Conservatives should conserve
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, May 4, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
In regard to the editorial “EPA favors: Aid too far” (April 15 and TribLIVE.com), there's a reason “conservation” and “conservative” are related words: Both involve honoring what our ancestors left us and preserving it for future generations.
Democracy, privacy and the rights guaranteed us in the Constitution are civic traditions that we must honor and preserve. But conservatism should also extend to our natural resources, especially water.
Large industrial livestock operations produce hundreds of millions of tons of animal waste each year that all too often end up in our waterways. This is bad news for the people who live downstream of these operations, as well as for fishermen, sportsmen, beachgoers and the many small businesses that rely on them.
Congress passed the Clean Water Act to protect these Americans. The Environmental Protection Agency must enforce this law — and that starts with keeping track of where the animal waste in our public waterways is coming from.
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.
- Bloomberg & coal
- Knives vs. guns II
- Knives vs. guns I
- Valley musical superb
- Resurrection? Yes, really
- The Obama Doctrine I wonder …
- Consequences in space
- In tragedy’s wake II
- Resurrection? Really?