If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   When an organization exposes people to toxic pollutants without informing them of the risks, it's time to shutter that organization   (breitbart.com) divider line 284
    More: Ironic, EPA, organizations, pollution, Southern California  
•       •       •

2380 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2014 at 12:57 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



284 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-03 05:45:07 PM  

HeadLever: yakmans_dad: The SCOTUS changed what had been the understanding of its jurisdiction

The 'understanding of its jurisdiction' was devoid of the ability of citizens to challenge administrative compliance orders.  Hence the biatchslap.


The Spruce mine decision is ridiculous. The abuses of coal mines on clean water are what the EPA was established to counter.

The 'abuse' of clean water had nothing to do with this case as that was addressed in the earlier approval of the permit.  Again, what was at the heart of this case was the fact that they exceeded their jurisdictional authority by vetoing a permit that was already issued.  You are not arguing that the ends justify the means here, are you?

Why should anyone be able to divert established water ways simply because they really, really, really want to?

So long as they have the required permits, why not?



The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal from a coal mining company challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to veto a West Virginia coal project.
EPA blocked the permit for the Spruce No. 1 mine in 2011, four years after the Army Corps of Engineers under President George W. Bush (R) granted the permit to Mingo Logan, a subsidiary of Arch Coal Inc. The permit, granted under the Clean Water Act, would have allowed the company to dump waste materials into waterways.

Arch brought the case to the Supreme Court after an appeals court ruled in favor of EPA.
Arch had argued in court papers that the Clean Water Act "does not remotely grant EPA a retroactive trump card that trivializes the Corps' authority and destroys the regulated community's ability to rely on the permit." The law allows EPA to block a permit before it is issued, but Arch argued that the same power does not apply retroactively.
Business groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, the National Mining Association and the Chamber of Commerce supported Arch's appeal, as did 27 states, including West Virginia.
The Supreme Court did not give a reason for rejecting the case. The rejection does not affect a separate federal lawsuit Arch has brought over different issues in the Spruce rejection.

Hmph. Bush and the Army Corps of Engineers issued the permit. The EPA quashed it. The SCOTUS refused to hear Arch Coal, Inc.'s appeal. The EPA even gave some reasons why, under the authority of the CWA.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem to fit that whole EPA-overstepping-its-authority story. Seems the EPA reviewed a permit issued by a separate governmental body and found the operations to be in violation of federal law. And that "diversion of waterways" was actually "disposal of mining waste in streams " at the mine.
 
2014-04-03 05:49:39 PM  

HeadLever: yakmans_dad: The SCOTUS changed what had been the understanding of its jurisdiction

The 'understanding of its jurisdiction' was devoid of the ability of citizens to challenge administrative compliance orders.  Hence the biatchslap.

Except that had been the process until the SCOTUS changed it.

The Spruce mine decision is ridiculous. The abuses of coal mines on clean water are what the EPA was established to counter.

The 'abuse' of clean water had nothing to do with this case as that was addressed in the earlier approval of the permit.  Again, what was at the heart of this case was the fact that they exceeded their jurisdictional authority by vetoing a permit that was already issued.  You are not arguing that the ends justify the means here, are you?

Why should they not be able to respond to a different  undetstanding of the situation.

Why should anyone be able to divert established water ways simply because they really, really, really want to?

So long as they have the required permits, why not?


They had a state permit. The EPA said they needed one from the Army Corps of Engineers.

You had stated that the EPA was getting into novel areas. What they've been getting into is the same thing they were assigned to do from the beginning. I hardly think 3 instances of disagreement over a span of many years is some kind of menacing appetite. In what human endeavor aren't there disagreements?
 
2014-04-03 05:52:56 PM  
I can't take anyone who thinks fluoride is a poison seriously.

/In the quantities consumed in municipal water, that is
 
2014-04-03 05:55:42 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: Hmph. Bush and the Army Corps of Engineers issued the permit. The EPA quashed it. The SCOTUS refused to hear Arch Coal, Inc.'s appeal. The EPA even gave some reasons why, under the authority of the CWA.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem to fit that whole EPA-overstepping-its-authority story.


