<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Clean Water Restoration Act, Not Very Popular</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular</link>
	<description>Black Bear Blog - The Politics of Hunting, Fishing and the Outdoors. Protecting our American Heritage.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 15:23:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: R. Rogers</title>
		<link>http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8119</link>
		<dc:creator>R. Rogers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:50:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8119</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t doubt that farmers, ranchers, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts wouldn&#039;t like the CWRA. The farm/hunting lobby out west is out of control since the Bush administration is slowly giving federal law over to states rights like the slaughter of wolves in Idaho and Wyoming, claiming they threaten deer and elk populations when those states reported populations of deer and elk beyond the optimum. Then there is the bison kill off, 1100 slaughtered lately, or the mustang horse roundup. Then I read that Bush is also getting ready to undo the Roadless Rule eyeballing Idaho&#039;s millions of acres of forest, second largest in the nation to open it up to lumbering, mining, and drilling. The big picture starts becoming more and more clear. 

Loosening federal environmental laws and giving them over to individual states is part of a plan that gives big money interests reign over a territory.  According to Earthjusttice &quot;Polluters, developers, and corporations are seeking to place profit over health by dismantling the Clean Water Act. Muddied rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have created uncertainty as to which waters are protected under federal law. Federal agencies have issued confusing and ambiguous guidelines on which waters are protected -- and which waters aren&#039;t -- by the Clean Water Act. Entire lakes and headwaters are losing their vital safeguards, leaving them open to damage or destruction by industrial pollution and unchecked development. The Clean Water Act cannot work if half of the streams, rivers, and wetlands across the country are left out of the law&#039;s protective scope.&quot;

Many more organizations know this is true. I&#039;ve done enough environmental research over a year and half now to see this has been happening. Quite frankly I&#039;m glad the CWRA covers surface groundwater especially relative to CAFO&#039;s and their open air lagoons. Don&#039;t think it&#039;s a big deal than read: Boss Hog by Jeff Tietz. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters.

Heck I just wrote a blog today that the EPA has contended for thirty years now that the semisolid waste pollution screened out of our drinking water from over 16,000 plants is a nutrient. Never mind the bacteria, and low levels of toxic substances present, the EPA thinks it&#039;s all right to spread around. And we trust that the old Clean Water Act is still all right. That&#039;s naive in view of what this administrations has done and continues to do to the environment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t doubt that farmers, ranchers, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts wouldn&#8217;t like the CWRA. The farm/hunting lobby out west is out of control since the Bush administration is slowly giving federal law over to states rights like the slaughter of wolves in Idaho and Wyoming, claiming they threaten deer and elk populations when those states reported populations of deer and elk beyond the optimum. Then there is the bison kill off, 1100 slaughtered lately, or the mustang horse roundup. Then I read that Bush is also getting ready to undo the Roadless Rule eyeballing Idaho&#8217;s millions of acres of forest, second largest in the nation to open it up to lumbering, mining, and drilling. The big picture starts becoming more and more clear. </p>
<p>Loosening federal environmental laws and giving them over to individual states is part of a plan that gives big money interests reign over a territory.  According to Earthjusttice &#8220;Polluters, developers, and corporations are seeking to place profit over health by dismantling the Clean Water Act. Muddied rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have created uncertainty as to which waters are protected under federal law. Federal agencies have issued confusing and ambiguous guidelines on which waters are protected &#8212; and which waters aren&#8217;t &#8212; by the Clean Water Act. Entire lakes and headwaters are losing their vital safeguards, leaving them open to damage or destruction by industrial pollution and unchecked development. The Clean Water Act cannot work if half of the streams, rivers, and wetlands across the country are left out of the law&#8217;s protective scope.&#8221;</p>
<p>Many more organizations know this is true. I&#8217;ve done enough environmental research over a year and half now to see this has been happening. Quite frankly I&#8217;m glad the CWRA covers surface groundwater especially relative to CAFO&#8217;s and their open air lagoons. Don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a big deal than read: Boss Hog by Jeff Tietz. <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters" rel="nofollow">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters</a>.</p>
<p>Heck I just wrote a blog today that the EPA has contended for thirty years now that the semisolid waste pollution screened out of our drinking water from over 16,000 plants is a nutrient. Never mind the bacteria, and low levels of toxic substances present, the EPA thinks it&#8217;s all right to spread around. And we trust that the old Clean Water Act is still all right. That&#8217;s naive in view of what this administrations has done and continues to do to the environment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8116</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8116</guid>
		<description>I should proof read more closely. should have read: As it stands now is NOT a bad thing</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should proof read more closely. should have read: As it stands now is NOT a bad thing</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Remington</title>
		<link>http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8115</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Remington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8115</guid>
		<description>Yes</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8114</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:46:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8114</guid>
		<description>Is the link the New One?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is the link the New One?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8113</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:45:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8113</guid>
		<description>the bill before congress is in the link above. My limited education holds me back on some of the wordplay. Was looking for someone to explain why I&#039;m feeling uncomfortable about some in congress wanting to change the words? Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the bill before congress is in the link above. My limited education holds me back on some of the wordplay. Was looking for someone to explain why I&#8217;m feeling uncomfortable about some in congress wanting to change the words? Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Remington</title>
		<link>http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8112</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Remington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8112</guid>
		<description>You have to look at the new &quot;Clean Water Restoration Act&quot; which goes far beyond the original and that is what is upsetting people. I think most people are relatively happy with the Clean Water Act.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You have to look at the new &#8220;Clean Water Restoration Act&#8221; which goes far beyond the original and that is what is upsetting people. I think most people are relatively happy with the Clean Water Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8111</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:29:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/03/06/clean-water-restoration-act-not-very-popular/#comment-8111</guid>
		<description>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2421

