Exclusive: campaigners fear less rigorous methods could lead to more pollution in rivers and waterways
  • TenderfootGungi@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    In the US these are done state by state with little consistency. The rivers and streams here in KS are all muddy and graded accordingly. But when they cross into MO they are suddenly pristine.

      • jonne@infosec.pubEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        They’re US states, I’m sure if you really wanted to know which specific ones they are, you can look them up, and if you don’t want to, OP’s point doesn’t actually rely on you knowing that they’re Kansas and Missouri.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
            0·
            11 months ago

            Like they said, it doesn’t really matter if you look them up or not. Either you know what they meant or knowing won’t effect you in any way. Knowing which states those are does not really effect the understanding of the comment, that different regulations lead to different outcomes.

            • rodolfo@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              11 months ago

              since the general meaning of the post is trivial, which you tried to sum up with this

              different regulations lead to different outcomes

              all that remains that could be barely interesting are the names of those states.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
                0·
                11 months ago

                It may be trivial, but we have to prove trivial statements often. Some people might claim regulations don’t protect the waterways and only harm businesses. They’d be wrong, but it’s still important to give counter-examples to them.

                • rodolfo@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  11 months ago

                  god I’m talking about something completely different 😂😂😂 why did you move all of this to the article’s content? I swear, you answered so fast, it makes me think I’m writing to ai generated content. it may well be, since i wow post and not comment in my c9mment. il leave these like this just to see what happens

      • lulztard@feddit.deEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        Let’s make this about 'murica. Hello, fellow 'murican. Did you already coup a government on this fine day to replace their President with some dictator that will gladly sell out his country to our interests in favour of power? I love the smell of terrorism in the morning. Makes my petro dollar extra bloody.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    While in the EU, England was covered by the water framework directive (WFD), which meant a national chemical and ecological survey of rivers was conducted annually.

    Activists say this may make it harder to compare the state of the country’s rivers against those in the EU, and will leave the public in the dark over pollution from sewage and agriculture.

    To now not have a full assessment in 2022 and have to wait to 2025 … simply sows confusion and leaves the public in the dark when it comes to properly understanding whether our rivers are getting better or worse.”

    Government officials told the stakeholder meeting that in 2022 only a limited number of water bodies were assessed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and budget cuts.

    The Liberal Democrats’ environment spokesperson, Tim Farron, said: “Instead of clamping down on sewage dumping, ministers have let water companies off the hook and scaled back assessments so we could know exactly how much damage has been done.

    That means abolishing Ofwat and setting up a new regulator with real teeth and ensuring that testing is carried out regularly so we can get a full picture of the damage being done to our countryside.”

    The original article contains 802 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!