PDA

View Full Version : Why we need more environmental regulation and enforcement, not less. An example.



Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 08:06 AM
A half million people without safe water in Toledo and Lucas County Ohio. That's like a third world headline. . .

Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 08:12 AM
actually yesterday, they lifted the ban on bathing - as long as you take precautions against getting the water in your eyes, mouth, or nose. . .

John Smith
08-04-2014, 08:18 AM
I wonder when the masses are going to wake up and smell the water.

skuthorp
08-04-2014, 08:21 AM
What is the source of the water? River or reservoir?
There's a big disconnect here between gas mining companies and government on one hand, and the people who live and farm in the areas over pollution of the aquifers.

Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 08:30 AM
What is the source of the water?Lake Erie

Toledo is on the westernmost point of Lake Erie. as a minor point of information, I live about 50 miles northwest of Toledo as the crow flies.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Great_Lakes_1913_Storm_Shipwrecks.png

Arizona Bay
08-04-2014, 08:32 AM
To complicate matters, the EPA has no one in charge of the Water Dept.. The Reps have obstructed the appointment since 2011, and the temporary head has run up against the legal time limit. Meanwhile the Congress has gone on vacation. :rolleyes:


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/01/3466785/epa-water-kopocis-delayed/

Starting Friday, there is no one in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water (http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-water).As E&E News reports (http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060003838), the office has actually gone without a confirmed head since February 2011. In the interim, Assistant Administrator Nancy Stoner has served as acting head. But on Friday, she hit the legal limit on how long an unconfirmed leader can hold an office. The Obama Administration’s nominee to head the office is Ken Kopocis —a former Capitol Hill staffer (http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1059995646) personally respected by both sides — and has been in limbo for 1,148 days and counting.
~~~~~~

At issue is another rule change (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/27/3419633/new-protections-streams-wetlands/) issued by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Water back in March. Prior to 2001, EPA’s water office held wide power to regulate virtually all bodies of water under the Clean Water Act. But two Supreme Court decisions (http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/241520.pdf) in 2001 and 2006 threw the definitions of the Act’s language into doubt. That left isolated bodies of water like lakes, and other streams that only run intermittently or seasonally, in jurisdictional limbo. The uncertainty came with perverse results (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01water.html), as a lot of water pollution and a number of oil spills on land over the years went unpunished, because no one knew if the water bodies in question fell under the EPA water office’s authority.

Too Little Time
08-04-2014, 08:52 AM
To complicate matters, the EPA has no one in charge of the Water Dept.. The Reps have obstructed the appointment since 2011, and the temporary head has run up against the legal time limit. Meanwhile the Congress has gone on vacation.

Most of the EPA work including writing regulations is done by non-appointed employees.

The Lake is big and has algae blooms every year. Most of the time the blooms are not near the water intake of any city.

It is not a big deal.

peb
08-04-2014, 08:53 AM
Yup.... I don't know what might have happened, but I'm wiling to bet that, having been warned that agricultural runoff could quite possibly damage the water supply due to algae blooms, some corporate farmers angrily condemned the idea of environmental regulation as being 'anti-business'.



Looks like Republican obstructionism has a price. Unfortunately, the citizens of Toledo and nearby locations are the ones paying it.



So what is the problem? A need for additional regulation (as the first quote implies) or a lack of enforcement of existing regulations (as the second quote implies)?

Make up your mind.

Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 08:56 AM
It is not a big deal.

not to someone living in kittyhawk, north carolina
****, can't see it from my house. . .

Bubba L.
08-04-2014, 08:58 AM
Most of the EPA work including writing regulations is done by non-appointed employees.

The Lake is big and has algae blooms every year. Most of the time the blooms are not near the water intake of any city.

It is not a big deal.

Says the man with healthy drinking water.

Gene

Brian Palmer
08-04-2014, 09:08 AM
Most of the EPA work including writing regulations is done by non-appointed employees.

The Lake is big and has algae blooms every year. Most of the time the blooms are not near the water intake of any city.

It is not a big deal.


I don't think you get it.

No regulations can take effect unless they are signed by the Administrator (Gina McCarthy); before they can be signed by her, they need to clear the respective office (e.g., Air, Water, Solid Waste). Otherwise, they could be challenged on a technicality for being in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs how agencies like the EPA establish regulations under a governing statute, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act.

peb
08-04-2014, 09:10 AM
Yup.... I don't know what might have happened, but I'm wiling to bet that, having been warned that agricultural runoff could quite possibly damage the water supply due to algae blooms, some corporate farmers angrily condemned the idea of environmental regulation as being 'anti-business'.



How much are you willing to bet? Those big, bad "corporate farmers", ha. A little research indicates you would be wrong. The culprits are the everyday, common farmer (certainly bigger than in days past, and their business is likely incorporated, but that's a detail). The other culprit are the local towns and cities who send the output of their sewage treatment plants into the lake.

And with regards to your second post, the problem has been building for years, your blame of GOP obstructionism is clearly and simply political trolling.

LeeG
08-04-2014, 09:10 AM
So what is the problem? A need for additional regulation (as the first quote implies) or a lack of enforcement of existing regulations (as the second quote implies)?

Make up your mind.

Too much phosphorous running into the lake

Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 09:20 AM
How much are you willing to bet? Those big, bad "corporate farmers", ha. A little research indicates you would be wrong. Why don't we be honest and agree that 'corporate farmers' in this context mean a group of farmers, in Ohio, that grow either corn or soybeans almost exclusively, although there are some very large sod farms in ohio; and that these corn and soybean farmers all plant virtually the same seed and use the same pesticides and herbicides and fertilizing techniques, and that their harvest all goes to the same few processors. Would that be fair to say? Regardless of whether the farm is 100 acres or 5,000 acres?

But you have a worthwhile additional point, we need to do a better job of processing municipal sewage as well as regulating runoff from residential and commercial development - i.e. lawns. . .

Jim Mahan
08-04-2014, 09:21 AM
your blame of GOP obstructionism is clearly and simply political trolling

BS. Republican obstruction isn't a new thing; they've been f*cking us over for at least a hundred years. It's just that these days, it's even more blatant and egregious, and we have a lot more communications efforts to try and keep track of it and inform the moron base, low-information voters and the apathetic.
And the f>cking a@sholes keep it up saying they're trying to save America from all the damage done by liberals. Which is of course, horse hockey. None of the things the Dems have managed to pass have caused any damage to the country; but the nasty stuff the Reps have been pulling, especially lately, like shutting down the government, wrecking the economy of the world, causing The Great Recession, etc. have.

Osborne Russell
08-04-2014, 09:28 AM
Looks like Republican obstructionism has a price. Unfortunately, the citizens of Toledo and nearby locations are the ones paying it.

Private profits, social costs.

The "Great" Lakes, ha ha. Under American management.

Osborne Russell
08-04-2014, 09:36 AM
So what is the problem? A need for additional regulation (as the first quote implies) or a lack of enforcement of existing regulations (as the second quote implies)?

Make up your mind.

The hypothetical greedy pig corporate farmer condemning regulation is the obstructionist GOP.

The GOP wants to eliminate the EPA but will settle in the meantime for obstructing it, which they do, and you cannot deny it, and keep a shred of decency.

Why don't you call on the redneck patriot squads to go down to Lake Erie with their guns and tell the EPA they have no jurisdiction?

BrianY
08-04-2014, 09:38 AM
Oh don't worry about all of this stuff, you silly lilberals! As every good Libertarian ( and a lot of their conservative allies) knows, we don't need the EPA. The market will take care of everything! Farms and businesses that pollute the water will be forced to change their ways or go out of business because of market pressure form people who don't buy their products because they don't like the way the farms are operating. Government regulations are unnecessary and only lead to loss of jobs and restrictions of freedom and liberty. Free market capitalism is the soultion for all our woes!

Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 09:52 AM
90% of Ohio's agricultural acreage is outside the Lake Erie Basin/Watershed.So a mere 1.4 million acres of Ohio farms lie within the Lake Erie watershed then. . .

Too Little Time
08-04-2014, 09:58 AM
I don't think you get it.

No regulations can take effect unless they are signed by the Administrator (Gina McCarthy); before they can be signed by her, they need to clear the respective office (e.g., Air, Water, Solid Waste). Otherwise, they could be challenged on a technicality for being in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs how agencies like the EPA establish regulations under a governing statute, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act.

