08-11-2005, 03:47 PM
|
|
|
Push Porn Like Weight.
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Inside .NET
Posts: 10,652
|
well then, it is true.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...kVEjz:e137643:
Quote:
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, our amendment would stop the EPA from moving forward with a dangerous proposal that would allow more partially treated sewage into our waterways. This morning the EPA issued a statement saying it will not finalize its current proposal. The EPA has been mulling over this policy change for nearly 2 years.
I am pleased to see that the EPA has now recognized that this policy proposal is bad for our health, bad for our environment, and bad for business. Now Congress needs to seal the deal by passing our amendment to make sure this misguided proposal is gone for good.
Let me clarify something that has been misunderstood. Our amendment will not cost a thing. It will not change a thing. It leaves things just the way they are right now.
Currently, clean water rules say during major wet weather events, sewage treatment plants are allowed to combine the filtered but untreated human sewage with fully treated waste water before discharge, in a process known as ``blending ,'' when no other feasible alternative exists.
The EPA's 2003 proposal would weaken current environmental standards by allowing facilities to discharge largely untreated sewage virtually anytime it rains. Our amendment simply stops the EPA from weakening existing environmental standards and requires that sewage be effectively treated to remove the viruses, parasites, and bacteria that make people sick.
I know many of my colleagues are hearing that this amendment will pose astronomical costs on local communities. That is simply not true. This amendment will not cost communities a dime. Our amendment would maintain the current policy. It would not prevent utilities from blending under any of the current allowable legal circumstances. It would merely support current safeguards which do not allow blending when full treatment is feasible. Let me repeat that. Our amendment will not ban blending .
We have a clear policy choice. Should we provide effective treatment for sewage , remove pollutants that poison drinking water sources, close beaches, contaminate shellfish, make people sick, and rob the water of oxygen the fish need to breathe? Or should we allow routine discharges of inadequately treated sewage virtually every time it rains? To ask the question is to answer it. The choice is clear just as it has been under the Clean Water Act for the past 30 years.
Congress needs to send a strong, clear message on behalf of our constituents. We do not want human waste in the water we drink and swim in. As a step in the right direction, vote ``yes'' on the bipartisan Stupak/Shaw/Pallone/Miller amendment.
|
__________________
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
|
|
|