EPA Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles to Slash Dangerous Pollution and Take Key Step Toward Accelerating Zero-Emissions Future

[Doc7505]

Biden admin quietly reinstates 'overreaching' EPA rule potentially regulating 'puddles and ditches'​

Biden administration regulations repeal Trump-era rules that left ravines and gullies unprotected on farms​

Biden admin quietly reinstates 'overreaching' EPA rule potentially regulating 'puddles and ditches'

New regulations and definitions of water bodies in the U.S. have some worried the Biden administration could regulate puddles and ditches used by farmers.

www.foxbusiness.com

2 Jan 2023 ~~ By reg Wehner
The Biden administration signed off on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to protect small streams, wetlands and waterways as part of the Clean Water Act, just before the end of 2022.
The EPA signed off on the revised definition of "Waters of the United States" on Dec. 29 while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed off on the revised definitions on Dec. 28.
The revised rules define what types of water bodies are protected under the Clean Water Act and were based on definitions that were put in place before 2015 during the Obama administration.
The Trump administration reversed course from the Obama administration, which looked for ways to expand federal protections of waterways.
~Snip~
The new rule signed by the Biden administration increases protections of wetlands, lakes, ponds and some streams, especially if they are navigable waterways or wetlands that are "relatively permanent."
"Rural America doesn’t need yet another rule giving the federal government more power over farming and private property," he said in a statement last week. "The federal government shouldn’t have jurisdiction to regulate puddles, ditches, seasonal creeks or culverts. All this rule does is make it more difficult to grow food or build anything."


Commentary:
One more step in the EPA;s overreaching it's authority.
We have an Out of Control government completely out of control.
States are quite capable of regulating their own water ways ponds and ditches. Eliminate the EPA and have the 50 states representatives meet to discuss, remediate and fund problems as they arise. Congress could write the checks. The EPA duplicates the states environmental offices and only serves to hire political operatives who devour funds for their salaries.
Did the EPA ever clean up the Gold King Mine disaster spilling water poisoned with heavy metals such as cadmium and lead, and other toxic elements, such as arsenic,[5] beryllium,[5] zinc,[5] iron[5] and copper[5 into the Cement Creek, a tributary of the Animas River. The spill affected waterways of municipalities in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, as well as the Navajo Nation.
Seems the EPA poisons more round than they claim they save.
Indeed, Joey Xi Bai Dung would repeal this. Trump prevented government over-reach. Something Joey Xi had taken great pleasure in enacting...
Obama's regulations cost us $2 trillion over 8 years. While I've yet to see any concrete numbers, I have no doubt Xi's regulations will cost us trillions more during his remainder in office.

 

[Crick]

Biden admin quietly reinstates 'overreaching' EPA rule potentially regulating 'puddles and ditches'​

Biden administration regulations repeal Trump-era rules that left ravines and gullies unprotected on farms​

Biden admin quietly reinstates 'overreaching' EPA rule potentially regulating 'puddles and ditches'

New regulations and definitions of water bodies in the U.S. have some worried the Biden administration could regulate puddles and ditches used by farmers.

www.foxbusiness.com

2 Jan 2023 ~~ By reg Wehner
The Biden administration signed off on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to protect small streams, wetlands and waterways as part of the Clean Water Act, just before the end of 2022.
The EPA signed off on the revised definition of "Waters of the United States" on Dec. 29 while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed off on the revised definitions on Dec. 28.
The revised rules define what types of water bodies are protected under the Clean Water Act and were based on definitions that were put in place before 2015 during the Obama administration.
The Trump administration reversed course from the Obama administration, which looked for ways to expand federal protections of waterways.
~Snip~
The new rule signed by the Biden administration increases protections of wetlands, lakes, ponds and some streams, especially if they are navigable waterways or wetlands that are "relatively permanent."
"Rural America doesn’t need yet another rule giving the federal government more power over farming and private property," he said in a statement last week. "The federal government shouldn’t have jurisdiction to regulate puddles, ditches, seasonal creeks or culverts. All this rule does is make it more difficult to grow food or build anything."

Minor formatting goof on your part. The quoted statement that begins "Rural America doesn't need yet another rule..." is that of Congressman Doug LaMalfa. You have made it seem as if it was Biden's statement which would make no sense.

Commentary:
One more step in the EPA;s overreaching it's authority.

The EPA's authority in this regard is simply being restored. The harmful and unneeded action was Trump's course reversal limiting EPA's waterway authority.

We have an Out of Control government completely out of control.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. We, the majority of Americans, elected this government and for the most part it's doing precisely what we, the majority of Americans, want it to do and what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole. The same can most certainly not be said for the Trump administration.

States are quite capable of regulating their own water ways ponds and ditches.

