Billionaires buy Rep AGs to fight EPA, ACA & Obama

[MarkM]

It's not every day that a story breaks that makes your jaw drop. This story breaking on the NYTimes does just that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/pol...-news&_r=0

It's a long story and rather complicated. I need to reread parts of it, but here's the nutshell. Using the dark money anonymous donations made possible by Citizens United, business associations in the fossil fuel industry have bought enough State Attorneys General to give Republicans a modern historical high of 27 offices. These Republican AGs are taking marching orders from the business associations that elected them to petition Washington, alter law, and most importantly bring cases to federal court. Most of their efforts have been to undermine the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulations. The big target is the EPA. However, the president of the Republican State AGs group, Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt is the lead plaintiff in the ACA tax subsidy case before the Supreme Court. He has a case pending to challenge the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and he will also be bringing a case against President Obama's immigration executive order.

The guise is anti-federalism. The united groups allege that the federal government has overstepped its bounds and the power to regulate belongs to the states. But it's really about money, of course. Lots of it. Money that will be made if these business interests can dictate what the people's attorneys will choose to challenge, and what they choose to ignore.

This is nothing short of fascism. Fascism -- the control of government by business. Citizens United made it legal. This is how it happens.

This is a very, very important story. I won't be surprised though to see it slip under the radar.

[Wonky3]

It's not every day that a story breaks that makes your jaw drop. This story breaking on the NYTimes does just that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/pol...-news&_r=0

It's a long story and rather complicated. I need to reread parts of it, but here's the nutshell. Using the dark money anonymous donations made possible by Citizens United, business associations in the fossil fuel industry have bought enough State Attorneys General to give Republicans a modern historical high of 27 offices. These Republican AGs are taking marching orders from the business associations that elected them to petition Washington, alter law, and most importantly bring cases to federal court. Most of their efforts have been to undermine the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulations. The big target is the EPA. However, the president of the Republican State AGs group, Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt is the lead plaintiff in the ACA tax subsidy case before the Supreme Court. He has a case pending to challenge the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and he will also be bringing a case against President Obama's immigration executive order.

The guise is anti-federalism. The united groups allege that the federal government has overstepped its bounds and the power to regulate belongs to the states. But it's really about money, of course. Lots of it. Money that will be made if these business interests can dictate what the people's attorneys will choose to challenge, and what they choose to ignore.

This is nothing short of fascism. Fascism -- the control of government by business. Citizens United made it legal. This is how it happens.

This is a very, very important story. I won't be surprised though to see it slip under the radar.

I agree it's important, and also agree it is in danger of not getting enough attention.

COMMON CAUSE has been writing about this and they agree with the information and tone of this NYT piece.

Our AG is Ellen Rosenblum, (D), and hopefully not part of this problem but we should be aware of her actions making sure Oregon does not get "bought".

[MarkM]

No, AG Rosenblum is not part of the problem. She's done a great job working for the people. The Times reports that all of the AG receiving political support are Republicans. The associations are careful to not invite Democrats to their functions. Former Oregon AG David Fronemeyer ® served as one of the sources/whistleblowers for the Times story. Oregon is such a breath of fresh air these days.

I'll check out the Common Cause stories. Thanks.

[oregon 67]

It's not every day that a story breaks that makes your jaw drop. This story breaking on the NYTimes does just that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/pol...-news&_r=0

It's a long story and rather complicated. I need to reread parts of it, but here's the nutshell. Using the dark money anonymous donations made possible by Citizens United, business associations in the fossil fuel industry have bought enough State Attorneys General to give Republicans a modern historical high of 27 offices. These Republican AGs are taking marching orders from the business associations that elected them to petition Washington, alter law, and most importantly bring cases to federal court. Most of their efforts have been to undermine the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulations. The big target is the EPA. However, the president of the Republican State AGs group, Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt is the lead plaintiff in the ACA tax subsidy case before the Supreme Court. He has a case pending to challenge the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and he will also be bringing a case against President Obama's immigration executive order.

