Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 12, 2019

The Trump administration on Thursday is expected to complete the legal repeal of a major Obama-era clean water regulation, which had placed limits on polluting chemicals that could be used near streams, wetlands and water bodies.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Just one more good reason to elect a Democratic President who pledges to immediately, on his/her first day in office to cancel every single one of Trump's EOs.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-12 10:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Clean water is a privilege only for the wealthy.

#2 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-12 10:30 AM | Reply

Plus the economic opportunity zones. He's ruining his base and love him for it

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-12 11:18 AM | Reply

Poisoning your water just to own the libs

#4 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-12 11:24 AM | Reply

Republicans: Taking us forward to the past!

We won't stop progressing until we've arrived at the Stone Age!!

#5 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-09-12 11:25 AM | Reply

If you know sociopaths, you know Trump. The man has a list of people and things he wants to hurt.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-12 11:28 AM | Reply

Go Team America!!

Soon we can be number one in pollution again!

MAGA!!

MAKE AMERICA GAG AGAIN!!

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-09-12 11:29 AM | Reply

Trump feels he won't get re-elected. He's having his Burn Paris moment before D-Day.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-12 11:29 AM | Reply

Voting is like Driving.

(D) for forward
(R) for backward

#9 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-12 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You idiots realize, of course, the all the 2015 Clean Water Rule did was establish who was in charge of the waters, by stating (in essence) that the federal government regulates all the waters AND limited any legal challenges requiring case-by-case review. It does not change the 1972 Clean Water Act, nor will its revocation. Untwist your panties.

#10 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-09-12 11:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 7

Make Agua Glow Again

#11 | Posted by anton at 2019-09-12 11:50 AM | Reply

It does not change the 1972 Clean Water Act, nor will its revocation. Untwist your panties.

#10 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Blahnik blahnik blahnik

We know who the idiots are.

Anyone who believes anything coming from this administration is a fool.


"Because it threatens to leave major portions of communities' water supplies and ecosystems virtually unprotected against pollution, environmental advocates have denounced the proposal as a blank check for corporations, agribusiness, and real-estate developers."

Maybe we can use those twisted panties to filter all our drinking water. Might leave a nice after taste.

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-09-12 11:58 AM | Reply

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

#MAGA

Do you feel like you're winning now? Do you still feel like Trump's your messiah? Your "Ubermensch?

He told all of you he was going to grab you ------- by the ----- and YOU STILL VOTED FOR TRUMP!

Not only did he grab your -----, he stuck his Cheetos orange pinkie up your ---! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is going to effect mostly the red states like West Virginia, etc. Blue states have their state environmental laws established and to hell with Trump because we get nothing from the Feds anyway.

#13 | Posted by Goose_Boils at 2019-09-12 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That is what you get when people whose see the bulk of their lives are in the rear view mirror running the country.

We need to support younger people running for office.

#14 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-09-12 12:02 PM | Reply

all the 2015 Clean Water Rule did was establish who was in charge of the waters

False. It re-defined what "waters of the United States" meant in the first place so that streams and wetlands would be subject to the Rule.

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-12 12:11 PM | Reply

You idiots realize, of course, the all the 2015 Clean Water Rule did was establish who was in charge of the waters, by stating (in essence) that the federal government regulates all the waters AND limited any legal challenges requiring case-by-case review. It does not change the 1972 Clean Water Act, nor will its revocation. Untwist your panties.

#10 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Idiot.

Joe is right at #15.

The 2015 Act specified what waters the 1972 Act applied to. Getting rid of it means many waters will no longer be subject to the 1972 Act requirements.

Now those waters can be polluted again.

Congratulations, you played yourself.

#16 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-12 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Wrong joe. it defined what the limits of the fed rule was ie. the area involved that the law covered.

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-12 12:21 PM | Reply

"We need to support younger people running for office."

I think we need to support people who aren't sold out. That is the biggest problem in this country. I don't care how old they are but I want them working for the benefit of the people not just rich donors.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-12 12:23 PM | Reply

These are the same people who are surprised when glyphosphate is in most wells after dumping 300 million pounds of water soluble glyphosphate on US crops per year for 45 years

#19 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-12 12:24 PM | Reply

BBQ on the Cuyahoga is coming back? Super! I'll bring the bratwurst.

#20 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-12 12:29 PM | Reply

I think we need to support people who aren't sold out. That is the biggest problem in this country. I don't care how old they are but I want them working for the benefit of the people not just rich donors.

#18 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-09-12 12:23 PM | REPLY |

It doesn't matter who you send to congress if they have to fundraise every day to get re-elected and the donors all demand something in return.

We need to get rid of dark money and change how elections are funded. Stop direct donations. All political funds go into a pool. We have to stop the legal bribery system that lobbying has become.

#21 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-12 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

These are the same people who are surprised when glyphosphate is in most wells after dumping 300 million pounds of water soluble glyphosphate on US crops per year for 45 years
#19 | Posted by hatter5183

No, they're not surprised. These are the same people that ignore global warming, then when hurricanes worsen and devastate an island nation, tell those islanders to go F' themselves.

They know the impact and simply don't care.

They are sociopaths.

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-09-12 12:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I agree with you exactly Hatter5183. Everything would change if we were able to do that. But, Republicans would start whining that we are taking away their "freedom of speech." They like politicians to be paid lackeys.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-12 12:34 PM | Reply

"Welcome to the party."

-Flint, Michigan

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-12 12:38 PM | Reply

You want to get rid of money in politics? LOL! You've got a better chance of going back in time and stopping President Grant from taking money from advocates in the lobby of the Willard. Reality really ain't your strong suit.

#25 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-12 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You want to get rid of money in politics? LOL!"

You don't? That's just sad.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-12 12:41 PM | Reply

Polluting water is as American as Republican apple pie.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2019-09-12 12:41 PM | Reply

#26

You can't. But, keep pounding your head against a wall. Something will give.

#28 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-12 12:52 PM | Reply

FTA:

It is expected that the new rule, still being developed, will retain federal protections for larger bodies of water, the rivers that drain into them and wetlands that are directly adjacent to those bodies of water.

But it will quite likely strip away protections of so-called ephemeral streams, in which water runs only during or after rainfalls, and of wetlands that are not adjacent to major bodies of water, or connected to such bodies of water by a surface channel of water. Those changes would represent a victory for farmers and rural landowners, who lobbied the Trump administration aggressively to make them.


Also, gotta love the scary headline. A more accurate headline would be: "US Returning to 2015 Water Pollution Rules".

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-12 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Thank goodness it will no longer take an act of congress and seven federal agencies to all agree to let me replace the culvert in my driveway i.e. A Federally Protected Wetland.

#30 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-12 12:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

diot.
Joe is right at #15.
The 2015 Act specified what waters the 1972 Act applied to. Getting rid of it means many waters will no longer be subject to the 1972 Act requirements.
Now those waters can be polluted again.
Congratulations, you played yourself.

#16 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

You're flat-out wrong.

All that is being proposed is unrolling the expansive definition of what constituted a regulated body of water. The Obama rule included rain run off in retention ditches.

Mustang is 100% correct based upon my reading of the embedded NYT article.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-12 12:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#31 If you think the 2015 Clean Water Rule addressed "what constituted a regulated body of water" then you can't think Mustang is correct. That's not what he said at all.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-12 01:06 PM | Reply

"But it will quite likely strip away protections of so-called ephemeral streams, in which water runs only during or after rainfalls, and of wetlands that are not adjacent to major bodies of water, or connected to such bodies of water by a surface channel of water. Those changes would represent a victory for farmers and rural landowners, who lobbied the Trump administration aggressively to make them."

Here's what it says in the article posted to this thread:

"The Obama rule, developed under the authority of the 1972 Clean Water Act, was designed to limit pollution in about 60 percent of the nation's bodies of water, protecting sources of drinking water for about one-third of the United States. It extended existing federal authority to limit pollution in large bodies of water, like the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, to smaller bodies that drain into them, such as tributaries, streams and wetlands.

Under the rule, farmers using land near streams and wetlands were restricted from doing certain kinds of plowing and from planting certain crops, and would have been required to obtain E.P.A. permits in order to use chemical pesticides and fertilizers that could have run off into those bodies of water. Those restrictions will now be lifted.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-12 01:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

15, 16, 32 - read 17. The rule simply stated "all of these waters are ours to regulate, not yours to regulate".

#34 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-09-12 01:37 PM | Reply

Who needs clean water anyways. I bet Jeff would drink Flint's poisoned water just to pwn the liberals.

#35 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-12 01:39 PM | Reply

Now bring back phosphates, incandescent light bulbs and toilets that work. ...And normal flow showers and dishwashers and clothes washers and dryers that work.

#36 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-12 01:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#34 No, that's a simplistic and inaccurate view of the rule. Yes, one effect of the rule was to bring certain waters within the jurisdiction of the EPA, but the primary mechanics of the rule was to expand the definition of "waters of the United States" to include streams and wetlands so that said waters would them be covered by the pollution control rules in the Clean Water Act.

It wasn't just a shift in jurisdiction or a reshuffling of papers like you claim. It enhanced pollution control in particular waters where that control did not previously exist. Stop talking out of your ass, it doesn't help the discussion.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-12 01:42 PM | Reply

I bet Jeff would drink Flint's poisoned water just to pwn the liberals.

#35 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You've got me confused with Frank Cotton. Although he would drink Flint water to pwn the libs, he'd drink it because he's Frank Cotton.

Word is he's swimming back to Florida from the Bahamas. He went there to experience the hurricane.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-12 01:48 PM | Reply

"#34 No, that's a simplistic and inaccurate view of the rule. Yes, one effect of the rule was to bring certain waters within the jurisdiction of the EPA, but the primary mechanics of the rule was to expand the definition of "waters of the United States" to include streams and wetlands so that said waters would them be covered by the pollution control rules in the Clean Water Act."

And thereby protect groundwater, is my guess primarily why and why farmers don't like it. Down here in Florida the Sugar Cane growers use fertilizers which are washed into the Everglades or Lake Okeechobee which creates huge algae problems. So Trump's change will have cause significant problems in the water supplies used by towns and cities all over the country.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-12 01:49 PM | Reply

I've been fighting with the Federal government for two years to get them to "allow" me to put in a culvert so my driveway won't flood in the spring. I don't have the money for studies and lawyers etc.

#40 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-12 01:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And thereby protect groundwater

That's what the extensive science cited in the Rule concluded. But we know what this administration thinks about science, especially science that was used by the black guy.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-12 01:59 PM | Reply

As Visitor says, regulations can be troublesome and should be carefully drawn up with ways for individual home owners to be able to do reasonable things without needing engineers and lawyers.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-12 02:08 PM | Reply

"You want to get rid of money in politics? LOL!"

You don't? That's just sad.

#26 | Posted by danni

How in the hell do you propose to do that ddan?

#43 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-12 02:11 PM | Reply

Also, gotta love the scary headline. A more accurate headline would be: "US Returning to 2015 Water Pollution Rules".

#29 | Posted by JeffJ

That is not correct jeff. WTF is the 2015 law? You don't know.

#44 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-12 02:13 PM | Reply

Under the rule, farmers using land near streams and wetlands were restricted from doing certain kinds of plowing and from planting certain crops, and would have been required to obtain E.P.A. permits in order to use chemical pesticides and fertilizers that could have run off into those bodies of water. Those restrictions will now be lifted.

#33 | Posted by danni

Not quite correct ddan but closer than I thought you would get. The obummer regulation just changed the definition of "waterway" and how close you could get to it. The regulation put restrictions on all culverts, including ones in driveways. How much regulation do you need? Nwxt thing you know there will be restrictions on how much paper you can flush down the toilet when you go.

#45 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-12 02:19 PM | Reply

#37 | Posted by JOE

The expanded definition included the dry ditch at the end of your driveway. It included the roof of your house and where I live that ain't much water. We get less than 15 inches of moisture a year and that includes the snow in the winter.

#46 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-12 02:23 PM | Reply

"How in the hell do you propose to do that ddan?"

We probably need a Constitutional Amendment spelling out the rules for money in political campaigns.

#47 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-12 02:32 PM | Reply

The expanded definition included the dry ditch at the end of your driveway.

Not a response to my post in any way, but that is virtually never true.

Ditches protected by the rule must meet the definition of tributary, having a bed and banks and ordinary high water mark, and contributing flow directly or indirectly through another water to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas.
www.federalregister.gov

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-12 02:35 PM | Reply

Now bring back phosphates, incandescent light bulbs and toilets that work. ...And normal flow showers and dishwashers and clothes washers and dryers that work.

