Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Not So Private Property?: Clean Water Restoration Act Raises Fears of Land Grab

Now Now..He invented Global Warming.. you cant say bad things about him:)


Heard he couldn't make his autograph session during the treaty meetings. Wonder if all those people got their thousands of dollars back that they spent on tickets??
 
Heard he couldn't make his autograph session during the treaty meetings. Wonder if all those people got their thousands of dollars back that they spent on tickets??

One thing that has greatly annoyed me this past week is the term used to define anyone who doesnt agree with him. THey have taken to calling these folks "Deniers" as in global warming deniers or Holocaust Deniers. Its brilliant on their part but also a very low handed tactic.
 
Wait one minute now Mac!! The left would never ever do such a thing like that. HOW COULD THIS BE?!?!? Deniers??

Its a common tactic used in debates that take place in front of the public. Tie your opponent to anything with a broadly understood negative connotation. Holocaust denier is such a term. No one wants to be seen as a holocaust denier. Take the term and apply it loosely to another topic. You have just been labeled. Its done all the time:)
 
I guess they can start with NYC cleaning up their act. I don't hear any yelling about this.

New York Times.

November 23, 2009

As Sewers Fill, Waste Poisons Waterways
By CHARLES DUHIGG

It was drizzling lightly in late October when the midnight shift started at the Owls Head Water Pollution Control Plant, where much of Brooklyn’s sewage is treated.

A few miles away, people were walking home without umbrellas from late dinners. But at Owls Head, a swimming pool’s worth of sewage and wastewater was soon rushing in every second. Warning horns began to blare. A little after 1 a.m., with a harder rain falling, Owls Head reached its capacity and workers started shutting the intake gates.

That caused a rising tide throughout Brooklyn’s sewers, and untreated feces and industrial waste started spilling from emergency relief valves into the Upper New York Bay and Gowanus Canal.

“It happens anytime you get a hard rainfall,” said Bob Connaughton, one the plant’s engineers. “Sometimes all it takes is 20 minutes of rain, and you’ve got overflows across Brooklyn.”

One goal of the Clean Water Act of 1972 was to upgrade the nation’s sewer systems, many of them built more than a century ago, to handle growing populations and increasing runoff of rainwater and waste. During the 1970s and 1980s, Congress distributed more than $60 billion to cities to make sure that what goes into toilets, industrial drains and street grates would not endanger human health.

But despite those upgrades, many sewer systems are still frequently overwhelmed, according to a New York Times analysis of environmental data. As a result, sewage is spilling into waterways.

In the last three years alone, more than 9,400 of the nation’s 25,000 sewage systems — including those in major cities — have reported violating the law by dumping untreated or partly treated human waste, chemicals and other hazardous materials into rivers and lakes and elsewhere, according to data from state environmental agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency.

But fewer than one in five sewage systems that broke the law were ever fined or otherwise sanctioned by state or federal regulators, the Times analysis shows.

It is not clear whether the sewage systems that have not reported such dumping are doing any better, because data on overflows and spillage are often incomplete.

As cities have grown rapidly across the nation, many have neglected infrastructure projects and paved over green spaces that once absorbed rainwater. That has contributed to sewage backups into more than 400,000 basements and spills into thousands of streets, according to data collected by state and federal officials. Sometimes, waste has overflowed just upstream from drinking water intake points or near public beaches.

There is no national record-keeping of how many illnesses are caused by sewage spills. But academic research suggests that as many as 20 million people each year become ill from drinking water containing bacteria and other pathogens that are often spread by untreated waste.

A 2007 study published in the journal Pediatrics, focusing on one Milwaukee hospital, indicated that the number of children suffering from serious diarrhea rose whenever local sewers overflowed. Another study, published in 2008 in the Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, estimated that as many as four million people become sick each year in California from swimming in waters containing the kind of pollution often linked to untreated sewage.