The guise is anti-federalism. The united groups allege that the federal government has overstepped its bounds and the power to regulate belongs to the states. But it's really about money, of course. Lots of it. Money that will be made if these business interests can dictate what the people's attorneys will choose to challenge, and what they choose to ignore.

This is nothing short of fascism. Fascism -- the control of government by business. Citizens United made it legal. This is how it happens.

This is a very, very important story. I won't be surprised though to see it slip under the radar.

I agree it's important, and also agree it is in danger of not getting enough attention.

COMMON CAUSE has been writing about this and they agree with the information and tone of this NYT piece.

Our AG is Ellen Rosenblum, (D), and hopefully not part of this problem but we should be aware of her actions making sure Oregon does not get "bought".

Our problem is with the governor and the first lady, not the AG.

[Wonky3]

It's not every day that a story breaks that makes your jaw drop. This story breaking on the NYTimes does just that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/pol...-news&_r=0

It's a long story and rather complicated. I need to reread parts of it, but here's the nutshell. Using the dark money anonymous donations made possible by Citizens United, business associations in the fossil fuel industry have bought enough State Attorneys General to give Republicans a modern historical high of 27 offices. These Republican AGs are taking marching orders from the business associations that elected them to petition Washington, alter law, and most importantly bring cases to federal court. Most of their efforts have been to undermine the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulations. The big target is the EPA. However, the president of the Republican State AGs group, Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt is the lead plaintiff in the ACA tax subsidy case before the Supreme Court. He has a case pending to challenge the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and he will also be bringing a case against President Obama's immigration executive order.

The guise is anti-federalism. The united groups allege that the federal government has overstepped its bounds and the power to regulate belongs to the states. But it's really about money, of course. Lots of it. Money that will be made if these business interests can dictate what the people's attorneys will choose to challenge, and what they choose to ignore.

This is nothing short of fascism. Fascism -- the control of government by business. Citizens United made it legal. This is how it happens.

This is a very, very important story. I won't be surprised though to see it slip under the radar.

I agree it's important, and also agree it is in danger of not getting enough attention.

COMMON CAUSE has been writing about this and they agree with the information and tone of this NYT piece.

Our AG is Ellen Rosenblum, (D), and hopefully not part of this problem but we should be aware of her actions making sure Oregon does not get "bought".

Our problem is with the governor and the first lady, not the AG.

You might want to alert us when you are changing the conversation.

If you read Mark's post, you know this was specific to the State AG's around the country.

And if your are going to opine "Our problem with is with the governor and the first lady", you might want to include a specific or two about how the governor and first lady have been on the take and in the pocket of big business who write their own laws for outcomes that make them rich and unresponsive to the public.

[Big Rock]

