RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Yes, We’re Almost ThereContrarian58 wrote: They may seem insane, but you have to remember, most of them are the result of legal proceedings and consent decrees, not science or cost-effectiveness metrics. No matter what regulation is proposed, no matter how reasonable, the agency gets sued by one side or the other, or both. For those being regulated, the cost of fighting something out in court and potentially delaying an operating expense by one year, or several, is far cheaper than the cost of compliance. It's an inefficient way to do business, but that's what happens when you have a nation of laws, rather than edicts from a supreme ruler.
You keep missing our point here. Nobody denies the need for the EPA and other regulating bodies. Most of us here have a good understanding of how they go about their business. The main issue we have is how the overall decision making process drags on, many times unnecessarily, thereby seriously effecting commerce for droves of companies. Take Florence for example...test facility process successfully completed, Arizona state permit (which is basically the same exact animal) in hand, as green of a process in the entirety of the mining world and so forth. In this scenario, why should any entity have to be strung along so long? Dotting the i's and crossing the t's is not a valid answer. If you need more reasons, we'll supply them. What will you then say if they delay the process beyond 30 September??