EPA: Water Cannot Be Considered A Pol...

EPA: Water Cannot Be Considered A Pollutant

There are 53 comments on the NBC29 Charlottesville story from Jan 2, 2013, titled EPA: Water Cannot Be Considered A Pollutant. In it, NBC29 Charlottesville reports that:

A new ruling saying that water cannot be considered a pollutant may have saved Virginians some money.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC29 Charlottesville.

huck

Charlottesville, VA

#22 Jan 5, 2013
Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:
<quoted text> And now we get to the point I made earlier,liberals can't think logically. If the water was already polluted, the EPA would have been able to regulate it without court intervention. Next time, think before you post heh.
The EPA is regulating the polluting water.
The cooch court is denying logic, as I stated above.

Facts is facts.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#23 Jan 5, 2013
Even 'pure' water raining down from the sky is polluted (i.e. acid rain). EPA should regulate water is fit for drink and life on earth.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#26 Jan 5, 2013
Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:
<quoted text> ?????
Talk to your 5th grade English teacher and then get back to me.
EPA should regulate water is fit for drink and life on earth.

please enlighten me where I am grammatically incorrect

I dispute that 'that' is required between 'regulate' and 'water'

that said, you are just demonstrating your position has no leg to stand on, by reducing (as usual of old) your responses to deflection of the argument at hand
farmer

United States

#29 Jan 5, 2013
the environmental pollution agency is an uncontrolled branch of the government which has been infiltrated by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals that want their cake but want to eat it also. they do not base their decisions on factual data but grossly swayed data. this alone is costly to our entire society.

It is about time some one stands up to them.

“Equal Opportunity Not Results!”

Since: Nov 08

Charlottesville

#30 Jan 5, 2013
huck wrote:
I know it's hard to comprehend, but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormwater
WIKIPEDIA??? Really??
Jim2051 Charlottesville

AOL

#31 Jan 5, 2013
Chuck wrote:
I don't get it. How can the courts consider Dihydrogen-Peroxide (H20) not dangerous? It has been documented to cause thousands of deaths and Billions of dollars in property damage ever year!
Good for Virginia. The EPA has been trying to pass the most absurd regulations at the whim of their puppet masters.
Rainwater a pollutant? Really?
Yes, try and stop it. It is our life. To little drought, to much flood. I think they are pissed because they cant tax it.
Dude

Winchester, VA

#32 Jan 5, 2013
C-Ville Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>WIKIPEDIA??? Really??
information, no matter its source, if it's accurate, is accurate. This information is accurate.
Dude

Winchester, VA

#33 Jan 5, 2013
farmer wrote:
the environmental pollution agency is an uncontrolled branch of the government which has been infiltrated by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals that want their cake but want to eat it also. they do not base their decisions on factual data but grossly swayed data. this alone is costly to our entire society.
It is about time some one stands up to them.
Oil,antifreeze, and other run offs that could contain heavy metals that could enter into the food chain, or drinking supply is bad. Why do you think they don't allow motor boats into reservoirs? I'm guessing you are inconvenienced by the regulation which prevents the behavior that puts others' health at risk.
farmer

United States

#34 Jan 5, 2013
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Oil,antifreeze, and other run offs that could contain heavy metals that could enter into the food chain, or drinking supply is bad. Why do you think they don't allow motor boats into reservoirs? I'm guessing you are inconvenienced by the regulation which prevents the behavior that puts others' health at risk.
No I am not inconvenienced since I have done significant farm improvements [for your food production by the way] for the sole purpose of clean water and am a supporter of measures that are valid. however the EPA is presently regulating many aspects of clean water with poorly taken and faulty data. these regulations are being imposed and are unchecked by any of the three branches of or government. in the long run these regulations will cost you personally so i would suggest to you to get the facts. as far as motor boats are concerned I could care less since if you can afford a boat then you can afford to keep it up or take it somewhere it is allowed.
Dude

Winchester, VA

#35 Jan 5, 2013
farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
No I am not inconvenienced since I have done significant farm improvements [for your food production by the way] for the sole purpose of clean water and am a supporter of measures that are valid. however the EPA is presently regulating many aspects of clean water with poorly taken and faulty data. these regulations are being imposed and are unchecked by any of the three branches of or government. in the long run these regulations will cost you personally so i would suggest to you to get the facts. as far as motor boats are concerned I could care less since if you can afford a boat then you can afford to keep it up or take it somewhere it is allowed.
I suspect those mandated improvements are exactly the inconviences I'm talking about and the very rules that you are whining about. I'm extremely picky of how my food is taken care of, how it is grown, and where it comes from; so don't assume that you have ever contributed to my family's food. You clearly miss the point of the motorboat analogy. I have five gallons of used oil, can I dump it down your well or in the reservoir that feeds your water supply?
.
This partiular article about storm water run off. I support your rights to pollute your own property, but once your pollution leaves your property or affects another's property be it public or private is a violation of other's property rights.
.
Oh, and the EPA answers to congress and the administrative branch, which is two of the thee branches of government.
buyerbeware