1) The Ditches and Puddles cracks are disingenuous hyperbole since the emphasis in the new rule is on navigable waterways that are at least semi-permanent.
2) Since waterways cross borders, they are a federal matter.
3) Each state providing the services and regulatory authority now provided by the EPA would be massively wasteful case of excess government and would do nothing but add more rules, regulations and complications to the lives of this nation's farmers - the ones you claim to be thinking about.

Eliminate the EPA and have the 50 states representatives meet to discuss, remediate and fund problems as they arise.

Air and water pay no heed to state boundaries and you are asking for a massive increase in government and in burdensome regulations applied to those farmers you claim you're so worried about.

Congress could write the checks. The EPA duplicates the states environmental offices and only serves to hire political operatives who devour funds for their salaries.

You're not very smart, are you.

Did the EPA ever clean up the Gold King Mine disaster spilling water poisoned with heavy metals such as cadmium and lead, and other toxic elements, such as arsenic,[5] beryllium,[5] zinc,[5] iron[5] and copper[5 into the Cement Creek, a tributary of the Animas River. The spill affected waterways of municipalities in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, as well as the Navajo Nation.

Hmm... an environmental issue that crossed state boundaries. Are you actually going to argue that such issues are better dealt with by regulation and enforcement from multiple agencies than that of one? The spill in Silverton, Colorado affected other states. Would the Colorado EPA have authority to engage with issues arising in New Mexico, Utah or the Navajo Nation? Would the New Mexico, Utah or Navajo Nation EPAs have the authority to deal with the responsible parties in Colorado? Who would have jurisdiction where? That you think such a thing would be a superior way of dealing with this problem tells me that you have an overarching agenda that doesn't give two shits for the farmers or the rights of states. And that you're more than a little bit stupid.

Seems the EPA poisons more round than they claim they save.
Indeed, Joey Xi Bai Dung would repeal this. Trump prevented government over-reach. Something Joey Xi had taken great pleasure in enacting...
Obama's regulations cost us $2 trillion over 8 years. While I've yet to see any concrete numbers, I have no doubt Xi's regulations will cost us trillions more during his remainder in office.

I'll keep the federal EPA thank you. And before you waste more effort trying to connect Biden and China, you might note that Trump's released tax forms show that his companies were doing business in China while he was president, that he paid more taxes to China than he did to the US government and that Biden's tax forms, released by him without qualm, show no connections with China whatsoever. So do us a favor and get your shit straight before you once more open your ignorant yap.

 

[The Duke]

EPA Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles to Slash Dangerous Pollution and Take Key Step Toward Accelerating Zero-Emissions Future​

Final EPA Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles to Slash Dangerous Pollution and Take Key Step Toward Accelerating Zero-Emissions Future | US EPA

EPA News Release: Final EPA Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles to Slash Dangerous Pollution and Take Key Step Toward Accelerating Zero-Emissions Future

www.epa.gov

**********​

EPA Finalizes Rules to Decimate US Trucking Industry and Send Consumer Goods Prices Soaring | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

On Tuesday, December 20, crazed EPA Administrator Michael S.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

On Tuesday, December 20, crazed EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan announced the final national clean air standards to cut smog- and soot-forming emissions from heavy-duty trucks.
The new standards will slash dangerous pollution from semi-trucks.
The EPA insists the new rules will protect public health, especially the health of vulnerable populations in underserved, overburdened communities.
This is pure leftist insanity and will force underserved, over-burdened communities to pay more for their food and consumer goods.

​

Commentary:
Once more the EPA legislates beyond Congress.
Rules and Laws can ONLY be implemented by the Congress and signed by the president of the United States!
Another move by the Maoist/DSA Democrats.
Their plan; The return of the Feudal System of the dark ages. Lords & Serfs, or in more modern times, the Factory Owner vs the worker, where all of workers pay go back to the factory owner in the form of rent and food, and to pay for the chains needed to keep the workers attached to their assigned machine.
This is the Maoist Marxist Socialist Democrat method of control you can look forward to in the coming years.
Wake up or loose life as we know it. You can let it come in and engulf you, but the only way out will require the death of half of us....
Maoist/DSA Democrats don't care if they do something illegally, because it moves them closer to complete control.

Yep

This is an example of someone that has been fully brainwashed. LOL at the EPA running "roughshod over our rights" with no recourse. Oh so you dont vote.

Who did you vote for in the EPA, bro?

 

[Crick]

Yep

Who did you vote for in the EPA, bro?

We voted for our representatives and our president who created and authorized the EPA in precisely the manner specified by the US Constitution, just as every other regulatory government agency was created and authorized. So, again, do you not vote?

 

[The Duke]

We voted for our representatives and our president who created and authorized the EPA in precisely the manner specified by the US Constitution, just as every other regulatory government agency was created and authorized. So, again, do you not vote?

Does voting even really matter anymore?

 

[Crick]

Does voting even really matter anymore?

It's how we got rid of Trump.

