Obviously the laws would apply here but who doesn't want clean water? Maybe the fishing charter captains don't want the ocean to become polluted? Perhaps a dead zone off the coast of Florida wouldn't exactly be a tourist magnet?
othershoe1030 wrote:The state of Florida has joined a lawsuit aimed at blocking a massive cleanup plan for Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay.
And, no, you can’t make this stuff up.
Last week, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a brief — paid for with your taxes — attacking the legality of the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint.
The plan was devised by six bay area states, the District of Columbia and the federal government. Its mission is to improve water quality in the rivers, streams and estuaries of the Chesapeake region.
A federal judge upheld the terms of the so-called blueprint, which will limit the amount of pollution being dumped, but the ruling is being appealed.
Why would the state of Florida try to obstruct the cleanup of public waters hundreds of miles away from our own? Because Bondi and Gov. Rick Scott are complete tools.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/08/3920357/muddying-the-waters-far-from-home.html?fb_action_ids=10202964592338925&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=#storylink=cpy
.....federal laws apply to all states even if they are not needed "tool." What would be law there, would de facto become law here.
We need to get away from using the rivers as if they were a toilet that ran into another world, one that didn't impact the environment we all live in. We need to be better stewards of the planet and stop acting as if what we do doesn't matter because it does.
we all want clean water.
we also all want FOOD to eat.
now you can support the insane greenies who will kill us all and save the planet mentality. but you better stock up first.
In January 2011, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and Pennsylvania Farm Bureau (PFB) filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) arguing that the federal government violated its own laws and regulations when establishing the December 2010Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
Shortly after the original suit was filed, the following national agriculture organizations joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs: the Fertilizer Institute, National Pork Producers Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Chicken Council, U.S. Poultry and Egg Association and National Turkey Federation.
Numerous environmental groups and organizations representing municipal authorities asked for, and were granted, motions to intervene in the lawsuit in support of EPA’s actions on the TMDL. Environment Interveners include: the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, PennFuture, Defenders of Wildlife, Jefferson County Public Service District, Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy and National Wildlife Federation. Municipal Interveners include: the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, Maryland Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, Inc. and Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities.
The National Association of Home Builders filed a separate lawsuit against EPA on similar arguments. The Homebuilders and Farm Bureau joined efforts and asked the Court to combine the two cases into one. The court agreed.
After several rounds of written arguments between all parties, Farm Bureau and other plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the Court to enter judgment for the Plaintiffs on the basis of the litigation record. EPA and their supporting interveners separately filed their own Motion for Summary Judgment. Both sides have fully completed the schedule of written legal briefs directed by the Court related to the motions. On October 4, 2012, federal court heard more than five hours of oral arguments on the motions.
At the October 4th court session in Harrisburg, attorneys for Farm Bureau and other plaintiffs presented arguments before Judge Sylvia H. Rambo. Farm Bureau attorneys argued the federal Clean Water Act gives states, not the federal government, the power to decide how pollution reductions in the bay will be met. Attorneys for Farm Bureau argued the Chesapeake Bay model used by the EPA to support the TMDL is flawed, and the EPA failed to provide sufficient information on the model during a legally required public comment period. Attending the session to show support were more than 30 PFB members, Farm Bureau staff from Pennsylvania and neighboring states, and AFBF.
Since the October hearing, the court granted a request for parties to file an additional legal brief on one issue that the court had particularly focused on during the court session. Both sides have completed their briefs.
The court must first rule on the motions for summary judgment before any additional action can take place in the lawsuit. Although it is difficult to say exactly when Judge Rambo will make a decision on the motions, many are hopeful she will be able to complete her review of the case and rule by the end of the year.
This is also a suit to where the federal government is overstepping its boundaries, as usual. Yes, a constitutional thing.