Trump waterways/wetlands roll back

[Ryan Avery]

Wow, I think you just proved his point. I don't think what he said was over the line. Lighten up...

No, we won't lighten up. There are lots of other forums and Social Media sites for those that want to argue about politics. FYI, no one is changing anyone's political opinion here... So when a thread starts going downhill we will continue to lock them up. We are a hunting forum and will continue to steer it that way.

Sidenote, we average about 5 to 6 thousand thread a month and lock about one a month.

 

[wthunter]

No, we won't lighten up. There are lots of other forums and Social Media sites for those that want to argue about politics. FYI, no one is changing anyone's political opinion here... So when a thread starts going downhill we will continue to lock them up. We are a hunting forum and will continue to steer it that way.

Sidenote, we average about 5 to 6 thousand thread a month and lock about one a month.

Noone said to lighten up if a thread goes downhill, I was referring to Justin's attitude towards someone who is proving feedback. I found his comment to be crass. The guy wasn't arguing or being disrespectful. But the fact that 2 of you have replied now shows how over sensitive you guys are being. But you are right, there are other sites to go to. I didn't realize it was like this here. Jeesh.

Only reason why I even opened this thread was because it I thought it was an interesting topic.....

 

[techmanil]

I think I get what you’re saying and agree with the gist of it. But I don’t feel people should be able to alter any significant natural water way on there land just because it runs through there property. They should have known this stipulation when they purchased the property. The waterway presumably runs through dozens of people’s property and is part of the ecosystem. People downstream have a reasonable expectation of continuance of the waterway as well.

My other unpopular opinion is just because Trump did it doesn’t make it right either, just as much as him doing something doesn’t make it wrong. I am a trump supporter and will be terrified to see what happens to my invested money if a socialist dem gets elected.That being said I think the whole polarization thing is part of the issue, people seem to pledge themselves to a person or party as opposed to a set of personally established ideals they align with. I’ll vote trump again but I don’t have to agree with his tweeting or arguably unpresidential manner(though I do enjoy his blunt demeanor on occasion).

I am not talking about creek/streams/ditches flowing from one field to another, I am talking about run-off water. That is a big difference. IE: your 100A field runoff flows across my field, the old law would affect how I dealt with your run-off! I would not be allowed to try and stop/change directions of YOUR run-off without government approval. Or maybe another example you can relate to: Someone buys the lot next to you and changes something affecting the water shed onto your property, you could not legally do anything about it as it affects water. How the law was originally written any water that made it to the sea could be regulated. And the enviro-wackos can manipulate the data proving that is where all of it goes.

 

[wytx]

Sounds like they want to take their ball and go home when you don't agree.
Just lock the threads due to their title then before any comments are posted.

Unfortunately politics affects our hunting so we should discuss issues, in a respectful manner.

 

[BFR]

Personally I have always felt that states should have the major control over issues within their boundaries, most states have laws covering the same things discussed here and should have priority, those that don’t, or just let feds make those decisions should step up and take control. Historically the federal government has screwed up more than they have fixed.
My grandfather owned a farm in Arkansas with no running waterway and only a couple of man made stock ponds and never had pollution issues. Two things happened to change that, one was a seasonal flood putting river water across a corner of the property and second was increased federal oversight. Because the flood left a dry waterway he couldn’t use that corner as he had, it also isolated a stock pond so he was basically cut off from using it as he had before. Rather than fight it due to age and health he split the farm up and sold it.

 

[BFR]

On an aside, as far as admins being over the top or thin skinned as some have insinuated, they are the ones running the site, their site, their rules. Whether I agree with their decision or not is irrelevant, just my opinion.

 

[Poser]

Personally I have always felt that states should have the major control over issues within their boundaries, most states have laws covering the same things discussed here and should have priority, those that don’t, or just let feds make those decisions should step up and take control. Historically the federal government has screwed up more than they have fixed.
My grandfather owned a farm in Arkansas with no running waterway and only a couple of man made stock ponds and never had pollution issues. Two things happened to change that, one was a seasonal flood putting river water across a corner of the property and second was increased federal oversight. Because the flood left a dry waterway he couldn’t use that corner as he had, it also isolated a stock pond so he was basically cut off from using it as he had before. Rather than fight it due to age and health he split the farm up and sold it.

But how do you account for waterways that flow through multiple states? For example, since you mentioned Arkansas, runoff, pollution etc into the Arkansas River in the state of CO effects people in Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

 

[WannabeHunter]

Just One Example of how we're all interconnected.

A private land owner's actions on their property can cause issues for others. And collectively small issues can have large implications.

