61–70 of 109 posts
We're drowning in headlines these days that I feel like this story really fell through the cracks. People who live near fracking really need to know this.
> People who live near fracking really need to know this.
I'm surprised that middle America is so pro-Republican given how many times things like this have happened to them and how pro-corporate and anti-regulation Republicans are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder how many of them would even care. This week the EPA dismantled the Clean Water Rule. This week, the EPA rolled back an Obama-era executive order interpreting the Clean Water Act. Hard to see how rescinding a three year old executive order could “dismantle” a 47-year old statute. The Obama-era interpretation was ridiculous on top of everything else. The Wikipedia article is actually pretty good: > The Clean…
> Is there any room in our politics to acknowledge that agencies sometimes overreach Yes, but what we're seeing under the current Trump administration isn't a "sometimes" thing. It's become an effort to systemically rollback as many regulations as they could in order to allow for greater profits. They have gutted anybody of power within the EPA and replaced then with pro-corporate drones and climate change deniers. >…
Congress did not create the EPA as an agency that has plenary authority to regulate environmental issues. Such an agency would not be constitutional, because it would involve wholesale delegation of Congress’s legislative powers to the executive branch. Instead, the Clean Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, Clean Air Act, etc., created specific programs to address specific types of environmental harms. The EPA is only supposed to be administering the programs Congress created.
Congress should be updating these laws to address new types of issues, but it’s not. It’s not because Republicans don’t care about these issues, and Democrats aren’t willing to spend the political capital to make these issues a priority. Whatever the reason, however, that doesn’t mean it’s okay for agencies like the EPA to creatively interpret statutes to expand their powers into new areas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they weren’t informed about the real dangers of what was being spread. I wonder how many of them would even care. This week the EPA dismantled the Clean Water Rule. The primary backers for this were farmers and developers.
> I wonder how many of them would even care. This week the EPA dismantled the Clean Water Rule. This week, the EPA rolled back an Obama-era executive order interpreting the Clean Water Act. Hard to see how rescinding a three year old executive order could “dismantle” a 47-year old statute. The Obama-era interpretation was ridiculous on top of everything else. The Wikipedia article is actually pretty good: > The Clean…
That is a rather distorted view of the water. Note that the definition of "navigable waters" is explicitly laid out in the law (33 USC §1362 (7), for exact reference) as:
> The term “navigable waters” means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.
This has been generally interpreted to include at least pretty much all non-ephemeral streams in the US, and ephemeral waterways are rather more questionable. See, e.g., Rapanos v US, decided in 2006 (i.e., before Obama took office).
I used to do the soil lab testing for a guy that dealt with this waste in my state. They did permitting and paid farmers to be able to spread it on their fields and tell them it is good for them and will make the soil more fertile. It can be either the salt brine or the more hydrocarbon based stuff that was basically like tar being spread on the farmer’s pasture. He himself wrote the laws that the state government ju…
We're drowning in headlines these days that I feel like this story really fell through the cracks. People who live near fracking really need to know this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever looked at Google maps/Earth of Texas? Zoom out to a couple thousand feet, and look at all of the little white dots across the surface. Each one of those little dots is a fracking well. Seeing it from this view is quite shocking. Look at how close houses/schools/etc are next to these well sites.
Here’s an example of some I found the other day. Each one of those white dots is a well pad where they cleared the land for a drilling rig to work. If you look closely you can see surface pumps on many of them. Some have storage tanks as well. This entire region (the Permian Basin) is pockmarked like this. (31.6643861, -103.0348924) Dropped pin Near Winkler County, TX https://goo.gl/maps/J2zi8VwD2QjKUpbk8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever looked at Google maps/Earth of Texas? Zoom out to a couple thousand feet, and look at all of the little white dots across the surface. Each one of those little dots is a fracking well. Seeing it from this view is quite shocking. Look at how close houses/schools/etc are next to these well sites.
Here’s an example of some I found the other day. Each one of those white dots is a well pad where they cleared the land for a drilling rig to work. If you look closely you can see surface pumps on many of them. Some have storage tanks as well. This entire region (the Permian Basin) is pockmarked like this. (31.6643861, -103.0348924) Dropped pin Near Winkler County, TX https://goo.gl/maps/J2zi8VwD2QjKUpbk8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there any room in our politics to acknowledge that agencies sometimes overreach Yes, but what we're seeing under the current Trump administration isn't a "sometimes" thing. It's become an effort to systemically rollback as many regulations as they could in order to allow for greater profits. They have gutted anybody of power within the EPA and replaced then with pro-corporate drones and climate change deniers. >…
Trump has rolled back a lot of things, yes, but a lot of the Obama-era rules were vast overreaches. Ask yourself how agencies like the EPA managed to find new sources of authority, like the authority to regulate ponds on farms, in 47-year old statutes? Congress did not create the EPA as an agency that has plenary authority to regulate environmental issues. Such an agency would not be constitutional, because it would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they weren’t informed about the real dangers of what was being spread. I wonder how many of them would even care. This week the EPA dismantled the Clean Water Rule. The primary backers for this were farmers and developers.
> I wonder how many of them would even care. This week the EPA dismantled the Clean Water Rule. This week, the EPA rolled back an Obama-era executive order interpreting the Clean Water Act. Hard to see how rescinding a three year old executive order could “dismantle” a 47-year old statute. The Obama-era interpretation was ridiculous on top of everything else. The Wikipedia article is actually pretty good: > The Clean…
The media would lead you to believe farmers have stock piles of 50 gallon chemical drums they're waiting to pour into our lakes and streams.
My partner's take is that a wetland, natural or otherwise is a protected habitat that can't just be destroyed. Farms have such wetlands and land developers are finding they can't just buy up farm land and plop developments on it due to wetlands.
That seems to make the most sense to me being that Trump is a developer.