FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


USA: nice place, but don't drink the water. Thanks, Repubs.





handfleisch
To paraphrase from the article, the Bush administration provided a perfect example of what happens when Republican political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment. Letting drinking water just get worse and worse, with more and more carcinogens and pollutants, all in the name of "smaller government" or deregulation or whatever the excuse was. No one knows exactly how many cancers, illnesses and deaths due to such negligence it caused, though up to 19 million Americans become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water. The Democrats are working to do something about it now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/business/energy-environment/08water.html?pagewanted=1&em
Quote:
Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show

More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.

That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards.

Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.

In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.

On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about the agency’s enforcement of drinking-water safety laws. The E.P.A. is expected to announce a new policy for how it polices the nation’s 54,700 water systems.

“This administration has made it clear that clean water is a top priority,” said an E.P.A. spokeswoman, Adora Andy, in response to questions regarding the agency’s drinking water enforcement. The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, this year announced a wide-ranging overhaul of enforcement of the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution into waterways.

“The previous eight years provide a perfect example of what happens when political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment,” Ms. Andy added.
...
A half-dozen current and former E.P.A. officials said in interviews that they tried to prod the agency to enforce the drinking-water law, but found little support.

“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.”
...
But scientific research indicates that as many as 19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water. Certain types of cancer — such as breast and prostate cancer — have risen over the past 30 years, and research indicates they are likely tied to pollutants like those found in drinking water.

jmi256
Quote:
More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.


So it looks like the government has regulations in place, but as with most government-run programs it failed miserably. The sad thing I think is that people assumed that because the government had regulations in place that the problem was taken care of. As usual this is an ill-advised approach. It's another example of how government-run programs are usually mismanaged and ineffective. Since regulations were in place but have proven to be ineffective, how exactly would more regulations solve anything? If federal government is unable to do something as simple as enforce a law already on the books, what do you think is going to happen when they are in control of our healthcare? Government-run healthcare is a disaster waiting to happen.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Quote:
More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.


So it looks like the government has regulations in place, but as with most government-run programs it failed miserably. The sad thing I think is that people assumed that because the government had regulations in place that the problem was taken care of. As usual this is an ill-advised approach. It's another example of how government-run programs are usually mismanaged and ineffective. Since regulations were in place but have proven to be ineffective, how exactly would more regulations solve anything? If federal government is unable to do something as simple as enforce a law already on the books, what do you think is going to happen when they are in control of our healthcare? Government-run healthcare is a disaster waiting to happen.


You are right in a way, Republicans do like to run government programs into the ground and then say "see, regulation/government programs don't work." But no, that is not the message of the article. The government-run program only failed miserably due to Republican mismanagement at the federal level, apparently under the general idea of smaller government and less regulation, which resulted in polluted water. Government-run water safety programs run just fine in other places, other times, other countries. Surely we can do it in the USA, if we keep these people out of office.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Quote:
More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.


So it looks like the government has regulations in place, but as with most government-run programs it failed miserably. The sad thing I think is that people assumed that because the government had regulations in place that the problem was taken care of. As usual this is an ill-advised approach. It's another example of how government-run programs are usually mismanaged and ineffective. Since regulations were in place but have proven to be ineffective, how exactly would more regulations solve anything? If federal government is unable to do something as simple as enforce a law already on the books, what do you think is going to happen when they are in control of our healthcare? Government-run healthcare is a disaster waiting to happen.


You are right in a way, Republicans do like to run government programs into the ground and then say "see, regulation/government programs don't work." But no, that is not the message of the article. The government-run program only failed miserably due to Republican mismanagement at the federal level, apparently under the general idea of smaller government and less regulation, which resulted in polluted water. Government-run water safety programs run just fine in other places, other times, other countries. Surely we can do it in the USA, if we keep these people out of office.


Not quite. Here in the US the EPA (which is a federal entity, btw) sets quality standards, but individual states/communities retain enforcement of those standards. In other words, it may require communities to do X, Y and Z, but it’s up to the communities themselves to make it happen.
Quote:
That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents.



Interestingly enough, the areas cited in the article as having the worst water (New York and New Jersey) are bastions of liberal/Democrat government.
Quote:
In the prosperous town of Ramsey, N.J., for instance, drinking water tests since 2004 have detected illegal concentrations of arsenic, a carcinogen, and the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene, which has also been linked to cancer.

In New York state, 205 water systems have broken the law by delivering tap water that contained illegal amounts of bacteria since 2004.
Voodoocat
First of all, if you are concerned about your local water, you should read your CCR (Consumer Confidence Report) that has been a Federal requirement of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) since 1998. The CCR is sent to all water users no later than July of each year. It must list all violations for the past year.

The real problem with enforcing the SDWA is that most States have gained primacy over their drinking water by adopting the Federal statues into their State codes. Most enforcement actions are local, not Federal. For this reason, Handfleish loses his argument:

Quote:
Republican political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment. Letting drinking water just get worse and worse, with more and more carcinogens and pollutants, all in the name of "smaller government" or deregulation or whatever the excuse was


It was not the Bush administration's lack of attention, but your local State's lack of enforcement. If you don't believe that your State has primacy over its drinking water, call your representive and ask.

Poor Handfleish, another argument flushed down the drain.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
First of all, if you are concerned about your local water, you should read your CCR (Consumer Confidence Report) that has been a Federal requirement of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) since 1998. The CCR is sent to all water users no later than July of each year. It must list all violations for the past year.

The real problem with enforcing the SDWA is that most States have gained primacy over their drinking water by adopting the Federal statues into their State codes. Most enforcement actions are local, not Federal. For this reason, Handfleish loses his argument:

Quote:
Republican political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment. Letting drinking water just get worse and worse, with more and more carcinogens and pollutants, all in the name of "smaller government" or deregulation or whatever the excuse was


It was not the Bush administration's lack of attention, but your local State's lack of enforcement. If you don't believe that your State has primacy over its drinking water, call your representive and ask.

Poor Handfleish, another argument flushed down the drain.

LOL. You obviously didn't read the article and just need to defend the worst presidential administration in living memory, and to do that you have to pretend the EPA has nothing to do with drinking water standards. You crack me up, but thank god your fools are not in office anymore.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
LOL. You obviously didn't read the article and just need to defend the worst presidential administration in living memory, and to do that you have to pretend the EPA has nothing to do with drinking water standards. You crack me up, but thank god your fools are not in office anymore.
As far as I can see you attacked the Bush administration, nobody defended the Bush administration. They were trying to explain that this had nothing to do with the Federal Government.

Since Bush has been out of the picture for almost a year now, who gets your blame for the last year of not fixing the water pollution issue?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

LOL. You obviously didn't read the article and just need to defend the worst presidential administration in living memory, and to do that you have to pretend the EPA has nothing to do with drinking water standards. You crack me up, but thank god your fools are not in office anymore.

LOL. You obviously read the article, and just need to bash the worst presidential administration in living memory, and to do that you have to pretend that local governments have nothing to do with drinking water standards.

You also crack me up, but I do agree it's a good thing Bush isn't in office anymore.

(But why keep bashing him? Everybody already hates him, and he can't do any more damage at this point...)
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:

You also crack me up, but I do agree it's a good thing Bush isn't in office anymore.


It's a good thing the Republicans are not in the executive office anymore.

ocalhoun wrote:

(But why keep bashing him? Everybody already hates him, and he can't do any more damage at this point...)


Why? Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom from Republican disasters.
Voodoocat
Quote:
and to do that you have to pretend the EPA has nothing to do with drinking water standards.


Handfleisch is wrong as usual. I clearly stated the the SDWA is Federal law. What he seems to not understand is the matter of primacy. The States can promulgate their own drinking water standards that are at least as stringent as the Federal standards, or they can incorportate the Federal standards into State law by reference. Most choose to adopt the Federal law instead of writing their own. This is called primacy: the States have the obligation to enforce the standards.

This is where handfleisch's argument breaks down. It was not the Bush administration that failed to enforce the drinking water standards, it was the local governments. Even worse for poor Handfleisch, the example he quoted from the New York Times used New Jersey as an example of a non-compliant state. News flash: New Jersey has a DEMOCRAT Governor, therefore the drinking water non-compliance was due to lack of enforcement by a DEMOCRAT!
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

You also crack me up, but I do agree it's a good thing Bush isn't in office anymore.


It's a good thing the Republicans are not in the executive office anymore.



Too bad that in order to get them out, we had to let Democrats in.

Now, if we could just figure out a way to keep them both out, the future would start to look brighter.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Why? Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom from Republican disasters.
How come we are talking about a Republican disaster, when the Senate and Congress during Bush's watch consisted of a majority of Democrats? Were the Democrats sleeping on the job?

Ocalhoun's summation is right on:
ocalhoun wrote:
Now, if we could just figure out a way to keep them both out, the future would start to look brighter.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Why? Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom from Republican disasters.
How come we are talking about a Republican disaster, when the Senate and Congress during Bush's watch consisted of a majority of Democrats? Were the Democrats sleeping on the job?

Well, there was a Democrat majority during part of Bush's presidency... Only during half of the second term, if I remember correctly.
(Which, oddly enough, was when this whole recession business started... ^.^)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Why? Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom from Republican disasters.
How come we are talking about a Republican disaster, when the Senate and Congress during Bush's watch consisted of a majority of Democrats? Were the Democrats sleeping on the job?

Well, there was a Democrat majority during part of Bush's presidency... Only during half of the second term, if I remember correctly.
(Which, oddly enough, was when this whole recession business started... ^.^)
As far as I can see the Republicans in Congress were last in majority in 2004. Then again when I looked a bit closer at Wikipedia , I misinterpreted and you are right, it was from 2006, although the Republicans did not have much of majority before.

So yes, what were the Democrats doing from 2006 to 2008 when they had the majority in Congress? Some of the Democrats must have been supporting Bush? And as you said, that period was when the whole recession business started.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

You also crack me up, but I do agree it's a good thing Bush isn't in office anymore.


It's a good thing the Republicans are not in the executive office anymore.



Too bad that in order to get them out, we had to let Democrats in.

Now, if we could just figure out a way to keep them both out, the future would start to look brighter.


Sorry, but the only thing they agree on is methods of keeping third parties out of contention.
handfleisch
It's typically absurd of denialists to try to claim the federal gov't vis a vis the EPA, enforcement of federal laws, and pressuring states, has nothing to do with water quality in the USA, even though things are changing now that the party that stands for using the tools of government regulation and management to ensure public health and safety is now in charge. It's like claiming the Republicans had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, either, since some Democratic congress people voted for Joint Resolution 114.
jmi256
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
and to do that you have to pretend the EPA has nothing to do with drinking water standards.


Handfleisch is wrong as usual. I clearly stated the the SDWA is Federal law. What he seems to not understand is the matter of primacy. The States can promulgate their own drinking water standards that are at least as stringent as the Federal standards, or they can incorportate the Federal standards into State law by reference. Most choose to adopt the Federal law instead of writing their own. This is called primacy: the States have the obligation to enforce the standards.

This is where handfleisch's argument breaks down. It was not the Bush administration that failed to enforce the drinking water standards, it was the local governments. Even worse for poor Handfleisch, the example he quoted from the New York Times used New Jersey as an example of a non-compliant state. News flash: New Jersey has a DEMOCRAT Governor, therefore the drinking water non-compliance was due to lack of enforcement by a DEMOCRAT!


The other state, New York, also has a Democrat governor. And the Democrat governor of New Jersy, Jon Corzine, even took credit for the state’s “highest level of water quality” when he was running for re-election this year, which he thankfully lost.

Quote:
Safeguarding Our Water Supply
Governor Corzine upgraded nearly 700 miles of waterways and 1,300 acres of reservoirs to the state’s highest level of water-quality protection (C1).

Source = http://www.joncorzine09.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpResults&htmlKey=resultsEnvironment&s=corzine
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
It's typically absurd of denialists to try to claim the federal gov't vis a vis the EPA, enforcement of federal laws, and pressuring states, has nothing to do with water quality in the USA, even though things are changing now that the party that stands for using the tools of government regulation and management to ensure public health and safety is now in charge. It's like claiming the Republicans had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, either, since some Democratic congress people voted for Joint Resolution 114.

^.^
It is also 'typically absurd' of a certain type of people I won't name, to blame Bush for all sorts of things that happened during his presidency... from 9/11 to hurricane Katrina.
yagnyavalkya
Come to India you will know what is dirty drinking water
ppl of the USA should be happy with what they have
jmi256
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Come to India you will know what is dirty drinking water
ppl of the USA should be happy with what they have


Luckily the Democrat who is responsible for the poor water quality results in New Jersy, Jon Corzine, was defeated by Republican Chris Christie in the last month's election. Hopefully he'll be able to reverse all the damage done by the Democratic administration so the water never gets as bad as it is in India (I also hope India is able to increase the quality of its water). The Democrat responsible for the poor quality in New York, David Paterson, is up for reelection in 2010, and hopefully he’s voted out of power.
yagnyavalkya
jmi256 wrote:
(I also hope India is able to increase the quality of its water). The Democrat responsible for the poor quality in New York, David Paterson, is up for reelection in 2010, and hopefully he’s voted out of power.

Thanks I too wish but actually it is not all that bad we buy the Reverse Osmosis water for drinking in fact there is no freely available drinking water in India it is treated water at ones own cost but those who choose to drink the free water are resistant to various biological organism I think that is an evolutionary issue
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Come to India you will know what is dirty drinking water
ppl of the USA should be happy with what they have


Luckily the Democrat who is responsible for the poor water quality results in New Jersy, Jon Corzine, was defeated by Republican Chris Christie in the last month's election. Hopefully he'll be able to reverse all the damage done by the Democratic administration so the water never gets as bad as it is in India (I also hope India is able to increase the quality of its water). The Democrat responsible for the poor quality in New York, David Paterson, is up for reelection in 2010, and hopefully he’s voted out of power.

Really? You're as bad as handfleisch sometimes. The Democrats screwed it up, but electing Republicans will fix it... Right...
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Come to India you will know what is dirty drinking water
ppl of the USA should be happy with what they have


Luckily the Democrat who is responsible for the poor water quality results in New Jersy, Jon Corzine, was defeated by Republican Chris Christie in the last month's election. Hopefully he'll be able to reverse all the damage done by the Democratic administration so the water never gets as bad as it is in India (I also hope India is able to increase the quality of its water). The Democrat responsible for the poor quality in New York, David Paterson, is up for reelection in 2010, and hopefully he’s voted out of power.

Really? You're as bad as handfleisch sometimes. The Democrats screwed it up, but electing Republicans will fix it... Right...

Ok, maybe I took it too far. Sorry. I actually agree with you, though, that the 'environment' is something that gets a lot of lip service during elections, but rarely gets any real traction.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Ok, maybe I took it too far. Sorry. I actually agree with you, though, that the 'environment' is something that gets a lot of lip service during elections, but rarely gets any real traction.
Well said and totally agreed. In addition, politicians are usually elected for a short period of time, and environmental issues are usually of the longterm variety. Why get your hands "dirty" with something that cannot make you look good with EVERYONE immediately. With environmental issues politicians usually have to take on big corporations who are helping them to get elected, so could be to their detriment as well. If the political system can be totally changed so that the election system is not being funded by big business and legislation drummed up by paid lobbyists with vested interests, maybe that could make a difference in the long run.
paul_indo
Hey, you are lucky to have a government water supply.

My water comes from a ground bore, and I live only 12 miles from the Indonesian Senate building in the capital city. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

And it is undrinkable. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
jmi256
paul_indo wrote:
Hey, you are lucky to have a government water supply.

My water comes from a ground bore, and I live only 12 miles from the Indonesian Senate building in the capital city. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

And it is undrinkable. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


Not everyone in the US has access to municipal water supplies. Many people still use ground/well water.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
paul_indo wrote:
Hey, you are lucky to have a government water supply.

My water comes from a ground bore, and I live only 12 miles from the Indonesian Senate building in the capital city. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

And it is undrinkable. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


Not everyone in the US has access to municipal water supplies. Many people still use ground/well water.

And many are forced to use municipal water, even if they would prefer to dig a well...
Government-enforced monopolies are the worst entities to do business with.
yagnyavalkya
from what I have read I still feel that USA is a good place to live
I think that the politicians there will be concerned about people and water
ocalhoun
yagnyavalkya wrote:

I think that the politicians there will be concerned about people and water

They're concerned about making people think that... but mainly they're concerned about:
1- Getting re-elected
2- Getting campaign contributions to make #1 easier
MYP415
ocalhoun wrote:
yagnyavalkya wrote:

I think that the politicians there will be concerned about people and water

They're concerned about making people think that... but mainly they're concerned about:
1- Getting re-elected
2- Getting campaign contributions to make #1 easier

As in any nation. People are self interested. For some reason that has been demonized by certain political groups over the years, but in reality even those who attack the self-interested are likely self-interested too; just too proud to see it.

Also, I really don't see how this discussion has anything to do with Republicans, especially with the article referenced.
MYP415
Handfleisch, are you going to blame this on Obama's lack of regulation? :: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.TTMHWFNwFw

If not, you're being a little hypocritical, no?