The EPA wants to redefine ‘the waters of the United States’ to mean virtually any wet spot in the country
Earlier this year the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule redefining the “waters of the United States” that are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. The two agencies recently finished collecting public comments on their draft rule and are deciding how to proceed. Their best course is to abandon the rule or anything like it. Here’s why:
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy wrote in Huffington Post in March that the draft rule would clarify the meaning of the relevant terms in the law without expanding federal jurisdiction and promised it would “save us time, keep money in our pockets, cut red tape, [and] give certainty to business.” None of this is true.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 prohibits discharges into “navigable waters” without a federal permit, defining “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States.” Initially the Army Corps and EPA interpreted waters of the U.S. to mean those that could be used as channels of navigation for interstate commerce. This reading is logical and necessary because the Clean Water Act is authorized by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce—which as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), includes the transport of passengers and goods across state lines but not the commercial or noncommercial activity within a single state.
Within a few years, however, the two agencies claimed regulatory authority over wetlands and other nonnavigable waters that had no significant connection to interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has twice rejected these claims.
In SWANCC v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001), the court forbade the Army Corps from regulating “isolated water bodies” that were not connected to traditional navigable waters. Nevertheless, the Army Corps and EPA have largely ignored or circumvented the ruling with new interpretations. They claimed that they could regulate anything with a “hydrological connection” to traditional navigable waters—including normally dry-land features such as arroyos in the desert as well as ditches and culverts hundreds of miles from traditional navigable waters.
In Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Pacific Legal Foundation challenged the agencies’ jurisdictional reach again. A majority of the justices ruled that federal agencies could not regulate wetlands merely because they have a hydrological connection to downstream navigable waters.
Nevertheless, the agencies now seek to regulate isolated water bodies and any “other water” with a hydrological connection to traditional navigable waters—the very waters the Supreme Court said they could not regulate. The draft rule redefines “waters of the United States” so broadly that it covers virtually any wet—or occasionally wet—spot in the country, including ditches, drains, seasonal puddle-like depressions, intermittent streams, ponds, impoundments, prairie potholes, and large “buffer areas” of land adjacent to every waterway.
Specifically, the draft rule would allow for federal regulation of any pond, stream or ditch that has significant effects on downstream waters—and lets the agencies aggregate the effects of similar features across an entire “ecoregion,” covering thousands of square miles, such as the Central Great Plains. Certain ditches and artificial pools are excluded from federal control—but only if they are in dry, upland areas.
Federal bureaucrats already exercise considerable discretion. For example, according to a 2004 Government Accountability Office audit, federal officials in the same Army Corps office disagree on whether a particular water feature, occasional wet spot, or land adjoining a waterway is subject to regulation under the existing rules. The GAO concluded “the definitions used to make jurisdictional determinations” were “vague.” This situation fosters uncertainty and undermines economic activity and development.
The proposed rule magnifies the problem. It starts by including all tributaries in the nation (e.g., your backyard creek), and then authorizes federal officials to decide on a case-by-case basis if any “other waters” or land should be regulated. The proposed rule also asserts that federal jurisdiction is not limited to water contained in “aquatic systems” but covers the “associated chemical, physical, and biological features” of any aquatic system “as a whole.”
What isn’t a chemical, physical or biological feature of an aquatic system as a whole? Does that cover an entire ecoregion? Probably, since agency bureaucrats generally have discretion to interpret and apply their own definitions. Rather than clarify federal jurisdiction, as promised, the proposed rule introduces vastly greater uncertainty.
By any fair reading, the proposed rule would federalize virtually all water in the nation, and much of the land, in direct contravention of Supreme Court precedent and express congressional policy in the Clean Water Act “to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources.” It is patently unreasonable and should be amended or withdrawn.
If the rule is adopted in its present form, the Pacific Legal Foundation and others will again take these two agencies to court. But that takes time. Instead, Congress, the states, and the American people should prevail on the administration to follow the law.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/m-reed-hoppe...1417990935

[Wonky3]