Yeah, looking at that more it went like this

Bush and ACoE issued the permit with the EPA saying it would not veto
EPA vetoed the permit
Federal District Court biatchslapped the EPA saying that it could not retroactively veto a permit (my argument above)
Federal District Appeals court Biatchslapped the FDC saying 'Yes they can'
Case was submitted to the SCotUS who refused to hear the case.

My info here was based upon only the first three parts.  Good catch.
 
2014-04-03 05:57:12 PM  

Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984:

HeadLever: yakmans_dad: Like what?

Again, the Sackett case, the Spruce No. 1 Mine case and now the Andy Johnson issue.

Can you please explain what makes those things "not the EPA's problem"?

How do you function on a day-to-day basis?  HeadLever provided you examples you asked for and your best counter argument is to ask him to explain how they are not the EPA's problem.

WTF is wrong with you, dude?


He provided names of things, he didn't provide examples. WTF is wrong with you that you feel the need to defend bare assert...oh wait, I answered my own question.
 
2014-04-03 06:01:04 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-03 06:03:40 PM  

yakmans_dad: The EPA said they needed one from the Army Corps of Engineers.


yakmans_dad: The EPA said they needed one from the Army Corps of Engineers.


The ACoE also says (pdf):
Are your activities exempt from a Section 404 permit?
Certain activities are exempt from the requirement to get a Section 404 permit. These include discharging dredged or fill material from normal and ongoing farming, forestry (silviculture), and ranching activities; maintaining currently serviceable structures such as dikes and dams, including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts; constructing/maintaining farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches; maintaining drainage ditches; constructing temporary sedimentation basins on a construction site

That is why this will be watched from all sides.  The EPA says one thing and the rules seem to say something else.  Hence my point.
 
2014-04-03 06:07:20 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: He provided names of things, he didn't provide examples.


'Low-information voter' typing detected.
 
2014-04-03 06:09:00 PM  

HeadLever: The ACoE also says (pdf):


Not sure why the link did not come through   Try again:
 
2014-04-03 06:10:08 PM  

HeadLever: cameroncrazy1984: Can you please explain what makes those things "not the EPA's problem"?

?

These were defiantly the EPA's problems in the context of how they conduct business. In several of these instances they have been required to correct their jurisdictional 'problems' by various federal courts.


These problems were defiant? How so? Can you explain?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-03 06:10:08 PM  

RyogaM: Again as the the TEA party. The TEA in Teabagger stands for Taxed Enough Already. They began as a Tax protester group that appealed mainly to Republicans who were embarrassed by the last year of the Bush administration

...

...and is ending as a group of people that are both pants on head retarded, has no morals, and is proudly hypocritical on every subject.  One of the biggest groups of useful idiots for the oligarchy ever created.
 
2014-04-03 06:10:27 PM  
Obvious solution is to sell the EPA to the Koch brothers, let them run it (to the ground), then all the teabaggies wont get butthurt when the Enviromental Kock Protection Agency uses their towns water supply as a storage facility for some chemical which produces horrible side affects. Just so long as nobody sends them Obama-water damn it.
 
2014-04-03 06:10:31 PM  
So how's that "I'm from the government and I'm here to help!" going for ya?  I don't think this is what was originally intended when they created the EPA.
 
2014-04-03 06:14:12 PM  

bobothemagnificent: So how's that "I'm from the government and I'm here to help!" going for ya?  I don't think this is what was originally intended when they created the EPA.


You don't think they intended for the EPA to test the effects of pollution on humans?

What the fark do you think the EPA is for?
 
2014-04-03 06:14:38 PM  

HeadLever: yakmans_dad: The EPA said they needed one from the Army Corps of Engineers.

yakmans_dad: The EPA said they needed one from the Army Corps of Engineers.

The ACoE also says (pdf):
Are your activities exempt from a Section 404 permit?
Certain activities are exempt from the requirement to get a Section 404 permit. These include discharging dredged or fill material from normal and ongoing farming, forestry (silviculture), and ranching activities; maintaining currently serviceable structures such as dikes and dams, including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts; constructing/maintaining farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches; maintaining drainage ditches; constructing temporary sedimentation basins on a construction site

That is why this will be watched from all sides.  The EPA says one thing and the rules seem to say something else.  Hence my point.


