Hunting Fishing Discussions

Featured Outdoor Businesses

Fireside Inn & Suites
Devils Lake, ND


Share on Facebook subscribe feed
11 Replies | Page 1 of 11 | Top of Page | Bottom of Page

Where will Obama side on mud puddles?

by , Posted to on 01/25/2012 4:05 PM | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 10/27/2004
Location: ND
 
byDavid Freddoso Online Opinion Editor
On the day of his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama walks from the Oval Office along the Colonnade of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2012. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

If jobs are on President Obama's mind, he should care about the U.S. logging industry. In 46 of the 50 states, forestry ranks in the top 10 manufacturing industries. It employs about 2.5 million Americans and pays $87 billion in wages annually. Its annual sales are $230 billion, including exports of roughly $35 billion.

Those jobs and that revenue now face a man-made crisis -- more specifically, a Big Green environmentalist-made crisis. Obama's administration could weigh in on either side.

For 35 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has understood silviculture -- the act of harvesting trees, as opposed to processing them -- to be an agricultural activity, not a manufacturing one. The distinction is vital because of particulars in the Clean Water Act. Runoff from "point-source" manufacturing facilities (including saw mills) is closely regulated. Permits are required, and an involved monitoring and remediation process is prescribed.

On the other hand, the "natural runoff" from forest roads -- basically mud puddles that accumulate in ditches -- has never required such permits or monitoring. It is cared for through what is known as "best management practices."

But in the case Georgia-Pacific West Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals turned this long-standing rule on its head. The court said that the EPA has been misinterpreting its own rules for 35 years, and that, in fact, forest roads must be regulated in similar fashion to factories and power plants.

The Ninth Circuit decision, if upheld, would crush forestry in the Pacific Northwest. As Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon put it, "One court would shut down forestry on private, state and tribal lands by subjecting it to the same, endless cycle of litigation."

The many millions of dollars needed to obtain EPA permits ($160 million in Washington state alone) are actually the easy part. The hard part begins with the monitoring and remediation of mud puddles along tens of thousands of miles of forest roads.

It ends in the courtroom, where the Clean Water Act's citizen lawsuit provision would allow anyone to drag foresters, landowners or local governments any time a puddle is improperly neglected.

The Clean Water Act has historically empowered well-funded Big Green environmental groups to tie up industrial activity in court. Other provisions of federal law force taxpayers to pay them any time they succeed.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling could empower them to shut down entire forests and many livelihoods. Imagine trying to do business, knowing that at any moment, a well-funded group of litigious environmentalists -- like the plaintiffs in this case -- could shut you down.

Georgia-Pacific is headed to the Supreme Court, which will decide in June whether to hear it. It has asked Obama's solicitor general for his position.

So far in the litigation process, the Obama EPA and Justice Department have sided with the industry, adhering to the traditional, 35-year-old interpretation of EPA rules. But in its most recent brief, the federal government's lawyers included a curious passage that has caused a small panic among the logging industry's legal team.

It essentially asserts that EPA has never before officially stated its decades-old position in writing, that runoff collected in man-made roadside ditches counts as "natural runoff."

Tim Bishop, the attorney who will argue the case before the Supreme Court if it receives a hearing, told me this statement is factually false, and that it nearly disowns the position that EPA has always taken.

"They seem to be backing off," he said.

Is Obama preparing to ditch another decades-old precedent, as he did with the rules concerning union elections in the airline industry? Might he side with his Big Green environmentalist political allies once again, as he did with the Keystone XL pipeline, and thus sacrifice large numbers of private-sector jobs that cost taxpayers nothing?

We should know the answer within a few weeks.

David Freddoso is The Examiner's online opinion editor. He can be reached at dfreddoso@washingtonexaminer.com.


"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."
“You can roll manure in powered sugar but it still ain’t a jelly donut”

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent



Re: Where will Obama side on mud puddles?
by on 01/25/2012 4:09 PM | Reply #1 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 08/12/2003
Location: ND
 
cynical Said:

Where will Obama side on mud puddles?

The same side nearly every politician sides on nearly every issue, with whomever offers him the most $$ to "See things their way".
..............THIS SPACE FOR RENT..............
Re: Where will Obama side on mud puddles?
by on 01/25/2012 6:38 PM | Reply #2 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 07/04/2009
Location: ND
Horsager,I don't think Ron Paul is for sale.He the man we need in the WH !!!!!!!!
KENNYBOB IS BACK!!!
Re: Where will Obama side on mud puddles?
by on 01/25/2012 8:40 PM | Reply #3 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 11/06/2002
Location: ND
kkollman Said:
Horsager,I don't think Ron Paul is for sale.He the man we need in the WH !!!!!!!!
Is that why SC,NH, and IA have all relegated him to a second or lower point in the primary?

In regards to this issue, remember it is the 9th which is the most overturned court!
In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!
Re: Where will Obama side on mud puddles?
by on 01/25/2012 8:56 PM | Reply #4 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 01/30/2004
Location: SD
The 9th Circut (aka California) is kinda known for making bad or weird court decisions and then being overturned by another court.  You never know what comes out of there.
Re: Where will Obama side on mud puddles?
by on 01/25/2012 9:32 PM | Reply #5 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 10/27/2004
Location: ND
hoagie Said:
The 9th Circut (aka California) is kinda known for making bad or weird court decisions and then being overturned by another court.  You never know what comes out of there.
It is called "The 9th Circus Court of Appeals"

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."
“You can roll manure in powered sugar but it still ain’t a jelly donut”

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent



Re: Where will Obama side on mud puddles?
by on 01/25/2012 11:39 PM | Reply #6 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 08/12/2003
Location: ND
 
kkollman Said:
Horsager,I don't think Ron Paul is for sale.He the man we need in the WH !!!!!!!!

