<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Water safety rules will be more lax in rural areas]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/bush-vs-rural-america/ Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:48:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/bush-vs-rural-america/1 Bush v. rural

Carl Pope makes a good point:"We're taking the position both public health protection and affordability can be achieved together," Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Water, told the Washington Post: "When you're looking at small communities, oftentimes they cannot comply with the [current] standard." Well, both large and small communities often can't afford many public safety basics -- New Orleans certainly couldn't build its own levees. That, in part, is why we have a national government.

www.grist.org

]]> Bush v. rural

Carl Pope makes a good point:"We're taking the position both public health protection and affordability can be achieved together," Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Water, told the Washington Post: "When you're looking at small communities, oftentimes they cannot comply with the [current] standard." Well, both large and small communities often can't afford many public safety basics -- New Orleans certainly couldn't build its own levees. That, in part, is why we have a national government.

www.grist.org

]]> Comment #2 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/bush-vs-rural-america/ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 02:26:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/bush-vs-rural-america/2 Yep Carl.

The traditional conservative POV comes into play when the administration wants to cut spending (like subsidies to rural areas) and regulation, then the neoconservative POV comes to the fore when they want to outsource everything the government does to contractors, which is what has this debt soaring out of control.

The old Reagan revolution saw is that government is inefficient, so let's save money by hiring contractors.  But for some reason that results in a huge increase in deficits, go figure.  

400k per year to Black Water Security for one (contract) soldier versus 30k for one regular soldier.  A couple years back there were 20,000 contract soldiers, how many are there now?

Another interesting point.  Since oil and gas leases have been negotiated at giveaway prices for bushco  oil industry cronies, where is the money coming from to fix the loss of groundwater?  

And since contaminated groundwater is practically unfixable, isn't it worth more in the long run than sgort term profits for these cronies of the administration?  

Water, the oil of this century.  Oil companies and agribizz interests are using it up by polluting it.  Then they will turn around and charge US to clean it up someday so we can drink it?  Using fossil and nuclear power no doubt.

The contractors with america and their shills in government, the enemy from within that is destroying this nation.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Yep Carl.

The traditional conservative POV comes into play when the administration wants to cut spending (like subsidies to rural areas) and regulation, then the neoconservative POV comes to the fore when they want to outsource everything the government does to contractors, which is what has this debt soaring out of control.

The old Reagan revolution saw is that government is inefficient, so let's save money by hiring contractors.  But for some reason that results in a huge increase in deficits, go figure.  

400k per year to Black Water Security for one (contract) soldier versus 30k for one regular soldier.  A couple years back there were 20,000 contract soldiers, how many are there now?

Another interesting point.  Since oil and gas leases have been negotiated at giveaway prices for bushco  oil industry cronies, where is the money coming from to fix the loss of groundwater?  

And since contaminated groundwater is practically unfixable, isn't it worth more in the long run than sgort term profits for these cronies of the administration?  

Water, the oil of this century.  Oil companies and agribizz interests are using it up by polluting it.  Then they will turn around and charge US to clean it up someday so we can drink it?  Using fossil and nuclear power no doubt.

The contractors with america and their shills in government, the enemy from within that is destroying this nation.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #3 by jsmoller http://www.grist.org/article/bush-vs-rural-america/ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:17:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/bush-vs-rural-america/3 Arsenic regulation not affected by EPA proposal

While EPA has proposed to revise the method by which drinking water regulations are deemed affordable for small communities, the proposed revisions would not affect current regulations, like the 10 part per billion (ppb) arsenic standard.

Future regulations would be impacted by any changes to this "affordability methodology." More information can be found on EPA's website - http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsys/affordability.html - including a link to provide comment on the proposal.

EPA is committed to protecting the public from exposure to arsenic in drinking water. Resources can be found at this URL - http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic - including information on sources of funding for small communities.

Jennifer Moller
Environmental Scientist
US Environmental Protection Agency
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_IjPje55QIn').innerHTML = output; //]]>


]]> Arsenic regulation not affected by EPA proposal

While EPA has proposed to revise the method by which drinking water regulations are deemed affordable for small communities, the proposed revisions would not affect current regulations, like the 10 part per billion (ppb) arsenic standard.

Future regulations would be impacted by any changes to this "affordability methodology." More information can be found on EPA's website - http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsys/affordability.html - including a link to provide comment on the proposal.

EPA is committed to protecting the public from exposure to arsenic in drinking water. Resources can be found at this URL - http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic - including information on sources of funding for small communities.

Jennifer Moller
Environmental Scientist
US Environmental Protection Agency
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_IjPje55QIn').innerHTML = output; //]]>


]]> Comment #4 by heatdeath http://www.grist.org/article/bush-vs-rural-america/ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:52:25 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/bush-vs-rural-america/4 RE: Arsenic regulation not affected by EPA prop

Ms. Moller - Perhaps you could explain how lowering the standard for how a variance is allowed does not affect that regulation?  That's not clear to me from your comments or from the EPA site.

You imply that the 10 ppb standard is not affected, but what exactly does a variance mean then?  It seems to mean that a city will not have to meet the 10 ppb standard in their drinking water if it is determined to not be affordable.

Witold

]]> RE: Arsenic regulation not affected by EPA prop

Ms. Moller - Perhaps you could explain how lowering the standard for how a variance is allowed does not affect that regulation?  That's not clear to me from your comments or from the EPA site.

You imply that the 10 ppb standard is not affected, but what exactly does a variance mean then?  It seems to mean that a city will not have to meet the 10 ppb standard in their drinking water if it is determined to not be affordable.

Witold

]]>