#36 | Posted by visitor_

And lead paint, and leaded gasoline, and asbestos...

Democrats are anti poison. So good patriotic republicans need to be pro-poison.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-12 02:43 PM | Reply

Forty percent of America's rivers are too polluted for fishing, swimming or aquatic life. The lakes are even worse -- over 46% are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life.

#50 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-09-12 02:47 PM | Reply

The Mississippi River, which drains over 40 percent of the continental U.S., carries an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of nitrogen pollution into the Gulf of Mexico every year. This resulting pollution is the cause of a coastal dead zone the size of Massachusetts every summer.

#51 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-09-12 02:48 PM | Reply

Over 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage, groundwater, and industrial waste are discharged into U.S. waters annually

#52 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-09-12 02:48 PM | Reply

"I don't have the money for studies and lawyers etc"

and who's fault is that?

OBAMAS?

#53 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-09-12 02:49 PM | Reply

"I've been fighting with the Federal government for two years to get them to "allow" me to put in a culvert so my driveway won't flood in the spring"

this is a bold face lie

this sort of stuff happens at a county level

#54 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-09-12 02:52 PM | Reply

This is a bold face lie
this sort of stuff happens at a county level
#54 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

You sir, are full of ----. These things used to be controlled at the county level but Obama's order effectively took control of all waters in the US.
I have land that has two 'imtermittent streams' crossing it. Intermittent meaning water moves through and stands in them about 1 month out of 12. The rest of the time they are dry. It is high ground, only one adjoining property draining onto me. My 'streams' both drain into a pond on the other side of my property. They are deep enough that I have tubes to cross them. The tubes were there when I bought the place.
Obamas order made it so that I could do nothing without FSA approval. Could not move or improve the crossings. Could not even put in erosion control without approval. Anything involving the streams was subject to government approval.
I am happy to have control of my property again.

#55 | Posted by 6thPersona at 2019-09-12 03:34 PM | Reply

I applied for a permit they told me I needed approval at a Federal level because my property is within 1000 feet of a drainage area that feeds a sensitive area and there's an endangered insect involved. But I should tell them that CHIEFTUTMOSES said it was OK?

#56 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-12 03:39 PM | Reply

And our county government if filled with wacko environmental jerks that are only too happy to pass the buck if impedes any kind of construction.

#57 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-12 03:42 PM | Reply

As usual the cancervatives strive to make cancer great again.

#58 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-09-12 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

55

It's okay...the drunken injun has water running through his teepee consisting of urine, feces, and Lord Calvert whiskey.

He wants to apply to have it diverted...but he's too lazy and drunk all day to do anything about it...and let's be honest, much of the urine, feces, and whiskey is his anyway.

ChiefTut waiving hi to you

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-12 03:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I applied for a permit they told me I needed approval at a Federal level because my property is within 1000 feet of a drainage area that feeds a sensitive area and there's an endangered insect involved. But I should tell them that CHIEFTUTMOSES said it was OK?

#56 | Posted by visitor_

No but you should be adult enough to realize the obama administration didn't make this regulation for fun.
No regulations are made just to annoy you. They are made because people were behaving in ways that harm others.
This rule was made because poisons were being rinsed off by occasional rains into public waters. Do you think that is ok?

Blame the people spraying poison around. Not the people who had to write a new rule to protect others from their carelessness.

#60 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-12 04:40 PM | Reply

And our county government if filled with wacko environmental jerks that are only too happy to pass the buck if impedes any kind of construction.

#57 | Posted by visitor_

Yeah the people who try to protect the only home we'll ever have are wackos.

The geniuses who think we can trash the planet without consequence are the responsible adults.

#61 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-12 04:42 PM | Reply

I think the planet will survive just fine with drainage water flowing under my driveway instead of over.

#62 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-12 05:45 PM | Reply

I think the planet will survive just fine with drainage water flowing under my driveway instead of over.

#62 | Posted by visitor_

Sure it's all about your driveway. You dont know the people who will be harmed from toxins getting flushed into public water so they dont matter.

me me me. like a child.

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-12 06:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort