ARMAN MINES INSTITUTE - LOCAL NEWS

 

In these and the like Cases, when the Government is dissolved, the People are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new Legislative, differing from the other, by the change of Persons, or Form, or both as they shall find it most for their safety and good. For the Society can never, by the fault of another, lose the Native and Original Right it has to preserve it self, which can only be done by a settled Legislative, and a fair and impartial execution of the Laws made by it. But the state of Mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this Remedy, till it be too late to look for any. To tell People they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new Legislative, when by Oppression, Artifice, or being delivered over to a Foreign Power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them they may expect Relief, when it is too late, and the evil is past Cure. This is in effect no more than to bid them first be Slaves, and then to take care of their Liberty; and when their Chains are on, tell them, they may act like Freemen. This, if barely so, is rather Mockery than Relief; and Men can never be secure from Tyranny, if there be no means to escape it, till they are perfectly under it: And therefore it is, that they have not only a Right to get out of it, but to prevent it. - Locke

NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS? & A CERCLA CLASS CLEANUP?

SPRING CREEK DEBRIS DAM SPILLWAY

EPA LIME PLANT DISCHARGE ($57 MILLION FOR THIS?)

 

GUIDED TOUR $37,500. FIND ANY FISH OR GAME?

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 26 > SUBCHAPTER V > § 1371. Authority under other laws and regulations

Expansion of surface mining operations after January 1, 1976 may be recognized as a vested nonconforming use under the doctrine of "diminishing assets” as set forth in Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533.Authority: Sections 2755, 2776 and 2775, Public Resources Code; Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533.) Reference: Calvert v. County of Yuba, (2007) 145 Cal. App. 4th 613. Encourage the production.

 

Shasta County unemployment rate reaches 15.6%

Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are
navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or are
susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce,
over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of
trade and travel on water.
The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. at 563.

In summary, when determining whether a water body qualifies as a “traditional
navigable water” (i.e., an (a)(1) water), relevant considerations include whether a Corps
District has determined that the water body is a navigable water of the United States
pursuant to 33 C.F.R § 329.14, or the water body qualifies as a navigable water of the
United States under any of the tests set forth in 33 C.F.R. § 329, or a federal court has
determined that the water body is navigable-in-fact under federal law for any purpose,
or the water body is “navigable-in-fact” under the standards that have been used by the
federal courts.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 95 > § 1951

§ 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence

(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (b) As used in this section— (1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining. (2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. (3) The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction. (c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15 , sections 52 , 101–115 , 151–166 of Title 29 or sections 151–188 of Title 45 .

 

Environmental Command Officer - Private Inspector General

THE GARRISON FOR SHASTA COUNTY VETERANS CENTER FOR HEATLH - INSTITUTE FOR LIBERTY AND INDEPENDENCE

HAZARD & REMEDIATION DIRECTORATE - DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECTORATE

 

LETTERS OF MARQUE & REPRISAL

U.S. v. AGOSTO-VEGA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v.
BRAULIO AGOSTO-VEGA, BRAULIO AGOSTO MOTORS, INC., Defendants, Appellants.

Nos. 09-1158, 09-1159

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

August 18, 2010.

III. Conclusion

The conviction of Appellants is vacated and these cases are remanded for action consistent with this opinion.

Vacated and Remanded .

 

The solemnity that covered every countenance, when contemplating the sword uplifted, and the horrors of civil war rushing to habitations not inured to scenes of rapine and misery; even to the quiet cottage, where only concord and affection had reigned; stimulated to observation a mind that had not yielded to the assertion, that all political attentions lay out of the road of female life.

It is true there are certain appropriate duties assigned to each sex; and doubtless it is the more peculiar province of masculine strength, not only to repel the bold invader of the rights of his country and of mankind, but in the nervous style of manly eloquence, to describe the blood-stained field, and relate the story of slaughtered armies.

Sensible of this, the trembling heart has recoiled at the magnitude of the undertaking, and the hand often shrunk back from the task; yet, recollecting that every domestic enjoyment depends on the unimpaired possession of civil and religious liberty, that a concern for the welfare of society ought equally to glow in every human breast, the work was not relinquished. The most interesting circumstances were collected, active characters portrayed, the principles of the times developed, and the changes marked; nor need it cause a blush to acknowledge, a detail was preserved with a view of transmitting it to the rising youth of my country, some of them in infancy, others in the European world, while the most interesting events lowered over their native land.

[v] Conscious that truth has been the guide of my pen, and candor, as well as justice, the accompaniment of my wishes through every page, I can say, with an ingenious writer, “I have used my pen with the liberty of one, who neither hopes nor fears, nor has any interest in the success or failure of any party, and who speaks to posterity—perhaps very far remote.”

“the guidance of reason . . . operates too little on the generality of mankind.” 7 Faced with those who lusted for power and self-aggrandizement, most people in the history of the world submitted, too ignorant, cowardly, or despairing to resist. - Mercy Otis Warren

Ellen Brown

Author, "Web of Debt"

Posted: August 19, 2010 12:54 PM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index

Homeowners' Rebellion: Could 62 Million Homes Be Foreclosure-Proof?

Over 62 million mortgages are now held in the name of MERS, an electronic recording system devised by and for the convenience of the mortgage industry. A California bankruptcy court, following landmark cases in other jurisdictions, recently held that this electronic shortcut makes it impossible for banks to establish their ownership of property titles--and therefore to foreclose on mortgaged properties. The logical result could be 62 million homes that are foreclosure-proof.

Mortgages bundled into securities were a favorite investment of speculators at the height of the financial bubble leading up to the crash of 2008 . The securities changed hands frequently, and the companies profiting from mortgage payments were often not the same parties that negotiated the loans. At the heart of this disconnect was the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS , a company that serves as the mortgagee of record for lenders, allowing properties to change hands without the necessity of recording each transfer.

MERS was convenient for the mortgage industry, but courts are now questioning the impact of all of this financial juggling when it comes to mortgage ownership. To foreclose on real property, the plaintiff must be able to establish the chain of title entitling it to relief. But MERS has acknowledged, and recent cases have held, that MERS is a mere "nominee"--an entity appointed by the true owner simply for the purpose of holding property in order to facilitate transactions. Recent court opinions stress that this defect is not just a procedural but is a substantive failure, one that is fatal to the plaintiff's legal ability to foreclose.

That means hordes of victims of predatory lending could end up owning their homes free and clear -- while the financial industry could end up skewered on its own sword.

California Precedent

The latest of these court decisions came down in California on May 20, 2010, in a bankruptcy case called In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E-11. The court held that MERS could not foreclose because it was a mere nominee; and that as a result, plaintiff Citibank could not collect on its claim. The judge opined:

Since no evidence of MERS' ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another.Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.

In support, the judge cited In Re Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court); Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas Supreme Court); LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (a New York case); and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the "Boyko" decision from Ohio Federal Court). (For more on these earlier cases, see here , here and here .) The court concluded:

Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case. The broad impact the case could have on California foreclosures is suggested by attorney Jeff Barnes , who writes: This opinion . . . serves as a legal basis to challenge any foreclosure in California based on a MERS assignment; to seek to void any MERS assignment of the Deed of Trust or the note to a third party for purposes of foreclosure; and should be sufficient for a borrower to not only obtain a TRO [temporary restraining order] against a Trustee's Sale, but also a Preliminary Injunction barring any sale pending any litigation filed by the borrower challenging a foreclosure based on a MERS assignment. While not binding on courts in other jurisdictions, the ruling could serve as persuasive precedent there as well, because the court cited non-bankruptcy cases related to the lack of authority of MERS, and because the opinion is consistent with prior rulings in Idaho and Nevada Bankruptcy courts on the same issue.

What Could This Mean for Homeowners?