Around New York City, samples collected at dozens of beaches or piers have detected the types of bacteria and other pollutants tied to sewage overflows. Though the city’s drinking water comes from upstate reservoirs, environmentalists say untreated excrement and other waste in the city’s waterways pose serious health risks.

A Deluge of Sewage

“After the storm, the sewage flowed down the street faster than we could move out of the way and filled my house with over a foot of muck,” said Laura Serrano, whose Bay Shore, N.Y., home was damaged in 2005 by a sewer overflow.

Ms. Serrano, who says she contracted viral meningitis because of exposure to the sewage, has filed suit against Suffolk County, which operates the sewer system. The county’s lawyer disputes responsibility for the damage and injuries.

“I had to move out, and no one will buy my house because the sewage was absorbed into the walls,” Ms. Serrano said. “I can still smell it sometimes.”

When a sewage system overflows or a treatment plant dumps untreated waste, it is often breaking the law. Today, sewage systems are the nation’s most frequent violators of the Clean Water Act. More than a third of all sewer systems — including those in San Diego, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, Philadelphia, San Jose and San Francisco — have violated environmental laws since 2006, according to a Times analysis of E.P.A. data.

Thousands of other sewage systems operated by smaller cities, colleges, mobile home parks and companies have also broken the law. But few of the violators are ever punished.

The E.P.A., in a statement, said that officials agreed that overflows posed a “significant environmental and human health problem, and significantly reducing or eliminating such overflows has been a priority for E.P.A. enforcement since the mid-1990s.”

In the last year, E.P.A. settlements with sewer systems in Hampton Roads, Va., and the east San Francisco Bay have led to more than $200 million spent on new systems to reduce pollution, the agency said. In October, the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said she was overhauling how the Clean Water Act is enforced.

But widespread problems still remain.

“The E.P.A. would rather look the other way than crack down on cities, since punishing municipalities can cause political problems,” said Craig Michaels of Riverkeeper, an environmental advocacy group. “But without enforcement and fines, this problem will never end.”

Plant operators and regulators, for their part, say that fines would simply divert money from stretched budgets and that they are doing the best they can with aging systems and overwhelmed pipes.

New York, for example, was one of the first major cities to build a large sewer system, starting construction in 1849. Many of those pipes — constructed of hand-laid brick and ceramic tiles — are still used. Today, the city’s 7,400 miles of sewer pipes operate almost entirely by gravity, unlike in other cities that use large pumps.

New York City’s 14 wastewater treatment plants, which handle 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater a day, have been flooded with thousands of pickles (after a factory dumped its stock), vast flows of discarded chicken heads and large pieces of lumber.

When a toilet flushes in the West Village in Manhattan, the waste runs north six miles through gradually descending pipes to a plant at 137th Street, where it is mixed with so-called biological digesters that consume dangerous pathogens. The wastewater is then mixed with chlorine and sent into the Hudson River.

Fragile System

But New York’s system — like those in hundreds of others cities — combines rainwater runoff with sewage. Over the last three decades, as thousands of acres of trees, bushes and other vegetation in New York have been paved over, the land’s ability to absorb rain has declined significantly. When treatment plants are swamped, the excess spills from 490 overflow pipes throughout the city’s five boroughs.

When the sky is clear, Owls Head can handle the sewage from more than 750,000 people. But the balance is so delicate that Mr. Connaughton and his colleagues must be constantly ready for rain.

They choose cable television packages for their homes based on which company offers the best local weather forecasts. They know meteorologists by the sound of their voices. When the leaves begin to fall each autumn, clogging sewer grates and pipes, Mr. Connaughton sometimes has trouble sleeping.

“I went to Hawaii with my wife, and the whole time I was flipping to the Weather Channel, seeing if it was raining in New York,” he said.

New York’s sewage system overflows essentially every other time it rains.

Reducing such overflows is a priority, city officials say. But eradicating the problem would cost billions.

Officials have spent approximately $35 billion over three decades improving the quality of the waters surrounding the city and have improved systems to capture and store rainwater and sewage, bringing down the frequency and volume of overflows, the city’s Department of Environmental Protection wrote in a statement.

“Water quality in New York City has improved dramatically in the last century, and particularly in the last two decades,” officials wrote.

Several years ago, city officials estimated that it would cost at least $58 billion to prevent all overflows. “Even an expenditure of that magnitude would not result in every part of a river or bay surrounding the city achieving water quality that is suitable for swimming,” the department wrote. “It would, however, increase the average N.Y.C. water and sewer bill by 80 percent.”

The E.P.A., concerned about the risks of overflowing sewers, issued a national framework in 1994 to control overflows, including making sure that pipes are designed so they do not easily become plugged by debris and warning the public when overflows occur. In 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to crack down on overflows.

But in hundreds of places, sewer systems remain out of compliance with that framework or the Clean Water Act, which regulates most pollution discharges to waterways. And the burdens on sewer systems are growing as cities become larger and, in some areas, rainstorms become more frequent and fierce.

New York’s system, for instance, was designed to accommodate a so-called five-year storm — a rainfall so extreme that it is expected to occur, on average, only twice a decade. But in 2007 alone, the city experienced three 25-year storms, according to city officials — storms so strong they would be expected only four times each century.

“When you get five inches of rain in 30 minutes, it’s like Thanksgiving Day traffic on a two-lane bridge in the sewer pipes,” said James Roberts, deputy commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection.

Government’s Response

To combat these shifts, some cities are encouraging sewer-friendly development. New York, for instance, has instituted zoning laws requiring new parking lots to include landscaped areas to absorb rainwater, established a tax credit for roofs with absorbent vegetation and begun to use millions of dollars for environmentally friendly infrastructure projects.

Philadelphia has announced it will spend $1.6 billion over 20 years to build rain gardens and sidewalks of porous pavement and to plant thousands of trees.

But unless cities require private developers to build in ways that minimize runoff, the volume of rain flowing into sewers is likely to grow, environmentalists say.

The only real solution, say many lawmakers and water advocates, is extensive new spending on sewer systems largely ignored for decades. As much as $400 billion in extra spending is needed over the next decade to fix the nation’s sewer infrastructure, according to estimates by the E.P.A. and the Government Accountability Office.

Legislation under consideration on Capitol Hill contains millions in water infrastructure grants, and the stimulus bill passed this year set aside $6 billion to improve sewers and other water systems.

But that money is only a small fraction of what is needed, officials say. And over the last two decades, federal money for such programs has fallen by 70 percent, according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which estimates that a quarter of the state’s sewage and wastewater treatment plants are “using outmoded, inadequate technology.”

“The public has no clue how important these sewage plants are,” said Mr. Connaughton of the Brooklyn site. “Waterborne disease was the scourge of mankind for centuries. These plants stopped that. We’re doing everything we can to clean as much sewage as possible, but sometimes, that isn’t enough.”


vBulletin
 
KG farms,

It is just as bad here in Georgia. It's cheaper for Atlanta to pay fines rather than build a treatment plant. They let their raw sewage run into the chatahoochee during high rain periods. It's been raining here all week, with flash flood warnings everywhere.
 
First, here's an editorial from July 2009:

Restore the Clean Water Act | Trout Unlimited - Conserving coldwater fisheries

Second, have you read these? These materials confirm what other here have stated, that the change to the Clean Water Act restores its former authority to regulate smaller non-navigable water bodies, as it had since the act has been in existence. The authority of the act was limited to navigable waterways after a bad precedent that was set during the Bush administration.

