Internet: Do you really think the EPA is keeping the integrity of the shoreline? Do you have any proof? If not you are totally nuts! But I'll give you a chance to explain yourself. Go ahead.
Josh: I am not affiliated with any party. That is your first wrong assumption.
Now that said, do you have a reason to keep it? Otherwise, you are following your 'party line' and can't think for yourself.
Peter Boiter Woods
Favorite Answer
Several things that would not change if you got rid of USEPA. The majority of states have their own EPA equivalent and in states like California, they are more radical. So little would change. Second, shorelines are not normally part of USEPA unless there is pollution, but fall under the US Corps of Engineers.
Anonymous
Growing up in Southern California I remember days when the smog generated in LA that had been blown offshore would move onshore in San Diego. You could see it coming, this ugly brown cloud. One minute things are fine and then as the cloud passes you the visibility would go down from tens of miles to just a mile or two. Your lungs would tighten up, your eyes would sting and water. On the rare trips I would take to LA or Riverside it would be even worse. I remember being in Pasadena, looking toward the mountains that were just a few miles away, and you could not see the bottom of them. If you looked high in the sky you could see their tops sticking out above the smog layer.
I never lived in Ohio, but I remember the television reports of the Cuyahoga River CATCHING ON FIRE. Perhaps young people can't imagine such a thing, but the river was so polluted back then that it caught on fire not once, but 13 times.
Things like these are what motivated Congress to create the EPA and the staunch Republican President Richard Nixon to sign the act into law. Now the Cuyahoga River no longer catches on fire--in fact, it's clean enough so that you can eat fish caught in it. Now those days with smog so bad that it tightens your lung and stings your eyes are gone from California. This doesn't mean that there is still not room for improvement, though. Smog still contributes to illness and premature death, and there is still room for improvement in our waterways. That's why we still have an EPA.
People that want to get rid of the EPA should move to China or Russia, where they don't worry about such things. There is a smelter in Russia that makes the air so toxic that no tree lives within 30 miles of it. That's what you get with no EPA.
Cowboy
That sounds like a really STUPID idea - you must be one of those brain dead republicans.
Entropy
The EPA definitely has problems, but something like it was always going to have to exist. When there were only small numbers of people, spread out, and nature had a seemingly infinite capacity to process our waste, it wasn't important. But now we make things whose waste is far more toxic and produced in far great volumes. We need laws to proscribe handling that without impacting our neighbors.
the internet
What would that help?
Why do you want to submerge the coast of the united states?