Posted: Saturday, November 7, 2015 12:00 am
|
Updated: 1:31 am, Sat Nov 7, 2015.
Tulsa World editorial: Inhofe leads battle against EPA's Waters of the United States rules
By World's Editorial Writers
TulsaWorld.com
|
With the leadership of Sen. Jim Inhofe — and despite the obstruction of the Obama administration and its allies in the Senate — Congress might be moving to block overreaching EPA water regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Waters of the United States rules would extend the agency’s oversight of water quality without legislative authority all the way to farmers’ stock ponds with a predictable impact on the price of food.
Your current subscription does not provide access to this content. Please click the button below to manage your account.
Subscribe
Thank you for reading and relying on TulsaWorld.com for your news and information. You have now viewed your allowance of free articles.
Login
Subscribe
Several states, including Oklahoma, are challenging the so-called WOTUS rules, and federal courts have blocked implementation. The issue could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, unless Congress acts first.
Earlier this week, a measure that would stop WOTUS and instruct EPA to rewrite the regulations within clear boundaries failed on a procedural vote in the U.S. Senate. Inhofe was the floor manager of the proposal, which received 57 votes. Sixty were needed to move ahead.
Eleven Democratic senators who voted with the Obama administration later sent a letter to the EPA, urging it to pull back on the rules, evidence that some people would like to have their cake and not vote for it too.
Another measure was subsequently discharged from Inhofe’s Environment and Public Works Committee. It would overturn the EPA rules and block any new rules that are substantially the same. Under Senate rules, the proposal only needed 51 votes in the Senate and it got 53 on Wednesday.
It’s still far from a done deal. The House needs to pass the measure and then both the Senate and the House probably would have to pass it again with a supermajority, if Obama carries through on a promised veto.
Nobody involved in the debate — not Inhofe or the farmers — is in favor of water pollution. But as was argued in court, the EPA rules are a substantial extension of EPA regulation without congressional authorization. It looks increasingly clear that WOTUS doesn’t have majority support on Capitol Hill, and that might eventually lead to the demise of rules that never should have been created.
Federal regulation of farm ponds is a policy question that should be decided by the legislative branch of government, not bureaucratic fiat.
We hope Inhofe can muster the support needed to correct the EPA’s course and return some balance to Washington.
Your current subscription does not provide access to this content. Please click the button below to manage your account.
Subscribe
Thank you for reading and relying on TulsaWorld.com for your news and information. You have now viewed your allowance of free articles.
Login
Subscribe
Posted in
Editorials,
Editorialboard
on
Saturday, November 7, 2015 12:00 am.
Updated: 1:31 am.
| Tags:
Jim Inhofe,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Lisa P. Jackson,
Environmental Protection Agency,
United States Senate,
Washington,
Congress,
Oklahoma,
Floor Manager,
United States,
Inhofe S Environment And Public Works Committee,
Obama Administration,
U.s. Supreme Court,
Manager Of The Proposal,
Tulsa World,
Senate,
Food,
Editorial,
Opinionhomepage3
Rules of Conduct
Welcome to the discussion.
9 comments:
Dana Asher posted at 9:00 pm on Sat, Nov 7, 2015.
Jim(that baffles me)Inhofe is about as useful as a condom with pin holes!
Dale Hartz posted at 1:40 pm on Sat, Nov 7, 2015.
Most of the stock ponds are self-contained and actually dry up in very hot weather unless the farmer has a well to replenish them.
The whole EPA rule is nonsense as the state would govern the lakes and ponds you mention.
Most of the EPA emissions rules are unnecessary and overreach. If you don't believe me, go to the EPA website and look at what tests they conducted. They put humans in environments ten times more than the existing environment. They report no health endangerment to people from these tests. The tests were conducted on young people, old people, healthy people, people with respiratory and cardiac problems, etc.
Face it, the EPA is a rogue agency trying to build an empire. It needs to be reined in and let's hope Inhofe can get some stubborn Democrats to join in the effort.
Jim Smith posted at 12:10 pm on Sat, Nov 7, 2015.
God forbid that we should pay a penny more for hamburger because the pesky EPA made farmers clean up their acts.
Whatever is in those ponds flows downstream sooner or later. It's called gravity. But why should anyone care about clean water that flowing away, downstream? All that matters is what's flowing towards me from upstream.
Remember how huffy Oklahomans got over Arkansas farmers spreading their chicken litter in the watershed of the Illinois River? Making them stop that probably raised the price of chicken. Ain't that AWFUL?
The only reason that Inhofe and his ilk oppose clean water is that Obama is for clean water.
Jim Smith posted at 11:42 am on Sat, Nov 7, 2015.
[thumbup]
Dale Hartz posted at 10:06 am on Sat, Nov 7, 2015.
There are thousands of stock ponds in Oklahoma and many little creeks around the city of Tulsa. Do you really believe that the government should take over responsibility to tell us how to manage these waters? Many of the ponds dry up in the summer, so the EPA would probably try to stop the weather from doing that too.
As to your claim of 98% of thousands of scientists who warn of climate catastrophe, please show the data that backs up that claim. There has never been a poll of scientists that covered more than a handful of scientists.
Jerry Butterbaugh posted at 10:05 am on Sat, Nov 7, 2015.
The editorial says that Inhofe is not in favor of water pollution.
So is he in favor of clean water? What legislation has he supported or introduced that will have a positivie effect on providing clean water sources to Oklahomans and Americans? Has he opposed fracking when it might damage water sources? Has he proposed any safety limits on fracking?
Is there something positive that Inhofe has done to improve water sources in the U.S.?
Is the Tulsa World's statement that Inhofe is not in favor of water pollution really true? Actions speak louder than words.
Gordon Mills posted at 7:33 am on Sat, Nov 7, 2015.
Worse than predictable impact on the price of food could be the absence of food.
Lagbaja Temedu posted at 7:12 am on Sat, Nov 7, 2015.
You mean jump-into-a-lake-full-of-toxic-blue-green-algae-Inhofe is leading a battle against clean water?
As usual, Inhofe is wrong.
Cindy Kerr posted at 6:10 am on Sat, Nov 7, 2015.
Speak for yourself, not everybody else in America.
Inhofe has contributed significantly to harming the environment. He wet kisses dirty energy and blatantly ignores 98% (thousands) of the scientists warning of imminent catastrophic effects caused by global warming.
Inhofe is the L.A.S.T. person to trust to fix environmental hazards. If it were up to him, all our drinking water would be given to Exxon and Devon for use in fracking (which is happening b.t.w.).