Clean Water

[OCanada]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

[cradleandshoot]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

[PizzaSnake]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

[Farfromgeneva]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

https://pixels.com/featured/tall-ship-s ... davis.html

[runrussellrun]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

from your interesting link:

This represents the first time the EPA has taken action against a PFAS polluter for violating limits on a pollution permit.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't tell us the context, or meaning behind this sentence.

It could read that violations, in the past, have been overlooked. That, although violating limits, no action was taken.

It could also mean that no one ever "failed" or reached the pollution limit, hence not violating levels.

treating things as equal, when clearly they are not, is unacceptable in our world. decades of water pollution, effecting millions of humans , IS the same as wanting to put a little hydro electric plant on the stream that runs thru our property. you know, the green energy that the EPA wants to ban.

yup........similar in equal end games.

gee, why didn't Obama's EPA ensure an adequeate cleanup. the legal stuff settled with the town in 2017, surly Obama's EPA was on top of this.

yet.....here we are.

GE STILL hasn't cleaned up the Hoositonic........why ? go get em , EPA.

soft

[cradleandshoot]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

Read what the case was about. The EPA claimed some water on the property was wetlands in their opinion. The EPA used that declaration to not allow the couple to develop their own land. When the EPA oversteps their authority and start acting like they are God and should not have their authority questioned it's time to put them on a short leash. Maybe if you understood what the case that the SCOTUS decided was about it might help before you go off on a tangent. The case involved one couple contesting a decision by the EPA that would not allow them to use the land they purchased for what they intended. All it takes is one loss in court by the EPA and you folks shift into full fledged panic mode.

[PizzaSnake]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

Read what the case was about. The EPA claimed some water on the property was wetlands in their opinion. The EPA used that declaration to not allow the couple to develop their own land. When the EPA oversteps their authority and start acting like they are God and should not have their authority questioned it's time to put them on a short leash. Maybe if you understood what the case that the SCOTUS decided was about it might help before you go off on a tangent. The case involved one couple contesting a decision by the EPA that would not allow them to use the land they purchased for what they intended. All it takes is one loss in court by the EPA and you folks shift into full fledged panic mode.

I can afford to, and do, purify my family’s water via reverse osmosis filtration.

I guess I’m “one of those folks” because I give a fcuk about those who cannot.

But hey, you do you.

[PizzaSnake]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 114431.htm

"In a new study published in Environmental Science and Technology Letters, fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic containers -- used for household cleaners, pesticides, personal care products and, potentially, food packaging -- tested positive for PFAS. Following a report conducted by the EPA that demonstrated this type of container contributed high levels of PFAS to a pesticide, this research demonstrates the first measurement of the ability of PFAS to leach from the containers into food as well as the effect of temperature on the leaching process.

Results also showed the PFAS were capable of migrating from the fluorinated containers into food, resulting in a direct route of significant exposure to the hazardous chemicals, which have been linked to several health issues including prostate, kidney and testicular cancers, low birth weight, immunotoxicity and thyroid disease.

"Not only did we measure significant concentrations of PFAS in these containers, we can estimate the PFAS that were leaching off creating a direct path of exposure," said Graham Peaslee, professor of physics in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Notre Dame and an author of the study.

It's important to note that these types of containers are not intended for food storage, but there is nothing preventing them from being used for food storage at the moment. Although not all HDPE plastic is fluorinated, the researchers noted, it's often impossible for a consumer to know whether a container has had that treatment. And indeed, Peaslee added, if substances like pesticides are stored in these containers, and then are used on agricultural crops, these same PFAS will get into human food sources that way."

PFOS and PFAS should be included in the dictionary definition of ubiquity.

Guess I'm just being "one of those folks again"...

You know, the ones with half-a-fcuking-brain.

[MDlaxfan76]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

Read what the case was about. The EPA claimed some water on the property was wetlands in their opinion. The EPA used that declaration to not allow the couple to develop their own land. When the EPA oversteps their authority and start acting like they are God and should not have their authority questioned it's time to put them on a short leash. Maybe if you understood what the case that the SCOTUS decided was about it might help before you go off on a tangent. The case involved one couple contesting a decision by the EPA that would not allow them to use the land they purchased for what they intended. All it takes is one loss in court by the EPA and you folks shift into full fledged panic mode.

cradle, do I read you correctly that ANY time the EPA finds that a landowner should not "develop" their land due to something which the EPA believes would be harmful to the environment that's definitely and automatically an "overstep of their authority" and "acting like God"? ALL such instances?