Rocky Mount, VA

#36 Jan 5, 2013
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>I suspect those mandated improvements are exactly the inconviences I'm talking about and the very rules that you are whining about. I'm extremely picky of how my food is taken care of, how it is grown, and where it comes from; so don't assume that you have ever contributed to my family's food. You clearly miss the point of the motorboat analogy. I have five gallons of used oil, can I dump it down your well or in the reservoir that feeds your water supply?
.
This partiular article about storm water run off. I support your rights to pollute your own property, but once your pollution leaves your property or affects another's property be it public or private is a violation of other's property rights.
.
Oh, and the EPA answers to congress and the administrative branch, which is two of the thee branches of government.
Which branch is the "administrative branch"? Ya mean the legislative, or judicial, or executive branchYou need further schooling...
G Luv

Marietta, GA

#37 Jan 6, 2013
Dude wrote:
Oh, and the EPA answers to congress and the administrative branch, which is two of the thee branches of government.
Not to mention that the whole article is about how the judiciary branch checked the EPA's authority.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#38 Jan 6, 2013
C-Ville Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>WIKIPEDIA??? Really??
sorry, I forgot about fauxnewz and !THE BLAZE!
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#39 Jan 6, 2013
Dude wrote:
<quoted text> I support your rights to pollute your own property
isn't that a little overboard in applying the constitution?
Dude

Winchester, VA

#40 Jan 6, 2013
buyerbeware wrote:
<quoted text>Which branch is the "administrative branch"? Ya mean the legislative, or judicial, or executive branchYou need further schooling...
I meant executive, or the administration. Thanks for pointing that out. Either way they're still responsible to two branches of government.
Dude

Winchester, VA

#41 Jan 6, 2013
G Luv wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention that the whole article is about how the judiciary branch checked the EPA's authority.
right?
Dude

Winchester, VA

#42 Jan 6, 2013
huck wrote:
<quoted text>
isn't that a little overboard in applying the constitution?
The farmer that over fertilizes his field in hopes of a larger yield is also responsible for algae blooms that destroys Chesapeake crabber's livelihood. The farmer that allows cows to urinate and dedicate in rivers increase E. coli levels which pollutes drinking water supplies which increases the burden of the tax payer to sanitize the water to make it potable. While the water may not be a problem itself, it becomes a vehicle for uncontrolled pollutants. It's no different than arsenic from gold mines and slurry from coal mines that seep into drinking water supplies are the responsibility of the proprietor. My rights end where your rights begin and vice versa.
Dude

Winchester, VA

#43 Jan 6, 2013
*defecate
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#44 Jan 6, 2013
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>The farmer that over fertilizes his field in hopes of a larger yield is also responsible for algae blooms that destroys Chesapeake crabber's livelihood. The farmer that allows cows to urinate and dedicate in rivers increase E. coli levels which pollutes drinking water supplies which increases the burden of the tax payer to sanitize the water to make it potable. While the water may not be a problem itself, it becomes a vehicle for uncontrolled pollutants. It's no different than arsenic from gold mines and slurry from coal mines that seep into drinking water supplies are the responsibility of the proprietor. My rights end where your rights begin and vice versa.
What I meant was the statement that you 'support your rights to pollute your own property' is not (or should not) be a constitutional right. Polluting, that is; whether it affects you or not.
Dude

Winchester, VA

#45 Jan 6, 2013
huck wrote:
<quoted text>
What I meant was the statement that you 'support your rights to pollute your own property' is not (or should not) be a constitutional right. Polluting, that is; whether it affects you or not.
Why not? I'm pro-euthanasia, why should I care if one poisons their own environment? It's when their poison or pollutants becomes un-contained that it is a problem.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 6 hr Mothra 1,510
News Letter: Portsmouth plant will jeopardize the gr... Dec 8 Do the Right Thing 2
News US officials drop mining cleanup rule after ind... Dec 3 Trump is a joke 3
News Jury finds undocumented immigrant not guilty of... Dec 2 spytheweb 1
News EPA overrules GE on Housatonic PCBs cleanup (Oct '16) Dec 1 indict AIPAC 17
News Some who live near river fear coal ash-laden fl... Nov 12 Benetti 2
News EPA Approves Release of Bacteria-Carrying Mosqu... Nov '17 Erratic Mind 1
More from around the web