Trump's EPA to rescind Waters of US definition
Good news for sanity. Would be even better if they just shuttered the EPA, but that's not going to happen right now...
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
"The President’s action today preserves a federal role in protecting water, but it also restores the states’ important role in the regulation of water.”
A new , planned Nickle and Copper mine is set to break ground this year after 10 years of permits ,environmental permits land swaps with the fed( basically forcing the co. to buy adjacent land to a national park and give it to the park) in the iron range of Minnesota. One decade , $30,000,000.00 later and that doesn't pay for one scoop of dirt. The co. Will provide hundreds of well paid jobs and the local industry to support those folks plus we get the metals in to the economy.
Any disagreement with that?
The conservative adaptation of Mill's collective utilitarianism has been devastating to freedom and the rights of the individual, and should not be echoed in defending capitalism.
Likewise, " local knowledge of the watershed for management" and a vague appeal to "utilize a resource" is no substitute for private ownership rights of the land as justification of the mine. The EPA substitute of targeting land in the name of "navigable waters of the United States" is a direct assault on private property rights on principle across the country. That is what this battle has been over for decades. An appeal to 'local' collectivist control or "utilization" of a "resource" with no mention of the fundamental alternative of private property rights versus government control is a false alternative and not the answer to the viros.
To defend their freedom to ethically act in their own self-interest.
"The conservative adaptation of Mill's collective utilitarianism." First I have heard of it thanks for the tip.
One question ,How do we deal with the interconnected water we all depend on and the potential pollution from private enterprise?
Is the environmental impact from the activity to neighboring properties a consideration of local communities or govt.?
2. Look up Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill on "the greatest good for the greatest number", a phrase of utilitarian ethics you probably have heard before. If you listen to Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on the history of philosophy you will very clearly see where it came from and how its influence fits in with the evolution of ethics and politics in the movement against the individualism of the Enlightenment.
3. Everything in the universe, not just water, is connected to everything else in some way. It's not an excuse for collectivism, ignoring essential distinctions, as promoted for example in Hegel's organic theory of the state. There is nothing in principle about "connections" in reality to deal with politically as long as property rights are defined and protected. There is no more potential for damaging pollution from private enterprise than any other system. Devastating pollution was a hallmark of the Soviet Union because they had no respect for the rights of the individual.
4. Anyone can "consider" "impacts" or anything else he pleases. The issue here is the use of physical force by government to violate property rights stemming from "considerations" imposed by pressure groups on behalf of whatever they want. It usually shows up from the viros in the form of progressively intensifying forced preservationism. What they sweepingly call an "environmental impact" is simply a result of someone else's life they don't like, not a crime.
The "environment" is everything around you. Their demands to control the "environment" by government are demands to use physical force to control everything around them, which means controlling everything, including you, which is why they are such totalitarian nihilists. It is not true that they have a so-called "right to participate in other people's decisions that affect them". That is totalitarian collectivism.
They make no distinction between preventing actual physical harm violating someone's rights and "affecting" something in a way they don't like.
The first is within the realm of government -- at some level whether local, state or national -- to protect the objective rights of individuals; the second is the target of their collectivist pressure group warfare they impose in any way they can at all levels of government and have no right to do -- like exploiting every conceivable bureaucratic tactic they can think of for 30 years to strangle the creation of a mine they don't like and seek to destroy by any meany possible.
Ends determined by their feelings justifying the means is anarchy and statism. It's their hijacking the physical power of government to coercively impose whatever they want, not the principles of proper government at any level.
The question of proper land use and safety of the populace from said activities. Who has a say in it?
Does the land owner have the sole right to do what they want? What role does government have?
" There is no more potential for damaging pollution from private enterprise than any other system. Devastating pollution was a hallmark of the Soviet Union because they had no respect for the rights of the individual."
Or no less potential for deadly effects.
I would not defend the Soviet Union. The death from "accidents" or state sponsored negligence can also be caused by private enterprises accidents.
The Bhopal Tragedy was a Union Carbide Inc. Private enterprise.
Estimates vary on the death toll. The official immediate death toll was 2,259. The government of Madhya Pradesh confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release.[3] A government affidavit in 2006 stated that the leak caused 558,125 injuries, including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.[4] Others estimate that 8,000 died within two weeks, and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases.[5].
A landowner can properly do what he wants on his own land provided he does not cause or threaten physical harm to others. It's not an excuse for collectivism, which doesn't even achieve the "safety" it promotes itself as; quite the opposite. Proper laws protecting the rights of the individual that do not include forced preservationism and ideological hatred for mining and the rest of industry, as we see coming from the viro left.
Establishing proper laws requires the proper philosophical base of individualism, which must be understood and accepted as dominant in the culture. From there, objective procedure for objectively defining and codifying the implementation in law is the role of a proper representative government. India is not an example of any of that, and of course the EPA isn't either.
The recent EO pushing back the Obama power grab exploiting arbitrary redefinition of "navigable waters of the United States" https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... is sincere in its intent despite the weak wording, and may to some extent push the powers back, but this will remain a battle for years with all kinds of political subterfuge and legal maneuvers by the viros and their entrenched power base within the agencies, exploiting every weakness they can. That weakness includes poor philosophical defenses against them in the media and the public in general.
Agree that the EPA should be closed down asap. Let the states deal with it.
But the EO was literally written as an indirect order to "reconsider" the EPA "interpretation" (see the text of the EO below from 2/27/17).
It did not tell them to respect private property rights and remain within the original intent and statement of the law rather than expanding their "rules" to anything biologically related to anything that is wet as an excuse for land use control and prohibition.
We all know how the viros, including those entrenched in and running the EPA, "interpret" "promotes economic growth and minimizes regularity uncertainty" to mean wilderness and the 'certainty' of the dictatorship they demand. (They literally propagandize that "the economy" is better where there are Federal parks and wilderness.) And we know how they "consider interpreting the term 'navigable waters'" "in a manner consistent with ... Rapanos v. United States" -- They just "considered" that when they wrote the law they wanted into the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), now known as the CFP (Code of Federal Pens). So why beat around the water lilly in the usual conservative fashion politely pandering to false premises and motives?
Executive Order—Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - -
RESTORING THE RULE OF LAW, FEDERALISM, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
BY REVIEWING THE “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES” RULE
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles played by Congress and the States under the Constitution.
Sec. 2. Review of the Waters of the United States Rule.
(a) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (the Administrator) and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (Assistant Secretary) shall review the final rule entitled, “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (June 29, 2015), for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law.
(b) The Administrator, the Assistant Secretary, and the heads of all executive departments and agencies shall review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the final rule listed in subsection (a) of this section for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and shall rescind or revise, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising, those issuances, as appropriate and consistent with law and with any changes made as a result of a rulemaking proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
(c) With respect to litigation before the Federal courts related to the final rule listed in subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall promptly notify the Attorney General of the pending review under subsection (b) of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appropriate, inform the court (or courts) of such review and take such measures as he deems appropriate concerning any such case or action pending the completion of further administrative proceedings related to the rule.
Sec. 3. Definition of “Navigable Waters” in Future Rulemaking. In connection with the proposed rule described in section 2(a) of this order, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall consider interpreting the term “navigable waters,” as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362(7), in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
Sec. 4. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Well, me dino be metaphorically speaking.
I would expect libs to run wild in the streets while lefty talking heads whine themselves hoarse.
their water is almost safe for fishing and human consumption again. I sincerely hope that corporations have become enlightened enough to
assume personal responsibility to keep those gains.
They are fanatics with an alien 'cause' inculcated into them by their 'education', whether originally from the city or not. It's a very dangerous, deep-rooted and widespread trend and extends to all areas of the dominant intellectuals from schools to the media, and to government policy on all kinds of land use and industry, not just ponds. Rural areas are especially hard hit by it with all kinds of progressively intensifying Federal and state regulations. Speak out against it in terms of fundamental principles wherever you can.