There are people in all of the necessary offices.

Perhaps you don't get it.

There is nothing that could have been done in the last year that would have prevented this. It is a long term issue. It is not like someone can approve a regulation today and the problem vanishes.

peb
08-04-2014, 10:01 AM
Why don't we be honest and agree that 'corporate farmers' in this context mean a group of farmers, in Ohio, that grow either corn or soybeans almost exclusively, although there are some very large sod farms in ohio; and that these corn and soybean farmers all plant virtually the same seed and use the same pesticides and herbicides and fertilizing techniques, and that their harvest all goes to the same few processors. Would that be fair to say? Regardless of whether the farm is 100 acres or 5,000 acres?

But you have a worthwhile additional point, we need to do a better job of processing municipal sewage as well as regulating runoff from residential and commercial development - i.e. lawns. . .

Yea, but that's not what Norman meant. The term corporate farm is used often enough on this forum such that it has a very clear meaning: very large farms, owned by corporation, which no connection to the traditional family farm, that have supposedly taken over modern agriculture.

As to the farmers who plant exclusively corn or soybeans: I cannot speak for that specifically in Ohio, as my extended family farmers are in other parts of the Midwest and in Texas. In general, soybeans and corn are a very good rotation, since corn used a large about of nitrogen and soybeans are a legume which add nitrates to the soil.

As to their harvests going to the same few processors, I doubt seriously that is the case. Yes there are a couple of very large corporations, ADM and Cargill come to mind, that process a large amount of our grain stock, there are lots and lots of smaller processors/consumers, whose total grain consumption dwarfs the few big companies. For example, ADM has a global capacity of 27 million Metric tons of corn processing annually. In the United States alone, there is 352 million Metric tons times that amount grown last year. Worldwide corn production is around 1 Billion metric tons. Yes, ADM takes up a large portion, but to say there are only a "few processors" is simply wrong.

I doubt seriously ADM has been spending its lobbying money arguing against proper use of phosphates in the soil.

Too Little Time
08-04-2014, 10:02 AM
not to someone living in kittyhawk, north carolina
****, can't see it from my house. . .

The problem is passed. Did anyone die? Did anyone loss their house in default? Are people raising funds to help out?

People deal with these problems that are associated with life everyday. There are people in the US with much more serious water problems. They deal with them.

The fires out west might be bigger problems. How about the flooding out West. People know haw to deal with stuff.

peb
08-04-2014, 10:06 AM
So a mere 1.4 million acres of Ohio farms lie within the Lake Erie watershed then. . .

Which means that there are 7400 of these greedy corporate farms in that watershed.

Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 10:10 AM
Yea, but that's not what Norman meant. The term corporate farm is used often enough on this forum such that it has a very clear meaning: very large farms, owned by corporation, which no connection to the traditional family farm, that have supposedly taken over modern agriculture.

As to the farmers who plant exclusively corn or soybeans: I cannot speak for that specifically in Ohio, as my extended family farmers are in other parts of the Midwest and in Texas. In general, soybeans and corn are a very good rotation, since corn used a large about of nitrogen and soybeans are a legume which add nitrates to the soil.

As to their harvests going to the same few processors, I doubt seriously that is the case. Yes there are a couple of very large corporations, ADM and Cargill come to mind, that process a large amount of our grain stock, there are lots and lots of smaller processors/consumers, whose total grain consumption dwarfs the few big companies. For example, ADM has a global capacity of 27 million Metric tons of corn processing annually. In the United States alone, there is 352 million Metric tons times that amount grown last year. Worldwide corn production is around 1 Billion metric tons. Yes, ADM takes up a large portion, but to say there are only a "few processors" is simply wrong.

I doubt seriously ADM has been spending its lobbying money arguing against proper use of phosphates in the soil.you make fair points, so i think i need to adjust the nomenclature to agri-industry and agri-industry practices

In fact, the farmers that raise corn and soybeans in the Lake Erie basin, all generally behave in very similar manner; up to and including their waste water runoff practices. Very few farmers, out of some sense of altruism, act beyond the letter of the law with regards to environ mental practices. They would be ridiculous to do so, and would place themselves at risk of not being profitable. And to say that the industry, doesn't fight environmental regulation would also be untrue. And they do so at all levels, from the seed processor to the harvest processor; as well as the individual farmers whether large or small family or corporate. . .