Earlier cases focused on the inability of MERS to produce a promissory note or assignment establishing that it was entitled to relief, but most courts have considered this a mere procedural defect and continue to look the other way on MERS' technical lack of standing to sue. The more recent cases, however, are looking at something more serious. If MERS is not the title holder of properties held in its name, the chain of title has been broken, and no one may have standing to sue. In MERS v. Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance , MERS insisted that it had no actionable interest in title, and the court agreed.

An August 2010 article in Mother Jones titled "Fannie and Freddie's Foreclosure Barons" exposes a widespread practice of "foreclosure mills" in backdating assignments after foreclosures have been filed. Not only is this perjury, a prosecutable offense, but if MERS was never the title holder, there is nothing to assign. The defaulting homeowners could wind up with free and clear title.

In Jacksonville, Florida, legal aid attorney April Charney has been using the missing-note argument ever since she first identified that weakness in the lenders' case in 2004. Five years later, she says, some of the homeowners she's helped are still in their homes. According to a Huffington Post article titled "'Produce the Note' Movement Helps Stall Foreclosures":

Because of the missing ownership documentation, Charney is now starting to file quiet title actions, hoping to get her homeowner clients full title to their homes (a quiet title action 'quiets' all other claims). Charney says she's helped thousands of homeowners delay or prevent foreclosure, and trained thousands of lawyers across the country on how to protect homeowners and battle in court. Criminal Charges?


Other suits go beyond merely challenging title to alleging criminal activity. On July 26, 2010, a class action was filed in Florida seeking relief against MERS and an associated legal firm for racketeering and mail fraud. It alleges that the defendants used "the artifice of MERS to sabotage the judicial process to the detriment of borrowers;" that "to perpetuate the scheme, MERS was and is used in a way so that the average consumer, or even legal professional, can never determine who or what was or is ultimately receiving the benefits of any mortgage payments;" that the scheme depended on "the MERS artifice and the ability to generate any necessary 'assignment' which flowed from it;" and that "by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity, specifically 'mail or wire fraud,' the Defendants . . . participated in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate commerce."

Local governments deprived of filing fees may also be getting into the act, at least through representatives suing on their behalf. Qui tam actions allow for a private party or "whistle blower" to bring suit on behalf of the government for a past or present fraud on it. In State of California ex rel. Barrett R. Bates , filed May 10, 2010, the plaintiff qui tam sued on behalf of a long list of local governments in California against MERS and a number of lenders, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, for "wrongfully bypass[ing] the counties' recording requirements; divest[ing] the borrowers of the right to know who owned the promissory note . . .; and record[ing] false documents to initiate and pursue non-judicial foreclosures, and to otherwise decrease or avoid payment of fees to the Counties and the Cities where the real estate is located." The complaint notes that "MERS claims to have 'saved' at least $2.4 billion dollars in recording costs," meaning it has helped avoid billions of dollars in fees otherwise accruing to local governments. The plaintiff sues for treble damages for all recording fees not paid during the past ten years, and for civil penalties of between $5,000 and $10,000 for each unpaid or underpaid recording fee and each false document recorded during that period, potentially a hefty sum. Similar suits have been filed by the same plaintiff qui tam in Nevada and Tennessee.

By Their Own Sword: MERS' Role in the Financial Crisis

MERS is, according to its website, "an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans." Or as Karl Denninger puts it, "MERS' own website claims that it exists for the purpose of circumventing assignments and documenting ownership!"

MERS was developed in the early 1990s by a number of financial entities, including Bank of America, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, allegedly to allow consumers to pay less for mortgage loans. That did not actually happen, but what MERS did allow was the securitization and shuffling around of mortgages behind a veil of anonymity. The result was not only to cheat local governments out of their recording fees but to defeat the purpose of the recording laws, which was to guarantee purchasers clean title. Worse, MERS facilitated an explosion of predatory lending in which lenders could not be held to account because they could not be identified, either by the preyed-upon borrowers or by the investors seduced into buying bundles of worthless mortgages. As alleged in a Nevada class action called Lopez vs. Executive Trustee Services, et al.:

Before MERS, it would not have been possible for mortgages with no market value . . . to be sold at a profit or collateralized and sold as mortgage-backed securities. Before MERS, it would not have been possible for the Defendant banks and AIG to conceal from government regulators the extent of risk of financial losses those entities faced from the predatory origination of residential loans and the fraudulent re-sale and securitization of those otherwise non-marketable loans. Before MERS, the actual beneficiary of every Deed of Trust on every parcel in the United States and the State of Nevada could be readily ascertained by merely reviewing the public records at the local recorder's office where documents reflecting any ownership interest in real property are kept....


After MERS, . . . the servicing rights were transferred after the origination of the loan to an entity so large that communication with the servicer became difficult if not impossible .... The servicer was interested in only one thing - making a profit from the foreclosure of the borrower's residence - so that the entire predatory cycle of fraudulent origination, resale, and securitization of yet another predatory loan could occur again. This is the legacy of MERS, and the entire scheme was predicated upon the fraudulent designation of MERS as the 'beneficiary' under millions of deeds of trust in Nevada and other states.

Axing the Bankers' Money Tree

If courts overwhelmed with foreclosures decide to take up the cause, the result could be millions of struggling homeowners with the banks off their backs, and millions of homes no longer on the books of some too-big-to-fail banks. Without those assets, the banks could again be looking at bankruptcy. As was pointed out in a San Francisco Chronicle article by attorney Sean Olender following the October 2007 Boyko [pdf] decision:

The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.

. . . The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail . . . .


Nationalization of these giant banks might be the next logical step--a step that some commentators said should have been taken in the first place. When the banking system of Sweden collapsed following a housing bubble in the 1990s, nationalization of the banks worked out very well for that country.

The Swedish banks were largely privatized again when they got back on their feet, but it might be a good idea to keep some banks as publicly-owned entities , on the model of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia . For most of the 20th century it served as a "people's bank," making low interest loans to consumers and businesses through branches all over the country.

With the strengthened position of Wall Street following the 2008 bailout and the tepid 2010 banking reform bill, the U.S. is far from nationalizing its mega-banks now. But a committed homeowner movement to tear off the predatory mask called MERS could yet turn the tide. While courts are not likely to let 62 million homeowners off scot-free, the defect in title created by MERS could give them significant new leverage at the bargaining table.

Superfund Liability

Latest Developments…

Did you know…?

-- You can find more on defenses to superfund liability in Waste Management Guide

The process by which a region became a territory. As established by United States law, beginning with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, when a specifically defined part of the unorganized federal domain was sufficiently populated, its residents (United States citizens) could petition Congress for territorial status. Congress would subsequently pass an organic act, with a bill of rights for territory residents, and set up a three-part government, with appointed executive and judicial branches. Residents elected a legislative branch. The federal government had ultimate authority over territorial affairs, and an elected territorial representative was seated in Congress.

A March 1889 law established a federal court system based at Muskogee, assuming judicial authority and jurisdiction that had been exercised since the 1834 Trade Act by the Western District of Arkansas.

The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) established the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program. Section 319 addresses the need for greater federal leadership to help focus state and local nonpoint source efforts. Under Section 319, states, territories and tribes receive grant money that supports a wide variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects.

Abolition of California Debris Commission Pub. L. 99-662, title XI, Sec. 1106, Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4229, provided that: ``(a) The California Debris Commission established by the first section of the Act of March 1, 1893 (33 U.S.C. 661) is hereby abolished. ``(b) All authorities, powers, functions, and duties of the California Debris Commission are hereby transferred to the Secretary [meaning Secretary of the Army, see 33 U.S.C. 2201]. ``(c) The assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records, and the unexpended balance of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, used arising from, available to, or to be made available in connection with the authorities, powers, functions, and duties transferred by this section, subject to section 202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedure Act of 1950 [see 31 U.S.C. 1531], are hereby transferred to the Secretary for appropriate allocation. Unexpended funds transferred pursuant to this subsection shall be used only for the purposes for which the funds were originally authorized and appropriated. ``(d) All acquired lands, and other interests therein presently under the jurisdiction of the California Debris Commission are hereby authorized to be retained, and shall be administered under the direction of the Secretary, who is hereby authorized to take such actions as are necessary to consolidate and perfect title; to exchange for other lands or interests therein which may be required for recreation or for existing or proposed projects of the United States; to transfer to other Federal agencies or dispose of as surplus property; and to release to the coextensive fee owners any easements no longer required by the United States, under such conditions or for such consideration as the Secretary shall determine to be fair and reasonable. Except as specifically provided herein all transactions will be in accordance with existing laws and procedures.''

TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS CHAPTER 14--CALIFORNIA DEBRIS COMMISSION Sec. 682. Malicious injury to works; injury to navigable waters by hydraulic mining; penalty Any person or persons who willfully or maliciously injure, damage, or destroy, or attempt to injure, damage, or destroy, any dam or other work erected under the provisions of this chapter for restraining, impounding, or settling purposes, or for use in connection therewith, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not to exceed the sum of $5,000 or be imprisoned not to exceed five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. And any person or persons, company or corporation, their agents or employees, who shall mine by the hydraulic process directly or indirectly injuring the navigable waters of the United States, in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. (Mar. 1, 1893, ch. 183, Sec. 22, 27 Stat. 510.) Section Referred to in Other Sections This section is referred to in section 661 of this title.

Sec. 669. Petition by hydraulic miners The individual proprietor or proprietors, or in case of a corporation, its manager or agent appointed for that purpose, owning mining ground in the territory in the State of California mentioned in section 663 of this title, which it is desired to work by the hydraulic process, must file with said commission a verified petition, setting forth such facts as will comply with law and the rules prescribed by said commission. (Mar. 1, 1893, ch. 183, Sec. 9, 27 Stat. 508.) Transfer of Functions California Debris Commission abolished and functions transferred to Secretary of the Army by Pub. L. 99-662, title XI, Sec. 1106, Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4229, set out as a note under section 661 of this title. Section Referred to in Other Sections This section is referred to in sections 661, 671 of this title.

TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS CHAPTER 14--CALIFORNIA DEBRIS COMMISSION Sec. 671. Petition for common dumping ground, etc. The owners of several mining claims situated so as to require a common dumping ground or dam or other restraining works for the debris issuing therefrom in one or more sites may file a joint petition setting forth such facts in addition to the requirements of section 669 of this title; and where the owner of a hydraulic mine or owners of several such mines have and use common dumping sites for impounding debris or as settling reservoirs, which sites are located below the mine of an applicant not entitled to use same, such fact shall also be stated in said petition. Thereupon the same proceedings shall be had as provided for herein. (Mar. 1, 1893, ch. 183, Sec. 11, 27 Stat. 508.) References in Text Herein, referred to in text, means act Mar. 1, 1893, which comprises this chapter. Section Referred to in Other Sections This section is referred to in sections 661, 676 of this title.

TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS CHAPTER 14--CALIFORNIA DEBRIS COMMISSION Sec. 676. Allotment of expenses for common dumping grounds; location of impounding works In case the joint petition referred to in section 671 of this title is granted, the commission shall fix the respective amounts to be paid by each owner of such mines toward providing and building necessary impounding dams or other restraining works. In the event of a petition being filed after the entry of such order, or in case the impounding dam or dams or other restraining works have already been constructed and accepted by said commission, the commission shall fix such amount as may be reasonable for the privilege of dumping therein, which amount shall be divided between the original owners of such impounding dams or other restraining works in proportion to the amount respectively paid by each party owning same. The expense of maintaining and protecting such joint dam or works shall be divided among mine owners using the same in such proportion as the commission shall determine. In all cases where it is practicable, restraining and impounding works are to be provided, constructed, and maintained by mine owners near or below the mine or mines before reaching the main tributaries of said navigable waters. (Mar. 1, 1893, ch. 183, Sec. 16, 27 Stat. 509.) Transfer of Functions California Debris Commission abolished and functions transferred to Secretary of the Army by Pub. L. 99-662, title XI, Sec. 1106, Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4229, set out as a note under section 661 of this title. Section Referred to in Other Sections This section is referred to in section 661 of this title.

CREATION OF THE JEFFERSON DEBRIS COMMISSION

ARMAN MINES MINISTRY PLEDGES 1 BILLION LBS. IRON MOUNTAIN MINERALS SOIL RESTORATION

CALUMET PIGMENTS OFFERS 72% GYPSUM 22% IRON OXIDES FAX MR. T.W. ARMAN, PRICES BELOW.

We are continuingly being injured and delayed by incompetent agencies and factors of the federal and state executive and judicial branches, environmentalism is religion for atheists and non-scientists. The Obama administration has ordered EPA to regulate "climate change"

As the Washington Post tells us, the Obama administration is comprised of "true believers."

18

Epilogue: Securing the Republic

Thomas Jefferson, Preamble to a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge

Fall 1778 Papers 2:526--27

Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked: . . .
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 18, Document 11
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s11.html
The University of Chicago Press

The Papers of Thomas Jefferson . Edited by Julian P. Boyd et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950--.

MANUFACTURED JURISDICTION: "the circumstances relied upon to establish federal jurisdiction over the offenses charged were artificially created by the Government in an attempt to exceed the proper scope of federal law enforcement." 501 F.Supp. at 1205. The revised PHG of 300 g/L is two orders of magnitude greater than the applicable numeric chemical-specific standards identified in ROD 5 for the protection of freshwater. COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing; Keswick dam to Cottonwood creek; Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list. JUNE 15, 2010;

Water: Initiation of Risk Assessments for Chemicals in Drinking Water [07/09/10]

Comparison of MCLs and PHGs for Regulated Contaminants in Drinking Water

Last Update:  July 24, 2010 This page compares maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and public health goals (PHGs). 

Draft Clean Water Strategy is released

Posted by the EPA on August 20th, 2010 - 11:58 AM

News Releases By Date

NTC SUPERFUND SITES

Release date: 05/18/98

Contact Information:


FOR RELEASE: MONDAY, MAY 18, 1998


The list of Superfund sites that could be potentially impacted by not receiving an

additional $650 million in the fiscal year 1999 EPA appropriation is available through the
Internet at: http://www.epa.gov (under news and events).

