[va-richmond-general] Email rejected by EPA
- From: "IE Ries" <ieries@xxxxxxx>
- To: <va-richmond-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:06:03 -0500
Did anyone else have trouble sending email to them?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mail Delivery System" <Mailer-Daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ieries@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 1:00 PM
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
>
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>
> CWAwaters@xxxxxxx
> SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<CWAwaters@xxxxxxx>:
> host epa.org [65.216.121.75]: 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for
CWAwaters@xxxxxxx
>
> ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
>
> Return-path: <ieries@xxxxxxx>
> Received: from 208-59-103-146.s400.tnt1.grst.va.dialup.rcn.com
([208.59.103.146] helo=darthlaptop)
> by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #4)
> id 18pXkf-0005EP-00; Sun, 02 Mar 2003 12:59:54 -0500
> Message-ID: <002d01c2e0e5$da4542e0$92673bd0@darthlaptop>
> From: "IE Ries" <ieries@xxxxxxx>
> To: <CWAwaters@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Thaddeus.J.Rugiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Public Commentary: New Administration Guidelines for Regulating
Wetlands
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:02:11 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01C2E0BB.F051E400"
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
> Disposition-Notification-To: "IE Ries" <ieries@xxxxxxx>
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C2E0BB.F051E400
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Dear Ms. Downing and Mr. Rugiel:
>
> What appears to me a partisan push to effectively eliminate wetlands =
> throughout the United States through a "re-evaluation of protections for =
> these isolated wetlands confined to one state and not used for =
> navigation," is rather alarming for a variety of reasons.
>
> To be frank, my interpretation of the Bush Administration's recently =
> released guidelines are as follows: unless water can be used to =
> navigate a (commercial) watercraft for industry, it has neither value =
> nor reason to exist." If this is the case, and the EPA has also adopted =
> this unreasonable perspective, let me register my adamant opposition to =
> this stance.
>
> Public agencies, such as the EPA and ACE, were designed to be the =
> administrator of the public interest and trust. These newly released =
> guidelines have questionable motivations and endanger natural heritage =
> on some 20 million acres by setting the stage for repeal of federal =
> protection. Why has the EPA accepted these guidelines at all? It is =
> contrary to the agency's stated mission! The statement that the new =
> guidelines "reaffirm federal authority" over many wetlands now takes on =
> a dubious context, considering the aim of the guidelines appears to be =
> lifting all federal protection in these areas and for species occupying =
> the wetlands only to make it available for industry of all kinds. How =
> is it that Administrator Whitman assures the public that the agency is =
> "reaffirming federal authority," when the underlying goal of the =
> guidelines is to relax or eliminate any protection? This is an =
> incredible contradiction of terms.
>
> As a citizen, I am outraged that this particular administration, which =
> did not come to the White House with any electoral mandate or even the =
> support of the majority, now blatantly contradicts what past =
> administrations and the public at large, and I do mean "We the People," =
> has demonstrated by local and national elections as important. And now =
> this administration has bullied the EPA and ACE into accepting =
> guidelines which effectively lifts protection on land and water, addles =
> agency authority and power, and renders "federal protection" a moot =
> term.