The EPA wants to redefine ‘the waters of the United States’ to mean virtually any wet spot in the country
Earlier this year the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule redefining the “waters of the United States” that are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. The two agencies recently finished collecting public comments on their draft rule and are deciding how to proceed. Their best course is to abandon the rule or anything like it. Here’s why:
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy wrote in Huffington Post in March that the draft rule would clarify the meaning of the relevant terms in the law without expanding federal jurisdiction and promised it would “save us time, keep money in our pockets, cut red tape, [and] give certainty to business.” None of this is true.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 prohibits discharges into “navigable waters” without a federal permit, defining “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States.” Initially the Army Corps and EPA interpreted waters of the U.S. to mean those that could be used as channels of navigation for interstate commerce. This reading is logical and necessary because the Clean Water Act is authorized by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce—which as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), includes the transport of passengers and goods across state lines but not the commercial or noncommercial activity within a single state.
Within a few years, however, the two agencies claimed regulatory authority over wetlands and other nonnavigable waters that had no significant connection to interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has twice rejected these claims.
In SWANCC v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001), the court forbade the Army Corps from regulating “isolated water bodies” that were not connected to traditional navigable waters. Nevertheless, the Army Corps and EPA have largely ignored or circumvented the ruling with new interpretations. They claimed that they could regulate anything with a “hydrological connection” to traditional navigable waters—including normally dry-land features such as arroyos in the desert as well as ditches and culverts hundreds of miles from traditional navigable waters.
In Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Pacific Legal Foundation challenged the agencies’ jurisdictional reach again. A majority of the justices ruled that federal agencies could not regulate wetlands merely because they have a hydrological connection to downstream navigable waters.
Nevertheless, the agencies now seek to regulate isolated water bodies and any “other water” with a hydrological connection to traditional navigable waters—the very waters the Supreme Court said they could not regulate. The draft rule redefines “waters of the United States” so broadly that it covers virtually any wet—or occasionally wet—spot in the country, including ditches, drains, seasonal puddle-like depressions, intermittent streams, ponds, impoundments, prairie potholes, and large “buffer areas” of land adjacent to every waterway.
Specifically, the draft rule would allow for federal regulation of any pond, stream or ditch that has significant effects on downstream waters—and lets the agencies aggregate the effects of similar features across an entire “ecoregion,” covering thousands of square miles, such as the Central Great Plains. Certain ditches and artificial pools are excluded from federal control—but only if they are in dry, upland areas.
Federal bureaucrats already exercise considerable discretion. For example, according to a 2004 Government Accountability Office audit, federal officials in the same Army Corps office disagree on whether a particular water feature, occasional wet spot, or land adjoining a waterway is subject to regulation under the existing rules. The GAO concluded “the definitions used to make jurisdictional determinations” were “vague.” This situation fosters uncertainty and undermines economic activity and development.
The proposed rule magnifies the problem. It starts by including all tributaries in the nation (e.g., your backyard creek), and then authorizes federal officials to decide on a case-by-case basis if any “other waters” or land should be regulated. The proposed rule also asserts that federal jurisdiction is not limited to water contained in “aquatic systems” but covers the “associated chemical, physical, and biological features” of any aquatic system “as a whole.”
What isn’t a chemical, physical or biological feature of an aquatic system as a whole? Does that cover an entire ecoregion? Probably, since agency bureaucrats generally have discretion to interpret and apply their own definitions. Rather than clarify federal jurisdiction, as promised, the proposed rule introduces vastly greater uncertainty.
By any fair reading, the proposed rule would federalize virtually all water in the nation, and much of the land, in direct contravention of Supreme Court precedent and express congressional policy in the Clean Water Act “to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources.” It is patently unreasonable and should be amended or withdrawn.
If the rule is adopted in its present form, the Pacific Legal Foundation and others will again take these two agencies to court. But that takes time. Instead, Congress, the states, and the American people should prevail on the administration to follow the law.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/m-reed-hoppe...1417990935

Okay Big Bad Rock,
A friendly reminder of the customs here at the good 'ol RVF. Well, my custom maybe.
I'm sure the tome you posted above about the EPA is a worthwhile read: We know you are a serious guy who not only likes big stones but good intel. Information. Whatever.

But it appears to be a burdensome read.

May I suggest you give us a line or two before that missive about what we might expect and why you feel it's good grist for the mill. Not that I don't the time...I do. But I read a lot of stuff (as you do also) and I really don't like to get halfway into something that is going to be of little interest.

"Show me the beef" please before I commit to the burger.

Thanks.

[Hugo]

