I keep reading so much hate directed at him online from out of state(and touch) SJW Democrats for voting Yes on some of Trump's picks. The funniest comments are the ones saying WV dems will vote him out. If Joe plays his cards right he could be the next Byrd.
SJW Democrats angry at Manchin
- Thread starter ThatNehlenFeelin
- Start date
I'll never vote for him ever again. My two problems with him are overturning the stream protection rule and committing to hold hearings on a SC nominee.
There are a lot of democrats that are done with him. There are probably enough Republicans to keep him in power though.
The stream protection rule was the worst rule in the history of the EPA. Not surprised it is a big deal to you though because you obviously have no clue what it meant.
It's hilarious seeing people from CA or WA acting like they know West Virginia politics
And there you go again just repeating rhetoric and providing no facts.
The stream protection rule only kept mining 100 feet away from streams. 100 feet. If we don't care enough about clean water to keep mining operations 100 feet away from a stream, something is wrong with us.
I am not repeating rhetoric. I am telling you how it is and I know from experience. It was a lot more than just keeping mining 100 ft away from a stream. Like I said you have no clue what you are talking about. It would literally make almost all coal unmineable because their definition of a stream would put about 80% of underground coal within 100 feet of a stream. It would have been a little less drastic to surface mining.
Wasn't this a last week EO by Obama on his way out the door? I doubt it's all that important if that's the case.
Back it up with facts. Cite some sources. I thought you designed where to place cones on a roadway (your own words). What do you do for a living and how would you know from experience?
Here is an Executive Summary of the Rule:
"The rule has the following seven major elements:
- First, the rule defines the term “material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area” and requires that each permit establish the point at which adverse mining-related impacts on groundwater and surface water reach an unacceptable level; i.e., the point at which adverse impacts from mining would cause material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.
- Second, the rule sets forth how to collect adequate premining data about the site of the proposed mining operation and adjacent areas to establish a comprehensive baseline that will facilitate evaluation of the effects of mining operations.
- Third, the rule outlines how to conduct effective, comprehensive monitoring of groundwater and surface water during and after both mining and reclamation and during the revegetation responsibility period to provide timely information documenting mining-related changes in water quality and quantity. Similarly, the rule addresses the need to require monitoring of the biological condition of perennial and certain intermittent streams during and after mining and reclamation to evaluate changes in aquatic life. Proper monitoring will enable timely detection of any adverse trends and allow timely implementation of any necessary corrective measures.Start Printed Page 93069
- Fourth, the rule promotes the protection or restoration of perennial and intermittent streams and related resources, especially the headwater streams that are critical to maintaining the ecological health and productivity of downstream waters.
- Fifth, the rule ensures that permittees and regulatory authorities make use of advances in information, technology, science, and methodologies related to surface and groundwater hydrology, surface-runoff management, stream restoration, soils, and revegetation, all of which relate directly or indirectly to protection of water resources.
- Sixth, the rule ensures that land disturbed by surface coal mining operations is restored to a condition capable of supporting the uses that it was capable of supporting before mining or to higher or better uses of which there is reasonable likelihood. Soil characteristics and the degree and type of revegetation have a significant impact on surface-water runoff quantity and quality as well as on aquatic life and the terrestrial ecosystems dependent upon perennial and intermittent streams. The rule also requires use of native species to revegetate reclaimed mine sites unless and until a conflicting postmining land use, such as intensive agriculture, is implemented.
- Seventh, the rule updates measures to protect threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.[2] It also better explains how the fish and wildlife protection and enhancement provisions of SMCRA should be implemented."
And btw, the rule was established by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, an agency in the Department of the Interior, not the EPA.
It was important to the Obama administration and they worked on it the entire presidency but it was never going to stand. It would likely have failed just like the air standard rules did if it went to the courts because they lied about the financial impacts of the rule. The real killer is that since the courts threw out the stream buffer rule by GW Bush, the law now reverts back to the stream buffer rule from 1983. If the GW Bush buffer zone rule could not get through courts the Obama rule had no prayer. It was just way too restrictive to property owner rights.
The OSMRE had been working on it for quite some time. Notice was placed in the Federal Register on 20 December 2016 and it took effect on 19 January 2017. It was intended to be an update to SMCRA (Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977).
The Repubs need to give a sweet position on the committee of his choice if he changes parties. It would be a great move for him.
You asked me to find the problems with the rule as stated in the executive summary. It takes quite a bit of fuking stupidity to even ask that question. Funny show clown.
Again, no facts. Tell us all about that big bad EPA (that wasn't even responsible for the rule).
You constantly make yourself look like a moron. This is fun...and easy.
You didn't even bother to provide your professional occupation that qualifies you to comment "from experience".
Another name for, I want what you have worked for because it's my right not to work.
Everyone knows that when you write a huge controversial environmental rule you put all the crazy stuff in the Executive Summary.
I don't need to provide my professional occupation that qualifies me to comment. I said I am experienced and who are you to suggest otherwise?