Bush and water

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
Clean Water Act- This affects morethan the desert, but the Law and exmptions apply there too, and it really pisses me off! Bush has made changes to an existing rule about construction site run-off. Prior to this change, all construction sites were to take measures to prevent runoof from reaching waterways due to the silt and possible heavy metalsthat could occyr from the excavation of building sites. This rule applied to any site. It was severe and somewhat draconian and created many other problems, kinda blindly removing your leg when you got a splinter. Well, the Commander In Chief has made some changes to the rule that exempts sites smaller than 5 acres which really isn't a bad thing, since the common practice for runnoff control at small sites was to use haybales to catch silty runoff, but released non-native plant species into the environment. So far so good, but then he goes and exempts any and all oil and gas production work from the runoff requirements. This has pissed me off!(yes JR, ME! ) If you can't see any more bias and favoritism more than this, then maybe he should do a porn with then having sex with him. I was very happy with the way he handled 9-11, I am somewhat happy with him standing tall with Iraq, I wish he would do more with North Korea, but I am pissed with his buddy buddy dealings with big oil and gas. His excuse for the exemption is that they only explore and drill temporarily, When was the last time you saw a house under construction forever?

Martin

If your gonna go, go BIG
 

jeff

Moderator
Posts
7,422
Reaction
314
Martin-

My fiance' interned for a group called American Rivers - they are out of DC and primarily lobby to prevent the construction of dams and other river/stream impeding structures and remove the ones that are no longer needed. By default I got to read their "stuff" and found out just how bad runoff can be for everything in the water - including people that eventually drink it! This new plan is a loser for everyone except those that profit and line their fat pockets by it.

I agree with you 100%. You and I both know that site run off can be bad news... and with Bush wanting to drill in Alaska I can only imagine the disaster this new relaxing of current regulations will have on the rivers and streams up there. It doesn't take much to kill off an entire stream full of fish. A collapse of localized ecosystems is entirely probably. Almost all of the popular stream crossings in the Arrowhead area have been modified by the USFS with concrete tiles to prevent off-roaders from killing downstream trout with all the silt they generate as they cross. I wonder why they spend money to prevent this type of stuff one year and then give up on it the next? Don't blame Bush though... blame the American people for letting him do it. He might be the president but in theory the people of the United States are his boss. I had a Gray Davis SUCKS! poster I was walking around with on the UCR campus a couple days ago - that schmuck was there for the new Chancellor - who is also a schmuck. I'd like to kick him (Davis) square in the nuts and then ask what he's going to do to ensure the UC system doesn't get another multi-billion dollar cutback in 2004. I'm pro-economy and business but I just can't ever picture myself a republican if Bush is the new measure by what all republicans will be measured by.

It seems that people stop caring about the environment when the economy is down - so expect all sorts of additional crap to come down from Jr. as people would rather have another buck in their wallet than a clean and healthy environment. Oh yeah, there is currently a $30,000 reward for the capture of the [daddy didnt love me] that shot and killed one of the few remaining California Condors.

Government sucks. I hope I'm around for the 2076 revolutionary war.
 

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
Jeff- you and me both! But I would be 111, and may not run too well from the riot cops! I just don't understand why politics has gone to the extremes so quickly. Both the major parties cater strictly to the far left or far right. I know for a fact that when done correctly(and believe me, the cost is not as huge as you would think), logging can occur without much impact on the environment. The issues then become (the left) "Cutting any tree is bad", or (the right) " We should be able to cut all the trees and make as much profit as possible". Same with Oil, I think there are places where oil production should never be started, but I also believe you can't rule out every place simply because you are against oil use. If a huge reserve were found under Yosemite, well, maybe it should stay there. But to deny any oil expoloration in ANWR may be too restrictive. The tone of the announcement this week really chapped me, because Bush's people made it sound like he was doing this huge favor to residential developers(it was small), and they hid the whole oil and gas exemption like it was nothing but some detail work. This was a stupid political move as well as an attack on decent environemntalists.