The EPA wants to redefine ‘the waters of the United States’ to mean virtually any wet spot in the country
Earlier this year the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule redefining the “waters of the United States” that are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. The two agencies recently finished collecting public comments on their draft rule and are deciding how to proceed. Their best course is to abandon the rule or anything like it. Here’s why:
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy wrote in Huffington Post in March that the draft rule would clarify the meaning of the relevant terms in the law without expanding federal jurisdiction and promised it would “save us time, keep money in our pockets, cut red tape, [and] give certainty to business.” None of this is true.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 prohibits discharges into “navigable waters” without a federal permit, defining “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States.” Initially the Army Corps and EPA interpreted waters of the U.S. to mean those that could be used as channels of navigation for interstate commerce. This reading is logical and necessary because the Clean Water Act is authorized by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce—which as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), includes the transport of passengers and goods across state lines but not the commercial or noncommercial activity within a single state.
Within a few years, however, the two agencies claimed regulatory authority over wetlands and other nonnavigable waters that had no significant connection to interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has twice rejected these claims.
In SWANCC v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001), the court forbade the Army Corps from regulating “isolated water bodies” that were not connected to traditional navigable waters. Nevertheless, the Army Corps and EPA have largely ignored or circumvented the ruling with new interpretations. They claimed that they could regulate anything with a “hydrological connection” to traditional navigable waters—including normally dry-land features such as arroyos in the desert as well as ditches and culverts hundreds of miles from traditional navigable waters.
In Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Pacific Legal Foundation challenged the agencies’ jurisdictional reach again. A majority of the justices ruled that federal agencies could not regulate wetlands merely because they have a hydrological connection to downstream navigable waters.
Nevertheless, the agencies now seek to regulate isolated water bodies and any “other water” with a hydrological connection to traditional navigable waters—the very waters the Supreme Court said they could not regulate. The draft rule redefines “waters of the United States” so broadly that it covers virtually any wet—or occasionally wet—spot in the country, including ditches, drains, seasonal puddle-like depressions, intermittent streams, ponds, impoundments, prairie potholes, and large “buffer areas” of land adjacent to every waterway.
Specifically, the draft rule would allow for federal regulation of any pond, stream or ditch that has significant effects on downstream waters—and lets the agencies aggregate the effects of similar features across an entire “ecoregion,” covering thousands of square miles, such as the Central Great Plains. Certain ditches and artificial pools are excluded from federal control—but only if they are in dry, upland areas.
Federal bureaucrats already exercise considerable discretion. For example, according to a 2004 Government Accountability Office audit, federal officials in the same Army Corps office disagree on whether a particular water feature, occasional wet spot, or land adjoining a waterway is subject to regulation under the existing rules. The GAO concluded “the definitions used to make jurisdictional determinations” were “vague.” This situation fosters uncertainty and undermines economic activity and development.
The proposed rule magnifies the problem. It starts by including all tributaries in the nation (e.g., your backyard creek), and then authorizes federal officials to decide on a case-by-case basis if any “other waters” or land should be regulated. The proposed rule also asserts that federal jurisdiction is not limited to water contained in “aquatic systems” but covers the “associated chemical, physical, and biological features” of any aquatic system “as a whole.”
What isn’t a chemical, physical or biological feature of an aquatic system as a whole? Does that cover an entire ecoregion? Probably, since agency bureaucrats generally have discretion to interpret and apply their own definitions. Rather than clarify federal jurisdiction, as promised, the proposed rule introduces vastly greater uncertainty.
By any fair reading, the proposed rule would federalize virtually all water in the nation, and much of the land, in direct contravention of Supreme Court precedent and express congressional policy in the Clean Water Act “to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources.” It is patently unreasonable and should be amended or withdrawn.
If the rule is adopted in its present form, the Pacific Legal Foundation and others will again take these two agencies to court. But that takes time. Instead, Congress, the states, and the American people should prevail on the administration to follow the law.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/m-reed-hoppe...1417990935

Okay Big Bad Rock,
A friendly reminder of the customs here at the good 'ol RVF. Well, my custom maybe.
I'm sure the tome you posted above about the EPA is a worthwhile read: We know you are a serious guy who not only likes big stones but good intel. Information. Whatever.

But it appears to be a burdensome read.

May I suggest you give us a line or two before that missive about what we might expect and why you feel it's good grist for the mill. Not that I don't the time...I do. But I read a lot of stuff (as you do also) and I really don't like to get halfway into something that is going to be of little interest.

"Show me the beef" please before I commit to the burger.

Thanks.

Then maybe you could just read the lines he went out of his way to highlight in bold? That might serve the purpose you are asking for....

[Wonky3]

The EPA wants to redefine ‘the waters of the United States’ to mean virtually any wet spot in the country
Earlier this year the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule redefining the “waters of the United States” that are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. The two agencies recently finished collecting public comments on their draft rule and are deciding how to proceed. Their best course is to abandon the rule or anything like it. Here’s why:
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy wrote in Huffington Post in March that the draft rule would clarify the meaning of the relevant terms in the law without expanding federal jurisdiction and promised it would “save us time, keep money in our pockets, cut red tape, [and] give certainty to business.” None of this is true.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 prohibits discharges into “navigable waters” without a federal permit, defining “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States.” Initially the Army Corps and EPA interpreted waters of the U.S. to mean those that could be used as channels of navigation for interstate commerce. This reading is logical and necessary because the Clean Water Act is authorized by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce—which as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), includes the transport of passengers and goods across state lines but not the commercial or noncommercial activity within a single state.
Within a few years, however, the two agencies claimed regulatory authority over wetlands and other nonnavigable waters that had no significant connection to interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has twice rejected these claims.
In SWANCC v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001), the court forbade the Army Corps from regulating “isolated water bodies” that were not connected to traditional navigable waters. Nevertheless, the Army Corps and EPA have largely ignored or circumvented the ruling with new interpretations. They claimed that they could regulate anything with a “hydrological connection” to traditional navigable waters—including normally dry-land features such as arroyos in the desert as well as ditches and culverts hundreds of miles from traditional navigable waters.
In Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Pacific Legal Foundation challenged the agencies’ jurisdictional reach again. A majority of the justices ruled that federal agencies could not regulate wetlands merely because they have a hydrological connection to downstream navigable waters.
Nevertheless, the agencies now seek to regulate isolated water bodies and any “other water” with a hydrological connection to traditional navigable waters—the very waters the Supreme Court said they could not regulate. The draft rule redefines “waters of the United States” so broadly that it covers virtually any wet—or occasionally wet—spot in the country, including ditches, drains, seasonal puddle-like depressions, intermittent streams, ponds, impoundments, prairie potholes, and large “buffer areas” of land adjacent to every waterway.
Specifically, the draft rule would allow for federal regulation of any pond, stream or ditch that has significant effects on downstream waters—and lets the agencies aggregate the effects of similar features across an entire “ecoregion,” covering thousands of square miles, such as the Central Great Plains. Certain ditches and artificial pools are excluded from federal control—but only if they are in dry, upland areas.
Federal bureaucrats already exercise considerable discretion. For example, according to a 2004 Government Accountability Office audit, federal officials in the same Army Corps office disagree on whether a particular water feature, occasional wet spot, or land adjoining a waterway is subject to regulation under the existing rules. The GAO concluded “the definitions used to make jurisdictional determinations” were “vague.” This situation fosters uncertainty and undermines economic activity and development.
The proposed rule magnifies the problem. It starts by including all tributaries in the nation (e.g., your backyard creek), and then authorizes federal officials to decide on a case-by-case basis if any “other waters” or land should be regulated. The proposed rule also asserts that federal jurisdiction is not limited to water contained in “aquatic systems” but covers the “associated chemical, physical, and biological features” of any aquatic system “as a whole.”
What isn’t a chemical, physical or biological feature of an aquatic system as a whole? Does that cover an entire ecoregion? Probably, since agency bureaucrats generally have discretion to interpret and apply their own definitions. Rather than clarify federal jurisdiction, as promised, the proposed rule introduces vastly greater uncertainty.
By any fair reading, the proposed rule would federalize virtually all water in the nation, and much of the land, in direct contravention of Supreme Court precedent and express congressional policy in the Clean Water Act “to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources.” It is patently unreasonable and should be amended or withdrawn.
If the rule is adopted in its present form, the Pacific Legal Foundation and others will again take these two agencies to court. But that takes time. Instead, Congress, the states, and the American people should prevail on the administration to follow the law.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/m-reed-hoppe...1417990935

Okay Big Bad Rock,
A friendly reminder of the customs here at the good 'ol RVF. Well, my custom maybe.
I'm sure the tome you posted above about the EPA is a worthwhile read: We know you are a serious guy who not only likes big stones but good intel. Information. Whatever.

