Water is not a pollutant: Common sense wins
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, Jan. 11, 2013, 8:58 p.m.
Virginia's Republican attorney general has won a victory for common sense, convincing a federal judge that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can't consider water a “pollutant” under the Clean Water Act. And even though he's running for governor, Democrats are applauding, too.
Ken Cuccinelli sued the EPA over its attempt to regulate stormwater flowing into Fairfax County's Accotink Creek, according to Breitbart Big Government. Last week, U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady found the EPA overstepped its authority: “Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it.”
The ruling will save Fairfax County and Virginia taxpayers $300 million or more, according to Mr. Cuccinelli. And nobody's happier about the ruling and those savings than the Democrats who control the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. The board joined the Virginia Department of Transportation as co-plaintiff in the case, The Washington Times reports.
Wrote Cuccinelli, in an email to Breitbart: “You can't make this kind of thing up, but it's exactly the kind of nonsense Washington is imposing on states day after day after day, and it has got to stop!” Fairfax County's Democrat leaders siding with him underlines how plainly idiotic — and overreaching — the EPA stance was in this case.
Here's hoping more state- and local-level politicians bridge partisan divides to oppose the Obama EPA's science-flouting and ever-growing micromanagement of Americans' lives.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- The market speaks: Cadillac dealers reject another electric folly
- Market perversions: Chrysler retreats
- The new SAT: Rigor gets a pass
- Sunday pops
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The Adegbile nomination: Rejecting race-baiting
- THE BOX
- Another EPA crock: Sulfur silliness
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances