Skip to comments.Where will Obama side on mud puddles? (EPA & 9th Circus run amok)
Posted on 01/25/2012 12:32:37 PM PST by Islander7
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
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."
Which position will owebama support?
This is too easy - whatever causes the most disruption and loss of jobs is what owebama will support - bet on it!
And how would this affect the building trades, the paper trade, etc. If we have to import lumber and junk wood just think how that will increase the cost of EVERYTHING (even McDonald hamburgers). Way to go O Great Uselessbama.
We could abolish the EPA tomorrow and nothing will change. It’s regulatory power will just pop up at some other alphabet bureaucracy.
The only way we change this is to change the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, etc. to reign in their power, enforce more rigid science, more consistent enforcement, while eliminating environmental group abuses and bringing business to the table to judge the impact on it’s activities.
This will effect forestry operations in every state in this union. I fail to see why enough governors do not unite and tell the EPA to go to hell, and that the state environmental agencies will control these matters within each state’s borders. If enough governors did so, what could the EPA and the Feds do?
The constitution never granted any kind of power to the EPA, but it certainly does limit said power. The governors need to take back from the federal government the powers that duly lie with the states.
Been saying the same thing for 30 years.