EPA rulings on Non-point
chrerick at email.msn.com
Sat Jan 1 20:51:05 EST 2000
If you really want to see a mess, move down here to the border where we
don't have a single sovereign authority that can deal with transborder
pollution. Brainless children, toxic rivers, etc.
Makes one want to join the trilatteral commission. New world order anyone.
JFiske <jfiske at lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:386d4244.0 at news2.lightlink.com...
> Whoops, hold it Ron! The Constitution says any rights not specifically
> granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states or to the
> people. Big difference there to my way of thinking.
> I do agree that some regulation by the Federal government is needed,
> especially in the case of air pollution (I live in the NE where most of
> crap ends up), but lets not get crosswise of the Constitution doing it.
> Ron Wenrich <woodtick at kaley.net> wrote in message
> news:s6n5mbus5k265 at corp.supernews.com...
> > Ted Kegebein <kegebein at planttel.net> wrote in message
> > news:386947DA.2559E332 at planttel.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Having a conservative manner of thinking, I can assure you that
> > > you are wrong. Conservatives can read the Constitution, and we
> > > understand that no Federal agency has jurisdiction or authority
> > > over state matters. If the pollution crosses state boundaries,
> > > then, and only then, do the Feds have any Constitution authority
> > > if one loosely interprets the Commerce Clause.
> > >
> > > This is a state issue.
> > >
> > I think the Consitution states that any jurisdiction the Feds don't
> > then goes back to the states. EPA has taken the jurisdiction, and it
> > be rescinded by the states. Besides, most pollutants do cross state
> > borders, especially air and water pollutants.
> > We have a pharmaceutical company that put arsenic on their land.
> > it seeped into the water table. EPA went after the clean up, not the
> > RDW
More information about the Ag-forst