R-65 ###
SUPERFUND SITES
STATE CITY NAME STATUS
ALABAMA MONTGOMERY T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION BEGIN CLEANUP
ALASKA ANCHORAGE ELMENDORF AIR BASE STANDARD STEEL & METALS SALVAGE YARD (USDOT) COMPLETE CLEANUP
ALASKA FAIRBANKS EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE COMPLETE CLEANUP
ALASKA FAIRBANKS ARCTIC SURPLUS BEGIN CLEANUP
ARIZONA SCOTTSDALE INDIAN BEND WASH AREA BEGIN CLEANUP
ARIZONA TUCSON TUCSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA BEGIN CLEANUP
ARKANSAS WEST MEMPHIS SOUTH 8TH STREET LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA FRESNO FRESNO MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA MONTEREY PARK OPERATING INDUSTRIES, INC., LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA REDDING IRON MOUNTAIN MINE BEGIN CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA SALINAS CRAZY HORSE SANITARY LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA STOCKTON MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOSOTING CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA WEED J.H. BAXTER & CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA WESTMINSTER RALPH GRAY TRUCKING CO BEGIN CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA COALINGA ATLAS ASBESTOS MINE COMPLETE CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA FULLERTON MCCOLL COMPLETE CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA MODESTO MODESTO GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION COMPLETE CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN VIEW FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP (MT VIEW); INTEL CORP. (MT VIEW PLANT); JASCO CHEMICAL CORP; RAYTHEON CORP COMPLETE CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA OROVILLE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPLETE CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT COMPLETE CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE SOUTH BAY ASBESTOS AREA COMPLETE CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA SELMA SELMA TREATING CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
CALIFORNIA TURLOCK VALLEY WOOD PRESERVING, INC COMPLETE CLEANUP
COLORADO AURORA LOWRY LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
COLORADO SUMMITVILLE SUMMITVILLE MINE BEGIN CLEANUP
COLORADO DENVER CHEMICAL SALES CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
CONNECTICUT SOUTHINGTON SOUTHINGTON LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
CONNECTICUT WOODSTOCK LINEMASTER SWITCH CORP. BEGIN CLEANUP
CONNECTICUT BARKHAMSTED BARKHAMSTAD-NEW HARTFORD LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
DELAWARE DOVER DOVER GAS LIGHT CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
DELAWARE NEWPORT E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS (NEWPORT LANDFILL) BEGIN CLEANUP
DELAWARE DOVER CHEM-SOLV, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
FLORIDA CLERMONT TOWER CHEMICAL CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
FLORIDA DAVIE FLORIDA PETROLEUM REPROCESSORS BEGIN CLEANUP
FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE WINGATE ROAD MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR DUMP BEGIN CLEANUP
FLORIDA GAINSVILLE CABOT/KOPPERS BEGIN CLEANUP
FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE COLEMAN-EVANS WOOD PRESERVING CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
FLORIDA MIAMI ANODYNE, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
FLORIDA PENSACOLA AGRICO CHEMICAL CO.
AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS (PENSACOAL PLANT)
FLORIDA TAMPA HELENA CHEMICAL CO. (TAMPA PLANT); PEAK OIL CO./BAY DRUM CO; STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (TAMPA) BEGIN CLEANUP
FLORIDA VALRICO SYDNEY MINE SLUDGE PONDS BEGIN CLEANUP
FLORIDA WHITEHOUSE WHITEHOUSE OIL PITS BEGIN CLEANUP
FLORIDA MIAMI AIRCO PLANTING CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
FLORIDA ZELLWOOD ZELLWOOD GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION COMPLETE CLEANUP
GEORGIA ALBANY T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION (ALBANY) BEGIN CLEANUP
GEORGIA BRUNSWICK LCP CHEMICALS GEORGIA BEGIN CLEANUP
GEORGIA FORT VALLEY WOOLFOLK CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
GEORGIA BRUNSWICK HERCULES 009 LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
HAWAII WAHIAWA SCHOFIELD BARRACKS COMPLETE CLEANUP
IDAHO POCATELLO EASTERN MICHAUD FLATS CONTAMINATION BEGIN CLEANUP
IDAHO SODA SPRINGS MONSANTO CHEMICAL CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
ILLINOIS BELVIDERE MIG/DEWNE LANDFILL
PARSON'S CASKET HARDWARE COMPANY
BEGIN CLEANUP
ILLINOIS BYRON BYRON SALVAGE YARD BEGIN CLEANUP
ILLINOIS GRANITE CITY JENNISON WRIGHT CORPORATION; NL INDUSTRIES/TARACORP LEAD SMELT SITE BEGIN CLEANUP
ILLINOIS LEMONT LENZ OIL SERVICE INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
ILLINOIS ROCKFORD PAGEL'S PIT; SE ROCKFORD GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION BEGIN CLEANUP
ILLINOIS SAUGET SAUGET AREA 1--DEAD CREEK BEGIN CLEANUP
ILLINOIS WOODSTOCK WOODSTOCK MUNICIPAL LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
ILLINOIS GALESBURG GALESBURG/KOPPERS CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
ILLINOIS QUINCY ADAMS COUNTY QUINCY LANDFILL SITE 2 & 3 COMPLETE CLEANUP
INDIANA BLOOMINGTON BENNET STONE QUARRY; LEMON LANE LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
INDIANA ELKHART CONRAIL RAILYARD; ELKHART HIMCO DUMP BEGIN CLEANUP
INDIANA GRIFFITH AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICE, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL BEGIN CLEANUP
INDIANA KOKOMO CONTINENTAL STEEL CORP. BEGIN CLEANUP
INDIANA KINGSBURY FISHER CALO COMPLETE CLEANUP
INDIANA MISHAWAKA DOUGLAS ROAD UNIROYAL INC. LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS ELECTRO-COATINGS, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
IOWA KEOKUK SHELLER-GLOBE CORP. DISPOSAL BEGIN CLEANUP
IOWA SERGEANT BLUFF MID-AMERICA TANNING CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS ELECTRO-COATINGS, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
IOWA DES MOINES DES MOINES TCE COMPLETE CLEANUP
IOWA RED OAK RED OAK CITY LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
KANSAS CHEROKEE COUNTY CHEROKEE COUNTY BEGIN CLEANUP
KANSAS EL DORADO PESTER REFINERY CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
KANSAS OLATHE CHEMICAL COMMODITIES INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
KANSAS WICHITA 57TH AND N. BROADWAY STREETS SITE BEGIN CLEANUP
KANSAS WINFIELD STROTHER FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK BEGIN CLEANUP
KENTUCKY HAWESVILLLE NATIONAL SOUTHWIRE ALUMINUM CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
KENTUCKY ISLAND BRANTLEY LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
KENTUCKY OLATON FORT HARFORD COAL CO. STONE QUARRY COMPLETE CLEANUP
KENTUCKY SHEPERDSVILLE SMITH'S FARM COMPLETE CLEANUP
LOUISIANA DENHAM SPRINGS COMBUSTION, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
LOUISIANA ABBEVILLE GULF COAST VACUUM SERVICES COMPLETE CLEANUP
LOUISIANA MADISONVILLE MADISIONVILLE CREOSOTE WORKS, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
LOUISIANA WINNFIELD AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
MAINE AUGUSTA O'CONNOR CO COMPLETE CLEANUP
MARYLAND ABINGDON BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
MARYLAND CUMBERLAND LIMESTONE ROAD COMPLETE CLEANUP
MARYLAND HOLLYWOOD SOUTHERN MARYLAND WOOD TREATING COMPLETE CLEANUP
MASSACHUSETTS ASHLAND NYANZA CHEMICAL WASTE DUMP BEGIN CLEANUP
MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH RE-SOLVE, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
MASSACHUSETTS GROVELAND GROVELAND WELLS COMPLETE CLEANUP
MASSACHUSETTS HOLBROOK BAIRD & MCGUIRE COMPLETE CLEANUP
MASSACHUSETTS PALMER PSC RESOURCES COMPLETE CLEANUP
MASSACHUSETTS TYNGSBOROUGH CHARLES-GEORGE RECLAMATION LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
MICHIGAN GRAND LEDGE PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS INC BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN GRAND RAPIDS BUTTERWORTH #2 LANDFILL SITE BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN GRANDVILLE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN HUBBELL TORCH LAKE BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN KALAMAZOO ALLIED PAPER/PORTAGE CREEK/KALAMAZOO RIVER;
K & L AVENUE LANDFILL;
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE
BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN MANCELONA TAR LAKE BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN METAMORA METAMORA LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN MUSKEGON BOFORS NOBEL, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN MUSKEGON HEIGHTS SCA INDEPENDENT LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN PETOSKY PETOSKY MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN PLEASANT PLAINS TWP WASH KING LAUNDRY BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP DUMP BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN ST. CLAIR SHORES SOUTH MACOMB DISPOSAL AUTHORITY LANDFILL 9 BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN ST. LOUIS VELSICOL CHEMICAL BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN VICINITY OF HOWELL SHIAWASSEE RIVER BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN WYOMING SPARTAN CHEMICAL CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
MICHIGAN ALBION ALBION SHERIDAN TOWNSHIP LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
MICHIGAN BUCHANAN ELECTROVOICE COMPLETE CLEANUP
MICHIGAN CLARE CLARE WATER SUPPLY COMPLETE CLEANUP
MICHIGAN FILER CITY PACKAGING CORP OF AMERICA COMPLETE CLEANUP
MICHIGAN HOLLAND WASTE MANAGEMENT OF MICHIGAN COMPLETE CLEANUP
MICHIGAN IONIA IONIA CITY LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
MICHIGAN METAMORA METAMORA LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
MICHIGAN SAULT STE MARIE CANNELTON INDUSTRIES COMPLETE CLEANUP
MICHIGAN SHELBY TWP G&H LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
MINNESOTA NEW BRIGHTON MACGILLIS & GIBBS CO/BELL LUMBER & POLE BEGIN CLEANUP
MINNESOTA SEBEKA RITARI POST & POLE BEGIN CLEANUP
MINNESOTA PERHAM PERHAM ARSENIC COMPLETE CLEANUP
MINNESOTA WAITE PARK WAITE PARK WELLS COMPLETE CLEANUP
MISSOURI BRIDGETON WESTLAKE LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
MISSOURI CAPE GIRARDEAU MISSOURI ELECTRIC WORKS BEGIN CLEANUP
MISSOURI MALDEN BEE CEE MANUFACTURING CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
MISSOURI SIKESTON QUALITY PLATING COMPLETE CLEANUP
MONTANA BUTTE SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA BEGIN CLEANUP
MONTANA EAST HELENA EAST HELENA SITE BEGIN CLEANUP
MONTANA MILLTOWN MILLTOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMENTS BEGIN CLEANUP
MONTANA BUTTE MONTANA POLE AND TREATING COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEBRASKA BRUNO BRUNO COOP & ASSOCIATE PROPERTIES BEGIN CLEANUP
NEBRASKA HASTINGS HASTINGS GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION BEGIN CLEANUP
NEBRASKA NORFOLK SHERWOOD MEDICAL CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW HAMPSHIRE KINGSTON OTTATI & GOSS/KINGSTON
STEEL DRUM
BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW HAMPSHIRE MILFORD SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW HAMPSHIRE PLAISTOW BEEDE WASTE OIL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW HAMPSHIRE SOMERSWORTH SOMERSWORTH SANITARY LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW HAMPSHIRE BARRINGTON TIBBETTS ROAD COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY BEVERLY COSDEN CHEMICAL COATINGS CORP. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY BOUND BROOK BROOK INDUSTRIAL PARK BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY CHESTER TWP COMBE FILL SOUTH LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY DOVER TWP DOVER MUNICIPAL WELL 4 BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY FAIR LAWN FAIR LAWN WELL FIELD BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY FRANKLIN BORO METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY FRANKLIN TWP FRANKLIN BURN SITE--MYERS PROPERTY BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY GIBBSTOWN HERCULES, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY GLEN RIDGE GLEN RIDGE RADIUM SITE BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY HOBOKEN GRAND STREET MERCURY SITE BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY KINGSTON HIGGINS DISPOSAL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY KINGWOOD TOWNSHIP DEREWAL CHEMICAL CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY MARLBORO TWP BURNT FLY BOG BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY MONTCLAIR/W. ORANGE MONTCLAIR/WEST ORANGE RADIUM SITE BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY MONTGOMERY TWP MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY MORGANVILLE IMPERIAL OIL CO., INC/ CHAMPION CHEMICALS BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY NEWARK DIAMOND ALKALI CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY NEWFIELD SHIELDALLOY CORP. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY OLD BRIDGE GLOBAL SANITARY LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY OLD BRIDGE TWP CPS/MADISON INDUSTRIES BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY ORANGE U.S. RADIUM CORP BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY PEDRICKTOWN NL INDUSTRIES BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY ROCKAWAY ROCKAWAY BOROUGH WELL FIELD BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY ROCKAWAY TWP RADIATION TECHNOLOGY, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY ROCKY HILL BORO ROCKY HILL MUNICIPAL WELL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY ROEBLING ROEBLING STEEL CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY S. BRUNSWICK JIS LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY VINELAND VINELAND CHEMICAL CO., INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY WOODLAND TWP WOODLAND ROUTE 72 DUMP BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY FLORENCE TWP FLORENCE LAND RECONTOURING LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY GLOUSTER TWP GEMS LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY HAMILTON TWP D'IMPERIO PROPERTY COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY LAKEHURST NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY MILLVILLE AND VINELAND NASCOLITE CORP. COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY MINOTOLA GARDEN STATE CLEANERS CO.; SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY PITMAN LIPARI LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY SAYREVILLE SAYREVILLE LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY SPRINGFIELD TWP KAUFFMAN & MINTEER, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY WALL TWP WALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW JERSEY WALLINGTON INDUSTRIAL LATEX CORP. COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW MEXICO ALBUQUERQUE AT & SF BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW MEXICO CHURCH ROCK UNITED NUCLEAR CORP. COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW YORK AMENIA SARNEY FARM BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK BATAVIA BATAVIA LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK BYRON TWP BYRON BARREL & DRUM BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK CLAYVILLE LUDLOW SAND & GRAVEL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK COLESVILLE COLESVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK GLEN COVE LI TUNSTEN CORP. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK HORSEHEADS KENTUCKY AVENUE WELL FIELD BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK LINCKLAEN SOLVENT SAVERS BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK LISBON SEALAND RESTORATION, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK MASSENA GENERAL MOTORS BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK MOIRA YORK OIL CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK NIAGARA FALLS HOOKER BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK OLEAN OLEAN WELL FIELD BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK PORT WASHINGTON PORT WASHINGTON LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK SIDNEY GCL TIE AND TREATING INC.; SIDNEY LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK SYRACUSE ONONDAGA LAKE BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK VESTAL ROBINTECH, INC.
NATIONAL PIPE CO. VESTAL WATER SUPPLY WELL 1-1
BEGIN CLEANUP
NEW YORK ELMIRA FACET ENTERPRISES, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW YORK FRANKLIN SQUARE GENZALE PLATING CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW YORK FULTON FULTON TERMINALS COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW YORK GARDEN CITY PASLEY SOLVENTS & CHEMICALS, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW YORK GLENWOOD COVE MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CO., INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW YORK HYDE PARK JONES SANITATION COMPLETE CLEANUP
NEW YORK WELLSVILLE SINCLAIR REFINERY COMPLETE CLEANUP
NORTH CAROLINA RALEIGH NC STATE UNIVERSITY BEGIN CLEANUP
NORTH CAROLINA SALISBURY NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP. BEGIN CLEANUP
NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE FCX, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON NEW HANOVER CNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT BEGIN CLEANUP
NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE MARTIN-MARIETTA, SODYECO, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
NORTH CAROLINA CONCORD BYPASS 601 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION COMPLETE CLEANUP
NORTH CAROLINA JACKSONVILLE ABC ONE HOUR CLEANERS COMPLETE CLEANUP
NORTH CAROLINA OXFORD JFD ELECTRONICS/ CHANNEL MASTER COMPLETE CLEANUP
OHIO ARCANUM ARCANUM IRON & METAL BEGIN CLEANUP
OHIO ASHTABULA FIELDS BROOK BEGIN CLEANUP
OHIO DOVER REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORP. BEGIN CLEANUP
OHIO TROY UNITED SCRAP LEAD CO., INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
OHIO UNIONTOWN INDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
OHIO WEST CHESTER SKINNER LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
OHIO BYESVILLE FULTZ LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
OHIO FAIRBORN US AIR FORCE WRIGHT-PATERSON AFB COMPLETE CLEANUP
OHIO IRONTON ALLIED CHEMICAL & IRONTON COKE COMPLETE CLEANUP
OHIO MARIETTA VAN DALE JUNKYARD COMPLETE CLEANUP
OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA CITY DOUBLE EAGLE REFINERY CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
OREGON PORTLAND MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOSOTING CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
OREGON PORTLAND GOULD, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
OREGON THE DALLES UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TIE TREATMENT COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA BALLY BALLY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA BERNE BROWN'S BATTERY BREAKING BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA CHAMBERSBURG LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA DENVER BERKELEY PRODUCTS CO. DUMP BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA EXTON A.I.W. FRANK/MID-COUNTY MUSTANG BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA GETTYSBURG HUNTERSTOWN ROAD SHRIVER'S CORNER BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA HANOVER KEYSTONE SANITATION LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA JACKSON TWP BUTZ LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA LANSDALE NORTH PENN - AREA 6 BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA MYERSTOWN WHITMOYER LABORATORIES BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA NORRISTOWN COMMODORE SEMICONDUCTOR GROUP BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA PALMERTON PALMERTON ZINC PILE BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA PAOLI PAOLI RAIL YARD BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA METAL BANKS BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA SINKING SPRING BERKS LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE CENTER COUNTY KEPONE BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA VALLEY TWP MW MANUFACTURING BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA W CALN TWP WILLIAM DICK LAGOONS BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA WARMINSTER FISCHER & PORTER CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAMSPORT AVCO LYCOMING BEGIN CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA ALLENTOWN NOVAK SANITARY LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA COLLEGEVILLE MOYERS LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA ERIE MILL CREEK DUMP COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA GETTYSBURG WESTINGHOUSE ELEVATOR CO. PLANT COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA HARRISON TWP LINDANE DUMP COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA KING OF PRUSSIA STANLEY KESSLER COMPLETE CLEANUP PENNSYLVANIA MERTZTOWN DORNEY ROAD LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA NESQUEHONING TONOLLI CORP. COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA NEWLIN TWP STRASBURG LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA NOCKAMIXON REVERE CHEMICAL CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA PITTSTON TWP BUTLER MINE TUNNEL COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA POTTSTOWN OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP./FIRESTONE TIRE COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA SAEGERTOWN SAEGERTOWN INDUSTRIAL AREA COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA SOUDERTON NORTH PENN - AREA 1 COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA SPRINGETTSBURY EAST MOUNT ZION COMPLETE CLEANUP
PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAMSPORT AVCO LYCOMING COMPLETE CLEANUP
PUERTO RICO BARCELONETA BARCELONETA LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
PUERTO RICO VEGA ALTA VEGA ALTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS BEGIN CLEANUP
PUERTO RICO BARCELONETA UPJOHN FACILITY COMPLETE CLEANUP
PUERTO RICO JUANA DIAZ GE WIRING DEVICES COMPLETE CLEANUP
RHODE ISLAND COVENTRY PICILLO FARM BEGIN CLEANUP
RHODE ISLAND SMITHFIELD DAVIS LIQUID WASTE BEGIN CLEANUP
RHODE ISLAND NORTH SMITHFIELD STAMINA MILLS, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
SOUTH CAROLINA CAYCE LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL AREA COMPLETE CLEANUP
SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA PALMETTO RECYCLING, INC. COMPLETE CLEANUP
SOUTH CAROLINA FAIRFAX HELENA CHEMICAL CO. LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
SOUTH CAROLINA FOUNTAIN INN BEAUNIT CORP. COMPLETE CLEANUP
SOUTH CAROLINA PICKENS SANGAMO WESTON/
WELVE-MILE/HARTWELL PCB
COMPLETE CLEANUP
SOUTH CAROLINA PONTIAC TOWNSEND SAW CHAIN CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
SOUTH DAKOTA ELLSWORTH AFB ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE COMPLETE CLEANUP
TENNESSEE CHATTANOOGA TENNESSEE PRODUCTS BEGIN CLEANUP
TENNESSEE JACKSON AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS BEGIN CLEANUP
TENNESSEE WRIGLEY WRIGLEY CHARCOAL PLANT COMPLETE CLEANUP
TEXAS DALLAS RSR CORP. BEGIN CLEANUP
TEXAS HEMPSTEAD SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES BEGIN CLEANUP
TEXAS TEXARKANA TEXARKANA WOOD PRESERVING CO. BEGIN CLEANUP
TEXAS CONROE UNITED CREOSOTING CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
TEXAS HEMPSTEAD SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES COMPLETE CLEANUP
TEXAS HOUSTON CRYSTAL CHEMICAL CO.
NORTH CAVALCADE STREET
COMPLETE CLEANUP
UTAH MIDVALE MIDVALE SLAG BEGIN CLEANUP
UTAH SALT LAKE CITY PETROCHEM RECYCLING CORP./EKOTEK PLANT BEGIN CLEANUP
UTAH MIDVALE SHARON STEEL CORP. COMPLETE CLEANUP
VIRGIN ISLANDS ST. THOMAS TUTU WELLFIELD BEGIN CLEANUP
VIRGINIA MONTPELIER H & H INC., BURN PIT BEGIN CLEANUP
VIRGINIA PORTSMOUTH ATLANTIC WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
VIRGINIA SALTVILLE SALTVILLE WASTE DISPOSAL PONDS BEGIN CLEANUP
VIRGINIA CHUCHATUCK SAUNDERS SUPPLY CO. COMPLETE CLEANUP
VIRGINIA DILLWYN BUCKINGHAM COUNTY LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
VIRGINIA SPOTSYLVANIA L.A. CLARKE & SON COMPLETE CLEANUP
WASHINGTON PASCO PASCO SANITARY LANDFILL BEGIN CLEANUP
WASHINGTON SEATTLE HARBOR ISLAND BEGIN CLEANUP
WASHINGTON VANCOUVER FRONTIER HARD CHROME, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
WASHINGTON BANGOR BANGOR NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE; BANGOR ORDNANCE DISPOSAL COMPLETE CLEANUP
WASHINGTON CENTRALIA CENTRALIA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
WASHINGTON SPOKANE GREENACRES LANDFILL; OLD INLAND PIT COMPLETE CLEANUP
WASHINGTON TAKOMA COMMENCEMENT BAY, SOUTH TACOMA CHANNEL COMPLETE CLEANUP
WASHINGTON VANCOUVER VANCOUVER WATER STATION #4 CONTAMINATION COMPLETE CLEANUP
WISCONSIN MEDFORD SCRAP PROCESSING COMPANY, INC. BEGIN CLEANUP
WISCONSIN MIDDLETON REFUSE HIDEAWAY BEGIN CLEANUP
WISCONSIN SIREN PENTA WOOD PRODUCTS INCORPORATED BEGIN CLEANUP
WISCONSIN DELEVAN DELEVAN MUNI WELL #4 COMPLETE CLEANUP
WISCONSIN DEPERE BETTER BRITE PLATING CHROME & ZINC COMPLETE CLEANUP
WISCONSIN DUNN TWP CITY DISPOSAL CORP LANDFILL COMPLETE CLEANUP
Receive our News Releases Automatically by Email


