🚀 go-pugleaf

No the CWA has been partially successful, but it is far better than
nothing. If, you don't believe this just look to Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union for a highly industrialized benchmark area of the
world that either did not enforce any laws or did not have any laws
concerning surface water. 
The US is 33 times as industrialized as the former Soviet Union....think
about it without the CWA. 
We still have 40% of our lakes, rivers and streams polluted to the point
that one cannot eat the fish with any assurity of purity or swim in any of
the surface waters. If the CWA was not in effect and it was not enforced I
believe about 90% of water would be polluted.

Environmental Geologist and Bass Fisherman

Feather Wilson

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?
> 
> 

Wouldn't you like to receive an inspiring letter like this from
Jaques-Yves Cousteau, inarguably
one of the most concerned human beings on the face of our Water Planet? 
If perchance you
already have, you can be as proud as I, and I'm posting it as an open
letter to all who love our
Water Planet and may be inspired to join Captain Cousteau in his quest to
protect our fragile
biosphere.

Dear Valued Member,

     Thank you!

     Thank you for demonstrating your continued concern about the
ecological well-being of our
life-giving Water Planet by renewing your membership in The Cousteau
Society.

     Your  continued support could not have come at a better time.

     You see, over the years my teams and I have spent thousands and
thousands of hours
diving.  We have observed and studied and seen, with our own eyes, the
world's waters sicken.

     Everywhere, there is continued pollution of the world's waters. 
Plastic refuse that will take
thousands of years to decompose.  Unseen clouds of toxic chemical
effluents.  Literally millions
of pounds of hazardous waste -- and, now, even radioactive nuclear waste.

     Reefs that teemed with life only 10 years ago are now almost barren!

     I passionately believe that it falls to the perceptive, caring few --
people like you and me -- to
investigate, research, and educate and warn.  Because by doing so we will
ultimately improve
life on our fragile planet.

     We feel strongly that our vast inquiry must continue in order for
Cousteau teams to
accumulate even more proof about the pillage of our seas -- and to
identify the reasons for hope
as well.

     We also believe that it is our duty and resposnibility to do more
than ever before to educate
people the world over about the delicate linkages of life.  The problems
of the sea simply cannot
be separated from those on the rest of the planet.  All life is
interconnected -- and the great life-
giving bank is the sea!

     But ... if the sea continues to be used as a global sewer, if we
continue to disrupt the natural
processes of our biosphere, we will surely bring on ourselves catastrophe
after catastrophe.

     We must never let this happen!

     I believe if enough of us care, if enough of us are willing to battle
against the forces of
destruction, we can prevent such catastrophes from ever happening.

     So, again, my heartfelt thanks for recommitting yourself to The
Cousteau Society and all that
we accomplish -- together, as explorers, advisors, educators -- to protect
and preserve the
magnificent web of life on our small Water Planet.

Gratefully,

Jacques-Yves Cousteau

P.S.  Your new Cousteau Society membership card is enclosed.  This
signifies your support of
our efforts, and I hope you will carry it proudly.

>>Me again:  if the above has inspired you to help strengthen the voice of
The Cousteau
Society, please contact:

Captain Jacques Yves-Cousteau
The Cousteau Society
870 Greenbrier Circle, Suite 402
Chesapeake, VA 23320

>>P.S.  Capt. Cousteau's Calypso, of Silent_World, was crushed by a barge
in the port of
Singapore and has fallen victim to a tragic mistake in harbor maneuvering.
 It behooves all of us
to help Capt. Cousteau continue his work by contributing to the special
Calypso II account, which
has been opened to complete its construction.	

Scott Ingram <ingr@rapidramp.com> 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?
Yes.  Stop altering wetlands.  No exceptions.
Wills Flowers

Scott Ingram <ingr@rapidramp.com> 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?
Yes.  Stop altering wetlands.  No exceptions.
Wills Flowers