Politics

10180 readers

468 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Republicans on a House Appropriations Committee are proposing a 64% cut to two federal clean water funds for the next fiscal year.
The proposed cuts would reduce funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by nearly $1.8 billion.
These funds provide loans and assistance for water infrastructure projects and improvements to ensure safe drinking water.
Advocates argue that the proposed cuts would leave many communities with unsafe water and exacerbate water affordability issues.
Democrats in the Senate are urged to reject the Republican proposal.
Passing the WATER Act is suggested to safeguard federal water funding.
The WATER Act would provide funding for repairing failing water and sewer systems.
New research found that at least 45% of U.S. tap water is contaminated with PFAS chemicals.
A recent Supreme Court ruling narrowed the definition of protected wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
The Biden administration's new clean water rule was finalized in December but the GOP bill would repeal that regulation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are so fucking evil.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It's the poor people who will suffer. Clearly they aren't human enough to spend money on, amiright? /s