Maximum levels of pollution are not determined by the courts through case law; they are necessarily legislated. The courts are involved only in implementing and interpreting the law.

The EPA consults with scientists, doctors, and (unfortunately) lobbyists to draft legislation which sets limits on specific kinds pollution. These limits are made law by Congress, and then implemented by both the EPA and the courts. All branches of government are necessarily involved.

Also, well said Sam. You are more eloquent than I, especially concerning the socioeconomic dimension of this issue.

Btw; I agree with your sentiment about environmental regulations; but I would go farther. 100% are a waste of money; and they all add to the general level of corruption in government.

If we remove the ability of the government to be king maker in the private sector (ie. regulations destroying competitors / creating advantages / subsidies); then the corporations would have no reason to funnel money to politicians for protection/cronyism.

Boogy; I'm saying that all that including the EPA is not necessary and is in violation of the constitution. It was already and still is against the law to harm people using the environment (or any means).

The EPA (like the TSA) is just a kabuki theater meant to create a sense that the government is the source of our well being.

"100% are a waste of money; and they all add to the general level of corruption in government."

A bit of a generalization no? Go read the Clean Water Act and tell that every single provision is a "waste" of money (who's money btw?) and contributes to corruption. Certainly some environmental protections must genuinely be in the public good?

I want to scrap the entire EPA and start over deadcode, that said the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act stopped and in some cases reversed the massive environmental damage that had been done over the years in certain areas of the country. You can see the San Bernardino mountains to the east of LA now whereas in the early 1990's it was impossible except in the summer when the Santa Ana winds blew in from the east. While I think many of these regulations have massive inefficiencies they have done plenty of good.

We tried your way already deadcode and it didn't work. That said we really need to reexamine the method and apparatus we use for environmental regulations as in many cases we are going to far. There are resources and environments that we are trying to protect that we should be willing to sacrifice for the sake of economic growth and industry.

lets keep this discussion on subject, namely weiners:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbQfgVWa1Ds&feature=player_embedded#at=31

Can we all agree this doesn't count as a legit 100?

Can we all agree that you care about post count to the point of it being a bit obsessive.

Like it has already been stated/inferred a few times in this thread. I'm not taking part in the competition for post count; so please disregard all my 100 post threads going forward.

In fact donate them all to Boner Oiler.

Merry Christmas.

Sam, as a point of clarification; I'm not against states having their own environmental laws etc. States have these rights; however it is beyond the power of the federal government as per the constitution.

So with that being said; California is well within its rights to create it's own laws.

Boogy; yes; the Clean Air / Water act is a waste of taxpayer money when implemented at the federal level.

But more importantly; it is just not allowed via the constitution.