government, although they've made their fair share of messes themselves, but they always get blamed when they get stuck cleaning up the toxic messes created by private enterprise and something goes wrong. The only thing is, the public never saw the "profits" those companies made in the process creating those messes. To add insult to injury, bankruptcy is private enterprise's solution to avoid those nasty cleanup bills. It's then the public that has to foot the bill for those cleanup costs.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:10 pm

Spidey wrote:No, the implication is that big government can always do things better.

who the hell ever threw the word 'always' in there? No me, and I don't recall EVER hearing anyone here suggest that.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:43 pm

“I keep saying when are we going to hear from the White House? Not a word,” ... “When somebody wins the Super Bowl or an NBA Championship, they get a call, right? And when something like this happens and people are suffering, nothing.” - Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:02 pm

Lothar wrote:“I keep saying when are we going to hear from the White House? Not a word,” ... “When somebody wins the Super Bowl or an NBA Championship, they get a call, right? And when something like this happens and people are suffering, nothing.” - Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye

another self-centered twit who feels that the POTUS ought to drop everything because his stream got fouled, or whatever. Does he think that the Governor of Colorado wasn't called? Seems they always come out of the woodworks whining for attention in every locale after every negative event. By the way, it seems that this whole thing was a bit overblown from initial reports. Bad stuff, but hardly up there with a bunch of other stream pollution events I could name.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:30 pm

How dare some twit criticize the president!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:51 pm

Spidey wrote:How dare some twit criticize the president!

not at all what I'm saying, but to suggest what that guy suggested is very self-centered, and pretty much whining and little else.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:32 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Lothar wrote:“I keep saying when are we going to hear from the White House? Not a word,” ... “When somebody wins the Super Bowl or an NBA Championship, they get a call, right? And when something like this happens and people are suffering, nothing.” - Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye

another self-centered twit who feels that the POTUS ought to drop everything because his stream got fouled, or whatever. Does he think that the Governor of Colorado wasn't called? Seems they always come out of the woodworks whining for attention in every locale after every negative event. By the way, it seems that this whole thing was a bit overblown from initial reports. Bad stuff, but hardly up there with a bunch of other stream pollution events I could name.

Twit? Self Centered? Seems Obama dropped everything when a black professor complained about his treatment at the hands of the cops. Seems Obama dropped ev4erything to make a comment about a black thug getting shot and killed by a latino. In both cases POTUS took the time to shoot his mouth off before he had the facts in. Yet the poisoning of a waterway by one of his agencies that affected thousands of people and the aquatic wild life for for 100's of miles down stream. I'm wondering if you would be as nonchalant if it was a republican president and one of your favorite trout stream was similarly poisoned.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:44 pm

were it one of my favorite trout streams, I sure as hell wouldn't expect the President to comment on it, or phonecall every local interested party, because that isn't his responsibility. If he chose to, nice, but(like with the example you cited for Obama) I would assume there is a greater political message he or she wished to bring home, and not just extending sympathies.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:51 pm

callmeslick wrote:were it one of my favorite trout streams, I sure as hell wouldn't expect the President to comment on it, or phonecall every local interested party, because that isn't his responsibility. If he chose to, nice, but(like with the example you cited for Obama) I would assume there is a greater political message he or she wished to bring home, and not just extending sympathies.

So the president has no responsibility to talk about a disaster caused by a federal agency. Why does a political message trump (notice how I gave a certain candidate air time here) a federally caused disaster?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:54 pm

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:were it one of my favorite trout streams, I sure as hell wouldn't expect the President to comment on it, or phonecall every local interested party, because that isn't his responsibility. If he chose to, nice, but(like with the example you cited for Obama) I would assume there is a greater political message he or she wished to bring home, and not just extending sympathies.
So the president has no responsibility to talk about a disaster caused by a federal agency. Why does a political message trump (notice how I gave a certain candidate air time here) a federally caused disaster?

I'm quite sure it has been discussed with the proper state and federal agencies, but what was offered was a whine from a local, regional leader that he didn't get a phone call. Too freaking bad.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:58 pm

also, I just LOVE how the anti-government crowd wants to call this a 'disaster'. It's a pollution event, not even that major in scale. Certainly nothing like BP and their Gulf well explosion, or the Exxon Valdez, or, honestly about a hundred streambed pollution events from industries every year. Last year's dump into North Carolina waters was far worse, and far longer lasting in detrimental effects that this one was. The place is open to boating and fishing already. I've heard of very little by way of fish kills(my pals call it marginal as a trout stream, but lots of whitefish). Either some groups are using the word 'disaster' pretty loosely, or they're just trying to gin up another whine about 'big government'........

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:42 pm

callmeslick wrote:it has been discussed with the proper state and federal agencies, but what was offered was a whine from a local, regional leader

... a leader of a sovereign nation. A sovereign nation that just had one of its main natural resources severely damaged. I realize you might not understand the significance, but Obama should.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:24 am

Lothar wrote:... a leader of a semi-autonomous region.

Fixed for you. Everything they do is still under the purview of the federal government, including the EPA. Let's tone it down with the sovereign nation crap.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:53 am

vision wrote:
Lothar wrote:... a leader of a semi-autonomous region.
Fixed for you. Everything they do is still under the purview of the federal government, including the EPA. Let's tone it down with the sovereign nation crap.

A semi-autonomous region which also functions as a sovereign nation. It's complicated, but don't undersell it as merely a region; it's a region with its own unique government, legal system, judiciary, etc. and with a complicated relationship with the Federal government. I would absolutely expect someone fairly high up from this side to contact someone fairly high up from that side over an incident as significant as contaminating one of their primary water sources.

(I happen to have a Navajo friend I see most weeks, two other friends who lived on the reservation for 25 years, and quite a few others who have established relationships with isolated communities like Navajo Mountain. There's a lot of concern about the lack of government communication...)