quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Anyway, bottom line point for the present is

1) The Clean Air / Clean Water regulations have improved the environment considerably
2) Getting rid of them is a bad idea.

If you want to tweak them instead, awesome.

3) The Clean Air /Clean Water acts are now all governed a if they are a religion. Worship of Mother Earth. That has to stop.

I had a client, albeit a stupid man, who was going to build a masonry wall. He had some sacks, well a lot of sacks, of mortar delivered.b the sacks were set on pallets in the street. It was summer time. An environmental inspected came by and said, "oh it may rain and some of that mortar may wash into the river." The State imposed a $250,000 fine. Even though it's never actually rained during that month of the year in recorded history. The client appealed the administrative fine. When the appeal came before the Board, the Board told my client that since he had appealed and not just paid the fine, the Board doubled the fine to $500,000. The the State Agency turned the case over to the EPA which imposed its own $500,000 fine. $1,000,000 that was then passed to the new homes being built for literally nothing except the emotional satisfaction of the religious zealots running the agencies.

You're discussing state agencies here.

The EPA is a federal agency.

Well, maybe you didn't read the part about the EPA then making its own $500,000 fine for a local issue. Perhaps you don't know that EPA uses the FBI as its enforcement arm. Perhaps you don't know why the State Agencies exist and the control over them the EPA has. Either the state's impose local fines, making money then become available for further enforcement, or the state pays the fine to the EPA.

You know, the City of Stockton, just one small example, has discovered this revenue stream. The city has actually assign all of the District Attorney's investigators to investigating environmental "crimes." They go out to local businesses and find small water quality infractions and impose huge fines, which the city then uses to keep the general fund solvent. Do you eat Campbell's tomato soup. Well, that plant is a favorite of the City of Stockton. If the city inspectors can't level at least $3,000,000 per year in BS fines it finds a new inspector who can. Which, of course, is all passed unknowingly onto your can of soup.

It's all unfunded mandates hidden from the public used to support the church of Mother Earth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


Even though this is quoting Hillbilly, it's actually a response to Jif1961. You want to actually see a rolling back the clock, look at the statement above. When was it legal to dump any industrial waste into a waterway of the United States? It's just not legal but the idea of it is still used to emotionally browbeat us all into accepting the religion that the EPA protects.

The Clean Water act was first adopted in 1972 with major revisions made all of the time. A huge revision in the 90's. So in order to argue your point...or actually hillbillies point, you have to roll the clock back to 1972...nearly half a century.

So how far are we going to roll it back?

Are we going to be conservatives who tell people to clean up their own fucking mess or are we going to be liberals and have to raise taxes so that those poor people (corps are people remember) don't have to clean up after themselves?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Anyway, bottom line point for the present is

1) The Clean Air / Clean Water regulations have improved the environment considerably
2) Getting rid of them is a bad idea.

If you want to tweak them instead, awesome.

3) The Clean Air /Clean Water acts are now all governed a if they are a religion. Worship of Mother Earth. That has to stop.

I had a client, albeit a stupid man, who was going to build a masonry wall. He had some sacks, well a lot of sacks, of mortar delivered.b the sacks were set on pallets in the street. It was summer time. An environmental inspected came by and said, "oh it may rain and some of that mortar may wash into the river." The State imposed a $250,000 fine. Even though it's never actually rained during that month of the year in recorded history. The client appealed the administrative fine. When the appeal came before the Board, the Board told my client that since he had appealed and not just paid the fine, the Board doubled the fine to $500,000. The the State Agency turned the case over to the EPA which imposed its own $500,000 fine. $1,000,000 that was then passed to the new homes being built for literally nothing except the emotional satisfaction of the religious zealots running the agencies.

You're discussing state agencies here.

The EPA is a federal agency.

Well, maybe you didn't read the part about the EPA then making its own $500,000 fine for a local issue. Perhaps you don't know that EPA uses the FBI as its enforcement arm. Perhaps you don't know why the State Agencies exist and the control over them the EPA has. Either the state's impose local fines, making money then become available for further enforcement, or the state pays the fine to the EPA.

You know, the City of Stockton, just one small example, has discovered this revenue stream. The city has actually assign all of the District Attorney's investigators to investigating environmental "crimes." They go out to local businesses and find small water quality infractions and impose huge fines, which the city then uses to keep the general fund solvent. Do you eat Campbell's tomato soup. Well, that plant is a favorite of the City of Stockton. If the city inspectors can't level at least $3,000,000 per year in BS fines it finds a new inspector who can. Which, of course, is all passed unknowingly onto your can of soup.

It's all unfunded mandates hidden from the public used to support the church of Mother Earth.

Again, take your religious case to the Supreme Court.

Good luck.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I doubt those are exact quotes.

Especially given that you're prone to characterization.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam



So how far are we going to roll it back?

Are we going to be conservatives who tell people to clean up their own fucking mess or are we going to be liberals and have to raise taxes so that those poor people (corps are people remember) don't have to clean up after themselves?

Why roll it back at all. Why not make every elected official read and approve every regulation that is written regarding any law they pass. That way the elected officials and not the environmental zealots are in charge of the regulations. That's what they're freaking elected to do.

In the case, for instance, of Campbell's soup above, why not make it a functional permit liability. If Campbell's Soup actually discharges bad things into the river, fine them until it bleeds. As it is now the city inspectors wonder around and say things like, oh, that valve should've been opened/closed at such and such a time, here's your violation notice even though what you're doing won't affect the environment. They regulate process rather than outcome.

