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 an amendment to the 1977 act, tell me the problem it solves.
Don't change what premise of this thread is....the thread title says this new admendement allows the dumping of waste....where in this admendment is that stated and what has changed since 1977?
Don't change what premise of this thread is....the thread title says this new admendement allows the dumping of waste....where in this admendment is that stated and what has changed since 1977?
You won't see those words stated in the legislation, the legislation is an attempt to circumvent and avoid fines for dumping in waterways.
Again thy have apparently spent 10 million dollars over a 5 year period studying this and won't produce anything to Congress.
I didn't see the $10M but in any event what is the issue they are attempting to address. The amendment appears to be granting states the authority to come up with a plan to address the problems with pollution within 2 years from enactment and revisit their plan 5 years down the road. The question is why do they need amendment, what problem are they solving and do we really want states to devise their own standards since we already know many are unwilling to enforce existing regulations. States like TN, NC have been incapable or unwilling to enforce violations by these companies.
Where was that? Not in the piece you quoted. And the whole area is quite opaque to anyone other than a skilled insider.
One of the shames of all this is that they attempt to defeat a loss in court by a disguised thrust to emasculate the ruling. And I will agree the demos do it too. It says that you can never simple read what a law says....you need it interpreted by an expert...most of whom have a bias.
Quote:
In general.--In addition to the requirements under
subsection (a), each State program shall incorporate the
necessary rule regarding excess spoil, coal mine waste, and
buffers for perennial and intermittent streams published by the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement on
December 12, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 75813 et seq.) which complies
with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) in view of the 2006 discussions between the Director of
the Office of Surface Mining and the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's consideration and review
of comments submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service during the rulemaking process in 2007.
Seriously...it was right in front of your face and you still deny it?
Seriously...it was right in front of your face and you still deny it?
You having problems understanding? That is the regulation found NOT to be in compliance with the environmental law. The Repubs are trying to legislate it into compliance thereby defeating the administrations plan for new regulations that are in compliance.
I thought you generally favored endangered species and clean water laws.
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.
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.
