Chesapeake Bay settlement has EPA agreeing to enforce pollution
reduction goals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR2010051105212.html

This will have wide ranging implications for the bay, hopefully for
the better.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news
Chesapeake Bay settlement has EPA agreeing to enforce pollution
reduction goals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR2010051105212.html

This will have wide ranging implications for the bay, hopefully for
the better.

That's a Stalinist organization! Oh wait...

On Oct 7, 3:25*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
Chesapeake Bay settlement has EPA agreeing to enforce pollution
reduction goals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR201...

This will have wide ranging implications for the bay, hopefully for
the better.

I was wondering why they waited so long to take any action...

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 7, 3:25*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
Chesapeake Bay settlement has EPA agreeing to enforce pollution
reduction goals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR201...

This will have wide ranging implications for the bay, hopefully for
the better.

I was wondering why they waited so long to take any action...

It will cost money to change current practices and the agricultural
businesses in and around the Chesapeake tributaries wield an enormous
amount of political power.

On 10/9/10 9:08 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:45:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, wrote:
Chesapeake Bay settlement has EPA agreeing to enforce pollution
reduction goals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR201...

This will have wide ranging implications for the bay, hopefully for
the better.

I was wondering why they waited so long to take any action...

It will cost money to change current practices and the agricultural
businesses in and around the Chesapeake tributaries wield an enormous
amount of political power.


It's nice to see you two engaging in political posting. :)


--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals

On Oct 9, 8:08*am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 7, 3:25*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
Chesapeake Bay settlement has EPA agreeing to enforce pollution
reduction goals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR201....

This will have wide ranging implications for the bay, hopefully for
the better.

I was wondering why they waited so long to take any action...

It will cost money to change current practices and the agricultural
businesses in and around the Chesapeake *tributaries wield an enormous
amount of political power.

Yeah, I can understand that....

On 10/9/10 9:11 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 9, 8:08 am, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:45:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, wrote:
Chesapeake Bay settlement has EPA agreeing to enforce pollution
reduction goals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR201...

This will have wide ranging implications for the bay, hopefully for
the better.

I was wondering why they waited so long to take any action...

It will cost money to change current practices and the agricultural
businesses in and around the Chesapeake tributaries wield an enormous
amount of political power.

Yeah, I can understand that....


So...*some* political discussions are OK, eh, such as a discussion about
agribusiness? Or is it corporate pollution?


--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals

"Secular Humouresque" wrote in message m...
On 10/9/10 9:11 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 9, 8:08 am, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:45:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, wrote:
Chesapeake Bay settlement has EPA agreeing to enforce pollution
reduction goals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR201...

This will have wide ranging implications for the bay, hopefully for
the better.

I was wondering why they waited so long to take any action...

It will cost money to change current practices and the agricultural
businesses in and around the Chesapeake tributaries wield an enormous
amount of political power.

Yeah, I can understand that....


So...*some* political discussions are OK, eh, such as a discussion about
agribusiness? Or is it corporate pollution?


--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals


Put a sock in it. Your defeat is imminent.

--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID.

The magnificent Boatless Harry

On 10/9/10 12:17 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 09:15:52 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

On 10/9/10 9:11 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 9, 8:08 am, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:45:21 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, wrote:
Chesapeake Bay settlement has EPA agreeing to enforce pollution
reduction goals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR201...

This will have wide ranging implications for the bay, hopefully for
the better.

I was wondering why they waited so long to take any action...

It will cost money to change current practices and the agricultural
businesses in and around the Chesapeake tributaries wield an enormous
amount of political power.

Yeah, I can understand that....


So...*some* political discussions are OK, eh, such as a discussion about
agribusiness? Or is it corporate pollution?

This is not really a political posting if you ever put your boat in
the water. Boaters should be interested in the water they boat in,
particularly if they fish or swim.


Just about anything having to do with pollution abatement is political,
tim. Forcing the heavy pollutors around the Bay to clean up their acts
*is* political.

The outcome may be good for boaters, but the process is as political as
it gets. There are politics involved in many, many aspects of pleasure
boating.

--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 7, 3:25*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
Chesapeake Bay settlement has EPA agreeing to enforce pollution
reduction goals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR201...

This will have wide ranging implications for the bay, hopefully for
the better.

I was wondering why they waited so long to take any action...

It will cost money to change current practices and the agricultural
businesses in and around the Chesapeake tributaries wield an enormous
amount of political power.

When you look at the size of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed it is
enormous.

http://tinyurl.com/33myuyl

or

http://www.google.com/imgres?
imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/ChesapeakeBayWaters
hed.png&imgrefurl=http://www.baydreaming.com/watershed.htm&h=800&w=612
&sz=171&tbnid=V51mScLM4i0QNM:&tbnh=257&tbnw=196&pr ev=/images%3Fq%
3Dchesapeake%2Bbay%2Bwatershed&zoom=1
&q=chesapeake+bay+watershed&hl=en&usg=__QyHoa3DNGY cIsyBghZO4eKYMauQ=&sa=
X&ei=v3mwTLitHcX7lweI253qDw&ved=0CCMQ9QEwAQ