Erm, actually it looks like the EPA was doing exactly what it says it would: EPA officials have questioned the Spruce Mine from the beginning and, in a comment letter submitted to the corps under President George W. Bush in 2006, complained about the potential impacts and said more changes in the operation were needed.
In January 2011, the EPA rescinded the corps' approval for Arch to dump waste rock and dirt into 6.6 miles of Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch and their tributaries. The agency said it would allow mining to continue on another portion of the site, burying nearly a mile of streams in the Seng Camp Creek watershed, because work there already had begun.
The EPA cited the growing scientific evidence that mountaintop removal mining significantly damages water quality downstream, and noted an independent engineering study that found Arch Coal could have greatly reduced the Spruce Mine's impacts.


And the Appeals Court said the EPA had broad powers with no temporal limit under the CWA: "In its Tuesday decision, the appeals court said the Clean Water Act contains 'unambiguous language' that 'manifests the Congress's intent to confer on EPA a broad veto power extending beyond the permit issuance.' "

I don't think Spruce Mine No. 1 is really relevant to your point. Sackett, perhaps, but Spruce isn't cleaning up to good as support.
 
2014-04-03 06:15:19 PM  
Looks like this thread is all about Lucky LaRue. fark that shiat.
 
2014-04-03 06:27:21 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: Erm, actually it looks like the EPA was doing exactly what it says it would:


This point here was in regards to the Andy Johnson issue, not the Spruce Mine.
 
2014-04-03 06:27:40 PM  

Tarkus: Looks like this thread is all about Lucky LaRue. fark that shiat.


There really should be an entire tab dedicated to my awesomeness.
 
2014-04-03 06:32:29 PM  

Tarkus: Looks like this thread is all about Lucky LaRue. fark that shiat.


Dude I finally stuck his ass in the can.
 
2014-04-03 06:34:34 PM  

HeadLever: rzrwiresunrise: Erm, actually it looks like the EPA was doing exactly what it says it would:

This point here was in regards to the Andy Johnson issue, not the Spruce Mine.


And yet you named it as an issue where the EPA overstepped. Which is it?
 
2014-04-03 06:40:32 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: And yet you named it as an issue where the EPA overstepped


What makes this point mutually exclusive with the EPA overstepping in the Andy Johnson issue?
 
2014-04-03 06:44:56 PM  

Lucky LaRue: derp


WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?
 
2014-04-03 06:47:11 PM  

HeadLever: rzrwiresunrise: Erm, actually it looks like the EPA was doing exactly what it says it would:

This point here was in regards to the Andy Johnson issue, not the Spruce Mine.


Ah.

HeadLever: yakmans_dad:Why should anyone be able to divert established water ways simply because they really, really, really want to?

So long as they have the required permits, why not?


Well, it looks like the man failed to get the proper federal permit. I imagine that's important to the EPA since rivers like the Green and the Blacks Fork don't just stop at state lines.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-03 06:49:08 PM  

HeadLever: cameroncrazy1984: And yet you named it as an issue where the EPA overstepped

What makes this point mutually exclusive with the EPA overstepping in the Andy Johnson issue?


Anything that cost a corporate organization over 50 cents.

//fark useful idiots
 
2014-04-03 06:49:42 PM  

Kittypie070: Tarkus: Looks like this thread is all about Lucky LaRue. fark that shiat.

Dude I finally stuck his ass in the can.


Whhy AREYOU  HErBALL TEA BADGERS So AFrAID OF HeERRING aternait vewPointS??/?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-03 06:50:23 PM  
oh, by the way... this hall-of-shame tweet...

www.motherjones.com

...is from a Breitbart contributor.
 
2014-04-03 06:52:44 PM  

cc_rider: grumpfuff: junkscience.com

Isn't that site..well, a bunch of junk science?

Run by a paid shill>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy


Steven Milloy is right at the front of the "douse the world in DDT Rachel Carson is teh EVUL!" crowd.  S/he/it is also a climate change denier (img1.fark.net).  Steven Milloy believes in curtailing pollution the way the Koch brothers believe in Karl Marx.
 
