🚀 go-pugleaf

It seems to me that "goals" represent the horizon for which we are 
striving, a direction that provides focus.  Objectives represent a 
subset within that focus.  Therefore, I believe the goals of the 
1972 law are entirely proper, so long as we cast feasible 
objectives.  If we lower our goals, they will become 
limiting and self-fulfilling, and we will indeed settle for "less 
than pristine" waters and stop short of what may be achievable.

Steve LeGore

On Sat, 17 Feb 1996, Scott Ingram wrote:

> I would like to hear your views on the Clean Water Act of 1995 and 
> Clinton's proposals to revise the 1972 Clean Water Act.  My views as I 
> research the subject for a paper are that:
> 
> 	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.
> 
> 	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.
> 
> 	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.
> 
> Wetlands management is a mess under current law.  Whoever has the money 
> for studies & lobbying get to develop.  The 1995 Act is an attempt to 
> wash our hands of the problem in the name of individual rights.  Any 
> ideas how to sensibly regulate wetlands development?
> 
>