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.
The EPA had 1/3 the staff when it was created in 1970 and it had a job that was 100 times larger than it does now. In 1970, virtually every river in the nation was polluted and there were tens of thousands of sites across the nation that were being actively destroyed by the disposal of heavy metals, volatile organic compounds etc.
The rivers are now clean and there are fewer and fewer superfund sites being discovered every year. Maybe we can scale back a bit?
The rivers are considerably cleaner but there is also considerably more development, more industry, more development after 50 years. We also accomplished considerable more research on carcinogens and chemicals in our environment. Look at the mines and sewage leaching into our ground water.
We didn't need to carry around water bottles for pure drinking water in 1970, that should be the canary in the mine but that is now somehow accepted as normal. Pure drinking water will be more valuable than oil.
What does clean water have to do with tiny spiders blocking $15 Million construction projects? What does clean air have to do with denying California farmers irrigation water because of a little fish the EPA wants to protect?
Ending the overbearing pointless regulatory nightmare of the EPA, will not end the need for clean water, clean air and ensuring the health and safety of the American workforce.
Small things at the bottom of the food chain have a lot to do with the environment and our health, the dissapearance of things like frogs. They are a warning that we have a problem.
Send all those GOP ingrates to some polluted industrial zone or Chinese city with foul air and water, so they can practice what they preach instead of taking the EPA's legacy of priceless benefits for granted. What sort of vile people think more pollution is a sign of progress? (rhetorical question there)
Actually, everyone who actively promotes a growth-based economy is part of the problem, along with those who go along via apathy. There's a brainless mentality of always having to expand the human footprint while depleting nature in the process. It's a classic scenario of a parasite killing it's host.
Instead of always demanding more "job creation" and destruction of nature (which the EPA is seen as thwarting) ask yourself why the population "must" keep growing, and why we don't accept that behavior in other species. Anthropocentrism is the one-word answer, plus a ton of arrogance.
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.
(of that EPA swamp) might be reasonable, & tax-bearers could sustain. Yeah for tax-reductions !! 
I didn't vote for Trump and his nature-hating cronies