If your gonna go, go BIG
 

jeff

Moderator
Posts
7,422
Reaction
314
That's how everything gets done... let it ride piggy back and hope it doesn't fall off before it's approved. Once it's approved who cares what others think because heck, it's already been approved - it's a case of " I got mine... hope you got yours "

You elect a president from Texas. One that was clearly not pro-environment. And then people are surprised when he starts doing this sort of thing? When you put the wolf in the chicken coop it's only a matter of time before something bad happens to one of those chickens. I just hope our "wolf" is removed from the coop before too much damage is done.

Aloha
 

TxPhPrerunner

Well-Known Member
Posts
64
Reaction
0
I haven't read the EO so I can't comment on it, but I care a little more about our "Wolf" killing a few weasels before he is removed.
Q: Is it just exploration/ drilling run off or is production run off exempted also? I think that would make a difference.
If you can post the change or a link to it on the net. Sorry I have to hear things from the source to take a side.

I don't live on the edge. I fell over long ago.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by TxPhPrerunner on 03/10/03 04:19 PM (server time).</FONT></P>
 

Paige

Well-Known Member
Posts
946
Reaction
0
I just found this on the Environmental News Service - that I only subscribe to for Stormwater related issues - it states that they need to two year reprieve to write the BMPs for the phase II sites - there are already BMPs in place for the construction sites that are 1-5 acres.

I don't know that they want to mess with the NRDC - they are the stormwater watch dogs!


EPA Storm Water Rule Exempts Oil and Gas Industry

WASHINGTON, DC, March 10, 2003 (ENS) - In a rule published today in the Federal Register, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exempted the oil and gas industry from regulations governing water pollution from construction at drilling sites.
The exemption postpones the requirement, under EPA's phase II storm water pollution rule, that companies obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System storm water permits for oil and gas construction activity that disturbs between one and five acres of land.

The requirement was slated to go into effect today. It will now enter effect on March 10, 2005.

According to the exemption, the original rule greatly underestimated the number of oil and gas exploration, production, processing and treatment operations and transmission facilities that would be affected.

EPA now estimates some 30,000 oil and gas sites per year would be affected.

EPA wrote that the two year postponement will allow the agency more time to analyze and better evaluate the impact of the requirement on the oil and gas industry. The agency will use the time to further assess the appropriate best management practices for preventing contamination of storm water runoff from construction associated with the oil and gas industry as well as the scope and effect of the storm water provisions of the Clean Water Act.

"EPA believes that the oil and gas industry has raised significant questions about the differences between the nature of construction at oil and gas sites and other types of construction," the agency wrote in the exemption. "One such difference is the very short time window in which construction at oil and gas sites usually occurs."

Environmentalists see this move as another way the Bush administration has found "to help out its oil and gas buddies," said Sharon Buccino, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The rule excuses the oil and gas industry "complying with a rule that is critical to reducing pollution in America's streams and waterways," Buccino said.

* * *


<font color=yellow>Paige<font color=yellow>
 

TxPhPrerunner

Well-Known Member
Posts
64
Reaction
0
EPA wrote that the two year postponement will allow the agency more time to analyze and better evaluate the impact of the requirement on the oil and gas industry. The agency will use the time to further assess the appropriate best management practices for preventing contamination of storm water runoff from construction associated with the oil and gas industry as well as the scope and effect of the storm water provisions of the Clean Water Act.

"EPA believes that the oil and gas industry has raised significant questions about the differences between the nature of construction at oil and gas sites and other types of construction," the agency wrote in the exemption. "One such difference is the very short time window in which construction at oil and gas sites usually occurs."

If I read this correctly it is construction only that is exempted. I live in Texas where the oil industry is big. Less than 100 miles from Midland/ Odessa. Drilling rigs are moved in large sections and go up in hours, (days max) and pumps are moved in and set up construction time is very short. There is nothing in the quote posted exempting actual drilling or production. If that exemption exists I would say there is a problem, otherwise this issue looks like another attempt by extreme environmentalist groups to further their anti-oil and gas cause by misrepresentation and deceit.

I don't live on the edge. I fell over long ago.
 

