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.
This is freakin me out. What the f did the Clean Water Act accomplish? All these people swimming in this river to enter the U.S. with diseases. That's just peachy keen.
wiki
The Clean Water Act was designed to stop point sources of pollution: Industrial plants built directly on the rivers. It's much less effective at mitigating nonpoint sources: farms, people's backyards, CAFOs, mining, etc. These sources are diffuse and many entities are involved, so they are much harder to regulate. Regulating nutrients flowing into the Chesapeake Bay or the Gulf of Mexico (via the Mississippi) where these dead zones are occurring is a giant mess.
Other positive aspects of the CWA is that it slowed wetland losses and mandated sewage treatment plants for major cities. Unfortunately, enforcement is weak, and a lot of cities still don't have adequate treatment.
By contrast, most of the rivers mentioned in the article are in developing nations, where laws equivalent to the Clean Water Act are weak or don't exist at all.
We could fund a LOT of crap if we cut the nation building nonsense and quit all of the overseas spending to try and buy friends...our infrastructure used to be the top of the food chain...its trashed now and everything is held together with duct tape and baling twine..stupidity at its best.
and if we had some accountability as to where all the money disappears to.
One of these rivers had 250 mil set aside for cleanup, but only 1 mil went to work on the river. The rest got siphoned off.
This is freakin me out. What the f did the Clean Water Act accomplish?
it regulates discharges into public waters.
it's far from perfect.
i mean, you can't go tell an entire city that it needs to shut down because it discharges high levels of bacteria into the surrounding water. You can't go shut down all the farmers because they discharge high levels of nutrients into the water.
Perhaps in the future we'll have technology that solves everybody's problems, but with today's level of technology, we have to make compromises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
and if we had some accountability as to where all the money disappears to.
One of these rivers had 250 mil set aside for cleanup, but only 1 mil went to work on the river. The rest got siphoned off.
If you read, that took place in argentina. Perhaps you live in Argentina, I don't know, but "we" Americans aren't having that problem.
The Clean Water Act was designed to stop point sources of pollution: Industrial plants built directly on the rivers. It's much less effective at mitigating nonpoint sources: farms, people's backyards, CAFOs, mining, etc.
I agree that the CWA primarily deals with point source pollution, but it still has a major impact on nonpoint sources as well.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,080,865 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
and if we had some accountability as to where all the money disappears to.
One of these rivers had 250 mil set aside for cleanup, but only 1 mil went to work on the river. The rest got siphoned off.
Hey man,you are preaching to the choir my brutha...I am a firm believer in every cent the govt spends should be broken down and available to every member of the public to view at will...NOTHING the govt EVER does is above board and you can rest assured that for the most part the "consultants" used are a relative of a politician as are the contractors etc etc.
If a dollar is earmarked for digging a ditch,the ditch should be dug...not the dollar spent to do feasability studies and then what's left of the dollar going into a general slush fund for the taking.
Hey man,you are preaching to the choir my brutha...I am a firm believer in every cent the govt spends should be broken down and available to every member of the public to view at will...NOTHING the govt EVER does is above board and you can rest assured that for the most part the "consultants" used are a relative of a politician as are the contractors etc etc.
If a dollar is earmarked for digging a ditch,the ditch should be dug...not the dollar spent to do feasability studies and then what's left of the dollar going into a general slush fund for the taking.
General comment in response to GH..reading comp problem?
well considering the spending GH is referring to as "Ours" actually took place in Argentina --- it seems like an inopportune time to go on a rant about the US government.
But this is city-data, I guess I should lower my expectations.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,080,865 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
well considering the spending GH is referring to as "Ours" actually took place in Argentina --- it seems like an inopportune time to go on a rant about the US government.
But this is city-data, I guess I should lower my expectations.
If you are on C-D P&OC with ANY expectations then you will be sorely disappointed...I did not read where it took place and more to the point,I do not care where it took place as I can do nothing about it anyway...the response was about accountability in govt...if you take issue with that then perhaps you should talk to the next guy about it as he may care more than I do
I did not read where it took place and more to the point,I do not care where it took place
yeah i figured that
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.