I don&#039;t think the Clean Water Act as it stands now is a bad thing. Now I have to look at it harder with Russ Finegold as a co-sponsor I got warning bells going off.

Last updated in the 80&#039;s it did force local municipalities to start monitoring it&#039;s waste water treatment facilities. Especially during times of heavy rainfall. Treatment facilities were being overwhelmed with ground water infiltration into their collection lines and washing the untreated sewage into streams and rivers. The same streams and rivers where drinking water was coming from! Never mind well head protection guidelines for those who depended on wells for water.

Allot of sewer line upgrades have been the result, and cleaner creeks, streams,and rivers. Also an awareness of protecting our ground water sources. WE have come a long way since 1972 under the clean water act. I don&#039;t think anyone who&#039;s been around long enough can argue with that.

Now I&#039;m not sure, what&#039;s up with wanting to re-word the existing law? The way the Gov. is selling off all of OUR assets I&#039;d be suspicious of any lawyer playing around with words. Might wake up one morning and find out that China owns our water rights!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2421" rel="nofollow">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2421</a></p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think the Clean Water Act as it stands now is a bad thing. Now I have to look at it harder with Russ Finegold as a co-sponsor I got warning bells going off.</p>
<p>Last updated in the 80&#8242;s it did force local municipalities to start monitoring it&#8217;s waste water treatment facilities. Especially during times of heavy rainfall. Treatment facilities were being overwhelmed with ground water infiltration into their collection lines and washing the untreated sewage into streams and rivers. The same streams and rivers where drinking water was coming from! Never mind well head protection guidelines for those who depended on wells for water.</p>
<p>Allot of sewer line upgrades have been the result, and cleaner creeks, streams,and rivers. Also an awareness of protecting our ground water sources. WE have come a long way since 1972 under the clean water act. I don&#8217;t think anyone who&#8217;s been around long enough can argue with that.</p>
<p>Now I&#8217;m not sure, what&#8217;s up with wanting to re-word the existing law? The way the Gov. is selling off all of OUR assets I&#8217;d be suspicious of any lawyer playing around with words. Might wake up one morning and find out that China owns our water rights!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

