Two things come to mind:

First, I speak as a behavorist.  When faced with a problem in life, we have two choices.  We can either find a solution so that we have a response each time we experience the problem (reactive approach), or we can take the time and energy to search out the cause of the problem in order to completely eliminate the chances of the problem ever happening again (proactive approach).  Although time consuming, the proactive approach is more effective in the end.  In this case, the only way to protect the water quality necessary to sustain our daily lives is to identify what threatens it. 

Second, I speak in favor of morality.  I believe that we all have a clear sense of what is right and wrong, but we simply choose to define them differently at times to serve our own needs.  Nevertheless, right is right and wrong is wrong.  Why else would people from all over the world, from all differnt cultures and religions, try to conceal their fault in a matter, commit crimes under the veil of darkness, or ensure there are no witnesses to certain actions?  I believe that we have rules and regulations in a civil society to protect the greater good.  In this case, regulations that measure, track and filter known threats to water quality can only ensure that we all benefit from the water and the activities derived from it.

I support the proposed poultry waste regulations.

Melody Davala, First Lady of the Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders (proud wife of the president)