Or do you mean that only wetlands protection should be out of bounds for the EPA?
Or only some wetlands?

The ''conservative' majority did not agree with one another as to where to draw a brand new line as to the EPA's authority to designate a wetlands area. A couple of those who voted against the EPA also felt that Alito went too far in his logic...did he?

Alito claims that in order to be a wetlands, its surface area must be contiguous to the body of water into which it serves as a buffer. EPA had interpreted the legislation granting it 'authority' to regulate wetlands and wetlands mitigation as including wetlands that drain into the water supply that feeds into streams and rivers and runoff...didn't need to be on the surface, the wetlands have the same effect of absorbing runoff, filtration, etc.

Note, Alito is making his interpretation up...it's not in the legislation, and, normally, a conservative position would be to say that Congress should better define its intent if it thinks the EPA has gone too far. But Alito ain't actually a "conservative".

BTW, a wetlands area CAN be developed, but there needs to be offsetting wetlands created if wetlands are gonna be paved over, unable to absorb runoff as before. Homeowners or other landowners/developers can work with a wetlands mitigation firm to accomplish those offsets.

What Alito has done is drastically reduce the amount of land that can be protected as wetlands, requiring mitigation efforts, if some developer wants to pave it over. Net effect will be much less wetlands over time, much less filtration of water supply. This is a radical corporatist position.

[cradleandshoot]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity fohr the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

Read what the case was about. The EPA claimed some water on the property was wetlands in their opinion. The EPA used that declaration to not allow the couple to develop their own land. When the EPA oversteps their authority and start acting like they are God and should not have their authority questioned it's time to put them on a short leash. Maybe if you understood what the case that the SCOTUS decided was about it might help before you go off on a tangent. The case involved one couple contesting a decision by the EPA that would not allow them to use the land they purchased for what they intended. All it takes is one loss in court by the EPA and you folks shift into full fledged panic mode.

cradle, do I read you correctly that ANY time the EPA finds that a landowner should not "develop" their land due to something which the EPA believes would be harmful to the environment that's definitely and automatically an "overstep of their authority" and "acting like God"? ALL such instances?

Or do you mean that only wetlands protection should be out of bounds for the EPA?
Or only some wetlands?

The ''conservative' majority did not agree with one another as to where to draw a brand new line as to the EPA's authority to designate a wetlands area. A couple of those who voted against the EPA also felt that Alito went too far in his logic...did he?

Alito claims that in order to be a wetlands, its surface area must be contiguous to the body of water into which it serves as a buffer. EPA had interpreted the legislation granting it 'authority' to regulate wetlands and wetlands mitigation as including wetlands that drain into the water supply that feeds into streams and rivers and runoff...didn't need to be on the surface, the wetlands have the same effect of absorbing runoff, filtration, etc.

Note, Alito is making his interpretation up...it's not in the legislation, and, normally, a conservative position would be to say that Congress should better define its intent if it thinks the EPA has gone too far. But Alito ain't actually a "conservative".

BTW, a wetlands area CAN be developed, but there needs to be offsetting wetlands created if wetlands are gonna be paved over, unable to absorb runoff as before. Homeowners or other landowners/developers can work with a wetlands mitigation firm to accomplish those offsets.

What Alito has done is drastically reduce the amount of land that can be protected as wetlands, requiring mitigation efforts, if some developer wants to pave it over. Net effect will be much less wetlands over time, much less filtration of water supply. This is a radical corporatist position.

Good morning MD lying in my hospital bed. I wound up with nasty infection in my rotator cuff repair. Will chat more about this when the nerve block wears off in my left arm. I did notice that for different reasons the SCOTUS decision was unanimous.

[jhu72]

The problem is the majority opinion in this case. The liberal ladies and Kavanaugh (the minority) found this to be a unique case and agreed the EPA in this instance should not block the land owners. No precedent to be derived.

The majority believed this should set precedent.

Kavanaugh wrote for the minority and was pretty scathing!

This case has been bouncing around for years.

[a fan]

Good morning MD lying in my hospital bed. I wound up with nasty infection in my rotator cuff repair. Will chat more about this when the nerve block wears off in my left arm. I did notice that for different reasons the SCOTUS decision was unanimous.

