Home › Forums › Bass Cat Boats › So if the EPA is shuttered ?
jpeiserich.
It could temporarily though equipment has changed and the clean air court rulings in place would prevent a lot of the backup. The environmentalists want to cleanse the USA and have Federal rulings in place that will prevent the allowance even if the regulatory arm changes. The fear of the next Administration being a reversal would most likely prevent return to old patterns.
Yeah, the EPA and the environmentalists really did us dirty. Cleaning up Erie and the other Great Lakes, the Potomac, the Hudson, the Mississippi, the Cal Delta. Less air pollution. Bring back the good old days, when the Great Lakes were referred to as the Dead Sea and the Cayahoga River burned for 5 days. Fishing was great then.
Oh no, dont get upset at us as there are definite gains environmentally from when the Potomac was a cesspool, the Hudson River was a detergent and toxic foam flowage and the Great Lakes were metaland industrial disposals. The drive today has gone beyond that and often the full carbon footprint of regulatory requirements are not evaluated. Find the impact study on how larger lithium batteries are going to effect the ecology in 25 years? The case involving resins really did not reduce VOCs in many areas as it intended. Today we have managed to use the production resins with more quality, though impacts in costs to consumers and customer satisfaction were not factored in those equations, as were not reduced mold life. Those of above 55 in age will remember the way it was and no one wants to return there. Those younger generations still have to find critical balance.
Lessening the effectiveness of the EPA will only hurt us. It will benefit some businesses, but it will hurt fishing and hunting and any other outdoor activity you think of. It will help the golf course owner, but will probably hurt the player.
IMHO , the EPA is another government boondoggle that employs 15,376 people , with an average salary of 51000 dollars . ( $784,176,000 . 00 of taxpayers money per year , not counting their healthcare , which we also provide. ) — — That equates to approximately 307 representatives per state in the U.S.A. , which includes Alaska and Hawaii . — Seems to me to be a bit excessive , and one would think that the objectives of the EPA could be obtained / enforced with far less , but thats our government at work .
BIGCATTER wrote:IMHO , the EPA is another government boondoggle that employs 15,376 people , with an average salary of 51000 dollars . ( $784,176,000 . 00 of taxpayers money per year , not counting their healthcare , which we also provide. ) — — That equates to approximately 307 representatives per state in the U.S.A. , which includes Alaska and Hawaii . — Seems to me to be a bit excessive , and one would think that the objectives of the EPA could be obtained / enforced with far less , but thats our government at work .Your budget number is off a little. FY 2016 $8,139,887,000 https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
I grew up on the Potomac and it was a cesspool in the 60s. The clean water act helped the Blue Plains treatment plant clean up its act which has helped the river become the fishery it is today, but there are still plenty of problems like the liberal city of Alexandria dumping millions of gallons of raw sewage in the river and not wanting to fix the problem for another 10 years or the fact that the corp of engineers dumps all sorts of chemicals in the river and answers to no one. The EPA under the Obama administration was making rules that were hurting business without going after governments that polluting. The EPA is a good agency but needs to have a better approach. I was a cleaning contractor for thirty years and didnt mind using environmentally sound practices but I could not always pass on the extra cost to my customers which hurt my bottom line. Off my soap box now.
pchapin wrote:BIGCATTER wrote:IMHO , the EPA is another government boondoggle that employs 15,376 people , with an average salary of 51000 dollars . ( $784,176,000 . 00 of taxpayers money per year , not counting their healthcare , which we also provide. ) — — That equates to approximately 307 representatives per state in the U.S.A. , which includes Alaska and Hawaii . — Seems to me to be a bit excessive , and one would think that the objectives of the EPA could be obtained / enforced with far less , but thats our government at work .Your budget number is off a little. FY 2016 $8,139,887,000 https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget I just figured the payroll cost to American taxpayers , which , by the way , didnt include any employee benefits such as health insurance . — Your figures speak all the louder to my point . — Seems to me were not getting much bang for our taxpayer buck . — I reiterate , our government at work . — Very sad indeed .
So Ill answer the first question and comment about the EPA – (1) Is there a mechanism to return to the old resins?Realistically, no. Because of the various provisions of the Clean Air Act, there isnt an easy way for manufactures to comply with the various MACT and NESHAP subparts when utilizing the older chemistry. The purpose of the MACT standards in Quad V is to drive the industry toward low VOC chemistry. The standard states: This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for new and existing boat manufacturing facilities with resin and gel coat operations, carpet and fabric adhesive operations, or aluminum recreational boat surface coating operations. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission standards. Because the standard is federal law, and not just an executive order, it is nearly impossible to change without substantial time passage. These standards were hard-fought and subject to substantial litigation. The “new” EPA under the current administration will not be able to make many real changes. Additionally, the new EPA Administrator, Mr. Pruitt, has committed to follow the law. While it sounds like a no change position, if EPA follows the law it actually reduces what companies are required to do, so it is really a positive. It also protects EPA from litigation.(2) Where is the EPA and environment compared to the early 1970s when the original federal legislation was passed?EPA has grown by leaps and bounds. With the current changes in the management, the actual worker bees have no idea what is going on. Earlier this month one of the regional administrators made a statement, the impacted state requested a “clarification”, and the following morning the statement was exactly 180 degrees different (and what the state wanted). I dont know that we know right now where EPA is on its policies. As you can imagine there are numerous long term employees who just do their jobs. Most of them are just there to work and arent particularly slanted one way or the other. You can work with that group and get things done.The environment is clearly in better shape. EPA deserves credit for moving forward pollution prevention programs in cooperation with the states. The programs cost money and that gets passed along to the taxpayer and consumer. There isnt really any other way to do it. Because EPA has grown so much, many of the costs imposed on companies is related to recordkeeping. Recordkeeping has no benefit to the environment and I am generally opposed to anything that increases the recordkeeping requirements. EPA and other regulatory agencies will tell you, probably fairly, that keeping records is really the only compliance mechanism they have. Unfortunately, EPA doesnt know the businesses it regulates and imposes recordkeeping for no real benefit and without much direction at times.I rarely run into someone that doesnt want to protect the environment. Even among manufacturers, they just want to do their work and not mess up the environment as a general rule. You can always have someone that is an ###hole, fortunately that is rare. The problem I have is many of the federal programs no longer accomplish protecting the environment in a meaningful way. Laws that impose emission limits or ensure that wastes are handled appropriately are fine. If you want to see the worst environmental regulation in the US go look at the regional haze viewshed language which is indecipherable and yet billions is spent on it annually.
© 2025 Bass Cat Boats
