Obama proposes broadening EPA's power over water

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Obama proposes broadening EPA's power over water
By JOHN FLESHER, AP Environmental Writer
Posted Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:12pm PDT

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - The Obama administration proposed new guidelines Wednesday that would boost the government's ability to protect streams, wetlands and other sensitive waterways from pollution.

Business and property rights groups said the policy would stifle economic growth by generating more red tape for builders of homes and shopping centers, but environmentalists defended it as essential step to provide clean drinking water and protect waterfowl habitat.

Administration officials said their goal was to clarify which waters are subject to federal regulation under the 1972 Clean Water Act, a question that two Supreme Court rulings in the past decade have not resolved.

"Today about 117 million Americans — more than a third of the U.S. population — get their drinking water in part from sources that lack clear protection from pollution," Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson said. "At the same time, businesses and regulators face uncertainty and delay" when seeking development permits.



Read more: http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20110428/ap_on_re_us/us_clean_water.html

[XemaSab]

1. I'm still hoping to see a shakeup of the departments

There's no sane reason why water should be the jurisdiction of DoD, BoR, EPA, USFWS, USGS, and DoC. And probably some others that I am forgetting. :P

[Dover]

2. I'm concerned more about government's movement toward privatization of resources

and whether that might eventually, down the road, include water - a big issue for me when Boone Pickens was trying to put together large wind infrastructure while also laying claim to aquifer water beneath the land he was acquiring for wind turbines.
Both parties seem to be endorsing privatization relative to big corporate aquisitions both at home and in the global market and that includes what I would consider things which should remain under government control to insure fairness in pricing, distribution and protection such as water. So if I'm going to vote to put this precious resource in the hands of government, I want insurances that it will remain off the table for private, profit-oriented companies.
I do believe that one of government's most important duties should be to preserve and protect natural resources that we all share or wish to protect. And with so much corruption and corporate influence IN government we are all going to have to be vigilant in our attention to the details of these legislative decisions and "laws".

On the other hand, I think energy use should, with perhaps a few exceptions) be diversified and decentralized and costs reduced so more people can be energy independent rather than DEpendent on ANY central authority even if that resource is something as benign as solar or wind farms. So as we shuffle all these varying needs and interests, lets think about what we want the final picture to look like and how we ultimately want to live on this planet.