A chemical spill along a West Virginia river on Thursday triggered a tap water ban for up to 300,000 people, shutting down schools, bars and restaurants and forcing residents to line up for bottled water at stores.Why did this Happen? Because ……… Freedumb!
Governor Earl Ray Tomblin declared a state of emergency for nine counties following the spill of 4-Methylcyclohexane Methanol, a chemical used in the coal industry.
The spill occurred on the Elk River in Charleston, West Virginia's capital and largest city, just upriver from the eastern U.S. state's largest water treatment plant.
Today, at the time they were shutting off water for all those people, the House of Representatives voted to gut the Superfund act.
Why, Because ……… Freedumb!
The House passed legislation Thursday aimed at easing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules and requiring more cooperation between the EPA and states on environmental cleanup projects.Why are they doing such a stupid thing, and why are they doing it on the day of what looks to be one of the worst chemical spills?
Members voted 225-188 in favor of the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act, H.R. 2279. The bill is made up of three Republican bills that were combined together, and it includes some provisions that House Democrats found unobjectionable while they were considered in committee.
The bill was supported by just five Democrats in the final vote, while four Republicans voted against it.
Specifically, it removes a requirement that the EPA revise solid waste disposal regulations every three years, and prohibits the government from imposing solid waste regulations on states that overlap current state-wide rules.
Other language in the bill would require all federally owned facilities to comply with state rules on hazardous substances, and require the government to consult more closely with states before imposing cleanup requirements under Superfund, the federal program that funds the cleanup of abandoned waste sites.
The legislation would also ensure that if a state has rules requiring companies in polluting industries to post a bond or offer other financial sureties for possible cleanup costs, those rules cannot be affected by possible rules the EPA might develop in the future.
………
But several Democrats criticized the legislation as an attempt to weaken current law. Many argued that the bonding language would let companies avoid the cost of cleaning up pollution, and pass those costs onto taxpayers.
"The outcome of enacting this bill should be obvious," said House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). "If polluters don't pay to clean up their pollution, then it just becomes one more burden to the taxpayer, and none of us should want that."
Others argued that the bill could further confuse how the federal government and the states must work together on clean-up efforts, which could slow down that process. That argument was also made by the Obama administration earlier this week, in a statement saying President Obama would veto the bill.
"H.R. 2279 would unnecessarily increase the potential for litigation between the Federal government and the States, negatively impacting the timeliness and number of cleanups," the White House wrote.
Because ……… Freedumb!
Un-Dirtyword, Believable
0 comments :
Post a Comment