Skip to main content

It sometimes seems like the GOP wants to roll back all the progress made on behalf of the public good during the 20th Century - removing women's rights to make their own health decisions, eliminating protections for workers and the ability to earn a living wage, allowing monopoly power to corrupt the free market and buy politicians, concentrating wealth at Gilded Age levels .... Now they’re working to add "Clean Water" to the list.  The EPA wants to clarify rules that restore Congress’ original intent behind the Clean Water Act, but GOP opponents in Congress continue to muddy the waters with lies.  You’ve likely heard about this debate, but you may not be familiar with the background.  The arc of the story will sound familiar:

Jerk flaunts the law and becomes hero of conservatives.  Activist Supreme Court ignores precedent and common sense to roll back existing law to benefit corporate interests.  Congress can't muster support to reinstate protections.  Obama Administration steps into the void to remedy the situation.  Conservatives in Congress decry overreach and try to block the Administration’s proposal, supported by right wing organizations and media spouting misinformation.  Same song, different verse.

At issue is the definition of "Waters of the United States".  While it sounds pretty arcane, it is a BFD.  This definition determines which waterways are - and are not - protected under the Clean Water Act, and the Administration's proposal would help restore protection to many waters that were cast out by recent Supreme Court decisions.  If Congress blocks this rulemaking, it will erode decades of progress made in improving America's water quality.  It wasn't that long ago that we literally had urban rivers on fire, and apparently some aren’t satisfied with burning fossil fuels and want to roll back the clock so we can burn our rivers as well.

The backstory - and more on the proposed EPA/Corps rule, which is out for public comment through October - below the fold.

Cleveland's 1952 Cuyahoga River Fire
The 1952 Cuyahoga River Fire in Cleveland - or as Justice Scalia calls it, "the good old days."

For its first three decades, the Clean Water Act, passed during the Nixon presidency, was remarkably successful in improving the nation’s water quality.  In 2001, the Supreme Court made its first dent in the Act's coverage in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a 5-4 ruling that isolated ponds could not fall under the protections of the Clean Water Act, as the Corps had previously asserted on the basis of use by migratory birds.  For sportsmen groups like Ducks Unlimited, who care that migratory birds need wetlands along their flyways, excluding these isolated waters from "waters of the United States" was a major setback.  In the story of protecting water quality, it was only a small preview of the next decision.

Enter John Rapanos, a Michigan developer who wanted to build a shopping center on a 230-acre property with a number of wetlands on it.   The history of Rapanos, his disregard for the law, and his general dickishness, is laid out by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent on the Rapanos decision:

An MDNR inspector informed Rapanos that the land probably included wetlands that were "waters of the United States" and sent him an application for a permit under §404 of the Act.1  Rapanos then hired a wetland consultant, Dr. Frederick Goff.  After Dr. Goff concluded that the land did in fact contain many acres of wetlands, "Rapanos threatened to 'destroy' Dr. Goff if he did not destroy the wetland report, and refused to pay Dr. Goff unless and until he complied."  Ibid.  In the meantime, without applying for a permit, Rapanos hired construction companies to do $350,000 worth of work clearing the land, filling in low spots, and draining subsurface water.  After Rapanos prevented MDNR inspectors from visiting the site, ignored an MDNR cease-and-desist letter, and re-fused to obey an administrative compliance order issued by the EPA, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice.  In the civil case now before us, the District Court found that Rapanos unlawfully filled 22 acres of wetlands.
Incidentally, Rapanos took a similar approach to two other sites that also became part of his challenge to Clean Water Act jurisdiction, Rapanos v. United States.

The Supreme Court had clear precedent supporting Clean Water Act jurisdiction.  As noted by Justice Stevens in his Rapanos dissent, the Supreme Court in the 1985 Riverside Bayview case asked - and answered (unanimously) in the affirmative - the question of whether the Clean Water Act "authorizes the Corps to require land-owners to obtain permits from the Corps before discharging fill material into wetlands adjacent to navigable bodies of water and their tributaries."  474 U. S., at 123.  Given Congress' clear intent for the Clean Water Act to protect water quality - and the simple fact that water flows downhill so protecting downstream rivers also depends on protecting the tributaries and wetlands that influence water quality in those rivers - the Rapanos case should have been an open and shut ruling in support of the Corps.  