You state: "The Clean Water Act IS a VERY good thing. It's worked pretty well for us since 1970." Good, I agree! So lets restore that act to its former scope and authority. And if you don't like the original scope of the Act, than you can blame the leftist Nixon administration. (You know he met the Chinese?)<INPUT id=gwProxy type=hidden><!--Session data--><INPUT id=jsProxy onclick=jsCall(); type=hidden>

I read this:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress):
It mentions 2 law suits that apparently redefined "waters of the United States"? Is it really re-instating the original intent of the Act, or is it changing the Act to what the 20 Bill sponsors wish the Act to be? If it is re-instating the original Act, then is the news source spewing sensationalism? :)

If the news source is questionable why aren't other news agencies picking this story up?

Secondly, do you really think it will just go through "as-is"? I think everyone should go read it now, as it will quickly become unreadable. If it makes it to a vote I suspect it will increase in size and complexity 100 fold.
 
Last edited:
Pulled form the OP-ED page of the NY Times this morning. A pretty neutral summary in my opinion. Which type are you?

Four Sides to Every Story

By STEWART BRAND
Published: December 14, 2009

CLIMATE talks have been going on in Copenhagen for a week now, and it appears to be a two-sided debate between alarmists and skeptics. But there are actually four different views of global warming. A taxonomy of the four:

DENIALISTS They are loud, sure and political. Their view is that climatologists and their fellow travelers are engaged in a vast conspiracy to panic the public into following an agenda that is political and pernicious. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and the columnist George Will wave the banner for the hoax-callers.

“The claim that global warming is caused by manmade emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science,” Mr. Inhofe declared in a 2003 speech to the Senate about the Kyoto accord that remains emblematic of his position. “CO2 does not cause catastrophic disasters — actually it would be beneficial to our environment and our economy .... The motives for Kyoto are economic, not environmental — that is, proponents favor handicapping the American economy through carbon taxes and more regulations.”

SKEPTICS This group is most interested in the limitations of climate science so far: they like to examine in detail the contradictions and shortcomings in climate data and models, and they are wary about any “consensus” in science. To the skeptics’ discomfort, their arguments are frequently quoted by the denialists.

In this mode, Roger Pielke, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado, argues that the scenarios presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are overstated and underpredictive. Another prominent skeptic is the physicist Freeman Dyson, who wrote in 2007: “I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models .... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests.”

WARNERS
These are the climatologists who see the trends in climate headed toward planetary disaster, and they blame human production of greenhouse gases as the primary culprit. Leaders in this category are the scientists James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and James Lovelock. (This is the group that most persuades me and whose views I promote.)

“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted,” Mr. Hansen wrote as the lead author of an influential 2008 paper, then the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have to be reduced from 395 parts per million to “at most 350 p.p.m.”

CALAMATISTS
There are many environmentalists who believe that industrial civilization has committed crimes against nature, and retribution is coming. They quote the warners in apocalyptic terms, and they view denialists as deeply evil. The technology critic Jeremy Rifkin speaks in this manner, and the writer-turned-activist Bill McKibben is a (fairly gentle) leader in this category.

In his 2006 introduction for “The End of Nature,” his famed 1989 book, Mr. McKibben wrote of climate change in religious terms: “We are no longer able to think of ourselves as a species tossed about by larger forces — now we are those larger forces. Hurricanes and thunderstorms and tornadoes become not acts of God but acts of man. That was what I meant by the ‘end of nature.’”

The calamatists and denialists are primarily political figures, with firm ideological loyalties, whereas the warners and skeptics are primarily scientists, guided by ever-changing evidence. That distinction between ideology and science not only helps clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the four stances, it can also be used to predict how they might respond to future climate developments.
If climate change were to suddenly reverse itself (because of some yet undiscovered mechanism of balance in our climate system), my guess is that the denialists would be triumphant, the skeptics would be skeptical this time of the apparent good news, the warners would be relieved, and the calamatists would seek out some other doom to proclaim.

If climate change keeps getting worse then I would expect denialists to grasp at stranger straws, many skeptics to become warners, the warners to start pushing geoengineering schemes like sulfur dust in the stratosphere, and the calamatists to push liberal political agendas — just as the denialists said they would.

Stewart Brand is the author of “Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto.”
 