 

[ding]

We voted for our representatives and our president who created and authorized the EPA in precisely the manner specified by the US Constitution, just as every other regulatory government agency was created and authorized. So, again, do you not vote?

That's bullshit. The clean air act did not authorize the President/EPA to regulate CO2 for climate change. That was an end run around the constitution of Trumpian proportions.

 

[Crick]

That's bullshit. The clean air act did not authorize the President/EPA to regulate CO2 for climate change. That was an end run around the constitution of Trumpian proportions.

Oooh... such vivid ANGER. Unfortunately, I never said it did.

 

[ding]

Oooh... such vivid ANGER. Unfortunately, I never said it did.

No anger. Just reality. What you said was complete bullshit. The EPA was never constitutionally authorized to regulate CO2 for climate change.

 

[Crick]

No anger. Just reality. What you said was complete bullshit. The EPA was never constitutionally authorized to regulate CO2 for climate change.

So the SCOTUS ruled. But that doesn't make what I DID say "bullshit". Let's go back a bit and see what I actually said.

"We voted for our representatives and our president who created and authorized the EPA in precisely the manner specified by the US Constitution, just as every other regulatory government agency was created and authorized. So, again, do you not vote?"

Do explain why you believe this statement to be bullshit.

 

[ding]

So the SCOTUS ruled. But that doesn't make what I DID say "bullshit". Let's go back a bit and see what I actually said.

"We voted for our representatives and our president who created and authorized the EPA in precisely the manner specified by the US Constitution, just as every other regulatory government agency was created and authorized. So, again, do you not vote?"

Do explain why you believe this statement to be bullshit.

Of course what you said was bullshit. You denied they did anything wrong. I'd say making an end run around the constitution when they had the votes to pass a climate act is wrong.

 

[Crick]

Of course what you said was bullshit. You denied they did anything wrong. I'd say making an end run around the constitution when they had the votes to pass a climate act is wrong.

I explained how the EPA came to exist and that they were given regulatory authority by Congress. Those are demonstrable facts of the public record. THAT is what you claimed was bullshit. Now, again, you deflect. Admit your mistakes, learn from them and move on.

 

[ding]

I explained how the EPA came to exist and that they were given regulatory authority by Congress. Those are demonstrable facts of the public record. THAT is what you claimed was bullshit. Now, again, you deflect. Admit your mistakes, learn from them and move on.

Congress has never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 for climate change. Which is why their end run around the constitution was determined to be unconstitutional. Obama had the votes to pass a climate act but chose not to pass a climate act. He must not have believed climate change is the problem you think it is.

 

[Crick]

Congress has never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 for climate change.

Please show me where I claimed that they had? What? Can't find it? Then get your shit together. Admit your mistakes, learn from them and move on.

Which is why their end run around the constitution was determined to be unconstitutional. Obama had the votes to pass a climate act but chose not to pass a climate act. He must not have believed climate change is the problem you think it is.

You're gonna make me say it, aren't you.

 

[ding]

Please show me where I claimed that they had? What? Can't find it? Then get your shit together. Admit your mistakes, learn from them and move on.


You're gonna make me say it, aren't you.

Forgive me if I didn't realize you were as appalled as I was about the EPA's unconstitutional behavior.

 

[Crick]

Forgive me if I didn't realize you were as appalled as I was about the EPA's unconstitutional behavior.

I was appalled by the SCOTUS decision but at least it has a hint of Constitutional imprimatur. But that's not what has happened here. If you didn't notice me telling you in FOUR separate posts that I had said no such thing and repeatedly telling you what I had said, you;re a complete idiot. If you did read my comments but decided to keep complaining about it as if I had, you're a dishonest jerk. Take your fucking pick.

 

[ding]

I was appalled by the SCOTUS decision but at least it has a hint of Constitutional imprimatur. But that's not what has happened here. If you didn't notice me telling you in FOUR separate posts that I had said no such thing and repeatedly telling you what I had said, you;re a complete idiot. If you did read my comments but decided to keep complaining about it as if I had, you're a dishonest jerk. Take your fucking pick.

You shouldn't have been. Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 for climate change. You're like one step away from being a totalitarian.

 

[Crick]

You shouldn't have been. Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 for climate change. You're like one step away from being a totalitarian.

FOR THE FIFTH TIME, I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE EPA TO REGULATE CO2 EMISSIONS. Your comments here are rapidly approaching willful LIES.

 

[ding]

FOR THE FIFTH TIME, I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE EPA TO REGULATE CO2 EMISSIONS. Your comments here are rapidly approaching willful LIES.

Then you shouldn't have been appalled by SCOTUS slapping the wrist of the EPA for doing that.

 

[Crick]

Then you shouldn't have been appalled by SCOTUS slapping the wrist of the EPA for doing that.

It's entirely possible for what we think and what we type out here to be different. I am now going to assume that you agree that the EPA was constitutionally created and authorized by Congress.