I was building a sewage treatment plant. Wanted to use ultra violet light for a disinfection process. The state said, "Oh, we've never used that brand of lights before so if you do a two year study and double the amount of light that you really need then maybe we'll let you." And, "oh," the state further said, "the consultant you are using once questioned us on a decision we made so if you continue to use him we'll never approve your project no matter what your two year study results show." So the state theocracy imposed brand names accepted by them and only if those brand names were applied for by acolytes of the church.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Seriously, I think you're projecting there. Read our posts -- there's not much emotion coming from my end, let alone hyperbole.

I'm interested in the "real world" instances, except that your descriptions of them don't seem like simple statements of the facts, and that you use California as a stand in for the entire nation.

California has a number of self-imposed structural economic and political problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


Well, maybe you didn't read the part about the EPA then making its own $500,000 fine for a local issue. Perhaps you don't know that EPA uses the FBI as its enforcement arm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam



So how far are we going to roll it back?

Are we going to be conservatives who tell people to clean up their own fucking mess or are we going to be liberals and have to raise taxes so that those poor people (corps are people remember) don't have to clean up after themselves?

Why roll it back at all. Why not make every elected official read and approve every regulation that is written regarding any law they pass. That way the elected officials and not the environmental zealots are in charge of the regulations. That's what they're freaking elected to do.

In the case, for instance, of Campbell's soup above, why not make it a functional permit liability. If Campbell's Soup actually discharges bad things into the river, fine them until it bleeds. As it is now the city inspectors wonder around and say things like, oh, that valve should've been opened/closed at such and such a time, here's your violation notice even though what you're doing won't affect the environment. They regulate process rather than outcome.

I was building a sewage treatment plant. Wanted to use ultra violet light for a disinfection process. The state said, "Oh, we've never used that brand of lights before so if you do a two year study and double the amount of light that you really need then maybe we'll let you." And, "oh," the state further said, "the consultant you are using once questioned us on a decision we made so if you continue to use him we'll never approve your project no matter what your two year study results show." So the state theocracy imposed brand names accepted by them and only if those brand names were applied for by acolytes of the church.

As far as your sewage treatment plant, was it the state or was it an individual who may or may not have been getting kickbacks from the people they wanted you to use?

As for your Campbell's soup example, IF you actually know about this stuff, you would know that process Is that CAUSES outcome.
Proper process leads to good outcome.
Bad processes lead to shit outcome.

If a plant operator doesn't do what he is supposed to, then he will have bad results and the taxpayers will feel the burden.

Of course, there are some around here who think the poor corporations shouldn't have to be responsible for their shit. Everyone else should have to deal with it.

Fuckin Leftists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


Well, maybe you didn't read the part about the EPA then making its own $500,000 fine for a local issue. Perhaps you don't know that EPA uses the FBI as its enforcement arm.

Bullshit

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/14/armed-epa-agents-in-alaska-shed-light-on-70-fed-agencies-with-armed-divisions.html

They have their own armed agents.
They can no doubt call state, federal or local PD for help but they have their own cops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam



So how far are we going to roll it back?

Are we going to be conservatives who tell people to clean up their own fucking mess or are we going to be liberals and have to raise taxes so that those poor people (corps are people remember) don't have to clean up after themselves?

Why roll it back at all. Why not make every elected official read and approve every regulation that is written regarding any law they pass. That way the elected officials and not the environmental zealots are in charge of the regulations. That's what they're freaking elected to do.

In the case, for instance, of Campbell's soup above, why not make it a functional permit liability. If Campbell's Soup actually discharges bad things into the river, fine them until it bleeds. As it is now the city inspectors wonder around and say things like, oh, that valve should've been opened/closed at such and such a time, here's your violation notice even though what you're doing won't affect the environment. They regulate process rather than outcome.

I was building a sewage treatment plant. Wanted to use ultra violet light for a disinfection process. The state said, "Oh, we've never used that brand of lights before so if you do a two year study and double the amount of light that you really need then maybe we'll let you." And, "oh," the state further said, "the consultant you are using once questioned us on a decision we made so if you continue to use him we'll never approve your project no matter what your two year study results show." So the state theocracy imposed brand names accepted by them and only if those brand names were applied for by acolytes of the church.

As far as your sewage treatment plant, was it the state or was it an individual who may or may not have been getting kickbacks from the people they wanted you to use?

As for your Campbell's soup example, IF you actually know about this stuff, you would know that process Is that CAUSES outcome.
Proper process leads to good outcome.
Bad processes lead to shit outcome.

If a plant operator doesn't do what he is supposed to, then he will have bad results and the taxpayers will feel the burden.

Of course, there are some around here who think the poor corporations shouldn't have to be responsible for their shit. Everyone else should have to deal with it.

Fuckin Leftists.

If you knew anything you'd know what I learned back in the 80's. We can design and build processes for years and meet all of the regulations then we turn a finished product over to operators. Those operators are all licensed by the state. If they operate a system and it discharges bad things into a river they lose their license, can be fined and can go to jail. They all take pride in operating their systems to highest standards with the best outcome possible as a goal. Then you have some inspector come in and fine the plant for some process change, without testing what the change will affect. It's idiocy with way to much power given to a government functionary simply to generate money to insure their own job security. Oh, and who pays for it? The rate payers. So you prefer the tax payers to pay for the religious system now in place.

You're an idiot because you have no idea what you're talking about yet you keep talking.