🚀 go-pugleaf

You asked for feedback and posted three specific questions. Here's my reply:

>       1) The 1972 Clean Water Act needs revision - It's goals are no
>toxic discharges and all waters drinkable, swimmable, and fishable.
>This is just not practical.

Agreed some revisions are probably overdue. But could you explain why this
isn't practical? Is it the cost of enforcement, the time to clean up the
current messes, or what, exactly, from your perspective?

Clean waterways for drinking, swimming and fishing seem to be basic rights
for everyone. Otherwise, how would you decide who gets to live next to (and
drink and swim in) the waterways that are not protected? And how in the
world would you control the runoff from one getting into the waters
elsewhere? How would you keep the junk from eventually dumping into the sea?

>       2) The 1995 Clean Water Act (HR 961 which is going nowhere) is a
>n attempt to turn back the clock and reduce the budget.  Federal
>responsibilities and funding are cut in the name of state's rights with
>no discernable national goals.

This bill was also drafted with a lot of input from the very corporations
that are supposedly being regulated by its language , e.g.- Chemical
manufacturers, pulp mill operators, etc. Perhaps this is why it's going
nowhere-- it's simply a bad bill that will hurt, more than help, the
current situation.


>       3) We need to accept the fact that many water have not been and
>never will be pristine.  Reasonable effluent limits need to be
>maintained for these waters, but BACT is overkill.  Land use
>primarily governs water quality in sensitive areas.  Strict land use
>oversight and BACT are appropriate. This leaves the majority of our
>waterways - pretty good.  We could just continue to apply today's
>technology to those areas and see significant improvement.  They would
>be OK for drinking, swimming, & fishing but not perfect.


Again, I have to ask, how would "pretty good" waterways not impact on the
others at some point, either via mixing at some point in the watershed, or
ultimately at the seashore ? As for "pristine," I'd settle for "biologically
functioning and sustainable," since healthy biological processes will do far
more to keep waterways "pretty good" than many other measures.

Unfort., the so-called "Dirty Water Bill" also allows for the increased
development of wetlands, which are the last ditch filters for many
hazardous materials before they reach our waterways. If you chip away at
what few wetlands are left in the US, then loosen up on discharge
standards, it's a recipe for a much worse water quality situation in the
long run.

Re-evaluation of current environmental protection laws is not, on its
face, a bad thing, esp. if current best technologies are applied. But to
change the laws for the sake of saving corporate dollars, well, I think that
combination would harm our long-term public health priorities.