<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for EPA plan would spew under-treated sewage into U.S. waterways]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by pmaier</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/boni-sewage/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:03:42 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/boni-sewage/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Blending the rules.</strong></p><p>Members of Congress are concerned about blending, but don't seem to realize that EPA still allows cities to use rivers as giant urinals.</p><p>
When EPA implemented the CWA, EPA used an essential pollution test incorrect and while promising 85% treatment (secondary treatment) it in fact only demanded 85% of what the test measured, which is only 40% of the pollution EPA intended to treat.<br>
As the result EPA not only ignored a large portion of the pollution caused by fecal waste, but all the pollution caused by urine and protein waste.</p><p>
In stead of writing a letter regarding blending, members of Congress should hold EPA accountable for not implementing the CWA as intended and since the interim goal of the CWA was `swimmable and fishable' water by 1983, they also could ask EPA if rivers used as urinals are really considered swimmable?</br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Blending the rules.</strong></p><p>Members of Congress are concerned about blending, but don't seem to realize that EPA still allows cities to use rivers as giant urinals.</p><p>
When EPA implemented the CWA, EPA used an essential pollution test incorrect and while promising 85% treatment (secondary treatment) it in fact only demanded 85% of what the test measured, which is only 40% of the pollution EPA intended to treat.<br>
As the result EPA not only ignored a large portion of the pollution caused by fecal waste, but all the pollution caused by urine and protein waste.</p><p>
In stead of writing a letter regarding blending, members of Congress should hold EPA accountable for not implementing the CWA as intended and since the interim goal of the CWA was `swimmable and fishable' water by 1983, they also could ask EPA if rivers used as urinals are really considered swimmable?</br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by BlackBear Standing</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/boni-sewage/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:45:03 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/boni-sewage/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Human waste in Grand River, Michigan</strong></p><p>There has been a debate in Grand Rapids, Michigan for decades regarding what to do about sewage overflows into the Grand River. &nbsp;Every spring rain brings local news reporters to the river explaining the need to stay away from the water and the dangers of various bacteria. &nbsp;Last year a local tv reporter did a story on the ducks and gulls who were eating undigested corn washing up on the banks. &nbsp;The Grand River passes through Lansing, and flows west through Grand Rapids and then into Lake Michigan. &nbsp;Beach closures are common, especially near Grand Haven, Michigan where the river meets the &nbsp;big lake. From a citizen's perspective it seems that very little gets done about this, except that the state monitors coliform bacteria counts. &nbsp;Stupak certainly understands the threat to the Lakes and is wise to speak up. Thanks to Susan Boni for drawing attention to this matter.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Human waste in Grand River, Michigan</strong></p><p>There has been a debate in Grand Rapids, Michigan for decades regarding what to do about sewage overflows into the Grand River. &nbsp;Every spring rain brings local news reporters to the river explaining the need to stay away from the water and the dangers of various bacteria. &nbsp;Last year a local tv reporter did a story on the ducks and gulls who were eating undigested corn washing up on the banks. &nbsp;The Grand River passes through Lansing, and flows west through Grand Rapids and then into Lake Michigan. &nbsp;Beach closures are common, especially near Grand Haven, Michigan where the river meets the &nbsp;big lake. From a citizen's perspective it seems that very little gets done about this, except that the state monitors coliform bacteria counts. &nbsp;Stupak certainly understands the threat to the Lakes and is wise to speak up. Thanks to Susan Boni for drawing attention to this matter.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>