Heal up! Sorry to hear you're dealing with that.

[cradleandshoot]

Good morning MD lying in my hospital bed. I wound up with nasty infection in my rotator cuff repair. Will chat more about this when the nerve block wears off in my left arm. I did notice that for different reasons the SCOTUS decision was unanimous.

Heal up! Sorry to hear you're dealing with that.

Thanks s Fan I just wish I could get some sleep.

[MDlaxfan76]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity fohr the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

Read what the case was about. The EPA claimed some water on the property was wetlands in their opinion. The EPA used that declaration to not allow the couple to develop their own land. When the EPA oversteps their authority and start acting like they are God and should not have their authority questioned it's time to put them on a short leash. Maybe if you understood what the case that the SCOTUS decided was about it might help before you go off on a tangent. The case involved one couple contesting a decision by the EPA that would not allow them to use the land they purchased for what they intended. All it takes is one loss in court by the EPA and you folks shift into full fledged panic mode.

cradle, do I read you correctly that ANY time the EPA finds that a landowner should not "develop" their land due to something which the EPA believes would be harmful to the environment that's definitely and automatically an "overstep of their authority" and "acting like God"? ALL such instances?

Or do you mean that only wetlands protection should be out of bounds for the EPA?
Or only some wetlands?

The ''conservative' majority did not agree with one another as to where to draw a brand new line as to the EPA's authority to designate a wetlands area. A couple of those who voted against the EPA also felt that Alito went too far in his logic...did he?

Alito claims that in order to be a wetlands, its surface area must be contiguous to the body of water into which it serves as a buffer. EPA had interpreted the legislation granting it 'authority' to regulate wetlands and wetlands mitigation as including wetlands that drain into the water supply that feeds into streams and rivers and runoff...didn't need to be on the surface, the wetlands have the same effect of absorbing runoff, filtration, etc.

Note, Alito is making his interpretation up...it's not in the legislation, and, normally, a conservative position would be to say that Congress should better define its intent if it thinks the EPA has gone too far. But Alito ain't actually a "conservative".

BTW, a wetlands area CAN be developed, but there needs to be offsetting wetlands created if wetlands are gonna be paved over, unable to absorb runoff as before. Homeowners or other landowners/developers can work with a wetlands mitigation firm to accomplish those offsets.

What Alito has done is drastically reduce the amount of land that can be protected as wetlands, requiring mitigation efforts, if some developer wants to pave it over. Net effect will be much less wetlands over time, much less filtration of water supply. This is a radical corporatist position.

Good morning MD lying in my hospital bed. I wound up with nasty infection in my rotator cuff repair. Will chat more about this when the nerve block wears off in my left arm. I did notice that for different reasons the SCOTUS decision was unanimous.

Heal up well!
Nope, it was 5-4.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/politics ... index.html

[runrussellrun]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

Read what the case was about. The EPA claimed some water on the property was wetlands in their opinion. The EPA used that declaration to not allow the couple to develop their own land. When the EPA oversteps their authority and start acting like they are God and should not have their authority questioned it's time to put them on a short leash. Maybe if you understood what the case that the SCOTUS decided was about it might help before you go off on a tangent. The case involved one couple contesting a decision by the EPA that would not allow them to use the land they purchased for what they intended. All it takes is one loss in court by the EPA and you folks shift into full fledged panic mode.

I can afford to, and do, purify my family’s water via reverse osmosis filtration. (take minerals ? )

I guess I’m “one of those folks” because I give a fcuk about those who cannot. like tRump, you bringing THIS water to the good folks of the Ohio River valley ?

But hey, you do you. 2017....that is the very end of the Obama administration, where his EPA could have cleaned it up right. Not sure why you blame another party, or people. 8 years of Obama's EPA. Couldn't fix it. Nor Flint, MI. Or, or. or.

TAATS......

[cradleandshoot]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity fohr the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

Read what the case was about. The EPA claimed some water on the property was wetlands in their opinion. The EPA used that declaration to not allow the couple to develop their own land. When the EPA oversteps their authority and start acting like they are God and should not have their authority questioned it's time to put them on a short leash. Maybe if you understood what the case that the SCOTUS decided was about it might help before you go off on a tangent. The case involved one couple contesting a decision by the EPA that would not allow them to use the land they purchased for what they intended. All it takes is one loss in court by the EPA and you folks shift into full fledged panic mode.

cradle, do I read you correctly that ANY time the EPA finds that a landowner should not "develop" their land due to something which the EPA believes would be harmful to the environment that's definitely and automatically an "overstep of their authority" and "acting like God"? ALL such instances?