Brian Palmer
08-04-2014, 10:13 AM
There are people in all of the necessary offices.

Perhaps you don't get it.

There is nothing that could have been done in the last year that would have prevented this. It is a long term issue. It is not like someone can approve a regulation today and the problem vanishes.

What if the farmers that were fertilizing their fields in the Erie watershed (including all states and Canada) for the current growing season had cut back on their phosphorous applications?

Going forward, the EPA needs someone as head of the Office of Water to address this with a multi-state (and possibly international) regional solution so the same thing doesn't happen again next year.

Jim Mahan
08-04-2014, 10:18 AM
People deal with these problems that are associated with life everyday. ... People know haw to deal with stuff.

Since that's the case we don't need any government or any other organization with a dedicated goal of addressing issues or making or enforcing regulation because "people know how to deal with it." We don't need any progress at all then.

RodB
08-04-2014, 10:19 AM
Late comer.. it this an example of the EPA not doing something expressly under their list of responsibilities... yet they go after Obama targeted businesses to close them down for their carbon footprint.?

Isn't clean water way more important than some predicted hypothetical Catastrophic Global warming?

Just wondered.

RodB

peb
08-04-2014, 10:27 AM
Norman, traditional family farms do not often compete with large corporate farms, especially in the grain business. Large corporate farms operate in the dairy, poultry, somewhat pork, somewhat vegetable, and to a much lesser extent beef. The do NOT exist in grain production except for very large family operations (and these are on the order of 1000s of acres, not near the degree of giganticism you imagine to exist). The majority of agriculture is still done by the typical family farm. Not 40 acres and a mule; but 189 acres and a tractor (the average farm size in Ohio).

peb
08-04-2014, 10:40 AM
Traditional family farms compete with large corporate farms, and are compelled, for competitive reasons, to follow similar agricultural practices

From USDA website

Large corporations do little farming directly

So you now understand why you are wrong in your assumptions about the agricultural business.

BrianY
08-04-2014, 10:41 AM
Isn't clean water way more important than some predicted hypothetical Catastrophic Global warming?

Just wondered.

RodB

If the "predicted hypothetical Catastophic Global warming" comes to pass, clean water will be among the least of our problems.

Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 10:42 AM
do asian carp eat algae?

John Smith
08-04-2014, 10:45 AM
Looks like Republican obstructionism has a price. Unfortunately, the citizens of Toledo and nearby locations are the ones paying it.

And the right wing media is telling them this is Obama's fault, no doubt.

peb
08-04-2014, 10:46 AM
you make fair points, so i think i need to adjust the nomenclature to agri-industry and agri-industry practices

In fact, the farmers that raise corn and soybeans in the Lake Erie basin, all generally behave in very similar manner; up to and including their waste water runoff practices. Very few farmers, out of some sense of altruism, act beyond the letter of the law with regards to environ mental practices. They would be ridiculous to do so, and would place themselves at risk of not being profitable. And to say that the industry, doesn't fight environmental regulation would also be untrue. And they do so at all levels, from the seed processor to the harvest processor; as well as the individual farmers whether large or small family or corporate. . .

It is my experience that farmer lobbyist groups have environmental regulations way down on their priority list. Been to corn growers association meetings, don't ever remember these issues coming up. Been to Cattlemen association meetings, ditto. That was years and years ago, but a quick glance of the issues briefing on the Corn Growers Association website shows no agenda at all for fighting any environmental regulations.

And farmers don't worry about the "letter of the law' with regards to environmental regulations, they likely don't even know what the laws are. They buy and apply chemicals that are needed and available for sale and apply them according to instructions and industry practices. The regulations occur with the sale/manufacturing and at the application directions.

Yea, there are some exceptions, where farmers know they have to do one thing or another, but in general they don't have to concern themselves too much with it.

John Smith
08-04-2014, 10:48 AM
Why don't we be honest and agree that 'corporate farmers' in this context mean a group of farmers, in Ohio, that grow either corn or soybeans almost exclusively, although there are some very large sod farms in ohio; and that these corn and soybean farmers all plant virtually the same seed and use the same pesticides and herbicides and fertilizing techniques, and that their harvest all goes to the same few processors. Would that be fair to say? Regardless of whether the farm is 100 acres or 5,000 acres?

