The talk centered around the question of securing more government authority to control diffuse sources of pollution... that is, pollution that doesn't come from a specific point... so-called "nonpoint source pollution."
My pitch was, "Hey. We have authorities we don't use for various forms of nonpoint source pollution. What makes us think that securing more authorities will be an improvement?"
I could give more specific examples, but it's my policy to separate my blogging from my professional work. But... just saying....
Psssst... Do Something
- Contact the Broadcast Media
- Contact the Newspapers
- Contact the US Senate
- Contact the House of Representatives
3 comments:
Sometimes I think public health regulation by our government has been reduced to a public relations campaign.
But is the grab for federal authority really just a grab for federal $ ? And could fed $ be used to enforce existing local/state authority that lacks the $ for enforcement?
Hemlock,
Thanks for commmeting. The interest in more fed/state authority isn't really about a grab for money. It's the reflection of frustration that after decades of trying to clean up waters we're making little headway on the nonpoint sources of pollution... People are starting to say, "Cooperative, voluntary approaches aren't working because, when the almight dollar is at stake, the environment can be scrificed."
It tend to agree, but my point was, governments have authorities they don't use... if there's going to be a call for MORE authority, governments better figure out how to make productive use of that authority....
Post a Comment