• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as pollutant i

Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

Tell me how you get from storm water to population control, this outta be funny.

That's easy, and I believe I can highlight it with another posters comment just above this one.....

StillBallin75 said:
Stormwater is not in and of itself a pollutant, of course. The problem with runoff water is that it often degrades the environment by contributing to erosion, which is an inevitably when you have impervious manmade surfaces like concrete etc. that wouldn't otherwise be there. Not to mention the fact that runoff water tends to pick up pollutants when it runs over such impervious surfaces.

By looking at SB's comment here you can clearly see that he doesn't believe that 'runoff' naturally occuring is a problem, but rather that it has to run off of "manmade" surfaces....So, man is the problem.
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

That's easy, and I believe I can highlight it with another posters comment just above this one.....



By looking at SB's comment here you can clearly see that he doesn't believe that 'runoff' naturally occuring is a problem, but rather that it has to run off of "manmade" surfaces....So, man is the problem.

So how does this mean Obama and the EPA want to control the population? Its nothing new that man made objects can change how storm run off or anything else works in an ecosystem, I mean did you know dams change how a river flows too?
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

I'm not really sure why people take issue with the idea that contaminated water could be considered a pollutant given the wrong circumstances.

As usual, the issue seems to be absolute thinking. Obviously water isn't always a pollutant, even water runoff isn't always a pollutant. However, given the circumstances in this particular area the EPA decided that the runoff was polluting this particular river.

But no. Any time the EPA steps in on something we have to just assume its this big scary power grab omg its 1984 time!
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

So how does this mean Obama and the EPA want to control the population? Its nothing new that man made objects can change how storm run off or anything else works in an ecosystem, I mean did you know dams change how a river flows too?

Oh come on, let's not get insulting. Seems to me that the EPA was trying to control runoff in terms of built up areas, or at least that is what some in here are arguing. The judge rightly smacked 'em down. Controlling development, and population location is a form of control. Is it not?
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

Fairfax County, Virginia, is massively developed. Anything that drives up the cost there promotes more urban sprawl.
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

I'm not really sure why people take issue with the idea that contaminated water could be considered a pollutant given the wrong circumstances.

As usual, the issue seems to be absolute thinking. Obviously water isn't always a pollutant, even water runoff isn't always a pollutant. However, given the circumstances in this particular area the EPA decided that the runoff was polluting this particular river.

But no. Any time the EPA steps in on something we have to just assume its this big scary power grab omg its 1984 time!


Well, they kind have a track record as of late overstepping their bounds.
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

Interesting how this thread has been derailed by libs trying to excuse the EPA by talking about run off water that is polluted instead of the link given in the OP which is about a heavy volume of water not polluted water. I guess you guys just can't find any excuse for that so you have to extrapolate into an entirely different issue. Same old lib tactic and even I fell for it.:doh
 
Re: Federal judge rules water as pollutant i

Interesting how this thread has been derailed by libs trying to excuse the EPA by talking about run off water that is polluted instead of the link given in the OP which is about a heavy volume of water not polluted water. I guess you guys just can't find any excuse for that so you have to extrapolate into an entirely different issue. Same old lib tactic and even I fell for it.:doh

The govt is always right, don't ask questions.
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

Interesting how this thread has been derailed by libs trying to excuse the EPA by talking about run off water that is polluted instead of the link given in the OP which is about a heavy volume of water not polluted water. I guess you guys just can't find any excuse for that so you have to extrapolate into an entirely different issue. Same old lib tactic and even I fell for it.:doh

It is a heavy volume of storm runoff, which is very likely to be polluted. The judge said that storm water in general is not a pollutant, which seems to be his opinion, not a statement based on the facts. Storm water that has run over agricultural areas and any area with a dense population is almost certainly polluted with fertilizers, pesticides, oil, gasoline and other substances. If the EPA stipulated that the storm water is clean, it would be a different mater, but the article does not say whether they did that or not.
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

It is a heavy volume of storm runoff, which is very likely to be polluted. The judge said that storm water in general is not a pollutant, which seems to be his opinion, not a statement based on the facts. Storm water that has run over agricultural areas and any area with a dense population is almost certainly polluted with fertilizers, pesticides, oil, gasoline and other substances. If the EPA stipulated that the storm water is clean, it would be a different mater, but the article does not say whether they did that or not.

Then it needs to regulate the actual pollutants in that water (at the source) rather than the water itself.
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

Well, they kind have a track record as of late overstepping their bounds.

Does the EPA actually over step its bounds, or do some opinion makers in media and politics just create that impression because they are representing the interests of corporate polluters who buy advertising and make campaign donations? My philosophy is that one should always distrust the opinions of people who are receiving money from one side of a debate.
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

This isn't a "power grab" its about two different opinions on what a pollutant is and is not, I can understand the argument for stormwater being considered a pollutent because it can alter and change an enviroment if there's simply way too much of it. But its a natural change not like if you dumped a galleon of gasoline into a creek.
I don’t think you realize what stormwater can, and regularly does contain. Consider for a moment a regular source of stormwater.

oilSpot_1.jpg
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

Then it needs to regulate the actual pollutants in that water (at the source) rather than the water itself.

I doubt that is the most practical solution. There will always be automobile related contaminants and it would be very difficult and extremely expensive to prevent the use of all agricultural fertilizers and pesticides.
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

I doubt that is the most practical solution. There will always be automobile related contaminants and it would be very difficult and extremely expensive to prevent the use of all agricultural fertilizers and pesticides.

And yet we do regulate all those things already. Sounds like the regulation in place just isn't effective/monitored enough.
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

And yet we do regulate all those things already. Sounds like the regulation in place just isn't effective/monitored enough.
The problem is the natural choke-point. The storm water systems represents a unmoving, single point source that makes them far easier to track and check out.

On the other hand vehicles leak sources represent mobile, widely dispersed [potential] sources. This makes them, alone, much harder to monitor. You really, really do not want the overhead of private vehicles being tracked for tiny drops coming of them.

EDIT: I haven’t gotten around to checking out the ruling or details of the case. But what the EPA might have to do is provide an out where if you can show reasonable expectation of no contaminate it is not a “pollutant”.

P.S. Even ‘clean’ rain water when redirected can cause enormous damage to an natural waterway.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone
"This isn't a "power grab" its about two different opinions on what a pollutant is and is not, I can understand the argument for stormwater being considered a pollutent because it can alter and change an enviroment if there's simply way too much of it. But its a natural change not like if you dumped a galleon of gasoline into a creek."

Stormwater is only natural in areas with virtually no human activity or infrastructure. Buildings and pavement disrupt the natural flow of water and the water picks up pollutants from these surfaces. These surfaces also disrupt the natural flow of water into the ground so there is likely to be more water going directly into lakes, rivers and oceans wherever there is a lot of pavement. The process of water seeping into the ground filters out many of the contaminants, so flow from storm water into rivers etc is going to be unnaturally dirty.
 
Re: Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as polluta

According to that theory air is a pollutant on a windy day and a hurricane or a tornado would have to be declared illegal and somebody would be fined or imprisoned. God maybe?

Way to come up with a pointless and completely unrelated point.

Stormwater can actually be diverted through human actions via damns, drainage systems etc. I can turn your house into a flood zone if I built up all the land around you by ten feet. I can't do that with a hurricane or tornado. I can build up my house to protect myself but I can't build a system that will throw a tornado onto your house instead of mine.

Since human actions can effect the damage done by this storm water (opening dams and whatnot) they tried to regulate it, and the checks and balances set up in our government worked, and limited their scope of power.

If what you have been whining about for the last few years were true, it wouldn't matter what this judge ruled. Obama wouldn't have any checks and balances because he doesn't care about the constitution and he's like hitler etc. etc.

You're misunderstanding the situation, completely exaggerating the implications, and doing so in the most hackish way possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom