On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:30:17 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:35:24 +0000, Bill McKee wrote:


Damned Republicans.


And I thought those were Blue states lining the Chesapeake.

Actually, there are both, Red States and Blue States. Perhaps, that is
part of the problem. Too many states, all pointing at one another. I
realize clean up will be difficult, as most of the problem is non-single
point pollution, but the Clean Water Act passed in 1972. That is more
than enough time, and IMO both parties are deserving of the blame.

Agreed!

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

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:28:21 -0400, John H. wrote:


Actually, there are both, Red States and Blue States. Perhaps, that is
part of the problem. Too many states, all pointing at one another. I
realize clean up will be difficult, as most of the problem is non-single
point pollution, but the Clean Water Act passed in 1972. That is more
than enough time, and IMO both parties are deserving of the blame.

Agreed!

The environment is a sad commentary on Washington's failing system. Fully
2/3 of American's want the government to do more to clean up our living
spaces. It's an issue that transcends party affiliations, yet, the
Chesapeake still needs life support. I don't understand it, the
environmental *and* economic benefits of a clean Chesapeake far outweigh
the clean-up costs.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:28:21 -0400, John H. wrote:


Actually, there are both, Red States and Blue States. Perhaps, that is
part of the problem. Too many states, all pointing at one another. I
realize clean up will be difficult, as most of the problem is non-single
point pollution, but the Clean Water Act passed in 1972. That is more
than enough time, and IMO both parties are deserving of the blame.

Agreed!

The environment is a sad commentary on Washington's failing system. Fully
2/3 of American's want the government to do more to clean up our living
spaces. It's an issue that transcends party affiliations, yet, the
Chesapeake still needs life support. I don't understand it, the
environmental *and* economic benefits of a clean Chesapeake far outweigh
the clean-up costs.

If tourists had a lobbying group, like farmers, or chemical & oil companies,
things might change. How dependent is the bay on tourism? Or,
boating/fishing, for that matter?