*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

John H wrote:
We keep waiting for some good news about the Bay, but it doesn't
come. Here's
the latest from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation:



http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=N...m5pu741.app26a


--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

Yep, pollution. It's a good thing that the republicans want to
relax
the environmental laws, huh?


Why did you have to turn this into a political thing Kevin?

John posted some disturbing news. Both republicans and democrats
equally
pollute.

Why do you keep calling me Kevin, Jim? Now, take a look around you,
Jim. I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both pollute,
but tell me, which of those two do you think is to blame for relaxing
environmental laws? Do you think that by relaxing or sometimes
eliminating environmental laws that they deter, or add to the pollution
problem? I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready
was one.

wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

John H wrote:
We keep waiting for some good news about the Bay, but it doesn't
come. Here's
the latest from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation:



http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=N...m5pu741.app26a


--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

Yep, pollution. It's a good thing that the republicans want to
relax
the environmental laws, huh?


Why did you have to turn this into a political thing Kevin?

John posted some disturbing news. Both republicans and democrats
equally
pollute.

Why do you keep calling me Kevin, Jim? Now, take a look around you,
Jim.


OK Kevin, done.

I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both pollute,....snip


So we agree. Thanks.


I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready
was one.


How so Kevin? I saw nothing political in John's post or link. What exactly
did you see that was political in either?

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

John H wrote:
We keep waiting for some good news about the Bay, but it doesn't
come. Here's
the latest from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation:



http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=N...m5pu741.app26a


--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

Yep, pollution. It's a good thing that the republicans want to
relax
the environmental laws, huh?


Why did you have to turn this into a political thing Kevin?

John posted some disturbing news. Both republicans and democrats
equally
pollute.

Why do you keep calling me Kevin, Jim? Now, take a look around you,
Jim.


OK Kevin, done.

I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both pollute,....snip


So we agree. Thanks.


I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready
was one.


How so Kevin? I saw nothing political in John's post or link. What
exactly did you see that was political in either?


You're both right and wrong sorta kinda. I'm not familiar with the local
situation around the bay, but I do know that what's causing a lot of the
problem is the same thing that's causing problems in a couple of the Finger
Lakes of upstate NY: Runoff from farms, mostly normal fertilizers, and it
doesn't matter THAT much whether they're synthetic fertilizers or organic
ones, like composted manure which the Amish farmers use. Here, I don't see
much arguing between the parties when it comes to working out these
problems. Local pols have to literally look their constituents in the eye,
and maybe watch restaurants, motels and marinas go out of business if they
allow a recreational resource like a lake turn to crap. I suspect that when
problems surrounding the Bay are fixed, it will also be local powers that
deal with it.

However, on a national level, where laws are made regarding more dangerous
pollutants, the Republican party is almost exclusively responsible for the
WEAKENING of the rules. If you don't agree with that, you're not reading
much.

Doug Kanter wrote:
You're both right and wrong sorta kinda. I'm not familiar with the local
situation around the bay, but I do know that what's causing a lot of the
problem is the same thing that's causing problems in a couple of the Finger
Lakes of upstate NY: Runoff from farms, mostly normal fertilizers, and it
doesn't matter THAT much whether they're synthetic fertilizers or organic
ones, like composted manure which the Amish farmers use.

In most watersheds, definitely including the Chesapeake, runoff from
lawns is also a very big problem.

NC addressed the issue of runoff from upland farms by q very effective
method: money. Farmers are given incentives (big enough to affect
profitability) to have a buffer system of ditches and dikes around their
fields, with natural cover, which captures much of the fertilizer run-off.



... Here, I don't see
much arguing between the parties when it comes to working out these
problems. Local pols have to literally look their constituents in the eye,
and maybe watch restaurants, motels and marinas go out of business if they
allow a recreational resource like a lake turn to crap.

Hmmph. I suspect that you don't see the arguing because the side with
the most money always wins. I also suspect that the environmental
picture up there isn't as rosy as you paint it... especially considering
the low population density.

The biggest problem for the US east coast ecosystems is very simple...
lots & lots & lots of people. For example, Boston Harbor, that fabled
avatar of aquapurity, has about 10X more 'stuff' flushed & drained into
it than the total volume, much less the tidal exchange volume. This
threshold was crossed back in the 1800s... and there are effectively
zero wetlands. Is this the model for the future?


... I suspect that when
problems surrounding the Bay are fixed, it will also be local powers that
deal with it.


I suspect that they'll continue to fail to deal with it. Making
well-publicized but ineffective & inexpensive gestures is a lot more
politically expedient.


However, on a national level, where laws are made regarding more dangerous
pollutants, the Republican party is almost exclusively responsible for the
WEAKENING of the rules. If you don't agree with that, you're not reading
much.


Heh, under Reagan the EPA took a big hit. Under Bush Jr the EPA has all
but shut down. There is no effective environmental law enforcement on
the Federal level.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
You're both right and wrong sorta kinda. I'm not familiar with the local
situation around the bay, but I do know that what's causing a lot of the
problem is the same thing that's causing problems in a couple of the
Finger Lakes of upstate NY: Runoff from farms, mostly normal fertilizers,
and it doesn't matter THAT much whether they're synthetic fertilizers or
organic ones, like composted manure which the Amish farmers use.

In most watersheds, definitely including the Chesapeake, runoff from lawns
is also a very big problem.

That's impossible. A couple of meatheads in one of the gardening newsgroups
have been telling me that lawn chemicals are good for you, and that 40 years
of toxicity research is null and void. :-)



NC addressed the issue of runoff from upland farms by q very effective
method: money. Farmers are given incentives (big enough to affect
profitability) to have a buffer system of ditches and dikes around their
fields, with natural cover, which captures much of the fertilizer run-off.

Who cares how it gets fixed? If bribes are what it takes, so what?



... Here, I don't see much arguing between the parties when it comes to
working out these problems. Local pols have to literally look their
constituents in the eye, and maybe watch restaurants, motels and marinas
go out of business if they allow a recreational resource like a lake turn
to crap.

Hmmph. I suspect that you don't see the arguing because the side with the
most money always wins. I also suspect that the environmental picture up
there isn't as rosy as you paint it... especially considering the low
population density.

Well, I share your cynicism IN GENERAL, but because I fish some of these
lakes (when I can hack through the weeds), I follow the situation pretty
closely. For the most part, the farmers have been pretty cooperative. Even
the DEC, in a public meeting, said that farmers were waiting for THEM to
offer suggestions. Not necessarily cheap suggestions - just ideas of any
kind. The solution varies from place to place because of terrain, soil type,
blah blah blah.

Using Conesus Lake as an example, farm runoff is a small part of the
problem. The rest comes from vacation cottages which are very tightly packed
together along both shores. Lawn poisons are negligible, but many of the
homes are very old, and their septic systems are outdated. New construction
requires the cesspool be quite a ways back from the water, and that waste be
pumped uphill. It's tough to upgrade many of the older homes because, again,
they're so tightly packed in with other older homes. If a homeowner is
lucky, the house behind his falls down from old age, and it's easy to
install the new system.

There's very little contentious behavior surrounding the situation. It's
just...they can't come up with a consistent procedure because every piece of
property is different, and each one's postage-stamp size. If it involved new
construction on an empty shoreline.....easy, right?



The biggest problem for the US east coast ecosystems is very simple...
lots & lots & lots of people. For example, Boston Harbor, that fabled
avatar of aquapurity, has about 10X more 'stuff' flushed & drained into it
than the total volume, much less the tidal exchange volume. This threshold
was crossed back in the 1800s... and there are effectively zero wetlands.
Is this the model for the future?

Try selling the overpopulation reason to anyone these days. Does Zero
Population Growth still exist?



... I suspect that when problems surrounding the Bay are fixed, it will
also be local powers that deal with it.


I suspect that they'll continue to fail to deal with it. Making
well-publicized but ineffective & inexpensive gestures is a lot more
politically expedient.


However, on a national level, where laws are made regarding more
dangerous pollutants, the Republican party is almost exclusively
responsible for the WEAKENING of the rules. If you don't agree with that,
you're not reading much.

Heh, under Reagan the EPA took a big hit. Under Bush Jr the EPA has all
but shut down. There is no effective environmental law enforcement on the
Federal level.

DSK

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

John H wrote:
We keep waiting for some good news about the Bay, but it doesn't
come. Here's
the latest from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation:



http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=N...m5pu741.app26a


--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

Yep, pollution. It's a good thing that the republicans want to
relax
the environmental laws, huh?


Why did you have to turn this into a political thing Kevin?

John posted some disturbing news. Both republicans and democrats
equally
pollute.

Why do you keep calling me Kevin, Jim? Now, take a look around you,
Jim.


OK Kevin, done.

I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both pollute,....snip


So we agree. Thanks.


I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready
was one.


How so Kevin? I saw nothing political in John's post or link. What exactly
did you see that was political in either?

Again, I'm not Kevin, but seeing how you are responding to ME, I'll
answer. It's already a political thing, simply because the Republicans
are responsible for weaker environmental laws. That causes more
pollution. If the republicans didn't weaken, or downright do away with
some environmental laws, pollution wouldn't worsen, now would it?
There's much more to pollution than fertilizer runoff, or animal feces.
I'd think it would be simple to understand that if the republicans
didn't weaken or do away with environmental regulations, then we
wouldn't be having this conversation. THAT is why it is political in
nature. I'm sure you understand, don't you? You seem to be one of the
brighter right wingers here.

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

John H wrote:
We keep waiting for some good news about the Bay, but it doesn't
come. Here's
the latest from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation:



http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=N...m5pu741.app26a


--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

Yep, pollution. It's a good thing that the republicans want to
relax
the environmental laws, huh?


Why did you have to turn this into a political thing Kevin?

John posted some disturbing news. Both republicans and democrats
equally
pollute.

Why do you keep calling me Kevin, Jim? Now, take a look around you,
Jim.


OK Kevin, done.

I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both
pollute,....snip


So we agree. Thanks.


I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready
was one.


How so Kevin? I saw nothing political in John's post or link. What
exactly
did you see that was political in either?

Again, I'm not Kevin, but seeing how you are responding to ME, I'll
answer. It's already a political thing, simply because the Republicans
are responsible for weaker environmental laws. That causes more
pollution. If the republicans didn't weaken, or downright do away with
some environmental laws, pollution wouldn't worsen, now would it?
There's much more to pollution than fertilizer runoff, or animal feces.
I'd think it would be simple to understand that if the republicans
didn't weaken or do away with environmental regulations, then we
wouldn't be having this conversation. THAT is why it is political in
nature. I'm sure you understand, don't you? You seem to be one of the
brighter right wingers here.


So explain how the Republicans specifically caused the water quality in the
Bay decline.

Do you really think Republicans always vote against and Democrats always
vote for stronger environmental laws?

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

John H wrote:
We keep waiting for some good news about the Bay, but it doesn't
come. Here's
the latest from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation:



http://www.cbf.org/site/News2?page=N...m5pu741.app26a


--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

Yep, pollution. It's a good thing that the republicans want to
relax
the environmental laws, huh?


Why did you have to turn this into a political thing Kevin?

John posted some disturbing news. Both republicans and democrats
equally
pollute.

Why do you keep calling me Kevin, Jim? Now, take a look around you,
Jim.


OK Kevin, done.

I fully understand that Democrats and Republicans both
pollute,....snip


So we agree. Thanks.


I didn't "turn it into a political thing", Jim, it all ready
was one.


How so Kevin? I saw nothing political in John's post or link. What
exactly
did you see that was political in either?

Again, I'm not Kevin, but seeing how you are responding to ME, I'll
answer. It's already a political thing, simply because the Republicans
are responsible for weaker environmental laws. That causes more
pollution. If the republicans didn't weaken, or downright do away with
some environmental laws, pollution wouldn't worsen, now would it?
There's much more to pollution than fertilizer runoff, or animal feces.
I'd think it would be simple to understand that if the republicans
didn't weaken or do away with environmental regulations, then we
wouldn't be having this conversation. THAT is why it is political in
nature. I'm sure you understand, don't you? You seem to be one of the
brighter right wingers here.


So explain how the Republicans specifically caused the water quality in
the Bay decline.

Do you really think Republicans always vote against and Democrats always
vote for stronger environmental laws?

Do you actually expect a sane thought from such a defective mind?

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...


Do you really think Republicans always vote against and Democrats always
vote for stronger environmental laws?

Do you actually expect a sane thought from such a defective mind?

Are you aware of what your president has done to dismantle air pollution
regulations over the past couple of years, or are you pretending to have
heard/read nothing at all about it?

*JimH* wrote:

So explain how the Republicans specifically caused the water quality in the
Bay decline.

Just for you and Fritz, to show how narrow minded you a

By Osha Gray Davidson

September/October 2003 Issue



As The World Burns
A Mother Jones special project on global warming

----Advertisements----


Author Thomas Frank Appearance

May 24th lunch and book signing with author.


Your Ad Here Reason Over Religion!

God gave us reason, not religion. Deism is an alternative to
superstition.


Your Ad Here
Text Ads on MotherJones.com

Click to Place Your Ad Here!


Your Ad Here A New Book on Bush

Get Book Analyzing What Went Wrong. New Low Price.


Your Ad Here
----Advertisements----


IN THE EARLY 1980s you didn't need to be a member of EarthFirst! to
know that Ronald Reagan was bad for the environment. You didn't even
have to be especially politically aware. Here was a man who had, after
all, publicly stated that most air pollution was caused by plants. And
then there was Reagan's secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who saw
no need to protect the environment because Jesus was returning any day,
and who, in a pique of reactionary feng shui, suggested that the
buffalo on Interior's seal be flipped to face right instead of left.

By contrast, while George W. Bush gets low marks on the environment
from a majority of Americans, few fully appreciate the scope and fury
of this administration's anti-environmental agenda. "What they're doing
makes the Reagan administration look innocent," says Buck Parker,
executive director of Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm.
The Bush administration has been gutting key sections of the Clean
Water and Clean Air acts, laws that have traditionally had bipartisan
support and have done more to protect the health of Americans than any
other environmental legislation. It has crippled the Superfund program,
which is charged with cleaning up millions of pounds of toxic
industrial wastes such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and vinyl chloride in
more than 1,000 neighborhoods in 48 states. It has sought to cut the
EPA's enforcement division by nearly one-fifth, to its lowest level on
record; fines assessed for environmental violations dropped by nearly
two-thirds in the administration's first two years; and criminal
prosecutions-the government's weapon of last resort against the worst
polluters-are down by nearly one-third

It goes on:
So why aren't more people aware that George W. Bush is compiling what
is arguably the worst environmental record of any president in recent
history? The easy explanations-that environmental issues are complex,
that war and terrorism push most other concerns off the front pages-are
only part of the story. The real reason may be far simpler: Few people
know the magnitude of the administration's attacks on the environment
because the administration has been working very hard to keep it that
way.

And this:
JUST BEFORE SHE STEPPED DOWN last summer, EPA head Whitman issued a
"state of the environment" report that fairly rhapsodized about the
significance of environmental protection: "Pristine waterways [and]
safe drinking waters are treasured resources," one passage declared.
"The nation has made significant progress in protecting these resources
in the last 30 years."

What Whitman did not mention was that the administration has spent two
years attempting to eviscerate the law that brought about most of that
progress-the Clean Water Act of 1972. In January 2003, the
administration proposed new rules for managing the nation's wetlands,
removing 20 percent of the country's remaining swamps, ponds, and
marshes from federal protection. And wetlands are only the beginning: A
close reading of the proposed rules shows that the administration is
attempting to change the definition of "waters of the United States" to
exclude up to 60 percent of the country's rivers, lakes, and streams
from protection, giving industries permission to pollute, alter, fill,
and build on all of these waterways (see "Down Upon the Suwannee"). "No
president since the Clean Water Act was passed has proposed getting rid
of it on the majority of waters of the U.S.," notes Joan Mulhern of
Earthjustice-and Bush might not have tried either, had he been forced
to justify the move in congressional debate rather than burying it in
bureaucratic rule-making.


Get it now, Jim?

Do you really think Republicans always vote against and Democrats always
vote for stronger environmental laws?

Hmm, did I say that Jim? But, alas, I can say ALMOST always.