Rodney

Well-Known Member
Posts
132
Reaction
0
First, I am surprised you are all so surprised!! Bush is a politician...just like the rest. He is still the best of the current group in my opinion. As long as the storm water run off does not contain any additional pollutants ( i.e, oil spill) the total amount of silt from these small sites is a drop in the bucket. Martin mentioned junk science...much of the effects of silt in waterways is questionable. Ever seen the mississippi river?Obviously, pollution is another matter. This legislation pertains only to stormwater runoff, if the site is being contaminated by chemicals it will be shut down. Does anyone else think it is strange how quiet washington is being about the current price of gas? Tell me this isn't a major hose job by the oil companies. Washington will continue to hose us no matter who is in the white house, so I resign myself to being informed and support those with views closest to mine. Want to feel better about Bush? Think how bad it would be for our off road community if Gore won in 2000. Cheers.

Winning IS everything
 

TxPhPrerunner

Well-Known Member
Posts
64
Reaction
0
Surprised??? No. I think Bush did the right thing. Read my post again.

I don't live on the edge. I fell over long ago.
 

JrSyko

Jerry Maguire
Posts
7,888
Reaction
1,600
I can't believe you guys (Martin and Jeff excused for once!) can't see a such a obvious conflict of interest! His family, friends and income all revolve around oil and here he is making it easier for oil companies to screw the environment and save money in the process and you guys are defending him.

I truely hope that he knows what he is doing because he is enacting some very serious measure that will have very long term consequences regarding everything from the economy to the environment.

Martin, I wish I could frame your post because you expressed everything I believe. We actually agreed for once! Now to press the issue, can you make the argument that there is a conflict of interest for him with Iraq and oil? I'm not totally sold on the idea, just curious to hear what you have to say.

See ya in the dirt!
 

TxPhPrerunner

Well-Known Member
Posts
64
Reaction
0
You have no idea what you are talking about. You have bought a pack of lies and would kill our countries economy to enforce useless rules. Try a little fact and science mixed with your zeal.

I don't live on the edge. I fell over long ago.
 

Rodney

Well-Known Member
Posts
132
Reaction
0
Martin and Jr. , Don't get me wrong, I am equally disgusted at the conflict of interest in washinton. This is how washington has operated since day one. For me however, it is simply a matter of choosing your battles. I am in the construction industry and am engaged in the stormwater issue on a regular basis, so I have my own opinions as to what is potentially harmful and what is not. Ironically, I have been actively researching the possibility of starting a new business helping contractors comply with the stormwater regs. I cant buy into the whole bombing of Iraq for oil theory simply because we simply do not need their oil. Tony Blair even suggested we place all revenue generated by Iraqui oil into a trust fund that would be administered by the UN, thus removing the US from any conflict of interest. With the oil reserves being developed in the caspian sea and south america, the middle east is going to lose much of it's oil bargaining power. The Saudi's have publicly acknowledged this and are currently working on alternate economic plans, they announced they were planning on being the "silicon valley of the middle east." I look forward to the day their monopoly topples to the ground. cheers.

Winning IS everything
 

JrSyko

Jerry Maguire
Posts
7,888
Reaction
1,600
Don't have time to post a real response right now, but read the front page of the Los Angeles Times today. Interesting article on war and oil.

See ya in the dirt!
 

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
The Storm Water Runoff has nothing to do with Iraq. The regulations were presented as a good thing for the small contractor(which I state was good) but the devil was in teh details regarding the drilling. While some point out that drilling is short term (I beleive he said 2 months, in and out) How long does it take to put up a spec house in Socal? The issues that were always presented as bad for the environment from the residential construction standpoint were 1- sedimentation, 2- Heavy metals released during grading, 3- Dust. Tell me those 3 are also not prevalent in drilling? I am not saying taht we should ban drilling, but I will say that the effects of each are at best the same on the environment. Now take Housing, OIl production, and Farming. Can Farmer sustain himself on a farm of less than 5 acres? Absolutely not. Does farming produce dust, run-off, and sedimentation? Yes. Is farming a neccessary activity? More than Housing production or Oil exploration! Why no help for the Farmer in the regards to Storm Water Runoff? They are hit harder than either with dust controls, run-off permits, and sedimentation controls. I can live without a new house, I can find other means of transportation, but I sure as hell can't live without food. While it may seem trivial to call attention to what some would consider inconsequential actions on behalf of the oil industry by Bush in this matter, Why did he not pass this benefit onto other activities? Favoritism. Nothing more. Right, wrong, or indifferent in the outcome, the action stinks.