But it appears to be a burdensome read.

May I suggest you give us a line or two before that missive about what we might expect and why you feel it's good grist for the mill. Not that I don't the time...I do. But I read a lot of stuff (as you do also) and I really don't like to get halfway into something that is going to be of little interest.

"Show me the beef" please before I commit to the burger.

Thanks.

Then maybe you could just read the lines he went out of his way to highlight in bold? That might serve the purpose you are asking for....

Good point, of course.
Still, does not meet the criteria I asked for.
Just a line or two from the poster about how he (she) feels about the thing and why we will be more informed after reading it.

[MarkM]

I'd like Big Rock to connect the dots. What does the WSJ story have to do with the topic? I think I can guess what he's driving at, but I'd rather be sure. What do you mean?

Furthermore, the WSJ piece is an opinion piece by a couple of guys. I don't know them from Adam. It's not a news story. I suspect that if I drill down far enough I would find they are full of something Tv would describe in unmistakeable colorful language. They don't even identify the specific rule they are upset about or link to McCarthy's HuffPo story. How can I research something so vague.

Doesn't pass my sniff test.

[Wonky3]

I'd like Big Rock to connect the dots. What does the WSJ story have to do with the topic? I think I can guess what he's driving at, but I'd rather be sure. What do you mean?

Furthermore, the WSJ piece is an opinion piece by a couple of guys. I don't know them from Adam. It's not a news story. I suspect that if I drill down far enough I would find they are full of something Tv would describe in unmistakeable colorful language. They don't even identify the specific rule they are upset about or link to McCarthy's HuffPo story. How can I research something so vague.

Doesn't pass my sniff test.

Or mine. But I admit to being less than objective about the WSJ. As a NEWS outfit, they are still seen around the world as one of the last great papers. Their reporters do just that: Report...what they find is what they print. (So the pundits porclaim)

The editorial pages on the other hand are Murdoch's pages and even before he bought the thing the editorial pages were pure conservative. (and the NYT more liberal of course).

And all too often we here (me too) put up opinion stuff without making it clear that it's not news. And of course, opinion stuff can be valuable and "true" too...just a good thing to know what we are reading.

[oregon 67]

I can connect the dots d good r bad. The facts are in discussion over

[Wonky3]

I can connect the dots d good r bad. The facts are in discussion over

Overly simplistic.

[oregon 67]

I can connect the dots d good r bad. The facts are in discussion over

Overly simplistic.

yep, no need to be verbose.. clete mm and many others would simply agree. your comment about ours was no better.
as I stated if the gov and gf had been followed by an r . our discussion would be entirely different. our ag will do everything possible to help protect the gov.

As to topic, there are many billionaires the are left swinging, they too would give to ag races if they thought their interests would be enhanced. so why is this a discussion now that r's have taken over. it was perfectly ok when the d's held power

[MarkM]

I can connect the dots d good r bad. The facts are in discussion over

Overly simplistic.

yep, no need to be verbose.. clete mm and many others would simply agree. your comment about ours was no better.
as I stated if the gov and gf had been followed by an r . our discussion would be entirely different. our ag will do everything possible to help protect the gov.

As to topic, there are many billionaires the are left swinging, they too would give to ag races if they thought their interests would be enhanced. so why is this a discussion now that r's have taken over. it was perfectly ok when the d's held power

If all are to blame, that's all the more reason to pass an amendment to overturn Citizens United. Or to pass the Disclose Act which would shed light on these anonymous donations -- which the Republicans vehemently opposed.

Democrats have been culpable to a degree, yes. But is there an equivalency here? No way.

