🚀 go-pugleaf

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?