2014-04-03 06:53:53 PM  

HeadLever: cameroncrazy1984: He provided names of things, he didn't provide examples.

'Low-information voter' typing detected.


dev.solita.fi
 
2014-04-03 06:56:25 PM  

udhq: Kittypie070: Tarkus: Looks like this thread is all about Lucky LaRue. fark that shiat.

Dude I finally stuck his ass in the can.

Whhy AREYOU  HErBALL TEA BADGERS So AFrAID OF HeERRING aternait vewPointS??/?


I don't think you are *afraid* of hearing alternate points of view, necessarily. Say "incapable", rather, and you will be closer to the point.
 
2014-04-03 07:01:55 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?


Seriously - we all have a solid understanding of what a teabagger is as we've dealt with their intractable black-and-white worldview for 6 years, now. I find your claim not to understand the concept of a herbal teabagger disingenuous at the very least, and at the worst, a sign of intellectual dishonesty.
 
2014-04-03 07:02:03 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Seriously, arguing that the Washington Post isn't liberal is eerily similar to teabaggers insisting that Fox News isn't conservative.


So what liberal pundits does Fox Propaganda give a soapbox to in the way that the Washington Compost gives column space to George Will and Charles Krauthammer?
 
2014-04-03 07:05:22 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: Seriously, arguing that the Washington Post isn't liberal is eerily similar to teabaggers insisting that Fox News isn't conservative.

So what liberal pundits does Fox Propaganda give a soapbox to in the way that the Washington Compost gives column space to George Will and Charles Krauthammer?


What exactly are you trying to prove? That I am wrong, and the Washington Post isn't a liberal newspaper? Or are you trying to cast your own argument that the Post isn't as partisan as Fox News?
 
2014-04-03 07:10:04 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?

Seriously - we all have a solid understanding of what a teabagger is as we've dealt with their intractable black-and-white worldview for 6 years, now. I find your claim not to understand the concept of a herbal teabagger disingenuous at the very least, and at the worst, a sign of intellectual dishonesty.


So then a faux clever bit of NO U!  That's about what it looked like.

Teabaggers believe in Gold und Silber über alles, government small enough to fit in your bedroom and cutting off the Welfare Queens except for the very expensive Welfare Queens that blow Scary Mooselimbs to bits (as long as someone else goes to fight and generations not yet born pay the bill).

Now what, according to you, are the liberal counterparts of these positions?  What actual positions do "herbal teabaggers" take, according to you?
 
2014-04-03 07:10:22 PM  

Lucky LaRue: I don't think you are *afraid* of hearing alternate points of view, necessarily. Say "incapable", rather, and you will be closer to the point.


Well, if I were to stumble upon one in the thread, I would be all ears, but so far, it's just been crickets.

Such is the life of the elusive herbal tea badger...
 
2014-04-03 07:10:37 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?


A failed meme full of fail posted by artists whose chief medium is fail.
 
2014-04-03 07:13:17 PM  

udhq: Lucky LaRue: I don't think you are *afraid* of hearing alternate points of view, necessarily. Say "incapable", rather, and you will be closer to the point.

Well, if I were to stumble upon one in the thread, I would be all ears, but so far, it's just been crickets.

Such is the life of the elusive herbal tea badger...


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-03 07:13:40 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?


It's an insult on par with "honky" in its ability to offend or irritate.
 
2014-04-03 07:14:30 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?


The platonic ideal of conservative humor.
 
2014-04-03 07:15:47 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?


A phrase used by people that beat off while watching Hannity.
 
2014-04-03 07:16:33 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?

Seriously - we all have a solid understanding of what a teabagger is as we've dealt with their intractable black-and-white worldview for 6 years, now. I find your claim not to understand the concept of a herbal teabagger disingenuous at the very least, and at the worst, a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

So then a faux clever bit of NO U!  That's about what it looked like.

Teabaggers believe in Gold und Silber über alles, government small enough to fit in your bedroom and cutting off the Welfare Queens except for the very expensive Welfare Queens that blow Scary Mooselimbs to bits (as long as someone else goes to fight and generations not yet born pay the bill).