The point of this story is that billionaires are brazenly buying Republican politicians and using them to influence policy to their liking. Is the same thing going on with Democrats? I'd love to see examples.

[Hugo]

I can connect the dots d good r bad. The facts are in discussion over

Overly simplistic.

yep, no need to be verbose.. clete mm and many others would simply agree. your comment about ours was no better.
as I stated if the gov and gf had been followed by an r . our discussion would be entirely different. our ag will do everything possible to help protect the gov.

As to topic, there are many billionaires the are left swinging, they too would give to ag races if they thought their interests would be enhanced. so why is this a discussion now that r's have taken over. it was perfectly ok when the d's held power

If all are to blame, that's all the more reason to pass an amendment to overturn Citizens United. Or to pass the Disclose Act which would shed light on these anonymous donations -- which the Republicans vehemently opposed.

Democrats have been culpable to a degree, yes. But is there an equivalency here? No way.

The point of this story is that billionaires are brazenly buying Republican politicians and using them to influence policy to their liking. Is the same thing going on with Democrats? I'd love to see examples.

Jesus fucking christ, you act as if you have never even heard of George Soros or Bill Gates.

[Cuzz]

I can connect the dots d good r bad. The facts are in discussion over

Overly simplistic.

yep, no need to be verbose.. clete mm and many others would simply agree. your comment about ours was no better.
as I stated if the gov and gf had been followed by an r . our discussion would be entirely different. our ag will do everything possible to help protect the gov.

As to topic, there are many billionaires the are left swinging, they too would give to ag races if they thought their interests would be enhanced. so why is this a discussion now that r's have taken over. it was perfectly ok when the d's held power

If all are to blame, that's all the more reason to pass an amendment to overturn Citizens United. Or to pass the Disclose Act which would shed light on these anonymous donations -- which the Republicans vehemently opposed.

Democrats have been culpable to a degree, yes. But is there an equivalency here? No way.

The point of this story is that billionaires are brazenly buying Republican politicians and using them to influence policy to their liking. Is the same thing going on with Democrats? I'd love to see examples.

Jesus fucking christ, you act as if you have never even heard of George Soros or Bill Gates.

I'm not religious or anything, but that just seems wrong.

[Hugo]

Overly simplistic.

yep, no need to be verbose.. clete mm and many others would simply agree. your comment about ours was no better.
as I stated if the gov and gf had been followed by an r . our discussion would be entirely different. our ag will do everything possible to help protect the gov.

As to topic, there are many billionaires the are left swinging, they too would give to ag races if they thought their interests would be enhanced. so why is this a discussion now that r's have taken over. it was perfectly ok when the d's held power

If all are to blame, that's all the more reason to pass an amendment to overturn Citizens United. Or to pass the Disclose Act which would shed light on these anonymous donations -- which the Republicans vehemently opposed.

Democrats have been culpable to a degree, yes. But is there an equivalency here? No way.

The point of this story is that billionaires are brazenly buying Republican politicians and using them to influence policy to their liking. Is the same thing going on with Democrats? I'd love to see examples.

Jesus fucking christ, you act as if you have never even heard of George Soros or Bill Gates.

I'm not religious or anything, but that just seems wrong.

Why?

[MarkM]

Which politicians have Soros and Gates bought? Names please. Do they own 27 AGs? I doubt it.

I don't deny Dems are culpable to a degree. But there is no equivalency here. Everyone, regardless of political affiliation or point of view, should be concerned about this. As I said, this is fascism. No one wins under that.

[oregon 67]

Which politicians have Soros and Gates bought? Names please. Do they own 27 AGs? I doubt it.

I don't deny Dems are culpable to a degree. But there is no equivalency here. Everyone, regardless of political affiliation or point of view, should be concerned about this. As I said, this is fascism. No one wins under that.

About fascism ? Yet you fail to see or even believe it in the very group you support.

Your own stated philosophy that governments ensure liberty is a dangerous idea. The natural rights you and I enjoy are protected by you and I not the gov't.

We have become to reliant on gov't. to dictate our very existence .