(12-17-2018, 09:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thought I read where it is not going to be implemented until 2020

(12-17-2018, 09:34 PM)6andcounting Wrote: That's because you read beyond the first paragraph.

(12-17-2018, 09:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, maybe some should read what you linked before putting their foot in their mouth. 


"Clever". 

(12-17-2018, 09:32 PM)6andcounting Wrote: "technically in effect in 22 states."



Anytime I see something with the qualifier "technically" I like to keep reading to see why only "technically". 


"the agencies finalized a rule to delay the implementation date of the 2015 WOTUS rule to February 6, 2020."




The rule was ""technically in effect in 22 states." because in those 22 states the courts had not made a ruling overturning or challenging it. The rule in place said it's requirements were to be implemented in 2020, so ending this rule prior to February 6, 2020 didn't change anything.

(12-17-2018, 08:04 PM)6andcounting Wrote: But it will bring tourism to the city. Tons of people outside of the immediate area of Washington are Redskins fans and will rent hotel rooms and by beer or something. 

(12-17-2018, 10:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yep. I misread that one.  I read that the rule delaying the implementation was being challenged in court so I thought it was in effect.

I was clearly wrong.

(12-17-2018, 11:49 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Me and Bfine right now

(12-17-2018, 08:02 PM)6andcounting Wrote: This may be true. I won't debate this because I don't now. I mean it makes sense that if every little body of water that flows into a large body of water is polluted that it will effect the larger bodies of water. Based on knowing nothing about the law, that seems like the gist of the law. It's just that nothing is actually changing from the way it currently is. If that in itself is good or bad is a fair debate. 

(12-18-2018, 02:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm curious why pointing out a policy that was created to help mitigate negative environmental impacts hasn't been implemented yet and is now not going to be is somehow winning this argument against people unhappy with the removal of the policy. Just because it maintains the status quo doesn't mean that people who wanted the policy shouldn't be unhappy. The status quo is shit. We need to be improving our waterways and undercutting policies that are aimed at doing that are harmful to the environment and the people.

(12-18-2018, 09:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: There is no need for debate.  The current admin got rid of it because...reasons.

that's just another time this admin has made moves to change rules, stop implementing, never implementing them without any evidence to back it up other than "they say" it will cost businesses money to implement them.

(12-13-2018, 10:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: Profit over people....the Republican/Trump way.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/11/early-holiday-gift-polluters-trump-guts-protections-60-percent-nations-streams



I would not be surprised in the least if this was done with absolutely zero scientific evidence to back it up.  Unlike past administrations this one tends to just handle regulations based on what they want and not what has been studied.