Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-03-2016, 08:12 AM
 
873 posts, read 1,016,885 times
Reputation: 1898

Advertisements

As part of their continuing fight to put money over the environment, quality of life and safe drinking water, Republican leaders of the NC state are proposing to gut the utrient management rules for the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Falls Lake and Jordan Lake watersheds and direct the politically appointed Environmental Management Commission to write new rules by 2019. Oh joy. Maybe we can have them drink that water all times at the General Assembly so they can reap the benefits of their wise decision.

Senate Leaders Propose Eliminating Pollution Controls In Jordan and Falls Lakes | WUNC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2016, 09:43 AM
 
2,424 posts, read 3,537,164 times
Reputation: 2437
I wonder what that Senate has against the residents of NC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 10:14 AM
 
1,360 posts, read 1,007,529 times
Reputation: 941
It doesn't sound like the old rules ever went into full effect. Maybe replacing them with rules that can actually be implemented would lead to a more timely solution. I'd rather there be effective rules that actually help clean the water now, than rules that may clean it even more but can never be full implemented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 10:44 AM
 
3,774 posts, read 8,196,373 times
Reputation: 4424
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulfpeck View Post
It doesn't sound like the old rules ever went into full effect. Maybe replacing them with rules that can actually be implemented would lead to a more timely solution. I'd rather there be effective rules that actually help clean the water now, than rules that may clean it even more but can never be full implemented.
Who knew you were such an expert on water quality too!

Is there any issue that you don't march lock-step with these goons on?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 10:46 AM
 
1,360 posts, read 1,007,529 times
Reputation: 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Native_Son View Post
Is there any issue that you don't march lock-step with these goons on?
There is, indeed. Is there any issue that you don't automatically disagree with them on?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 10:48 AM
 
3,774 posts, read 8,196,373 times
Reputation: 4424
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulfpeck View Post
There is, indeed. Is there any issue that you don't automatically disagree with them on?
Yeah. There's one on the front page of this forum!

Not that I'd expect you to actually notice. Based on your posting history details aren't your strong suit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 11:01 AM
 
1,360 posts, read 1,007,529 times
Reputation: 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Native_Son View Post
Yeah. There's one on the front page of this forum!

Not that I'd expect you to actually notice. Based on your posting history details aren't your strong suit.
If you ever find that I overlook a detail, I'd be more than happy to hear it. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not aware of every nuance within a particular topic. I'd imagine you aren't either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 11:05 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,730,722 times
Reputation: 14745
From what I read this is about nutrient levels in lakes.

The #1 cause of nutrient levels is land development. People build houses, then fertilize the plants in their yard, which runs off into the lake, causing algal blooms, low dissolved oxygen, which screws up the ecosystem.

The NC Senate seems to want to open up more land to development, because in their words, "The land is rendered useless." (i.e. to the GOP, unless you develop land, it serves no purpose.)

This will have the impact of lowering D.O. levels even further in these lakes.

Last edited by le roi; 06-03-2016 at 11:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 11:12 AM
 
1,360 posts, read 1,007,529 times
Reputation: 941
Sounds like a question of limiting development by owners of property along the watershed or letting them develop, but treating the water afterwards, right? Do we know that housing development is the primary contributor to the nutrient imbalance? Are there other factors that should be considered before exercising a form of eminent domain?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 11:21 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,730,722 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulfpeck View Post
Sounds like a question of limiting development by owners of property along the watershed or letting them develop, but treating the water afterwards, right?
Allowing runoff to filter through undeveloped land is one treatment for this type of pollution. But ultimately you have to control the amount of nutrients that runoff into the lake, and there isn't a realistic solution besides controlling what people do with the surrounding land.

Quote:
Do we know that housing development is the primary contributor to the nutrient imbalance?
Not housing development specifically, but land development in general. It can be commercial, residential, industrial, etc.

Although for nutrient levels it does tend to be low-density housing with big, fertilized lawns; high-density housing, commercial and industrial tend to bring more exotic types of pollutants that aren't really "nutrient" related.


Quote:
Are there other factors that should be considered before exercising a form of eminent domain?
Sure. But in the absence of some 'magic bullet' , the GOP's ultimate position on the matter is that land development is a higher priority than water quality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:10 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top