But neither precedent, nor 30 years of established administrative implementation of the Clean Water Act, nor Congress' clear intent to protect water quality, were persuasive to the Court's plurality, led by Justice Antonin Scalia.  You need not read far into their opinion to understand some of the motivation for this judicial activism:

The burden of federal regulation on those who would deposit fill material in locations denominated "waters of the United States" is not trivial.  In deciding whether to grant or deny a permit, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) exercises the discretion of an enlightened despot ...  "[O]ver $1.7 billion is spent each year by the private and public sectors obtaining wetlands permits."
In Scalia's mind, because the Corps actually tries to protect water quality and wetlands under legislation Congress designed for that intent, they are despots shamelessly sucking money from the pockets of developers. So - he must ride in to save the day.  

Since he can't really rely on the Court's own precedent in Riverside Bayview, Scalia turns to Webster's 1954 New International Dictionary to determine that "waters" are "[a]s found in streams and bodies forming geographical features such as oceans, rivers, [and] lakes," ... and then goes on to suggest that all of these water bodies are continuously present, fixed bodies of water.  “Even the least substantial of the definition’s terms, namely ‘streams’ connotes a continuous flow of water in a permanent channel,” Scalia proclaims.  

This is a dubious assertion in wetter climes, and one that completely ignores reality in the west.  I happen to live in Colorado – an arid western state.  The Colorado Division of Wildlife identifies 75% of Colorado’s stream miles as being ephemeral or intermittent – in other words, a full three quarters of our streams lack the “continuous flow” that Scalia’s definition requires. He must not have bothered to look for a definition of “intermittent stream” – the commonly accepted term for the waters that he assures us are not “streams”.

The rub comes in that Scalia’s plurality hold that the Clean Water Act only applies to those more permanent water bodies – though in a footnote he does generously note that he doesn’t mean to exclude streams that run dry during extreme events such as drought or “necessarily” to exclude seasonal rivers that may flow for 290 days – an example proposed in Stevens’ dissent.  But his interpretation spells disaster for western watersheds.  First, intermittent and ephemeral streams are important ecologically, and help sustain important riparian habitats, which in the arid west support 80% of species for a portion of their life cycle despite representing only about 1% of the land area.  Secondly, plain common sense recognizes that water flows downhill.  If we allow pollution or destruction of waterways – whether they flow year round or not – the problems we’ve created there will make their way downstream when flow resumes.

Rapanos, though, was not a typical conservative 5-4 decision.  Rather it was an unusual 4-1-4 decision.  Justice Kennedy joined with Scalia in the ruling, but offered a strikingly different legal basis.  And ironically, because his is the interpretation which establishes a majority basis for determining what is or is not a “water of the United States”, the ruling of a single justice is determined the fate of Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

Kennedy looked to past decisions that supported Clean Water Act jurisdiction in some areas (Riverside Bayview) or that rejected such jurisdiction in other areas (SWANCC) and concluded that the key question was whether a water had a “significant nexus” with navigable-in-fact waters.  

Taken together these cases establish that in some instances, as exemplified by Riverside Bayview, the connection between a nonnavigable water or wetland and a navigable water may be so close, or potentially so close, that the Corps may deem the water or wetland a "navigable water" under the Act. In other instances, as exemplified by SWANCC, there may be little or no connection. Absent a significant nexus, jurisdiction under the Act is lacking. Because neither the plurality nor the dissent addresses the nexus requirement, this separate opinion, in my respectful view, is necessary.
In a nutshell, that is what Kennedy found.  In order to establish Clean Water Act jurisdiction, there must be a significant nexus for waters and similarly placed waters – either individually or cumulatively – with navigable waters.  And because of the dynamics of the 4-1-4 decision, his interpretation became the law of the land.

Unfortunately, this has thrown Clean Water Act administration into a major quagmire, as many permitting processes become bogged down in an initial assessment to determine whether a significant nexus exists or not.  It has left intermittent and ephemeral streams open to abuse at the expense of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our nation’s waters that the Clean Water Act set out to protect.  Many of these streams represent the headwaters of our river systems, so the loss of their protection has impacts all the way downstream.

Interpretations have been all over the board, but the worst-case scenarios have come to pass in at least some locations.  For example, in the United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Company case, the U.S. District Court for Northern Texas ruled that a discharge of 3000 barrels of crude oil into an intermittent stream could not be subject to Clean Water Act enforcement because the discharge was not made into navigable waters.  Chevron Pipe claimed to have completed clean-up of the spill prior to the first rainfall that led to flow in the stream in question, yet even in reports from the two months following that rainfall, the Texas Railroad Commission (part of a state government hardly well known for its excessive regulatory zeal) Field Inspection Reports stated that there was “[s]till oily soil present in the draw … [and a] good deal of work left to be done.”  

