Thank you. Not getting the NPDES permit does seem like something they had time to do. Still confused why this is an FAA issue. (Is there any indication these are what is causing the delay?)
As I said in another comment if it were otherwise everyone would ignore all the other laws to get a launch permit.
If you read esghound's Twitter/threads he argues that the violations are so serious/done-in-bad-faith/contrary-to-submitted-paperwork that they would require a significant redo of the environmental impact permitting. In particular the FAA initially ruled that there was a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and they did not require a (time-consuming) environmental impact statement (EIS). Esghound argues that they will legally need to complete an EIS which will take months. I wouldn't necessarily bet on that given how powerful Musk is.
I don't know what "bad faith actor" means to you, but reasonably, albeit mistakenly, concluding that SpaceX violations would prevent launches isn't it.
Your rebuttal linked in that article is simply the "Elon Musk says so" that is the original tweet, with a bunch of easily falsified claims already discussed in the comments here, like that the water is potable. I don't know what a "TMSG" permit is, searching Google and Twitter doesn't produce anything. I assume you mean the storm water permit which is not for industrial waste water and I can guarantee that no agency ever told them it was good for that purpose, if they had SpaceX would be posting the communication all over Twitter.
I did not "refuse to accept" SpaceX's public document filings I simply, correctly, said that third-party test results are not the same as a permit, this isn't difficult to understand. To get a permit you go through the permitting process, you don't invent your own rules.
Finally, when someone presents ad-hominem arguments, as you have, it doesn't mean the rest of the arguments are wrong. For example, your arguments are wrong for the reasons I explained above, irrespective of your ad-hominems.
