Robert Hurt attempts to gut key provision of the Clean Water Act

Let’s shorten this:

Robert Hurt wants to ruin your water.

His bill, HR4278 would remove key provisions of the Clean Water Act so his rich friends can do what they want with the wetlands and waterways in this country.

“Preserving Rural Resources Act of 2012”

Of course, he has named his bill in terms of “rural”, but it is a law that is in force in all 50 states. It would affect millions of people who have come to depend on the government to keep big business out of the business of ruining the environment, including the water. This bill removes permit requirements for dredge, fill and other operations within designated waterways.

He and his bill are disingenuous to the point of a euphemistic description of it, and testimonials from people who might not even know the difference, or are rich big businesses. I don’t trust Hurt, or any Republicans in the House to do anything positive for me. There is a reason why the Senate doesn’t pass any of these ridiculous bills. It is that they are a disaster to landowners, homeowners, wildlife habitat, and many items that we may not even think of right now.

I am confident that this bill, as so many before it, will not pass the Senate or even get a vote there.

This is but another reason why Robert Hurt cannot remain as our representative in Congress. He talks a good game, but when it is all said and done, he is a lying conniving Republican, right down to his bones. The idea that he sits and takes orders from the likes of John Boehner and Eric Cantor is enough to make me sick.

What we need is someone who will not sell us down the river for a campaign contribution, or to feather his own nest in Congress. Someone who actually works for us, not John and Eric and huge corporations. Hurt is a dangerous man in the Congress, and needs to be removed this fall.

Note: The “Clean Water Act” is actually the Federal Pollution Control Act.


10 thoughts on “Robert Hurt attempts to gut key provision of the Clean Water Act

  1. Vivian, THANK YOU for putting the bill number in; I find it very annoying that so many media outlets, especially newspapers, never provide the bill number so that one can read it for himself. Unfortunately, Thomas searches are temporary, so the link does not work. However, the pdf is available at the GPO.

  2. Your ad-hominem-attack-filled blog post doesn’t say anything of substance about the bill you’re so against. Have you even read the text of the bill? /See:

    Can you explain the meaning of the text to your audience in rational terms?

    Doesn’t the bill actually address the EPA’s attempt to redefine the phrase “navigable waters,” to prevent the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers from exercising control over any piece of land in the USA that gets remotely muddy when it rains? See:

    1. BLD (If that\’s your real name), you equating this bill being about a muddy piece of land is disingenuous and you know it. Waterways and wetlands are very important to the ecosystem.

      There was a temporary link in the article that has since been replaced by a reader with his own link to a .pdf. Yes, I have read this sparse but dangerous bill that would put decisions about these matters in the hands of people who either don\’t care or don\’t know what they are doing. That\’s why the law is there in the first place.

      As to the content of the bill, the description, provided by the CRS, I believe, says clearly \”dredge and fill\”.

      As for the accusation of ad hominem attacks, one only need look at your post to know about ad hominem. And as for looking at a link that goes to a Ron/Rand Paul website? Laughable is what I would call it. Those two are craven and only in it for the notoriety and money that comes from being in Congress. They are a complete and total waste of time.

      I see however that you have conflated Se. Paul’s language about his own bill with the actual contents of this one.

      Nice try though, at sounding like you are informed. The fact is, that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

    2. What the original law says is essentially, you can do these things listed in Section A, but you need a permit for situations covered by B (even if you are doing things listed in A). The replacement bill says, you can do the things in A without a permit, PERIOD.

      I do not have a problem with the LAW as it stands. But the permitting process itself has become a nightmare. It seems to me it is the permitting process that Congress needs to address, not WHEN you need to get a permit.

  3. Mark:

    You’re better than this artivle that you have written. You’ve got valid points but your language makes you sound just as insane from the left as the craziest teapartiers are from the right. I get it, you don’t like Robert Hurt. You’re wrong when you call him a liar and a conniver. He’s an honorable man. I don’t agree with some of his opinions, but I’m not going to blatantly attack him like you have. That’s just wrong.

    You get even more ridiculous when you say “Hurt is a dangerous man in the Congress”. Let’s get real, he hasn’t done a damned thing in the Congress because he’s a first-termer with no seniority (just like Perriello was in his first term). Hurt’s cruising to an easy win in November and there’s nothing anybody can do to stop it.

    You’re better than this, Mark. Much better.

    1. I have thought long and hard through the weekend about your comment.

      How can I expect others to remain civil if I am not? I wrote this out of strong emotion, and probably included some stuff I shouldn’t have. I apologize to the readers and to the Congressman for saying what I did about you. I will try to stick to the facts and analysis and leave the mental state for someone else to comment on.

      Thanks SouthsideCentral, for bringing it up.

Comments are closed.