Back in 2009 and 2010, Congress was considering legislation to clarify its intent and to restore Clean Water Act protections to waters thrown into question by the Rapanos (and SWANCC) decisions.  The Clean Water Restoration Act would have made clear that Congress did intend to extend the reach of the Clean Water Act more broadly, within its Constitutional authority – as had been done for 30 successful years of pollution-fighting before the Supreme Court muddied the waters.  Former Minnesota Congressman Jim Oberstar sponsored the legislation, but ultimately – with significant Blue Dog opposition despite Democratic control of the House of Representatives – was unable to move the bill.

It has been a long time in coming, but in April 2014, the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on its “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act”

The rule works with the “significant nexus” test set forth by Justice Kennedy, and it built off an extensive EPA Office of Research and Development scientific review of the peer-reviewed literature – more than 1000 publications were reviewed in developing the report, and an impressive panel of academic experts assisted in its development and review.

The core findings of the report (“Connectivity of Stream and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence”) are rigorously supported, but unsurprising to anyone who has spent much time looking at watersheds and their connectivity, or simply thought about the common sense of how water (and the substances it carries) move downstream:

The scientific literature demonstrates that streams, individually or cumulatively, exert a strong influence on the character and functioning of downstream waters. All tributary streams, including perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, are physically, chemically, and biologically connected to downstream rivers via channels and associated alluvial deposits where water and other materials are concentrated, mixed, transformed, and transported. Headwater streams (headwaters) are the most abundant stream type in most river networks and supply most of the water in rivers. In addition to water, streams transport sediment, wood, organic matter, nutrients, chemical contaminants, and many of the organisms found in rivers. Streams are biologically connected to downstream waters by the dispersal and migration of aquatic and semiaquatic organisms, including fish, amphibians, plants, microorganisms, and invertebrates, that use both up- and downstream habitats during one or more stages of their life cycles, or provide food resources to downstream communities. Physical, chemical, and biological connections between streams and downstream waters interact via processes such as nutrient spiraling, in which stream communities assimilate and chemically transform large quantities of nitrogen (N) and other nutrients that would otherwise increase nutrient loading downstream.
The report finds a similar influence (i.e. – a “significant nexus”) for wetlands and open waters that have bidirectional connection with these streams (have water flowing both in and out at times).  For isolated waters such as playa lakes and prairie potholes that lack such a connection, there is not such a clear picture of influence on other waters – there may be a significant nexus but a more site-specific assessment would be needed to document it.

With this scientific underpinning, the EPA and Corps have proposed extending the definition of “Waters of the United States” to include those tributary streams – including intermittent and ephemeral streams – and their associated wetlands as waters of the United States protected under the Clean Water Act.  Specifically, the rule would define jurisdictional waters to include (emphasis added):

• All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
• All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
• The territorial seas;
• All impoundments of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas or a tributary;
All tributaries of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas or impoundment;
• All waters, including wetlands, adjacent to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas, impoundment or tributary; and

• On a case-specific basis, other waters, including wetlands, provided that those waters alone, or in combination with other similarly situated waters, including wetlands, located in the same region, have a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water, interstate water or the territorial seas.
Predictably, as the EPA and Corps proposal was developed and ultimately rolled out, the truth-impaired right-wing talking heads expressed their horror that big gubmint would take such action to protect water quality:  

Fox News:  “Will EPA Water Grab Tip Us Back Into Recession?”

RedState: “Prepare to have the puddle in your back yard regulated”

American Farm Bureau:  “A wave of new regulation or outright prohibitions on routine farming practices and other land uses.”  

I do have to give the Missouri Farm Bureau some credit for creativity, though not for accuracy, with their spoof video opposing the rule to the tune of “Let It Go.”  

In response to these non-facts, EPA has even set up a “Ditch the Myth” website to dispel some of the misinformation out there.  The Farmers Union also dispels the myths about how this rule would “harm” agriculture.     In a nutshell – the rule will not lead to that puddle in your backyard being regulated, it maintains the Clean Water Act’s longstanding exemption for traditional farming practices so those farmers will not need permits to maintain their fence or plant their crops, and EPA is not making a massive land grab.

But the beat goes on in Congress.  The House Appropriations subcommittee has attached a rider to block the rule, while Senate legislation has been proposedto prevent the EPA and Corps from finalizing the rule.  If Republicans in Congress have their way, we’ll leave those 75% of waters in my home state and nearly 60% of streams nationwide that are ephemeral and intermittent in a regulatory limbo, their protection dependent on inconsistent interpretations of the existing legal standards and costly and time-consuming case by case assessments.  Protection will suffer, and permitting will continue to be delayed.

While so far it has been GOP-driven opposition, the keys to keeping the Clean Water Act rulemaking on track may be ensuring that Democrat Senators hold firm in opposing legislation to block it.  So if you’ve waded through this much to read the story behind this rulemaking I hope you’ll take a few minutes to contact your Senator and tell them to support the Administration’s “Waters of the United States” rule – and if you are even more motivated, take a moment to submit comments to the EPA and Corpssupporting the rule before the October 20 public comment deadline (the website still references the original July comment deadline, but the comment period was extended by three months).

I’ll close on a promising note: the President has personally supported the effort.  At the League of Conservation Voters he cast his lot with the supporters of Clean Water.  “And I’m not just going to stand with environmentalists -- I’m going to stand with sportsmen and conservationists against members of Congress who want to dismantle the Clean Water Act," the President said. "We’ve got to dredge up that old tape of the Cuyahoga River on fire, and the Chicago River, and just remind people that this thing worked.  It was one of the great achievements of modern American politics ...  realizing that we didn’t have to trade off a healthy environment for our kids and economic growth."

So the President has our back – we need to stand with him and fight to preserve one of the landmark environmental laws of the 20th Century and not let the GOP roll the clock back on clean water.

Originally posted to RockyMtnHigh on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 06:10 PM PDT.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots and Community Spotlight.


Why does the right wing hate clean water?

16%10 votes
16%10 votes
20%12 votes
42%25 votes
3%2 votes

| 59 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe We Can Stage an Upside Down Viking Funeral (8+ / 0-)

    at the RNC convention in Cleveland. Put their nominee in the boat, with the river on fire. You know Governor Kasich is chomping at the bit to "restore" the Cuyahoga. But do we have enough industry left to get it done in time for 2016?

    When I was a kid we used to get pillows of suds blowing off the surface of the river and rolling across yards and roadways, upstream of Cleveland. I used to sail through the harbor, across the mouth of the river in the year of that fire. It was orange even when it wasn't burning.

    I'm sure we can reach a sensible centrist compromise on the Clean Water Act in Ohio, with the fish covered in tumors once again, those familiar suds upstream, but no flames to damage the downtown bridges.

    I'm sure DuPont must have some river fire retardant formula in a warehouse somewhere it can dust off for us to pump into the river as it enters the south end of the Flats.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 06:26:03 PM PDT

    •  I hadn't thought about RNC and the Cuyahoga (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, ditsylilg, AllTheWayWithLBJ85

      but the possibilities abound!

      •  I used the Cuyahoga River fire... (0+ / 0-) open a paper about Earth Day and Popular Culture for my Popular Culture Writing Class in March of this year.

        Rivers usually do not catch on fire. However, this is exactly what happened to the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio during June of 1969. Although this had happened before, it made more of an impact because of an oil spill in Santa Barbara earlier that year.
        This paper had FIFTEEN citations when I only was supposed to have four (I think it was four, anyway).

        Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome. -- Lyndon B. Johnson

        by AllTheWayWithLBJ85 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:13:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i remember our family driving from the west side (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          to visit our aunt on the lake.  The innerbelt passed through (over, really) the flats.  this was back in the day when the steel mills were running full blast, 24/7.  As we approached the 'yellow air' area, we kids would take our last deep breath of relatively fresh air, to see which of us could last the longest without inhaling the sulfurous miasma rising from below.  None of us ever made it completely through.  The air and water, though, would be considered acceptable if compared with the pollutants the GOP would see approved these days.  The dirtiest water of those days would be healthier than the frack-pollutant liquid being injected into the bedrock now.  

  •  yes, this is a primal struggle that goes to (5+ / 0-)

    their patriarchal, barbaric world view.

  •  Just republished to DK Greenroots as this (5+ / 0-)

    is an important Clean Water Act matter and Daily Kos should be the place where the heritage of Senator Edmund Muskie is guarded and defended carefully as a matter of political and environmental stewardship.

  •  More than "seems" (8+ / 0-)
    It sometimes seems like the GOP wants to roll back all the progress made on behalf of the public good during the 20th Century...
    More than seems.  You'll find William Grieder laid it all out eleven years ago.
    The movement's grand ambition--one can no longer say grandiose--is to roll back the twentieth century, quite literally. That is, defenestrate the federal government and reduce its scale and powers to a level well below what it was before the New Deal's centralization. With that accomplished, movement conservatives envision a restored society in which the prevailing values and power relationships resemble the America that existed around 1900, when William McKinley was President.
    Lest we think Mr. Greider is alone in this assessment, he is validated by none other than Grover Norquist.
    Looking back over this list, one sees many of the old peevish conservative resentments--Social Security, the income tax, regulation of business, labor unions, big government centralized in Washington--that represent the great battles that conservatives lost during early decades of the twentieth century. That is why the McKinley era represents a lost Eden the right has set out to restore. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a pivotal leader in the movement's inside-outside politics, confirms this observation. "Yes, the McKinley era, absent the protectionism," he agrees, is the goal. "You're looking at the history of the country for the first 120 years, up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over. The income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that."
    If you haven't read this piece, you might want to do it now.  It is indispensable.

    When you punch enough holes through steerage, the first-class cabins sink with the rest of the ship.

    by Roddy McCorley on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 11:38:13 PM PDT

  •  There is no problem so big that... (7+ / 0-)

    "Conservatives" can't make it worse.

    Seriously, it's time we stopped referring to conservatives on the Supreme Court and called them what they are: radicals AKA the dreaded "judicial activists".

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 04:13:12 AM PDT

    •  agreed. there's nothing conservative about (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar, RockyMtnHigh, ditsylilg

      the current "conservatives." They're radical reactionaries.

      •  Not so, sez I. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:


        Fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation,[5][8][9][10] and it asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations.[11]
        The only difference is these fascists have no problem with money earned from speculation (so they aren't economically protectionist), or with materialistic, consumerist views.

        I support a Biblical definition of marriage. When do I get my concubines and second wife?

        by jackdabastard on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 09:23:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Justice Scalia" is an oxymoron (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ditsylilg, xaxnar

      and Roberts, and Alito, and Thomas, and (too often) Kennedy ....

      Their judicial activism has nothing to do with the law, the Constitution or justice.

  •  Ok, first I hope Disney sues the MFB for their (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RockyMtnHigh, starduster

    unlicensed use of the tune.  As we all know the RWNJs never ask permission for anything.

    Second, why would anyone want to poison the environment?  Do they somehow think they won't be effected?  Really I want to know what their problem is.  I know money can be quite the driver, but in all truth they have to be born without any attachment to the world.  No regard for life, yet claim to be pro-life.  No regard for the planet, apparently they live on another.

    I grew up in an area that had a patch of wetlands that was in the process of changing.  It used to be a small pond that made a neat little ice skating rink in the winter.  It was transitioning right before our eyes.  All a natural process.  While it appeared to dry up, in fact the water had moved on.  The next SCJ nominated needs to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they embrace science because this may be our last chance to leave a habitable planet to future generations.  I pray everyday that Grisham's The Nine would come to fruition and that we get to take back our future...

    "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

    by ditsylilg on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 07:06:09 AM PDT

  •  Reason X+ of (0+ / 0-)

    Why I love California. I retired from the SoCal water biz 5 years ago. If your glass is filled in Cali, fear not. No goper can come between you and a quench.
    And many a multi-national "person" lusts to...

    "the northern lights have seen queer sights, but the queerest they ever did see. Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge, I cremated Sam McGee". - Robert Service, Bard of the Yukon

    by Joe Jackson on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 07:35:50 AM PDT

  •  The aptly named Rape-a-nos. Sick bastard. nt (0+ / 0-)

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:54:35 AM PDT

  •  My own Clean Water Act story (0+ / 0-)

    The Yuba River supports a dozen endangered species, including several salmon runs, an hour north of Sacramento California.

    Because of historic mining wastes, about 1/3rd of the Yuba's flow leaves the main channel, percolates through the mining wastes, and reenters the River a couple of miles downstream.

    Even though it was Yuba River water when it flowed out of the River channel, and was Yuba River water when it flowed back in two miles later, because of the SCOTUS decision, it was not "Waters of the US" and was unprotected when it was percolating through the mine tailings.

    And oh boy, did the mining companies take advantage of its unprotected status for those two miles.  Sometimes that water ran black.

    “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

    by 6412093 on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 12:42:02 PM PDT

  •  Worse than all of that (0+ / 0-)

    How about just rolling back access to any water like they are doing in Detroit?  It's getting real now folks.  It's them versus us.  Either we get busy fighting or get busy dying.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

    by noofsh on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:45:35 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site