Or do you mean that only wetlands protection should be out of bounds for the EPA?
Or only some wetlands?

The ''conservative' majority did not agree with one another as to where to draw a brand new line as to the EPA's authority to designate a wetlands area. A couple of those who voted against the EPA also felt that Alito went too far in his logic...did he?

Alito claims that in order to be a wetlands, its surface area must be contiguous to the body of water into which it serves as a buffer. EPA had interpreted the legislation granting it 'authority' to regulate wetlands and wetlands mitigation as including wetlands that drain into the water supply that feeds into streams and rivers and runoff...didn't need to be on the surface, the wetlands have the same effect of absorbing runoff, filtration, etc.

Note, Alito is making his interpretation up...it's not in the legislation, and, normally, a conservative position would be to say that Congress should better define its intent if it thinks the EPA has gone too far. But Alito ain't actually a "conservative".

BTW, a wetlands area CAN be developed, but there needs to be offsetting wetlands created if wetlands are gonna be paved over, unable to absorb runoff as before. Homeowners or other landowners/developers can work with a wetlands mitigation firm to accomplish those offsets.

What Alito has done is drastically reduce the amount of land that can be protected as wetlands, requiring mitigation efforts, if some developer wants to pave it over. Net effect will be much less wetlands over time, much less filtration of water supply. This is a radical corporatist position.

Good morning MD lying in my hospital bed. I wound up with nasty infection in my rotator cuff repair. Will chat more about this when the nerve block wears off in my left arm. I did notice that for different reasons the SCOTUS decision was unanimous.

Heal up well!
Nope, it was 5-4.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/politics ... index.html

I must have spent too much time in the ED overflow reading my phone. It is fair to note that in Kavs dissent he noted the couple should have won their original claim because the EPA was mistaken claiming the property was wetlands. The EPA put this couple through an unfair and unjust situation. I'm not against the EPA by any stretch. They have proven the concept of absolute power corrupting absolutely. When your agency that answers to no one you can run roughshod over whomever you please. I know in his opinion that Alito used the same criteria that Scalia did previously in defining wetlands being part of an existing body of water. The only reason I posted this yesterday was the reference to Alito being a scum. IMO the SCOTUS did their job. I can paraphrase something Justice Roberts said when answering a question at his confirmation hearing. The gist of the question was if Roberts ever agreed with the little guy. Roberts response was spot on. He decides cases by what the law tells him. When the is in favor of the little guy, the little guy wins. The same holds true for the big guy. This case bounced around the courts for over a decade. The genesis of yesterday's decision involves an incorrect decision made by a very powerful EPA against a couple that just wanted to build their dream home. Maybe in the future the folks that run the EPA might want to rethink how they do business.

[cradleandshoot]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

Read what the case was about. The EPA claimed some water on the property was wetlands in their opinion. The EPA used that declaration to not allow the couple to develop their own land. When the EPA oversteps their authority and start acting like they are God and should not have their authority questioned it's time to put them on a short leash. Maybe if you understood what the case that the SCOTUS decided was about it might help before you go off on a tangent. The case involved one couple contesting a decision by the EPA that would not allow them to use the land they purchased for what they intended. All it takes is one loss in court by the EPA and you folks shift into full fledged panic mode.

I can afford to, and do, purify my family’s water via reverse osmosis filtration.

I guess I’m “one of those folks” because I give a fcuk about those who cannot.

But hey, you do you.

Fair enough, too bad we all can't afford an RO system. They do require a lot of TLC. I worked on them some while at Coca Cola. They are used in just about every McDonalds Rest.

[cradleandshoot]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

Read what the case was about. The EPA claimed some water on the property was wetlands in their opinion. The EPA used that declaration to not allow the couple to develop their own land. When the EPA oversteps their authority and start acting like they are God and should not have their authority questioned it's time to put them on a short leash. Maybe if you understood what the case that the SCOTUS decided was about it might help before you go off on a tangent. The case involved one couple contesting a decision by the EPA that would not allow them to use the land they purchased for what they intended. All it takes is one loss in court by the EPA and you folks shift into full fledged panic mode.

I can afford to, and do, purify my family’s water via reverse osmosis filtration.

I guess I’m “one of those folks” because I give a fcuk about those who cannot.

But hey, you do you.

Fair enough, too bad we all can't afford an RO system. They do require a lot of TLC. I worked on them some while at Coca Cola. They are used in just about every McDonalds Rest.
FTR as teenagers we use to fish on the Genesee River not too far from where Eastman Kodak use to treat their waste water and dump it into the river. The odor was always foul. We use to fish but never ate anything we caught. I don't ever remember, but I might be wrong, about the EPA ever saying boo about it to Kodak. I remember seeing the workers in their Hazmat space suits. The EPA must have had smaller fish to fry or they just didn't give a fcuk??

[PizzaSnake]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity for the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

Read what the case was about. The EPA claimed some water on the property was wetlands in their opinion. The EPA used that declaration to not allow the couple to develop their own land. When the EPA oversteps their authority and start acting like they are God and should not have their authority questioned it's time to put them on a short leash. Maybe if you understood what the case that the SCOTUS decided was about it might help before you go off on a tangent. The case involved one couple contesting a decision by the EPA that would not allow them to use the land they purchased for what they intended. All it takes is one loss in court by the EPA and you folks shift into full fledged panic mode.

I can afford to, and do, purify my family’s water via reverse osmosis filtration. (take minerals ? )

I guess I’m “one of those folks” because I give a fcuk about those who cannot. like tRump, you bringing THIS water to the good folks of the Ohio River valley ?

But hey, you do you. 2017....that is the very end of the Obama administration, where his EPA could have cleaned it up right. Not sure why you blame another party, or people. 8 years of Obama's EPA. Couldn't fix it. Nor Flint, MI. Or, or. or.

TAATS......

Both parties scuk, as do humans who engage in equivocation.

Have any thing substantive to contribute, party boy skier?

[MDlaxfan76]

SCOTUS continues to erode protections recognized for decades that protect water purity fohr the country. A big win for polluters and a big loss for healthcare and the populace. Alito wrote it. The word scum comes to mind

The case involved the EPA abusing their power by not allowing the couple to develop the land they had purchased. EPA claimed some of the land was wetlands. You can step back off the ledge nobody is trying to threaten the quality of our water.

Sure about that? Don’t be naive.

“The US Environmental Protection Agency is taking unprecedented enforcement action over PFAS water pollution by ordering the chemical giant Chemours’ Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant to stop discharging extremely high levels of toxic PFAS waste into the Ohio River.”

Or is that an “overreach”?

I’d find more such citations for you but since you profess retirement and literacy I’ll leave it as “an exercise fur the reader.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ohio-river

Read what the case was about. The EPA claimed some water on the property was wetlands in their opinion. The EPA used that declaration to not allow the couple to develop their own land. When the EPA oversteps their authority and start acting like they are God and should not have their authority questioned it's time to put them on a short leash. Maybe if you understood what the case that the SCOTUS decided was about it might help before you go off on a tangent. The case involved one couple contesting a decision by the EPA that would not allow them to use the land they purchased for what they intended. All it takes is one loss in court by the EPA and you folks shift into full fledged panic mode.

cradle, do I read you correctly that ANY time the EPA finds that a landowner should not "develop" their land due to something which the EPA believes would be harmful to the environment that's definitely and automatically an "overstep of their authority" and "acting like God"? ALL such instances?

Or do you mean that only wetlands protection should be out of bounds for the EPA?
Or only some wetlands?

The ''conservative' majority did not agree with one another as to where to draw a brand new line as to the EPA's authority to designate a wetlands area. A couple of those who voted against the EPA also felt that Alito went too far in his logic...did he?

Alito claims that in order to be a wetlands, its surface area must be contiguous to the body of water into which it serves as a buffer. EPA had interpreted the legislation granting it 'authority' to regulate wetlands and wetlands mitigation as including wetlands that drain into the water supply that feeds into streams and rivers and runoff...didn't need to be on the surface, the wetlands have the same effect of absorbing runoff, filtration, etc.

Note, Alito is making his interpretation up...it's not in the legislation, and, normally, a conservative position would be to say that Congress should better define its intent if it thinks the EPA has gone too far. But Alito ain't actually a "conservative".

BTW, a wetlands area CAN be developed, but there needs to be offsetting wetlands created if wetlands are gonna be paved over, unable to absorb runoff as before. Homeowners or other landowners/developers can work with a wetlands mitigation firm to accomplish those offsets.

What Alito has done is drastically reduce the amount of land that can be protected as wetlands, requiring mitigation efforts, if some developer wants to pave it over. Net effect will be much less wetlands over time, much less filtration of water supply. This is a radical corporatist position.

Good morning MD lying in my hospital bed. I wound up with nasty infection in my rotator cuff repair. Will chat more about this when the nerve block wears off in my left arm. I did notice that for different reasons the SCOTUS decision was unanimous.

Heal up well!
Nope, it was 5-4.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/politics ... index.html

I must have spent too much time in the ED overflow reading my phone. It is fair to note that in Kavs dissent he noted the couple should have won their original claim because the EPA was mistaken claiming the property was wetlands. The EPA put this couple through an unfair and unjust situation. I'm not against the EPA by any stretch. They have proven the concept of absolute power corrupting absolutely. When your agency that answers to no one you can run roughshod over whomever you please. I know in his opinion that Alito used the same criteria that Scalia did previously in defining wetlands being part of an existing body of water. The only reason I posted this yesterday was the reference to Alito being a scum. IMO the SCOTUS did their job. I can paraphrase something Justice Roberts said when answering a question at his confirmation hearing. The gist of the question was if Roberts ever agreed with the little guy. Roberts response was spot on. He decides cases by what the law tells him. When the is in favor of the little guy, the little guy wins. The same holds true for the big guy. This case bounced around the courts for over a decade. The genesis of yesterday's decision involves an incorrect decision made by a very powerful EPA against a couple that just wanted to build their dream home. Maybe in the future the folks that run the EPA might want to rethink how they do business.

hmmm, so you don't think that large financial interests, "the big guy", have an advantage in effecting the writing of legislation, the enactment and enforcement of regulation, and the composition and rulings of the courts?

Really?

I don't know whether the EPA was actually wrong in its designation of this specific property as sensitive wetlands, but I do know that Alito's definition is ridiculously wrongheaded and not the clear intent of the authorizing legislation.

From a policy perspective, this decision will make it impossible to prevent the paving over of important absorption areas without offsetting mitigation. And that will make our waterways less clean, killing the ecosystems in our estuaries and major bodies of water.

I have zero idea what you mean by "an agency that answers to no one" and has "absolute power". The EPA is subject to Congress' authorizing legislation and oversight. They are responsible to and managed by the elected POTUS and their administration.

And both Congress and the POTUS are elected by us, responsible to the voters...democracy...

Now, do I think it's often difficult to deal with various bureaucracies, including the EPA, if you don't know what you're doing?

Yes.

But as someone who is subject to various environmental constraints in both residential and commercial properties I and my family own, it's something one needs to understand before thinking you can simply make a change to the status quo of the property however and whenever you wish.

My home was sited specifically understanding the wetlands and forest buffer setback areas of my property, a large portion of which had also been put into an environmental trust decades ago. I didn't just assume we could build anywhere we wanted! We spent time with the government and the environmental trust people, determined where we could and couldn't build, any mitigation needed, and only then did we go forward. Frankly, I'm very pleased that our property does a good job of absorption and buffering of the stream, as many others do not. We work with our farmer to stay within the right bounds as well, though that's something I'd like to improve upon as he's not as 'organic' and concerned with crop rotation, soil preservation, as I'd prefer...but he's the only farmer working our valley and is understandably focused on each year's solvency...it's an issue I'd love to find a better solution for.

Likewise, we own a commercial building for which I'd love to add some additional paved parking as that could drive somewhat higher rent, yet it sits within an environmentally protected greenspace, with a stream nearby, so in order to add paved area, we'd need to do some serious mitigation work. So far, the tradeoff hasn't been worth it...but again, we didn't just assume we could do anything we wanted just because we 'own' the property...

Note, these properties, though subject to such restrictions, are attractive in large part because of the area's environmental restrictions, with much more greenspace than where restrictions are less. So, a trade-off in value.

Point is...landowners need to pay attention...and we want government to make sure they do because otherwise people would pave everything over for their own narrow self interest.