There'd be a whole rash of folk who wouldn't have a clue what to do if we had a POTUS that made everyone follow all the rules that are currently in place.
..............THIS SPACE FOR RENT..............
Re: Where will Obama side on mud puddles?
by on 01/26/2012 01:23 AM | Reply #7 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 05/04/2005
Location: ND
Our society is becoming more stupid everyday. If environmentalists had it their way we'd still be living in caves but not allowed to hunt and live off peanut butter. Also, our ladies would be roaming around with hairy armpits and legs. These people make me want to puke.

I seriously cannot believe the stuff we are forced to tolerate.


This is my BOOMSTICK!!!

Re: Where will Obama side on mud puddles?
by on 01/26/2012 06:49 AM | Reply #8 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 01/09/2002
Location: ND
Anyone that actually believes this is about a "mud puddle" is being confused by the issue. 

Tough to believe that on a website called Fishing anything the real problem hasn't already been discussed.  It's not the random mud puddle in the middle of the road, it's the muddied up trout streams that come from pi$$poorly built roads and the clear cutting of the forest to where the soil becomes mobilized during a rain.  That's the real environmental problem and it's been known about for a really, really, long time.

Hell, any dummy that fishes the Missouri River knows full and well that the fishing gets poor immediately after a big rain and the river muds up.  The reason the fishing becomes poor isn't because the fish aren't there, it's because they go inactive.  Trout are even more sensitive than walleye and the longer the stream is mucked up after a rain, the poorer the trout do in those streams in the long term. 

Construction sites (point sources) have been required to do things to control soil movement off their site for years now.  Who on here really thinks that's a bad idea?
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain
Re: Where will Obama side on mud puddles?
by on 01/26/2012 07:32 AM | Reply #9 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 10/27/2004
Location: ND
Allen Said:
Anyone that actually believes this is about a "mud puddle" is being confused by the issue. 

Tough to believe that on a website called Fishing anything the real problem hasn't already been discussed.  It's not the random mud puddle in the middle of the road, it's the muddied up trout streams that come from pi$$poorly built roads and the clear cutting of the forest to where the soil becomes mobilized during a rain.  That's the real environmental problem and it's been known about for a really, really, long time.

Hell, any dummy that fishes the Missouri River knows full and well that the fishing gets poor immediately after a big rain and the river muds up.  The reason the fishing becomes poor isn't because the fish aren't there, it's because they go inactive.  Trout are even more sensitive than walleye and the longer the stream is mucked up after a rain, the poorer the trout do in those streams in the long term. 

Construction sites (point sources) have been required to do things to control soil movement off their site for years now.  Who on here really thinks that's a bad idea?

I think you are missing the point.   Erosion control is one thing but you know damn well the "environmentalists" will go so above and beyond reasonable erosion control as to get to their desired end result....meaning shutting down whatever industry/activity they target.   Logging, feedlots, mining etc...   It's always a dog fight with them by design.  Lots and lots of legal wrangling to line their buddies pockets.

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."
“You can roll manure in powered sugar but it still ain’t a jelly donut”

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent



Re: Where will Obama side on mud puddles?
by on 01/26/2012 07:57 AM | Reply #10 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 06/19/2003
Location: ND
The problem is there are radicals on both sides.  We are caught in the middle.  Unfortunately the average person doesn't believe anything from either side anymore.  Look at the term used here "environmentalist" as if it were a nut job.  Real environmentalist study the environment, look for problems, then look for solutions.  Wack job pseudo -environmentalists are politically driven, not biologically, or environmentally driven.  I think 95% of us on here are true environmentalist, even the ones knocking the "environmentaists".
I look at EPA like I look at the unions.  A good thing gone bad.  Liberals have latched on to the EPA and use it like a club.  One of the things that makes us all doubt "pseudo-environmentalists" is the false data behind global warming.  The liberals using that as a club have destroyed the legitimacy of real scientists unfortunately. 

Watch the following posts and you will know the other side of the spectrum.  That's the abusers who want all regulations of everything gone so they can rip, rape, and run after they destroy what we all care about. 
Re: Where will Obama side on mud puddles?
by on 01/26/2012 10:38 AM | Reply #11 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 07/25/2007
Location: ND
+1 plains and allen. It's a legit issue. Just needs to be handled properly.
11 Replies | Page 1 of 11 | Top of Page | Bottom of Page
Posted By:
Posted On: 01/25/2012 4:05 PM
784 Views, 11 Comments

Tags: obama, puddles, mud, state, freddoso, opinion, president, editor, online, union
More Tags: Obama, Environmental Protection Agency, USD, Georgia-Pacific West Inc., Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, Tim Bishop, David Freddoso, United States, dfreddoso@washingtonexaminer.com, Supreme Court, Keystone XL pipeline, airline industry, manufacturing facilities, manufacturing industries, federal law force taxpayers, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, federal government, Obama's administration, Department of Justice, Ron Wyden, solicitor general, Bishop , the attorney, President, online opinion editor, attorney, Oregon, Environment
Region: North Dakota

Categories: Other > Politics
Rate This ForumTopic
  • Currently 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0/5 (0 votes cast)

You must be signed in to comment on this topic