But you have a worthwhile additional point, we need to do a better job of processing municipal sewage as well as regulating runoff from residential and commercial development - i.e. lawns. . .

I don't understand why anyone would be against any regulations that protect our water.

LeeG
08-04-2014, 10:49 AM
I doubt seriously ADM has been spending its lobbying money arguing against proper use of phosphates in the soil.

I seriously doubt ADM would support legislation that reduces downstream pollution if it had any potential to reduce investor return.

John Smith
08-04-2014, 10:53 AM
Late comer.. it this an example of the EPA not doing something expressly under their list of responsibilities... yet they go after Obama targeted businesses to close them down for their carbon footprint.?

Isn't clean water way more important than some predicted hypothetical Catastrophic Global warming?

Just wondered.

RodB

Hasn't an awful lot of water been damaged by leaking oil/gas, or coal ash? Are all these things not related?

peb
08-04-2014, 10:59 AM
I seriously doubt ADM would support legislation that reduces downstream pollution if it had any potential to reduce investor return.

Which in no ways changes my statement. I doubt ADM has been lobbying against the proper use of phosphates in the soil. They care about yields, as low grain prices benefits them, especially their ethonal business. But they probably do not see changes in phosphate application procedures as affecting yields that much, and they really don't care about farmer's profitability.

I am open to suggestions as who might be the case of delay in phosphate fertilizer regulations, but all this thread has done so far is speculate about the typical big-bad-boogey-men. No one has even attempted to provide one iota of evidence.

peb
08-04-2014, 11:00 AM
Selective quotation:



If 'family farms' are under contract to large agricultural businesses, you can bet that their practices will have to result in the kind of yields and costs that their contracts call for.
It was selective quotation because you had specificall referred to corporate farms and corporate farming practices, yet then you post that corporations don't farm.

Bubba L.
08-04-2014, 11:00 AM
The problem is passed. Did anyone die? Did anyone loss their house in default? Are people raising funds to help out?

People deal with these problems that are associated with life everyday. There are people in the US with much more serious water problems. They deal with them.

The fires out west might be bigger problems. How about the flooding out West. People know haw to deal with stuff.

The problem is only over till the next time. When will we address this issue in a manner that takes the future into account.

Gene

bobbys
08-04-2014, 11:00 AM
July 7, 2010: An Environmental Protection Agency worker looks at oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill which seeped into a marsh in Waveland, Mississippi.Reuters
More than a dozen Republican lawmakers are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider asserting regulatory authority over streams and wetlands amid intense backlash from farm groups over the agency's proposed water rule.


In a letter Thursday, the GOP senators faulted the EPA for announcing a proposed rule last week before the government's peer-reviewed scientific assessment was fully complete. They are calling on the government to withdraw the rule or give the public six months to review it, rather than the three months being provided.




ADVERTISEMENT
The senators' move puts them among several groups -- from farmers and land developers to Western governors worried about drought management -- in expressing concern about a long-running and heavily litigated environmental issue involving the Clean Water Act that has invoked economic interests, states' rights and presidential power.


The letter was led by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and signed by 14 other GOP senators.


"We believe that this proposal will negatively impact economic growth by adding an additional layer of red tape to countless activities that are already sufficiently regulated by state and local governments," the letter to EPA chief Gina McCarthy said.


Meanwhile, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, introduced appropriations language this week aimed at blocking the rule entirely. The proposed language states that "no funds shall be appropriated to study, promote, advertise, implement or otherwise promulgate" the rule.


“This new rule is another power grab by [President] Obama. This is a brazen attempt to impose a radical redefinition specifically rejected by Congress and the Supreme Court,” Stockman said in a statement. "Green radicals have tried for decades to pass this redefinition by law, but it was too radical to pass even a Democrat-controlled Congress."


Alisha Johnson, the EPA's deputy associate administrator for external affairs and environmental education, said the EPA's draft scientific assessment, used to inform the proposed rule, was being reviewed and wouldn't be complete until the end of this year or early next year. The EPA rule will not be finalized until the scientific assessment is fully complete, and will take into account public comments, she said.


The proposal would apply pollution regulations to the country's so-called "intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands" -- which are created during wet seasons, or simply after it rains, but are temporary.


At issue is the federal Clean Water Act, which gives the EPA authority to regulate "U.S. waters." Two Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 limited regulators' reach, but left unclear the scope of authority over small waterways that might flow intermittently.


Landowners and developers say the government has gone too far in regulating isolated ponds or marshes with no direct connection to navigable waterways.


Some 36 states, including Pennsylvania, have legal limitations that prevent the EPA from regulating waters not covered by the Clean Water Act, according to the Environmental Law Institute.


Tile drainage systems would not be regulated and there would be no new requirements for irrigation and drainage ditches. Exemptions already granted for farming activities would continue and 53 agricultural conservation practices would be added to the list.


But farmers who receive exemptions must also engage in an ongoing conversion practice that complies with Natural Resources Conservation Services standards, according to Stockman.


“Once the landowner completes the conservation practice or changes the use of his land, he loses his EPA exemption and must now comply with a new, and more complex, set of rules,” Stockman said. "In other words, the only way a farmer or rancher can exempt himself from the EPA rule is to adhere to a mountain of other new federal rules."


Criticizing the proposal as a "serious threat" to farmers, the American Farm Bureau Federation said Wednesday that the rule would impose new regulatory burdens on farmers, ranchers and other landowners and give the agency veto power over a farmer’s ability to work.


"This is not just about the paperwork of getting a permit to farm, or even about having farming practices regulated. The fact is there is no legal right to a Clean Water Act permit—if farming or ranching activities need a permit, [the] EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers can deny that permit," the group said in a statement.


The proposed regulation, broadly supported by environmental groups, has become a charged political issue in a midterm election year where President Obama has pledged to use his executive power as needed to push through environmental and climate change protections.


"It's the most breathtaking power grab I've seen in a long time, and they wonder why the economy is so weak," Toomey said in a Philadelphia radio interview this week.


Still, the issue is not divided strictly along partisan lines.


The proposed rule has drawn the concern of Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, chair of the Western Governors Association. He has warned federal officials that the rule change could impinge upon state authority in water management and that states should be consulted in the EPA decision-making. In recent years, Hickenlooper has urged the Obama administration to speed approval of water projects because of a looming water supply gap in Colorado.


The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Bubba L.
08-04-2014, 11:01 AM
I don't understand why anyone would be against any regulations that protect our water.

Profit.

Gene

Too Little Time
08-04-2014, 11:08 AM
Since that's the case we don't need any government or any other organization with a dedicated goal of addressing issues or making or enforcing regulation because "people know how to deal with it." We don't need any progress at all then.

I never said or implied that. I am not the drama queen that many here are.

Toledo does not have the same water problems that third world areas have. It is not even clear that any EPA regulations will prevent minor algea blooms. Global warming might be a larger driver.

pipefitter
08-04-2014, 11:08 AM
How much of this corn is used for ethanol production? I remember some concerns of removing the pollution from one element of the environment, would just cause it to occur, or worse, be concentrated elsewhere.

No, this is not an attempt at a typical WBF gotcha because I really haven't followed the issue. It's just after being stuck for 15 mins or more at RR crossings frequently, of what amounts to hundreds of RR tankers full of ethanol for the fuel industry, I often wonder how much corn it took to fill those cars.

peb
08-04-2014, 11:09 AM
I don't understand why anyone would be against any regulations that protect our water.

And we will all continue to not understand until we know what specific regulations have been proposed and who has been fighting them. From what I can tell, the answer is none and no one. Its all pure speculation on the part of WBF members.

peb
08-04-2014, 11:10 AM
How much of this corn is used for ethanol production? I remember some concerns of removing the pollution from one element of the environment, would just cause it to occur, or worse, be concentrated elsewhere.

No, this is not an attempt at a typical WBF gotcha because I really haven't followed the issue. It's just after being stuck for 15 mins or more at RR crossings frequently, of what amounts to hundreds of RR tankers full of ethanol for the fuel industry, I often wonder how much corn it took to fill those cars.
Way to dang much. Our corn ethonal policy is literally one of the stupidest government policies to ever come down the pike.

Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 11:11 AM
And farmers don't worry about the "letter of the law' with regards to environmental regulations, they likely don't even know what the laws are. They buy and apply chemicals that are needed and available for sale and apply them according to instructions and industry practices. The regulations occur with the sale/manufacturing and at the application directions.That's my point.

Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 11:15 AM
How much of this corn is used for ethanol production? I remember some concerns of removing the pollution from one element of the environment, would just cause it to occur, or worse, be concentrated elsewhere.

No, this is not an attempt at a typical WBF gotcha because I really haven't followed the issue. It's just after being stuck for 15 mins or more at RR crossings frequently, of what amounts to hundreds of RR tankers full of ethanol for the fuel industry, I often wonder how much corn it took to fill those cars.

Corn to ethanol is particularly stupid; its not profitable without tax payer subsidies, it increases the price of food everywhere in the world, and carbon intensive in its production and is not particularly clean burning. It offers no societal benefits.

hokiefan
08-04-2014, 11:16 AM
How much of this corn is used for ethanol production? I remember some concerns of removing the pollution from one element of the environment, would just cause it to occur, or worse, be concentrated elsewhere.

No, this is not an attempt at a typical WBF gotcha because I really haven't followed the issue. It's just after being stuck for 15 mins or more at RR crossings frequently, of what amounts to hundreds of RR tankers full of ethanol for the fuel industry, I often wonder how much corn it took to fill those cars.

I've heard numbers in the 40% range. A quick google found this article which states 38% in 2010, but I haven't done any digging to verify its sources, etc.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1677979/ethanol-clean-fuel-expensive-food


Way to dang much. Our corn ethonal policy is literally one of the stupidest government policies to ever come down the pike.

I agree 100%

Cheers,

Bobby

Jim Mahan
08-04-2014, 12:29 PM
Corn to ethanol is particularly stupid; its not profitable without tax payer subsidies, it increases the price of food everywhere in the world, and carbon intensive in its production and is not particularly clean burning. It offers no societal benefits.

It keeps the profit churning to the top.

Makes me think of another version of the future dystopian end of the Earth: Since the one percenters more than anyone else will be in a position to afford whatever measures will keep them from experiencing the travails they've so callously driven the rest of us to, they will insulated as the rest of us who are poorer can't afford those same measures. As the catastrophe snowballs and things that are now very near a tipping point are by then significantly into the range of orders of magnitude of new normal horrors, the less well off will start dropping like flies. As whole systems of human endeavor the world over succumb to failure after catastrophic failure, and the population dies, first in droves and then in thousands, eventually millions, and then with disease and other forms of physical deterioration escalate faster than anyone can comprehend, and everyone is absolutely powerless to do anything worthwhile. Meantime the fabulously wealthy are beginning to leave the beach resorts and begin holing up in the hills around Gstaad or Vale.
When finally, it begins to dawn on them that, even while they continue to remain rich and isolated, the end is near for them, too. And now they get it. They were so selfish, greedy, and stupid and arrogant they couldn't stop killing the entire planet's inhabitants.

Boy, I sure hope that doesn't happen. Pretty grim. OH, wait...

LeeG
08-04-2014, 01:15 PM
Corn to ethanol is particularly stupid; its not profitable without tax payer subsidies, it increases the price of food everywhere in the world, and carbon intensive in its production and is not particularly clean burning. It offers no societal benefits.

Another way the American gets subsidized fuel.

wardd
08-04-2014, 02:21 PM
Hasn't an awful lot of water been damaged by leaking oil/gas, or coal ash? Are all these things not related?

a lot but not enough

John Smith
08-04-2014, 03:19 PM
And we will all continue to not understand until we know what specific regulations have been proposed and who has been fighting them. From what I can tell, the answer is none and no one. Its all pure speculation on the part of WBF members.

I disagree. I've seen a great deal of pollution of water in my lifetime. I've seen EPA rules lead to some of that water once again allowing fish to survive. I remember the river catching fire that forced the EPA into being.

I am tired of fellow citizens telling me we don't need to regulate energy companies to keep our water clean or banks to keep our economy working. I've seen what too little regulation can do.