>
> I urge both the EPA and the ACE to maintain protection for migratory =
> bird populations, most of which rely on inland water ways and wetlands. =
> With regard to the safeguards in place for migratory birds, providing =
> legal rationale to protect an isolated wetland that is non-navigable and =
> contained in a single state, I object to any repeal or =
> re-classifications which would jeopardize these species. =20
>
> I urge the EPA to remain true to its mission, and reject pressure from =
> the administration for wholesale repeal of federal protections for land, =
> water, and species by actually minimizing the EPA's authority and then =
> claiming the "reaffirmation of federal authority." An agency with =
> guidelines directing it to consider nothing worthy of protection has no =
> power at all. =20
>
> As a civil servant myself, I do understand that an agency's stated =
> mission and core functions include many objectives; however, what is =
> done today will have incalculable effects on tomorrow, and each day =
> after. Essentially, valuing wetlands and inland waterways merely in =
> terms of economic gain (for a few) and selectively interpreting court =
> rulings is unacceptable, irresponsible, and not in the interests of the =
> public at large. =20
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Irene-Eva Ries
> P.O. Box 622
> Chesterfield, VA 23832
>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C2E0BB.F051E400
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY style=3D"COLOR: #000080; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma" bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Dear Ms. Downing and Mr. Rugiel:</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>What appears to me a partisan push to effectively =
> eliminate=20
> wetlands throughout the United States through a "re<FONT=20
> face=3DArial>-</FONT>evaluation of protections for these isolated =
> wetlands=20
> confined to one state and not used for navigation," is rather =
> alarming for=20
> a variety of reasons.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>To be frank, my interpretation of the Bush =
> Administration's=20
> recently released guidelines are as follows: unless water can be =
> used to=20
> navigate a (commercial) watercraft for industry, it has=20
> neither value nor reason to exist." </FONT><FONT =
> size=3D2>If this=20
> is the case, and the EPA has also adopted=20
> this unreasonable perspective, let me register my=20
> adamant opposition to this stance.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Public agencies, such as the EPA and ACE, were =
> designed=20
> to be the administrator of the public interest and =
> trust. </FONT><FONT=20
> size=3D2> These newly released guidelines have questionable motivations =
> and=20
> endanger natural heritage on some 20 million acres by setting the stage =
> for=20
> repeal of federal protection. Why has the EPA accepted these =
> guidelines at=20
> all? It is contrary to the agency's stated mission! The =
> statement=20
> that the new guidelines "reaffirm federal authority" over many wetlands =
> now=20
> takes on a dubious context, considering the aim of the guidelines =
> appears to=20
> be lifting all federal protection in these areas and for =
> species=20
> occupying the wetlands only to make it available for industry of all=20
> kinds. How is it that Administrator Whitman assures the public =
> that the=20
> agency is "reaffirming federal authority," when the underlying goal =
> of the=20
> guidelines is to relax or eliminate any protection? This is=20
> an incredible contradiction of terms.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>As a citizen, I am outraged that this=20
> particular administration, which did not come to the White House =
> with any=20
> electoral mandate or even the support of the majority, now blatantly =
> contradicts=20
> what past administrations and the public at large, and I do mean "We the =
>
> People," has demonstrated by local and national elections as =
> important. =20
> And now this administration has bullied the EPA and ACE into accepting=20
> guidelines which effectively lifts protection on land and=20
> water, addles agency authority and power, and renders "federal =
>
> protection" a moot term.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>I urge both the EPA and the ACE to maintain =
> protection for=20
> migratory bird populations, most of which rely on inland water ways and=20
> wetlands. With regard to the safeguards in place for migratory =
> birds,=20
> providing legal rationale to protect an isolated wetland that is =
> non<FONT=20
> face=3DArial>-</FONT>navigable and contained in a single state, I object =
> to any=20
> repeal or re<FONT face=3DArial>-</FONT>classifications which would =
> jeopardize=20
> these species. </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>I urge the EPA to remain true to its mission, and =
> reject=20
> pressure from the administration for wholesale repeal of federal =
> protections for=20
> land, water, and species by actually minimizing the EPA's=20
> authority and then claiming the "reaffirmation of federal=20
> authority." </FONT><FONT size=3D2>An agency with guidelines =
> directing it to=20
> consider nothing worthy of protection has no power at all. =
> </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>As a civil servant myself, I do understand that an =
> agency's=20
> stated mission and core functions include many objectives;=20
> however, what is done today will have incalculable effects on =
> tomorrow, and=20
> each day after.<FONT size=3D2> Essentially, valuing wetlands and =
> inland=20
> waterways merely in terms of economic gain (for a few) and =
> selectively=20
> interpreting court rulings is unacceptable, irresponsible, and not in =
> the=20
> interests of the public at large. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Sincerely,</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Irene-Eva Ries</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>P.O. Box 622</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Chesterfield, VA 23832</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C2E0BB.F051E400--
>
>
You are subscribed to VA-Richmond-General. To unsubscribe, send email to
va-richmond-general-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject
field. To adjust other settings (vacation, digest, etc.) please visit,
//www.freelists.org/list/va-richmond-general.
Other related posts:
- » [va-richmond-general] Email rejected by EPA
