WPR: The overarching question is whether a state law passed in 2011, known as Act 21, which "states agencies like the DNR can't create regulations, rules or other requirements for permitees or those seeking permits unless they're specifically laid out in state statute," overrules a prior state Supreme Court action known as the Lake Beulah decision issued in 2011 … that says the DNR was able to consider cumulative impacts on groundwater when considering new high-capacity well applications.
Walker passed Act 21, so the Department of Natural Resources can't regulate...our natural resources?
This is what Republicans call balancing business interests against the cost of saving our drinking water. Here's the reality; you can't "balance" acceptable pollution levels, that's an insane concept.
This is what Republicans call balancing business interests against the cost of saving our drinking water. Here's the reality; you can't "balance" acceptable pollution levels, that's an insane concept.
Oh, it gets worse. Walker's twisted version of the DNR can't prevent manure-contaminated water:
1. Attorneys for the DNR have argued the law overrules the previous Supreme Court decision and therefore, the agency doesn't have authority to limit the number of cows on the Kinnard Farms properties or require groundwater monitoring wells to measure whether manure from the farm is leaching into groundwater.
2. Similarly, the DNR has argued Act 21 bars them from considering cumulative impacts for the high-capacity wells sought by farmers in the Central Sands region.
We're in real trouble if our activist conservative State Supreme court decides against any and all oversight of our drinking water. Interestingly, they're in no hurry:
Justices from the state's high court haven’t said whether they'll take up the cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment