Reckless and irresponsible, House GOP votes to overturn Biden rule on water protections

[Blues Man]

I would hope that someday you people aren't so naïve.

This is political theater. Repubs are passing bills in the house they know do not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting through the senate all to claim some manufactured moral high ground to use later.

and FYI Democrats do the same shit.

 

[initforme]

So keeping streams unpolluted is a bad thing? Industry must be watched closely. Watchdog citizen groups can be a strong force.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So keeping streams unpolluted is a bad thing? Industry must be watched closely. Watchdog citizen groups can be a strong force.

Regulating a puddle in your yard is a good thing?

 

[initforme]

Nope but allowing industry to pollute is bad. Keep them afraid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope but allowing industry to pollute is bad. Keep them afraid.

You need to be afraid as well.

And don't fill in any puddles on your property.

 

[initforme]

You need to be afraid as well.

And don't fill in any puddles on your property.

I don't pollute. I fear nobody. At 93 I can handle anyone half my age.

 

[Leo123]

“The House on Thursday voted to overturn the Biden administration’s protections for thousands of small streams, wetlands and other waterways, advancing long-held Republican arguments that the regulations are an environmental overreach and burden to business.

The vote was 227-198 to overturn the rule.

House Republicans used the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to block recently enacted executive-branch regulations. The measure now heads to the Senate, where Republicans hope to attract Democratic senators wary of Biden's environmental policies. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a frequent Biden antagonist, has already pledged to support the overturn of a rule he calls federal overreach.”

House GOP votes to overturn Biden rule on water protections

The House on Thursday voted to overturn the Biden administration’s protections for thousands of small streams, wetlands and other waterways, advancing long-held Republican arguments that the regulations are an environmental overreach and burden to business. House Republicans used the...

finance.yahoo.com

More of the right’s contempt for sound, responsible governance.

Leave it to the States. They know more about local environmental factors anyway.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't pollute. I fear nobody. At 93 I can handle anyone half my age.

Thank goodness.
I'd hate it if the Feds seized your property because you did some landscaping.

 

[Crick]

Regulating a puddle in your yard is a good thing?

Why do you argue like that? You know that those regulations address a multitude of situations that need to be addressed; that have significant impacts on wildlife and water supplies. The environment needs those sorts of protections. It is not intended to arrest farmers for abusing their puddles and you know it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you argue like that? You know that those regulations address a multitude of situations that need to be addressed; that have significant impacts on wildlife and water supplies. The environment needs those sorts of protections. It is not intended to arrest farmers for abusing their puddles and you know it.

I argue like that because when the government overreaches, they
punish people for filling in puddles on their own land.

You know that those regulations address a multitude of situations that need to be addressed; that have significant impacts on wildlife and water supplies.

If you think that temporary puddles on private land, that never connect to the waters of the United States, need to be regulated by the Feds, you're part of the problem

It is not intended to arrest farmers for abusing their puddles and you know it.

And yet, it sometimes does and you know it. Or should.

 

[Crick]

I argue like that because when the government overreaches, they
punish people for filling in puddles on their own land.

You know that those regulations address a multitude of situations that need to be addressed; that have significant impacts on wildlife and water supplies.

If you think that temporary puddles on private land, that never connect to the waters of the United States, need to be regulated by the Feds, you're part of the problem

It is not intended to arrest farmers for abusing their puddles and you know it.

And yet, it sometimes does and you know it. Or should.

There's a puddle in Death Valley that contains the only examples of a small species of fish on the planet. Would it be ok with you to fill that in?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's a puddle in Death Valley that contains the only examples of a small species of fish on the planet. Would it be ok with you to fill that in?

Why do you argue like that?

Now if the feds came onto your land and said you couldn't fill in a puddle
that only appears 3 times a year during heavy rains, because your puddle
is somehow related to the navigable waters of the United States then I would
say yes, fill it in.