Demand cleaner water
As an individual who is passionate about protecting the waterways of Western Pennsylvania, I found that the news story “Trib investigation reveals gaping holes in water oversight” illuminated some of the major issues Pennsylvania has in regard to water pollution oversight.
The state Department of Environmental Protection claims it is doing everything in its power to curtail pollution from working its way into our waterways, but the facts tell a story to the contrary. Inconsistent oversight of facilities, half of which create industrial or livestock waste products, coupled with an increase in toxic spills polluting the Ohio River, points to the fact that the DEP and state lawmakers need to bolster regulations to protect the waterways citizens need to survive.
Without this strengthening of regulations, there is a likelihood that the number of toxic spills will increase. In addition, the number of facilities operating with no oversight is likely to increase as well. It is up to the citizens of Pennsylvania to demand a higher standard of water-quality regulation. Without this demand, I believe the status quo will remain in full effect.
Maurice L. Speaks
The writer is a program assistant with Three Rivers Waterkeeper (threeriverswaterkeeper.org).
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.
- Better in long run
- White House not playing to win
- U.S. Steel worthy of grant
- An Obama clone
- Good ‘friends,’ good food
- Hospital’s hero & more
- Unworthy of high office
- Write-in alternative
- Farewell, my Springdale
- Corbett, the reformer
- Not clean enough