Those Clever Oklahoma City Republicans

[Greco]

Well this certainly should help tourism to Oklahoma City's Bricktown.

If you remember, Oklahoma City build some dams along the portion of the North Canadian River that flows through downtown, renamed it the "Oklahoma River", and created lots of waterfront tourist attractions. They even conducted a triathelon, which included people actually getting in the water and swimming. Those Oklahoma City Republicans just never dreamed there might be a problem. Afterall, all they were doing was dumping in polluted stormwater, sewer overflows and waste from a manure composting business. Who would have ever dreamed that wouldn't be safe to go swimming in?


By Associated Press
Published: 7/30/2009 3:23 PM
Last Modified: 7/30/2009 3:23 PM

OKLAHOMA CITY — A new report shows polluted stormwater, sewer overflows and a manure composting operation likely contributed to bacteria in the Oklahoma River blamed for sickening dozens of triathletes.
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality released a draft report released Wednesday that studied 12 bodies of water in the North Canadian River watershed. The portion of the river that runs through Oklahoma City was renamed the Oklahoma River.

The study shows 11 of the 12 water bodies are in violation of state water standards, including the portion of the river where triathletes swam in the event May 16-17. At least 45 participants in the Boathouse International Triathlon in Oklahoma City became sick with gastrointestinal problems after the event.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

My question is where was is the EPA? There are regulations which mandate that public rivers and lakes must be regularly tested for just such pollution.

Sounds to me like more government officials not doing their job. Why not start firing people for failing to do the work they were hired for, and maybe since it led to the harm of others they should go to jail.

I personally can't tell a Republican from a Democrat when they're all wearing orange jumpsuits!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

My question is where was is the EPA? There are regulations which mandate that public rivers and lakes must be regularly tested for just such pollution.

Sounds to me like more government officials not doing their job. Why not start firing people for failing to do the work they were hired for, and maybe since it led to the harm of others they should go to jail.

I personally can't tell a Republican from a Democrat when they're all wearing orange jumpsuits!

well bush was in office for 8 years,....did they EPA realy even have any power to do anything without the white house getting in the way? the EPA under Republican power is basicly a , you look the other way agency. I think Christine Todd Whitman tried, but she seemed to make it clear that White House Busisness first , screw science , ideas trumped the facts when she tried.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

My question is where was is the EPA? There are regulations which mandate that public rivers and lakes must be regularly tested for just such pollution.

Sounds to me like more government officials not doing their job. Why not start firing people for failing to do the work they were hired for, and maybe since it led to the harm of others they should go to jail.

I personally can't tell a Republican from a Democrat when they're all wearing orange jumpsuits!

Awww, Franklin as with every other government watchdog group they too suffer from budget cuts and not enough staff; {and as with most humans} if that body of water doesn't belch up green goo or have multitude of dead bloated fish floating on the surface the locals just 'ASSume' that the water is ok to use for recreational purposes.

 

[BigRob]

well bush was in office for 8 years,....did they EPA realy even have any power to do anything without the white house getting in the way? the EPA under Republican power is basicly a , you look the other way agency. I think Christine Todd Whitman tried, but she seemed to make it clear that White House Busisness first , screw science , ideas trumped the facts when she tried.

A study that shows the river was in violation of state water standards is Bush's fault? Come on. It is the state's job to maintain and test for state water standards.

 

[top gun]

My question is where was is the EPA? There are regulations which mandate that public rivers and lakes must be regularly tested for just such pollution.

Sounds to me like more government officials not doing their job. Why not start firing people for failing to do the work they were hired for, and maybe since it led to the harm of others they should go to jail.

I personally can't tell a Republican from a Democrat when they're all wearing orange jumpsuits!

Just a friendly comment on your last line. I know that you want to see a 3rd Party and all. And if that ever happens it happens that's fine. That's a people's decision.

But you overplay your hand when you equate ALL current politicians with being criminals of some sort. Yes there is "politics" involved in "politics"... go figure. But I know or have met a lot of politicians over my 52 years being seriously interest and getting involved with politics the last say 20.

There are good politicians and on both sides. The problem is to stay in office you have to solidify a base of some sort. And you would see that after power was achieved that would be absolutely no different with a 3rd Party.

So then to be honest you'd just be saying all 3 look the same in orange jump suits. It's much more about our political system than it is individuals.

As my Dad used to say... America may not have the best political system... but it's the best anyone's ever found!

 

[top gun]

A study that shows the river was in violation of state water standards is Bush's fault? Come on. It is the state's job to maintain and test for state water standards.

You make a fair point... but pocket is correct as well.

I've not studied this particular issue, but I thank Greco for bringing it up. I think it's fair to say Oklahoma and Texas are 2 of the most Conservative States. Conservative states tend to elect Republicans at the local levels as well. So I think it's probably fair to say even the state's job you cite probably leans Republican.

But going further into the big picture what pocket said is a fact about the Bush administration in general. I mean when you promote and sign a Bill calling it The Clean Air Act that in reality lessens many standards... that's a problem. When the Feds relax standards it's not like the states say yippee we get to be tougher all on our own now!

Bush v. the Clean Air Act
Apr-2003 updated May-2005
by David Morgan

The White House's recent rollbacks of regulations governing the safety of our air, water and environment have been a major cause of concern, insofar as the dangerous impacts of pollution are longstanding. Toxins that are pumped into our air and water supplies will continue to endanger future generations, so the Bush administration's loosening of federal laws meant to stem the tide of pollution must be challenged before further damage is done to human health and our nation's ecosystems.
Analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency about the success of the Clean Air Act, first signed into law in 1970, has proven it has worked to reduce toxins in our environment. Over the past three decades, carcinogens such as lead and particulate matter (soot) have dropped 98% and 71%, respectively. Emissions of sulfur dioxide, a leading cause of acid rain, are a third of what they were in 1990. Carbon monoxide emissions are down, and the Journal of the American Medical Association attributed a 30-year drop in carbon monoxide-related deaths to the Clean Air Act.

It is a classic case of "If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it." Yet the Bush administration is doing exactly that, throwing away three decades' worth of environmental success to satisfy special interests whose by-products foul our communities.

The following is a comparison of how current Clean Air Act targets would compare to the relaxed standards being proposed by the administration. As you can see, the next decade would be a much dirtier, more hazardous and unhealthy time if the White House gets its way.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): An Agent of Acid Rain

Mandatory reductions in sulfur dioxide, a key component of acid rain, were factored into 1991 amendments to the Clean Air Act signed by the first President Bush. Their success is indisputable: SO2 emissions in 2001 were reduced one-third from 1990 levels.

To further protect the nation's waterways from the damaging effects of SO2, the EPA has recommended that a 2 million ton cap be placed on annual emissions. But the White House intends to establish an SO2 cap well above 2 million tons, which would result in a total discharge of 21 million tons more SO2 than the Clean Air Act would otherwise allow between 2010-2018.

More Mercury

Mercury is a neurotoxin that, once released, can persist in the environment for years and accumulate in the food chain. Health problems are severe, affecting the central nervous system, liver and kidneys. Power plants (particularly coal-burning generators) are the largest source of mercury releases, which in the U.S. total 48 tons annually.
The EPA is set to announce new standards for mercury in 2004, to go into effect beginning 2007. It has been proposed that a 90 percent reduction of mercury compared to 1999 emissions is attainable. But the Bush administration's "Clear Skies" initiative is actually considering a lesser reduction of 69%. This would allow for a total discharge of 300 tons more mercury between 2007-2018 than would occur if the 90% reduction were made law.

NOx-ious Emissions

National emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) have increased over the past 30 years by about 19 percent. (Power plants are a major contributor, accounting for about one-fifth of the total.) And while other major criteria air pollutants like carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide have decreased since the Clean Air Act was signed into law, NOx emissions have increased by nearly 4 million tons each year.

NOx contributes to a host of environmental and health problems, from smog and acid rain to degraded water quality in coastal estuaries, and cost society billions of dollars annually from illnesses and deaths.

EPA analysis demonstrates the need for a tighter cap on NOx and has determined it would be cost-effective. But the Bush plan would set a NOx cap far higher than the EPA's 1.25 million tons per year standard, resulting in 3.5 million more tons of NOx between 2010 and 2018.

 

[Greco]

You're correct in assuming the Republicans are in control in Oklahoma. It's a Republican mayor in Oklahoma, and Republicans control both the House and Senate.

Here are a few additional comments posted to this same article on an Oklahoma website...

1) Why would any one in their right mind not think the water in the Oklahoma River might be polluted. For years Armor and Wilson’s had packing plants adjacent to the river. No telling how many animal bodies are buried there. Plus the Stock yards has had an operation there for at least 60 years with the waste runoff going right into the river.

No telling how deep the contamination goes in the soil there by the river. I am not even a water specialist and I could have told you the water was not fit to be swimming in. It is a miracle that all they got was a little stomach problem. There just is no fix for stupid.

2) I worked at ARK Ramos at 14th and South Walker, a little further downstream, in the early nineties. They cast plaques and letters in the foundry there, and for decades dumped lead-infused sand from the moulds on the riverbank. Molten bronze leaches lead into the sand when poured into the mould. Every now and then, guys in hazmat suits would show up and take core samples, which looked like an alien invasion from our second-floor window. I understand the company was fined a lot of money for using the river as a hazardous materials dump.

Then there were the times we'd look out the windows in the morning and see some of OKC's finest vagrants passed out on the sand piles.

I'm sure ARK was not the only company to abuse the river this way, with chemicals or organics. If we knew the whole story, we'd probably never even want to drive over it, let alone swim in it. And they knew it was above acceptable levels when they held the triathlon event.

3) I worked on the Yukon sewage plant when it was built. Before the plant was completed they dumped raw sewage into lagoons that drained directly into the Canadian River. As a matter of fact my last job on the project was draining the lagoon into the Canadian River.

 

[BigRob]

You're correct in assuming the Republicans are in control in Oklahoma. It's a Republican mayor in Oklahoma, and Republicans control both the House and Senate.

I notice you left out the Democratic Governor.

 

[BigRob]

You make a fair point... but pocket is correct as well.

I've not studied this particular issue, but I thank Greco for bringing it up. I think it's fair to say Oklahoma and Texas are 2 of the most Conservative States. Conservative states tend to elect Republicans at the local levels as well. So I think it's probably fair to say even the state's job you cite probably leans Republican.

But going further into the big picture what pocket said is a fact about the Bush administration in general. I mean when you promote and sign a Bill calling it The Clean Air Act that in reality lessens many standards... that's a problem. When the Feds relax standards it's not like the states say yippee we get to be tougher all on our own now!

Bush v. the Clean Air Act
Apr-2003 updated May-2005
by David Morgan

The White House's recent rollbacks of regulations governing the safety of our air, water and environment have been a major cause of concern, insofar as the dangerous impacts of pollution are longstanding. Toxins that are pumped into our air and water supplies will continue to endanger future generations, so the Bush administration's loosening of federal laws meant to stem the tide of pollution must be challenged before further damage is done to human health and our nation's ecosystems.
Analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency about the success of the Clean Air Act, first signed into law in 1970, has proven it has worked to reduce toxins in our environment. Over the past three decades, carcinogens such as lead and particulate matter (soot) have dropped 98% and 71%, respectively. Emissions of sulfur dioxide, a leading cause of acid rain, are a third of what they were in 1990. Carbon monoxide emissions are down, and the Journal of the American Medical Association attributed a 30-year drop in carbon monoxide-related deaths to the Clean Air Act.

It is a classic case of "If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it." Yet the Bush administration is doing exactly that, throwing away three decades' worth of environmental success to satisfy special interests whose by-products foul our communities.

The following is a comparison of how current Clean Air Act targets would compare to the relaxed standards being proposed by the administration. As you can see, the next decade would be a much dirtier, more hazardous and unhealthy time if the White House gets its way.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): An Agent of Acid Rain

Mandatory reductions in sulfur dioxide, a key component of acid rain, were factored into 1991 amendments to the Clean Air Act signed by the first President Bush. Their success is indisputable: SO2 emissions in 2001 were reduced one-third from 1990 levels.

To further protect the nation's waterways from the damaging effects of SO2, the EPA has recommended that a 2 million ton cap be placed on annual emissions. But the White House intends to establish an SO2 cap well above 2 million tons, which would result in a total discharge of 21 million tons more SO2 than the Clean Air Act would otherwise allow between 2010-2018.

More Mercury

Mercury is a neurotoxin that, once released, can persist in the environment for years and accumulate in the food chain. Health problems are severe, affecting the central nervous system, liver and kidneys. Power plants (particularly coal-burning generators) are the largest source of mercury releases, which in the U.S. total 48 tons annually.
The EPA is set to announce new standards for mercury in 2004, to go into effect beginning 2007. It has been proposed that a 90 percent reduction of mercury compared to 1999 emissions is attainable. But the Bush administration's "Clear Skies" initiative is actually considering a lesser reduction of 69%. This would allow for a total discharge of 300 tons more mercury between 2007-2018 than would occur if the 90% reduction were made law.

NOx-ious Emissions

National emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) have increased over the past 30 years by about 19 percent. (Power plants are a major contributor, accounting for about one-fifth of the total.) And while other major criteria air pollutants like carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide have decreased since the Clean Air Act was signed into law, NOx emissions have increased by nearly 4 million tons each year.

NOx contributes to a host of environmental and health problems, from smog and acid rain to degraded water quality in coastal estuaries, and cost society billions of dollars annually from illnesses and deaths.

EPA analysis demonstrates the need for a tighter cap on NOx and has determined it would be cost-effective. But the Bush plan would set a NOx cap far higher than the EPA's 1.25 million tons per year standard, resulting in 3.5 million more tons of NOx between 2010 and 2018.

I admittedly don't follow environmental issues, so I'll take your word for all this for now. However, my point is that it is not Bush's fault that a state failed to handle its own issues.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

A study that shows the river was in violation of state water standards is Bush's fault? Come on. It is the state's job to maintain and test for state water standards.

no, but he made sure those who are suppose to make sure it was up to standards could not do there jobs. And I am sure people at the state leval think just like him and did the same things.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I admittedly don't follow environmental issues, so I'll take your word for all this for now. However, my point is that it is not Bush's fault that a state failed to handle its own issues.

I will give you that he is not the main one at fault, but his policies helped , and his way of thinking is the reason..I would not say republican thinking, because many republicans are now on board seeing the fact that we need to be more respectful of how we do things with the envirment....

 

[TheFranklinParty]

[/b]
Just a friendly comment on your last line. I know that you want to see a 3rd Party and all. And if that ever happens it happens that's fine. That's a people's decision.

But you overplay your hand when you equate ALL current politicians with being criminals of some sort. Yes there is "politics" involved in "politics"... go figure. But I know or have met a lot of politicians over my 52 years being seriously interest and getting involved with politics the last say 20.

There are good politicians and on both sides. The problem is to stay in office you have to solidify a base of some sort. And you would see that after power was achieved that would be absolutely no different with a 3rd Party.

So then to be honest you'd just be saying all 3 look the same in orange jump suits. It's much more about our political system than it is individuals.

As my Dad used to say... America may not have the best political system... but it's the best anyone's ever found!

I'm not sure where you got that I was suggesting "ALL" politicians are criminals. What I was saying was that I don't take sides. Anyone who breaks the law actively or by ignoring a criminal act should be prosecuted. It is my observation that all too often people are given a pass because of their political connections or party affiliation.

IMHO...I believe people from both the SEC and IRS be put in jail for helping Madoff perpetrate his crimes. The EPA should have to account for not fulfilling their legal obligations to test public water. How can OSHA hound a non-union shop but then take bribes which lead to two cranes falling off buildings in NYC.

If you think that my belief in the politicians and judges is damaged, you would be right. When an illegal alien is arrested 3 times, but not deported, and then kills an American Citizen; yep it damages my faith. When a elected official is caught taking bribes and doesn't get a day of jail time; yep that makes me wonder. And when a Senator needs $25M dollars in his campaign war chest to win a job that pays $200,000 then I have to wonder how fine the line is between contributions and bribes.