Now do you see how your argument is illogical?
handfleisch
MYP415 wrote:
Handfleisch, are you going to blame this on Obama's lack of regulation? :: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.TTMHWFNwFw

If not, you're being a little hypocritical, no?

Now do you see how your argument is illogical?


If several EPA officials said this problem was due to presidential inaction, then yes I would. But since they aren't, do you now see how your charge of hypocrisy stems from your own ignorance?
MYP415
handfleisch wrote:
MYP415 wrote:
Handfleisch, are you going to blame this on Obama's lack of regulation? :: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.TTMHWFNwFw

If not, you're being a little hypocritical, no?

Now do you see how your argument is illogical?


If several EPA officials said this problem was due to presidential inaction, then yes I would. But since they aren't, do you now see how your charge of hypocrisy stems from your own ignorance?

And what exactly makes you think that the EPA officials are not biased also and just looking to bash Bush just as you do? Let me also remind you that the Democrats had a Senate majority for 4/8 years and a House majority for 2/8, they could have more than tried to do something.

I am sure I can find you someone right now who blames Obama for what happened in my link- that does not necessarily mean they are right though.

For the record, I never have and never plan to support either Bush or Obama.
handfleisch
MYP415 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
MYP415 wrote:
Handfleisch, are you going to blame this on Obama's lack of regulation? :: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.TTMHWFNwFw

If not, you're being a little hypocritical, no?

Now do you see how your argument is illogical?


If several EPA officials said this problem was due to presidential inaction, then yes I would. But since they aren't, do you now see how your charge of hypocrisy stems from your own ignorance?

And what exactly makes you think that the EPA officials are not biased also and just looking to bash Bush just as you do? Let me also remind you that the Democrats had a Senate majority for 4/8 years and a House majority for 2/8, they could have more than tried to do something.

I am sure I can find you someone right now who blames Obama for what happened in my link- that does not necessarily mean they are right though.

It would be easier for you to just retract your charges of hypocrisy than to flail around looking for an excuse. The article clearly states that six EPA officials said that lack of will in the Bush administration to enforce regulations led to specific and documented problems in specific and specific ways. So your attempt to dismiss the whole thing by saying that the officials are all biased and therefore the story is not true is very weak. Also weak is your mentioning of Congress, since the EPA is a cabinet-ranked agency with its leadership serving at the discretion and approval of the White House.

Whether you or I "can find you someone right now who blames Obama for what happened" in the case you mentioned is not the point, since on the internet you can find some nut saying anything at all (although in this case it would be pretty absurd to blame a water main leak on the Obama administration). The point is that six credible experts within the EPA all said the same thing, that the Bush admin's lack of enforcement of water quality regulations led to the problems.
MYP415
handfleisch wrote:
The article clearly states that six EPA officials said that lack of will in the Bush administration to enforce regulations led to specific and documented problems in specific and specific ways. So your attempt to dismiss the whole thing by saying that the officials are all biased and therefore the story is not true is very weak. Also weak is your mentioning of Congress, since the EPA is a cabinet-ranked agency with its leadership serving at the discretion and approval of the White House.
Maybe you should take a closer look at the EPA and who it is supposed to listen to. While it's head is given a cabinet spot, the EPA is NOT a cabinet agency.

handfleisch wrote:
Whether you or I "can find you someone right now who blames Obama for what happened" in the case you mentioned is not the point, since on the internet you can find some nut saying anything at all (although in this case it would be pretty absurd to blame a water main leak on the Obama administration). The point is that six credible experts within the EPA all said the same thing, that the Bush admin's lack of enforcement of water quality regulations led to the problems.
[/quote] Ethos is no longer a just argument. Most of your "credible" Washington economists never saw the housing crisis coming either. Show how exactly Bush or Republicans in general (which you claimed in the thread title) were at fault here, otherwise just accept that it is an opinion of those "credible" sources.

If you also look at the EPA administrators during Bush's time in office, you will see that there were some major regulations put in place under them. They didn't just sit back. Not saying, I condone all of those regulations, but I just wanted to point that out.

In the end, you are playing a political game here by blaming Republicans for this, when there really is no proof of that. If you want to blame one or two people and you have some proof, by all means. Otherwise, stop with the politics and look at the issues and what actually happened.
handfleisch
MYP415 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
The article clearly states that six EPA officials said that lack of will in the Bush administration to enforce regulations led to specific and documented problems in specific and specific ways. So your attempt to dismiss the whole thing by saying that the officials are all biased and therefore the story is not true is very weak. Also weak is your mentioning of Congress, since the EPA is a cabinet-ranked agency with its leadership serving at the discretion and approval of the White House.
Maybe you should take a closer look at the EPA and who it is supposed to listen to. While it's head is given a cabinet spot, the EPA is NOT a cabinet agency.


The EPA is often given cabinet-ranking, for your information. And my point remains the same, which is that its leadership is appointed by and works at the discretion of the White House.

handfleisch wrote:
The point is that six credible experts within the EPA all said the same thing, that the Bush admin's lack of enforcement of water quality regulations led to the problems.
MYP415 wrote:
Ethos is no longer a just argument. Most of your "credible" Washington economists never saw the housing crisis coming either. Show how exactly Bush or Republicans in general (which you claimed in the thread title) were at fault here, otherwise just accept that it is an opinion of those "credible" sources.

If you also look at the EPA administrators during Bush's time in office, you will see that there were some major regulations put in place under them. They didn't just sit back. Not saying, I condone all of those regulations, but I just wanted to point that out.

It's a confused point when you bring up Washington economists. This isn't about forecasts, but what was going on at the time in the EPA.

MYP415 wrote:

In the end, you are playing a political game here by blaming Republicans for this, when there really is no proof of that. If you want to blame one or two people and you have some proof, by all means. Otherwise, stop with the politics and look at the issues and what actually happened.


The proof is in the article, which you seem to have missed the whole point of.

Keep in mind the basic way government works. Different presidents will emphasize different issues and put others on the back burner. That is part of the reason people vote for them. In this case, Bush appointees directing the EPA put water quality standards on the back burner and wouldn't respond to clean water issues when EPA officials wanted to go after these problems, with the intolerable results of polluted water in the USA listed in the article. EPA officials said this happened. Details are in the articles and in the hearings. To say "there is no proof" or "they are biased" is not a sensible argument.
samuelk
dirty water in the US?
Voodoocat
Sorry to be redundant, but primacy for enforcing the Federal drinking water act falls upon the States. Period.

Quote:
States and Indian Tribes are given primary enforcement responsibility (e.g. primacy) for public water systems in their State if they meet certain requirements.

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/primacy.cfm

Therefore, the argument that any particular administration is responsible for unsafe drinking water is incorrect: enforcement occurs at the State, not Federal level. End of story.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Sorry to be redundant, but primacy for enforcing the Federal drinking water act falls upon the States. Period.

Quote:
States and Indian Tribes are given primary enforcement responsibility (e.g. primacy) for public water systems in their State if they meet certain requirements.

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/primacy.cfm

Therefore, the argument that any particular administration is responsible for unsafe drinking water is incorrect: enforcement occurs at the State, not Federal level. End of story.


End of story? Not quite. Look up "primary" in the dictionary, and then "ultimate" and then think about it.
Quote:


Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards.

Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.

In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.

On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about the agency’s enforcement of drinking-water safety laws. The E.P.A. is expected to announce a new policy for how it polices the nation’s 54,700 water systems.

“This administration has made it clear that clean water is a top priority,” said an E.P.A. spokeswoman, Adora Andy, in response to questions regarding the agency’s drinking water enforcement. The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, this year announced a wide-ranging overhaul of enforcement of the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution into waterways.

“The previous eight years provide a perfect example of what happens when political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment,” Ms. Andy added.
Voodoocat
The States have assumed the responsibility by incorporating the Federal drinking water regulations into their own laws. This is called primacy. Therefore the States are responsible for enforcing these laws. If the States do not wish to incorporate these laws, or fail to adequately enforce them, EPA will step in. But believe me, no state wants the Feds to step in and start inspecting their thousands of public water systems. Imagine the public outcry if Philidelphia is taken to Federal court because the Fluoride was 4.1 mg/L not 4.0!
Abhishukla
hahahahaha..well said by the bush govermnemt.
but one thing i dont understand and that is why they are saying not to drink water?
as we know a human being cannot leave without water.
soo tell me why?
Related topics
South Brazil Beach... very nice! | 640x480 images
Help me figure out what type socket my laptop has for FRIH$
Some pictures taken by me
sms jokes
sms jokes
post drinking smokers throat
why do christians make prophet jesus as a god?
India - Kerala
Islamic tolerance?
Paleo Diet/Primal lifestyle
July 25, 2011
Benefits of Drinking Water
How much water do you drink a day?
My Olympic National Park Trip (Warning: 32MB of pics!)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.