wildlife and ecosystems.
With that being said, you’ve reacted with strong emotion to an article that clearly explains the trump administration’s (project 2025) work in unraveling the progress gained over decades to clean our waters and air.
Your dilemma is based on economics and financial advancements.
Let’s use the Scarborough bluffs as an example of communities built in high risk natural environments. A place where there are plenty of ephemeral streams.
Look, I’m sure your work is top level and a difficult balance. People are always building homes and communities in risk areas, or at least trying to. Sometimes for human reasons and high risk ecosystems you have to enact laws to protect both. However when it comes to injuring clean water and clean air this should always be nonnegotiable. Clean air and water should always be the choice.
Replies to: "Not emotion at all. I choose clean water, clean air. I choose less encroachment on"
- Industry and republicans vs clean water act and America’s wetlands. - jimbasil - 8:05am 11/19/25
(18) [View All]
- Says the guy who took a steaming dump in pristine iceberg ice melt. [NT]
- LanceManion - 2:13pm 11/19/25
- Yawn,that's par for him, not wired properly [NT] - ColeyO - 7:05pm 11/19/25
- One of the problems with the modern environmental movement, - Rooney - 1:09pm 11/19/25
- Or, you’re just talking about profit being greater at the expense of wildlife. [NT]
- jimbasil - 2:01pm 11/19/25
- Nowhere did I say that. - Rooney - 3:58pm 11/19/25
- Over protection is a baloney term. Land is either protected or it’s not. Knowing developers - jimbasil - 5:18pm 11/19/25
- You've certainly not convinced me of your deep knowledge of this issue. - Rooney - 5:40pm 11/19/25
- Not emotion at all. I choose clean water, clean air. I choose less encroachment on - jimbasil - 3:40am 11/20/25
- Plus, we need golf courses. DESPERATELY. [NT] - MAS - 7:24pm 11/19/25
- You've certainly not convinced me of your deep knowledge of this issue. - Rooney - 5:40pm 11/19/25
- Over protection is a baloney term. Land is either protected or it’s not. Knowing developers - jimbasil - 5:18pm 11/19/25
- Nowhere did I say that. - Rooney - 3:58pm 11/19/25
- Makes great sense. [NT] - NedoftheHill - 1:22pm 11/19/25
- Or, you’re just talking about profit being greater at the expense of wildlife. [NT]
- jimbasil - 2:01pm 11/19/25
- Post a picture of the "wetlands" at issue in Sackett v EPA - Iggle - 10:21am 11/19/25
- Super glad you read the article [NT]
- jimbasil - 11:01am 11/19/25
- Still waiting for that picture. [NT] - Iggle - 7:58pm 11/19/25
- Super glad you read the article [NT]
- jimbasil - 11:01am 11/19/25
- Farmers farm up to the waters edge, the clean water act doesn't prevent this. - iairishcheeks - 9:52am 11/19/25
- It is a tough issue. No one should want helter-skelter development and... [IMAGE]
- Curly1918 - 8:46am 11/19/25
- Indeed it is a tough issue...for example, after the Fukushima disaster it was found that EPA - TyroneIrish - 1:10pm 11/19/25
- then it’s a good thing you didn’t read the article. [NT]
- jimbasil - 9:26am 11/19/25
- I've followed this issue for years. There are fanatics on both sides. [NT] - Curly1918 - 11:32am 11/19/25
- Says the guy who took a steaming dump in pristine iceberg ice melt. [NT]
- LanceManion - 2:13pm 11/19/25