First, here's an editorial from July 2009:

Restore the Clean Water Act | Trout Unlimited - Conserving coldwater fisheries

Second, have you read these? These materials confirm what other here have stated, that the change to the Clean Water Act restores its former authority to regulate smaller non-navigable water bodies, as it had since the act has been in existence. The authority of the act was limited to navigable waterways after a bad precedent that was set during the Bush administration.

You state: "The Clean Water Act IS a VERY good thing. It's worked pretty well for us since 1970." Good, I agree! So lets restore that act to its former scope and authority. And if you don't like the original scope of the Act, than you can blame the leftist Nixon administration. (You know he met the Chinese?)<INPUT id=gwProxy type=hidden><!--Session data--><INPUT id=jsProxy onclick=jsCall(); type=hidden>

Ok, I read TU's material. I believe restoring the Act to it's former glory will be a good thing. What does TU say about the current bill?

A) Does the current bill restore the Act to the "pre-2001 and 2006" condition, and ensure that it won't be challenged again?

B) Does the current bill give the EPA additional powers that they did not have before the 2 lawsuits (that co-incedentally happened while Bush was in office)?

C) Will it go through as it is, w/ 6 seemingly simple sections, or will there be "private meetings" to review how many hundreds of pages of additional pork will be tacked on?

(Nixon was a crook. I didn't vote for him. But it a good thing he paved the way with China to make it easy for the US to re-finance itself through the Chinese. We can't possibly generate enough revenue through taxes to keep our Federal government afloat and generating more laws without their financing us.)
 
Last edited:
Ok, I read TU's material. I believe restoring the Act to it's former glory will be a good thing. What does TU say about the current bill?

A) Does the current bill restore the Act to the "pre-2001 and 2006" condition, and ensure that it won't be challenged again?

B) Does the current bill give the EPA additional powers that they did not have before the 2 lawsuits (that co-incedentally happened while Bush was in office)?

C) Will it go through as it is, w/ 6 seemingly simple sections, or will there be "private meetings" to review how many hundreds of pages of additional pork will be tacked on?

(Nixon was a crook. I didn't vote for him. But it a good thing he paved the way with China to make it easy for the US to re-finance itself through the Chinese. We can't possibly generate enough revenue through taxes to keep our Federal government afloat and generating more laws without their financing us.)


All I can say is read the bill for yourself. Text of S.787 as Introduced in Senate: Clean Water Restoration Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress Its not long or complicated. I think you'll find that it does exactly what has been described, and that there are plenty of agricultural exemptions despite the complaints from Wyoming legislators.

This is a sound piece of conservation legislation, that fisherman should support. Its aggravating to read about how this bill is a socialist land grab and "pissing on the constitution", when we as a fishing and conservation community have been calling for this bill for years.

And where did all of these "sky is falling" complaints originate? A couple of sensationalist articles from Faux News and The Washington Times - questionable sources at best.






<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
All I can say is read the bill for yourself. Text of S.787 as Introduced in Senate: Clean Water Restoration Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress Its not long or complicated. I think you'll find that it does exactly what has been described, and that there are plenty of agricultural exemptions despite the complaints from Wyoming legislators.

This is a sound piece of conservation legislation, that fisherman should support. Its aggravating to read about how this bill is a socialist land grab and "pissing on the constitution", when we as a fishing and conservation community have been calling for this bill for years.

And where did all of these "sky is falling" complaints originate? A couple of sensationalist articles from Faux News and The Washington Times - questionable sources at best.




Now I think the statements that have been made about the Clean Water Act are that it has been a great piece of legislation. I think if all it does is restore some loopholes than thats fine. I question the need to put in exemptions for ranchers and farmers if all it does is restore a loophole. Second If I am not a rancher or a farmer what does that mean for me. If there are seasonal wetlands on my property do I have the right to develop my land. I asked in a previous post if there are state laws that covered these loopholes and if so why is there a need for a federal law.