If your gonna go, go BIG
 

TxPhPrerunner

Well-Known Member
Posts
64
Reaction
0
Wrong the farmers have different options and regulations than does construction. There is no till planting. There are permanent wind breaks. These are options that someone building a house or constructing an oil rig (the only thing exempted) would not have. Don't get down on Bush he is doing a good job for all of us not just a select few.

To Jr. If you understood the laws of supply and demand you would know more dirty money was made after Clinton's Utah land grab than could every be made if we seized Iraq's oil fields and kept them. This is a free nation not a dictatorship so that could never happen. So, if Bush is in this war for oil money than he is dumber than his enemies have made him out to be.

I don't live on the edge. I fell over long ago.
 

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
I don't know how far behind you are in Texas, but California has very strict rules concerning Farming...but you know what they say, Everything starts in California. I wish we here only had to deal with the regs the other 49 states deal with, but California seams to be the test bed for the EPA on everything.

Again, I am glad soem common sense was brought into the small contractor turning over a few houses instead of the tract builders who come in and level a mountain to fit more houses in the space. But however you feel about the regs, regardless of outcome, the action reeks of favoritism, and that was a bone headed political play. If you haven't followed the energy debacle, it was clear that the (Texas) energy companies sacmmed the deregulated system here in California to gouge for profits, and Busg has done nothing to assist in the fix simply because California is not a Republican voting state. Now he makes decissions that may be beneficial to some, but appear to be nothing more than a political favor to his old oil buddies. You can say what the energy companies did was legal, but it didn't make it right, just as the current exemption for the oil companies appears dirty.

If your gonna go, go BIG
 

TxPhPrerunner

Well-Known Member
Posts
64
Reaction
0
Soil conservation has been big here in Texas for decades, since the dust bowl to be exact. The loss of top soil did serious damage to the farm in this area. Because of this farmers have been developing intelligent ways to prevent loss of top soil do to wind and runoff. Now the biggest issue is water conservation. Once again the farmers here are on the front line not the politicians and environmental groups. That is the biggest difference between Texas and California. Bush is a Texan, I trust him to do it the Texas way. Let the people involved figure out how to stop the run off not bureaucrats who know nothing about how thing work. Have you ever seen a drilling rig go up? Do you know how much land they clear. As long as good people like you are willing to be swayed by lies Bush can never do anything that helps us be less dependent on foreign oil without taking flack. So, you understand how I feel about environmental issues I am planing to build a straw bale house and am investigating converting my truck to propane.

I don't live on the edge. I fell over long ago.
 

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
Yes, I have seen an oil drilling rig go...many to be exact. You see, California was one of the largest suppliers of oil in the U.S. several years back. If you have never been here, there are Oil rigs of the coast of L.A., you should check it out! And the oil fields around Bakersfield and Coalinga... Just because Bush is from Texas doesn't make what he did right. As I said, regardless of the outcome, the action stinks. As for lies and beeing brainwashed by the environmental left...Haybale house? Propane powered truck? Can you be any more inefficient? Why not switch to Ethanol and use styrofoam? Talk about buying off on the environmental diatribe. News flash, wood is the cleanest, most recyclable, and toatlly renewable form of construction...Period. Propane? Sorry, not as efficient as gasoline. This is almost as good as those totally emmissions free electric cars people drive...

Martin

If your gonna go, go BIG
 

TxPhPrerunner

Well-Known Member
Posts
64
Reaction
0
Ok, propane is less efficient when you run it in a stock gas engine. You can match the efficiency of gas if you raise compression ratio. Propane is 100 octane. Also most propane systems work like a carburetor, I am trying to get gas phase injectors from Australia so I can run fuel injection. If I can't get them, I won't convert my truck. Straw bale walls have an R-50 rating better insulation less energy used. All for less than wood and standard insulation of say R-20. So, have I bought into environmental lies. I think not. You can think what you like.
Sorry you can't see past Bush's oil ties. It's a very cynical view to stick your self with.

I don't live on the edge. I fell over long ago.
 

JrSyko

Jerry Maguire
Posts
7,888
Reaction
1,600
You are the one who has bought into the misconception that Bush has no ties to oil. Martin is of the informed minority who can clearly see the inherent conflict of interest.

See ya in the dirt!
 
Top