 

[BFR]

One would hope that elected officials in the affected states would be able to work together, after all, they are supposed to be the smartest people available. If they’re not then the citizens could use the courts for remedy. Federal control IMO isn’t the answer.

 

[Kilboars]

Anything to slow EPA's big land grab.

 

[Click]

Just One Example of how we're all interconnected.

A private land owner's actions on their property can cause issues for others. And collectively small issues can have large implications.

Plenty of laws already in place to handle these situations. EPA has way over reached in many instances.

 

[-bowfreak-]

Elections have consequences. The pendulum always seems to swing the other way at the same rate.

You don't get Trump without Obama.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[TheTone]

Anything to slow EPA's big land grab.

Is the EPA acquiring or seizing land? Huh?

 

[Shrek]

The EPA is still regulating what they had traditionally regulated. The Obama administration had vastly expanded the EPAs reach by reinterpretation of the clean water act. It was a ridiculous power grab that far exceeded what had been the original intent of the clean water act and the rollback to the original interpretation is a good thing imo.

 

[AT Hiker]

In my home town, which is the 5th largest city in TN, we cannot even manage our sewage correctly let alone all the small runoffs and tributaries. I think oversight of some kind is imperative. Between the construction, agriculture and our city sewage it’s a mess.

Currently, our city is being sued.
“....the Clarksville Sewage Treatment Plant has had 498 total overflow violations – releasing an estimated 82,533,061- plus gallons of sewage into the river since November 27, 2014.

“Sewage is one of the biggest pollution threats to the Cumberland River. “

We are also down River of Nashville not to mention 100% of our drinking water gets pumped directly out of this water. Luckily our sewage discharge is around the bend of our pump station.

Environmental group sues Clarksville for sewage overflows

Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. says the City of Clarksville has dumped 24 million gallons of sewage in the Cumberland River over last five years.

www.newschannel5.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dutch_henry]

I think you have to look at these most recent roll-backs as part of Trump's pattern of rolling back multiple regs and standards across a wide array of policy impacting clean air, clean water, public lands, clean energy, and endangered species.

These rollbacks are good for big polluters and extraction industries, but bad for hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, and anyone concerned about their exposure to airborne and waterborne toxics. Plus they hurt--not help--wildlife or our environment. Those are facts beyond dispute.

However, that's not the end of the story. There's a lot of meaningful debate to be had about economic growth, landowner rights, and how those things trade off against environment/public health/conservation, and so on.

One statistic of note: EPA criminal enforcement was higher under George HW Bush and George W Bush than it is under Trump. Another: Environmental regulations are looser now than they were during the Republican Revolution of '94. I point that as a way of saying this isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue. It's this particular administration.

All these new rollbacks are not necessary. But, hey, throwing babies out with the bathwater is politically popular. Smart growth and incremental change are losing issues that do nothing to rally a political base. That's one thing that that Democrins and Republacrats can agree on.

 

[Kilboars]

They're trying to control what you can and can't do on your own property if it ever hold water.

 

[wyosam]

I am not talking about creek/streams/ditches flowing from one field to another, I am talking about run-off water. That is a big difference. IE: your 100A field runoff flows across my field, the old law would affect how I dealt with your run-off! I would not be allowed to try and stop/change directions of YOUR run-off without government approval. Or maybe another example you can relate to: Someone buys the lot next to you and changes something affecting the water shed onto your property, you could not legally do anything about it as it affects water. How the law was originally written any water that made it to the sea could be regulated. And the enviro-wackos can manipulate the data proving that is where all of it goes.

But runoff water is a key component to the quality of water in ditches, creeks, and streams. It’s not a matter of someone backing the tanker truck up to the river and dumping it strait in the river. I’m basing that off an assumption that “100 acre field” is not just a basically natural piece of ground, but a field used for agricultural or other use with high risk of runoff with potential pollutants.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dla]

It took 60 years for the city of Portland, OR to address million gallon sewer spills into the Willamette river. The spills are reduced by 90+%, but not eliminated (heavy rainfall can still overwhelm the system).
(We used to joke about catching salmon using tampons for lures.)
During this time the state DEQ was actively punitively fining dairy farms, corn processors, small landowners, etc. for accidental discharges. The obvious was that Portland got a pass for shltting in the Willamette, but a food processor would get a $100k fine for leaking 300 gallons of corn waste into a nearby irrigation ditch.

Ultimately I found myself unable to take the EPA or the state DEQ seriously, and I don't think I was alone.

 

[alexanderg23]

Just about anything that reduces federal oversight is fine with me! If it’s so important, it should be a law passed by Congress not some act implemented by some urban community leader.