This specific thread is about algae. My friend in Bloomfield tells me his town got a warning a couple of weeks ago to not drink the water until further notice, which was three days later.

Isn't it great that our government is actually monitoring our city water supplies? Isn't it great that the people impacted by the water problem in the OP were made aware of it?

I believe there are people who would rather residents simply get sick or die than be warned. I cannot understand those people.

hokiefan
08-04-2014, 04:10 PM
I disagree. I've seen a great deal of pollution of water in my lifetime. I've seen EPA rules lead to some of that water once again allowing fish to survive. I remember the river catching fire that forced the EPA into being.

I am tired of fellow citizens telling me we don't need to regulate energy companies to keep our water clean or banks to keep our economy working. I've seen what too little regulation can do.

This specific thread is about algae. My friend in Bloomfield tells me his town got a warning a couple of weeks ago to not drink the water until further notice, which was three days later.

Isn't it great that our government is actually monitoring our city water supplies? Isn't it great that the people impacted by the water problem in the OP were made aware of it?

I believe there are people who would rather residents simply get sick or die than be warned. I cannot understand those people.

I don't think peb's statement meant what you think it meant.

Cheers,

Bobby

Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 04:48 PM
90% of Ohio's agricultural acreage is outside the Lake Erie Basin/Watershed.

The vast bulk of Lake Erie's phosphorus and other nutrients come from sewage provided by cities along the lake, as well as the Detroit River. Agricultural phosphorus comes from the entire Lake Erie Watershed, which extends well into Michigan and Canada, with smaller amounts coming from Indiana, New York and Pennsylvania.

Make no mistake, the primary contributor to this and other algae blooms in Lake Erie, is agricultural runoff, mostly phosphorous, and mostly from the states of Ohio and Indiana.

link to NPR coverage (http://www.npr.org/2014/08/04/337842930/toledo-escapes-the-looming-bloom-turns-its-taps-back-on)

and here

link to the Wall Street Journal coverage (http://online.wsj.com/articles/algae-blooms-making-toledo-water-undrinkable-are-thriving-1407107871)

CWSmith
08-04-2014, 05:02 PM
do asian carp eat algae?


"Asian carp eat a lot. One species, the Grass carp, can eat up to 40% of its body weight (http://asiancarp.org/Documents/AsianCarp.pdf) in plants every day. The other three species consume up to 20% of their body weight daily (http://asiancarp.org/faq.asp#4). They can reach a maximum weight of 110 pounds (although the average is closer to 50). Bighead (http://www.nps.gov/miss/naturescience/ascarp_bighead.htm) and silver carp (http://www.nps.gov/miss/naturescience/ascarp_silver.htm) eat plankton, which native mussels and young native fish depend on. Grass carp (http://www.nps.gov/miss/naturescience/ascarp_grass.htm) consume plants, and can drastically change river and shoreline vegetation. Black carp (http://www.nps.gov/miss/naturescience/ascarp_black.htm) have human-like molars and eat snails and mussels, including native species that are already endangered. When the amount of plants, mussels, and plankton are lower in our lakes and rivers, the ecosystem becomes unbalanced and our native species that depend on these food sources suffer."


They are a nuisance species and highly invasive. There is a hybrid form that is sterile and I looked into it some years ago to clean out algae and duck weed from my pond. It was strongly discouraged and I believe I was told there are better ways.

S/V Laura Ellen
08-04-2014, 05:03 PM
It is worth noting Lake Erie also receives nutrients from the drainage watersheds of Lake's Superior, Huron and St. Clair. Lake Erie Drainage Basin:

You forgot Lake Michigan.

Paul Pless
08-04-2014, 05:04 PM
They are a nuisance species and highly invasive. There is a hybrid form that is sterile and I looked into it some years ago to clean out algae and duck weed from my pond. It was strongly discouraged and I believe I was told there are better ways.

i was being facetious, much of lake erie's cleanup has been attributed to another invasive species - the zebra mussel. . .

CWSmith
08-04-2014, 05:12 PM
do asian carp eat algae?


i was being facetious, much of lake erie's cleanup has been attributed to another invasive species - the zebra mussel. . .

Sorry. Tropical fish and koi are my indoor hobby. The pond remains a problem.