EPA rulings on Non-point

Ted Kegebein kegebein at planttel.net
Sun Jan 2 17:44:50 EST 2000



Joseph Zorzin wrote:
> 
> Christopher Erickson wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yup, that's what happens in societies that succeed in driving out
> environmentalists and other dangerous left wing types; all for the greater
> glory of the new world order and free trade. Sounds more like brainless right
> wingers.

We have seen the results of putting the extreme Left Wing in power,
in such places as the USSR, Red China, Cambodia, and Nazi Germany.
And while the milder version of the Left in Nazi Germany was concerned
somewhat with the environment, the extremist Left purge the eco-nuts
rather quickly.

Free market capitalist countries, on the other hand, have an extremely
high tolerance for the eco-nuts, and profits and prosperity have
allowed those cultures to actually improve their environments.

It is rather ironic, isn't it?

> 
> >
> >
> > 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
> > that
> > > 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
> > take,
> > > > then goes back to the states.  EPA has taken the jurisdiction, and it
> > > can't
> > > > 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.
> > > Eventually
> > > > it seeped into the water table.  EPA went after the clean up, not the
> > > state.
> > > >
> > > > RDW
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> --
> Joe  Zorzin
> Massachusetts Licensed Forester #261
> http://forestmeister.com
> 
> Member of Forest Steward's Guild
> http://www.foreststewardsguild.com/




More information about the Ag-forst mailing list