Now what, according to you, are the liberal counterparts of these positions?  What actual positions do "herbal teabaggers" take, according to you?


It's really less about the position and more about the intractability of those positions.  It's about the proclivity to treat political issues like religious dogma where there is a dichotomy of right and wrong and, if you don't adhere completely to their platform, then you are wrong.  If you are a liberal, then you probably know and can site multiple instances of teabaggers turning on conservatives (like McCain, Dole, and even recently Lindsay Graham) and calling them RINOs.  The same phenomena happens on the left - even now the herbal teabaggers are convinced that Hillary isn't a true liberal, and are pushing for Warren as one of their own to be their next banner carrier.
 
2014-04-03 07:16:35 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?


Your mom on weed!
 
2014-04-03 07:17:55 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?


A code phrase that virgins use like a secret handshake
 
2014-04-03 07:18:43 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?

It's an insult on par with "honky" in its ability to offend or irritate.


I am glad it offends radical liberals.  Their ideology is offensive and is deserving of being shamed.
 
2014-04-03 07:21:14 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Epic Fap Session: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?

It's an insult on par with "honky" in its ability to offend or irritate.

I am glad it offends radical liberals.  Their ideology is offensive and is deserving of being shamed.


Offends? This is fun.

BTW, your failure to properly interpret the emotions of others tells me your probably "on the spectrum." If this is the case, let me know. I'm not comfortable mocking handicapped people.
 
2014-04-03 07:21:14 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?

It's an insult on par with "honky" in its ability to offend or irritate.


splitsider.com
 
2014-04-03 07:24:06 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: udhq: Lucky LaRue: I don't think you are *afraid* of hearing alternate points of view, necessarily. Say "incapable", rather, and you will be closer to the point.

Well, if I were to stumble upon one in the thread, I would be all ears, but so far, it's just been crickets.

Such is the life of the elusive herbal tea badger...

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 600x439]



See, it's all political!  The bunny represents economic populism, and the cupcakes represent cupcakes!
 
2014-04-03 07:25:54 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Lucky LaRue: Epic Fap Session: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lucky LaRue: derp

WTF is an "herbal teabagger"?

It's an insult on par with "honky" in its ability to offend or irritate.

I am glad it offends radical liberals.  Their ideology is offensive and is deserving of being shamed.

Offends? This is fun.

BTW, your failure to properly interpret the emotions of others tells me your probably "on the spectrum." If this is the case, let me know. I'm not comfortable mocking handicapped people.


At least try for a consistent, logical argument.

You are able to look at the radical right and label them - I am sure you have many labels, but "teabagger" is certainly one of them.  What I find curious is how you are seemingly incapable of extrapolating that, if radicalism exists on the right, then it surely exists on the left.
 
2014-04-03 07:26:33 PM  

udhq: See, it's all political!  The bunny represents economic populism, and the cupcakes represent cupcakes!


Those are potato-cakes. You're no true patriot.
 
2014-04-03 07:30:03 PM  

Lucky LaRue: udhq:
Hey, if the conversation is too complicated, it's no shame to walk away from it.  But there's no need to sulk in a corner - there are plenty of people in this thread whose ideas are Herbal Teabagger approved, and you can happily agree with each other's talking points all day, if that's what floats your boat.


rzrwiresunrise: udhq: See, it's all political!  The bunny represents economic populism, and the cupcakes represent cupcakes!

Those are potato-cakes. You're no true patriot.


See, udhq?  I told you that you'd fine someone to agree with all day.
 
2014-04-03 07:30:41 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: Well, it looks like the man failed to get the proper federal permit.


The issue here is that the EPA is claiming that he needs the permit, but he seems to be qualified for the exceptions that I was linking to earlier.  For this, the jury is still out, but you can bet that it will become a pretty large case.

The bigger issue here is that navigable waters is not well defined (read Alito's comments in the Sackett case).  Regarding the Johnson case, it is being framed as the EPA trying to assert jurisdiction where it shouldn't.  This will ultimately be left to the courts.
 
Displayed 50 of 284 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report