<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

Listen just because the administration doesnt like Fox News doesnt mean they dont report on topics that the rest of the news media would rather not cover and lets not pretend that news organizations like MSNBC or CNN present objective news coverage either..Far from it!! Everyone has an agenda and there hasnt been an objective reporter since Walter Kronkite!!!

Fact is that Fox News has exposed the other news organizations as way left of center. Are they fair and balanced..sometimes but clearly not always. Whats left out of the comments is that neither is anyone else and there are far more news agencies willing to bend over for the current administration. When they do report something negative its usually that the administration is not going far enough to the left for their liking. So lets stop with the nonsense around Fox News.
 
All I can say is read the bill for yourself. Text of S.787 as Introduced in Senate: Clean Water Restoration Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

I read the bill at the Library of Congress website, sans all the comments from right-wing nut-jobs!

This is a sound piece of conservation legislation, that fisherman should support. Its aggravating to read about how this bill is a socialist land grab and "pissing on the constitution", when we as a fishing and conservation community have been calling for this bill for years.

I am very specifically concerned over the use and reference to the possessive, as in Waters 'OF' the United States. It infers that I can't own water, even though I paid for the damp spot in the yard. I very much prefer to own my water, I paid for it. <KIND beer? like of>

To clarify, I suspect this legislation allows me to "own" the hole, but not the mud in it? (Of couse I can't afford to own the holes any longer because the taxes got too high...but if I could afford the hole...)

And where did all of these "sky is falling" complaints originate? A couple of sensationalist articles from Faux News and The Washington Times - questionable sources at best.

I think you can blame me for the "sky is falling" reference.
I posted the source for the news article: Fox.
You can also blame me for some of the Constitution references.
You should read it some time. I make a point of it. It's only about 24pages I think...

Sorry, but I seem to have a bad taste in my mouth from trying to swallow all the spending we keep doing, and I can not understand the rush to keep pushing new legislation through. The last year has clouded my judgement.



<!--Session data-->
:crap::crap::crap::crap::crap::crap::crap::crap::crap::crap::crap:
 
Its a common tactic used in debates that take place in front of the public. Tie your opponent to anything with a broadly understood negative connotation. Holocaust denier is such a term. No one wants to be seen as a holocaust denier. Take the term and apply it loosely to another topic. You have just been labeled. Its done all the time:)

Like putting a Hitler mustache on a picture of the President of the United States?
Tie your opponent to anything with a broadly understood negative connotation?-check
Hitler is such a term. No one wants to be seen as Hitler.-check
Take that term and apply it loosely to another topic?-check.

It IS done all the time!
 
Like putting a Hitler mustache on a picture of the President of the United States?
Tie your opponent to anything with a broadly understood negative connotation?-check
Hitler is such a term. No one wants to be seen as Hitler.-check
Take that term and apply it loosely to another topic?-check.

It IS done all the time!

Hey I agree..Plus He doesnt look good in a mustache which of course adds to the negativity. Really the point is its done by both sides and of course the extremes get all the attention while most of america sits back scratches their head and wonders what the hell is going on.
 
Its a common tactic used in debates that take place in front of the public. Tie your opponent to anything with a broadly understood negative connotation. Holocaust denier is such a term. No one wants to be seen as a holocaust denier. Take the term and apply it loosely to another topic. You have just been labeled. Its done all the time:)

If you control the terminology, then it's easier to control the subject. See if the current administration uses "Global Warming" any longer...They're moving on to "Greenhouse Gasses".

Global Warning has negative connotations and might scare away some of the over-medicated, smiling, blank-staring voters. It's very controversial, you know...

'Greenhouse' is a nice freindly term, and well, who doesn't produce a few 'gasses' from time to time, right? Hard to dispute that their are gasses in our atmosphere, and some of those are good to have in a greenhouse.

"Now that Greenhouse Gas issue, that's something I can get behind"!
(resisting the puns, resisting...)
 
Back
Top