I wish a UK news editor said the same.
No on 14-23
Well-intentioned idea, too drastic
By KIRBY NEUMANN-REA
Hood River News Editor
May 7, 2005
Though its backers are well-intentioned, we firmly recommend a “no” vote on Ballot Measure 14-23 on the May 17 ballot. Our review of the proposal draws down to the following four points:
* It is unnecessary, given that existing state and federal regulations help ensure clean water — and Hood River water is already renowned for its high quality. The ballot summary itself states, “Addition of substances is currently subject to state and federal standards,” then goes on to say, “but these standards do not contain a prohibition on addition of industrial waste byproducts and do not apply the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Levels Goals.”
Well-intentioned idea, too drastic
By KIRBY NEUMANN-REA
Hood River News Editor
May 7, 2005
Though its backers are well-intentioned, we firmly recommend a “no” vote on Ballot Measure 14-23 on the May 17 ballot. Our review of the proposal draws down to the following four points:
* It is unnecessary, given that existing state and federal regulations help ensure clean water — and Hood River water is already renowned for its high quality. The ballot summary itself states, “Addition of substances is currently subject to state and federal standards,” then goes on to say, “but these standards do not contain a prohibition on addition of industrial waste byproducts and do not apply the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Levels Goals.”
posted by Bill at
7:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home