Search This Collection | Search All Collections

Get email when we issue news releases

Recent additions

08/20/2010 EPA RECOGNIZES RECOVERY ACT WATER RE-USE PROJECT IN RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
08/20/2010 EPA Releases Draft Strategy for Clean Water
08/20/2010 EPA Proposes Plan to Clean Up the Source of Ground Water Contamination at the Cortese Landfill Site in Sullivan County, NY
08/19/2010 New England Schools Get Ready for School Year – and Big Energy Savings
08/19/2010   Decision on Iowa's Water Quality Standards

Region 9: Superfund

Serving Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations

Contact Us Search:

Legal Documents by Site Name

Administrative and judicial agreements and administrative orders.

Expand All | Collapse All | Search This View

Site Name Date Title
Show details for [<script>document.write(AEROJET GENERAL CORP..link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("AEROJET GENERAL CORP.".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) AEROJET GENERAL CORP.
Show details for [<script>document.write(Anaconda Mine.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Anaconda Mine".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Anaconda Mine
Show details for [<script>document.write(Applied Materials.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Applied Materials".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Applied Materials
Show details for [<script>document.write(Asarco Hayden Plant.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Asarco Hayden Plant".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Asarco Hayden Plant
Show details for [<script>document.write(BROWN & BRYANT, INC. (ARVIN PLANT).link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</s document.write("BROWN & BRYANT, INC. (ARVIN PLANT)".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) BROWN & BRYANT, INC. (ARVIN PLANT)
Show details for [<script>document.write(Casmalia Resources.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Casmalia Resources".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Casmalia Resources
Show details for [<script>document.write(Del Amo Facility.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Del Amo Facility".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Del Amo Facility
Show details for [<script>document.write(Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. (Mountain View Plant).link(document.links[document.lin document.write("Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. (Mountain View Plant)".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. (Mountain View Plant)
Show details for [<script>document.write(Frontier Fertilizer.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Frontier Fertilizer".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Frontier Fertilizer
Show details for [<script>document.write(Halaco.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Halaco".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Halaco
Show details for [<script>document.write(Intel Corp. (Mountain View Plant).link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</sc document.write("Intel Corp. (Mountain View Plant)".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Intel Corp. (Mountain View Plant)
Show details for [<script>document.write(Intel Corp. (Santa Clara 3).link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Intel Corp. (Santa Clara 3)".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Intel Corp. (Santa Clara 3)
Show details for [<script>document.write(Intel Magnetics-Micro Storage.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script document.write("Intel Magnetics-Micro Storage".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Intel Magnetics-Micro Storage
Show details for [<script>document.write(Jibboom Junkyard.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Jibboom Junkyard".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Jibboom Junkyard
Show details for [<script>document.write(Lehr Old Campus Landfill (USDOE).link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</scr document.write("Lehr Old Campus Landfill (USDOE)".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Lehr Old Campus Landfill (USDOE)
Show details for [<script>document.write(LEVIATHAN MINE.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("LEVIATHAN MINE".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) LEVIATHAN MINE
Show details for [<script>document.write(Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co..link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
Show details for [<script>document.write(Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Study Area.link(document.links[document.links.length document.write("Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Study Area".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Study Area
Show details for [<script>document.write(Montrose Chemical Corp.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Montrose Chemical Corp".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Montrose Chemical Corp
Show details for [<script>document.write(Naval Air Station Moffett Field.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</scri document.write("Naval Air Station Moffett Field".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Naval Air Station Moffett Field
Show details for [<script>document.write(NAVAL COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS AREA MASTER STATION EASTERN PACIFIC OAHU.link( document.write("NAVAL COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS AREA MASTER STATION EASTERN PACIFIC OAHU".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) NAVAL COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS AREA MASTER STATION EASTERN PACIFIC OAHU
Show details for [<script>document.write(Newmark Groundwater Contamination.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</sc document.write("Newmark Groundwater Contamination".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Newmark Groundwater Contamination
Show details for [<script>document.write(Northeast Church Rock Mine.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Northeast Church Rock Mine".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Northeast Church Rock Mine
Show details for [<script>document.write(OMEGA CHEMICAL CORPORATION.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("OMEGA CHEMICAL CORPORATION".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) OMEGA CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Show details for [<script>document.write(Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</ document.write("Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill
Show details for [<script>document.write(Pacific Coast Pipeline.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Pacific Coast Pipeline".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Pacific Coast Pipeline
Show details for [<script>document.write(Raytheon Corp..link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("Raytheon Corp.".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) Raytheon Corp.
Show details for [<script>document.write(San Fernando Valley (All Areas).link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</scri document.write("San Fernando Valley (All Areas)".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) San Fernando Valley (All Areas)
Show details for [<script>document.write(San Fernando Valley (area 1 North Hollywood And Burbank).link(document.links[documen document.write("San Fernando Valley (area 1 North Hollywood And Burbank)".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) San Fernando Valley (area 1 North Hollywood And Burbank)
Show details for [<script>document.write(SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 1) El Monte, South El Monte, Whittier Narrows.link(document document.write("SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 1) El Monte, South El Monte, Whittier Narrows".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 1) El Monte, South El Monte, Whittier Narrows
Show details for [<script>document.write(SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 2) Baldwin Park.link(document.links[document.links.length-1 document.write("SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 2) Baldwin Park".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) SAN GABRIEL VALLEY (AREA 2) Baldwin Park
Show details for [<script>document.write(SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. (VISALIA POLEYARD).link(document.links[document.links document.write("SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. (VISALIA POLEYARD)".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. (VISALIA POLEYARD)
Show details for [<script>document.write(STRINGFELLOW.link(document.links[document.links.length-1]))</script>] document.write("STRINGFELLOW".link(document.links[document.links.length-1])) STRINGFELLOW

Expand All | Collapse All

. Region 9: Superfund

Serving Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations

Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

Regional Screening Levels (Formerly PRGs)

Regional Screening Level Resources

What's New

Frequently Asked Questions

Screening Level Calculator

User's Guide

Online Screen Level Calculator

PRG (RSL) Contact Information

Region 9-Specific Information

Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants

The Region 9 PRGs have been harmonized with similar risk-based screening levels used by Regions 3 and 6 into a single table: "Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites." These updated screening levels, along with a detailed user's guide and supplementary tables, can be accessed directly on-line or downloaded to your own computer. In addition, the web site contains a Screening Level Calculator to assist in calculating site-specific screening levels.

Region 9-specific information regarding the Regional Screening Level Table »

RSL Tables (Last updated May 2010)

The screening level (RSL) tables are available for download in Excel and PDF formats. These tables are considered ready for use. The tables contain both RSL calculations and the toxicity values that were used. For additional information please see the resources box at the the upper-right of this page.

PDF (Color) PDF (B+W) Excel (Color) Excel (B+W)
Summary Table (PDF) (12 pp, 147K) (PDF) (12 pp, 143K) XLS XLS
Residental Soil Supporting (PDF) (13 pp, 132K) (PDF) (13 pp, 128K) XLS XLS
Industrial Soil Supporting (PDF) (14 pp, 133K) (PDF) (14 pp, 129K) XLS XLS
Residental Air Supporting (PDF) (11 pp, 107K) (PDF) (11 pp, 103K) XLS XLS
Industrial Air Supporting (PDF) (11 pp, 107K) (PDF) (11 pp, 103K) XLS XLS
Residental Tapwaters Supporting (PDF) (17 pp, 134K) (PDF) (17 pp, 130K) XLS XLS
Residental Soil to Groundwater Supporting (PDF) (15 pp, 138K) (PDF) (15 pp, 133K) XLS XLS
Chemical Specific Parameters (PDF) (11 pp, 146K) (PDF) (11 pp, 141K) XLS XLS
Composite Table (PDF) (104 pp, 692K) (PDF) (104 p, 673K) XLS XLS
You will need the free Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page.
See EPA's PDF page to learn more.

NOTE: The 2004 version of the Region 9 PRG Table will remain at this web site in case users need to reference this historical document. However, the 2004 Table should no longer be used for contaminant screening of environmental media because it has been replaced with the more current Table above.

Information at this link provided for reference purposes onlyRegion 9 PRGs 2004 Table (PDF) (16pp, 962 K)

Information at this link provided for reference purposes onlyUser's Guide/Technical Background Document (PDF) (29pp, 284 K)

 

WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, CA - JOINT & SEVERAL TRESSPASSERS

Stimulus Funds Awarded: $25,592,671.40 - LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; DUNS: 808321913 SEIZURE & EJECTMENT

SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF AND UNITED STATES MARSHALL; MILITIA &- POSSE FOR TRESPASS OF TREASON AND MISPRISON OF FELONY WRIT OF POSSESSION UPON ADVERSE CLAIMS TRESSPASSERS OF PATENT TITLE; EXTORTION; FRAUDS; DECEITS, FALSE CLAIMS AND FALSE PRETENSES, ULTERIOR MOTIVES; MALICIOUS AND ABUSIVE NEGLIGENT ENDANGERMENT; ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION AND SLAVERY; CONSPIRACY; EVIL UPON THE PUBLIC TRUST; APEX LAW AGGRAVATED LARCENY OF MINING COMPANY SECURITY & COLLATERAL, PIRACY, FRAUDS, MALICE, ABUSE, NEGLECT, HAZARD, HAZARDS, WAIVER OF TORTS ON EXPRESS AND IMPLIED CONTRACT LR10-20762 UNLAWFUL DETAINER AND QUIET TITLE DETINUE SUR BAILMENT

DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL , CA - JOINT & SEVERAL TRESSPASSERS

FREE MR. T.W. ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC. INNOCENT PRISONERS OF PIRACY BY EPA - DOJ - TRUSTEES SINCE 1983

Congressional Panel: US AIG Aid Strongly Benefited Foreign Banks

Mr. T.W. Arman, proprietor , Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., & 'ARMAN' for archaeal Richmond Mine acidophilic nanoorganisms

DISCOVERIES! Geißler, L. & Seifert, Th. (2010): The son of Mother Lode? State and perspectives of the gold deposit research in the French Gulch-Deadwood district, Klamath Mountains, USA. – International Forum-Competition of Young Researchers “Topical Issues of Subsoil Usages”, 21.-23. April 2010, St. Petersburg State Mining Institute. LOCATION

All the rights, privileges, and immunities of the Camden and Magee Military Scrip Warrants for the United States of America State of California Morrill Act University of California San Buena Ventura Agricultural College Patent. May 1, 1862 - President Abraham Lincoln

All the rights, privileges, and immunities of Arman Mines Iron Mountain Investment Co. United States of America Lode and Placer Mining Patents, Arman Mines Apex Relocations, Apex Discoveries, and Apex mining law application, Arman Mines Flat Creek mining district vested and accrued existing rights of the locators of the Lost Confidence Mine, &c; their successors and assigns, and to their and their heirs and assigns and successors use and behoof, forever.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said mining premises, together with all the rights, privileges, immunities, and apputenances of whatsoever nature thereunto belonging, unto the said grantee above named and to its successors and assigns forever; subject, nevertheless, to the above-mentioned and to the following conditions and stipulations:

FIRST. That the premises hereby granted shall be held subject to any vested and accrued water rights for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, and rights to ditches and reservoirs used in connection with such water rights, as may be recognized and acknowledged by the local laws, customs, and decisions of the courts. And there is reserved from the lands hereby granted a right of way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States.

SECOND. That in the absence of necessary legislation by Congress, the Legislature of California may provide rules for working the mining claim or premises hereby granted, involving easements, drainage, and other necessary means to its complete development

 

Since 1849 - Flat Creek Mining District

Since May 1, 1862 - Camden & Magee Agricultural College, Military Scrip Warrant Freehold Estate; 360 acres of land in lieu of Rancho Buena Ventura grant patent title,

President Abraham Lincoln - Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act

1844 Mexican Land Grant and Bounty Warrants prior rights; Rancho San Buena Ventura; Perdido Californio Bosque del Norte . Good Fortune Ranch; Lost California Forest of the North

Since Janurary 4, 1875 - Shasta County Recorder; Morrill land grant Act of Congress - Camden & Magee University of California Agricultural College Patent by Governor Newton Booth.

Since April 8, 1880 - Lost Confidence Mine, Camden North, Camden South, Magee Apex, Sallee Anticline, Sallee Syncline, J Fault, Bear's Den, Bear's Nest, Number 8, Complex, Hornet Gold & Silver, Homestake, Foresight, Backsight, Thistle, Finegold, Oversight, Goldbar, Owl, Grey Squirrel, Ole Hanson, Wedge, Big Dipper, Last Link, Kitchener, Keystone, Pershing, Esther, Spring Creek, Minnesota, Crown Point & Red Star lode Mining Claims.

Since 1895 - Mountain Copper Co. Ltd., Iron Mountain Investment Co. 2898 ACRES OF LAND (Jardine Matheson/ Rothschilds/ Keswick, et al), Iron Mountain Investment Co. The Noble and Scott, Richmond, Lawson, Hoover, Pershing, Tuxedo, Highland, Paradise, Congress, Prince Albert, Claremont, Mocop, Bennington, Canyon, Consolidated lode Mining Claims, &c.

Since 1967 - Stauffer Chemical Co., 8000 ACRES OF LAND - BRICK FLAT PIT ABANDONMENT -(Rhône Polenc, Aktemix 37, Imperial Chemical (ICI America), Aventis Crop Science, AstraZeneca, Bayer Crop Sciences et al), Responsible Parties to Consent Decree.

Since 1976 - Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., 4400 ACRES OF LAND, Innocent landowner - operator Mr. T.W. Arman, 2744 ACRES OF LAND, sole stockholder.

Since 2001 - Essential Solutions, Inc. 52,000 ACRES OF LAND, Agricultural & Horticultural Products Research.

Since 2008 - Hu/Mountain joint venture 88,000 ACRES OF LAND - Relocation, Rediscoveries, Remission, Reversion, Restitution, Remainder, Resource Recovery, Renovation, Residency, Recycling, Reclamation, Reuse, Reinsurance, Reworking, Repossession, Reparations and Repatriations, &c.

Since 2009 - Mr. T. W. Arman, mistaken for 'ARMAN' aka "TWO MINERS AND 103 MILLION ACRES OF LAND" fka - Iron Mountain Mines; the Arman Mines Ministries of Natural & Mineral Resources Federation, the Arman Mines Institute, the Hummingbird Institute, the College of the Hummingbird, Arman Mines Iron Mountain Railway, Arman Mines Iron Mountain Tramway, Arman Mines Iron Mountain Road, Arman Mines Iron Mountain Airport, WESTCHESTER INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS, THE HUNDREDS OF THE ARMANSHIRE, PEACEPIPE PIGMENTS, IRON MOUNTAIN PIGMENTS, AMERICAN PIGMENTS, CALIFORNIA PIGMENTS, MINNESOTA PIGMENTS,

 

WHITEHOUSE PIGMENTS, PRESIDENT PIGMENTS, SOVEREIGN PIGMENTS, FREEHOLD PIGMENTS, PATENT PIGMENTS, TITLE PIGMENTS, REDMAN PIGMENTS, PIRATE PIGMENTS, THUNDERBIRD PIGMENTS, MATHESON PIGMENTS, KESWICK PIGMENTS, JARDINE PIGMENTS, CALUMET PIGMENTS, CONGRESS PIGMENTS, DEPARTMENT PIGMENTS, PRIKAZ PIGMENTS, FEDERATION PIGMENTS, BUREAU PIGMENTS, COUNTY PIGMENTS, SHASTA PIGMENTS, BATTLE CREEK PIGMENTS, DEMOCRAT MOUNTAIN PIGMENTS, BAY PIGMENTS, BEAR PIGMENTS, BARE PIGMENTS, NATIVE PIGMENTS, ARMAN PIGMENTS, AMD&CSI, IMMI, HU/MOUNTAIN, ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, THE ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF MINERAL RESOURCES FEDERATION, THE ARMAN LOST HUMAN USE REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION TRUSTS, THE ARMAN MINERALS RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL, THE GUYS OF JUSTICE, THE ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF MINING & PRINCIPLES OF PIGMENTS; THE ARMAN MINES HAZARD AND REMEDIATION DIRECTORATE, SINCE 1979: HARD PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING, HARD HYDROPONICS AND ORGANICS, HARD NURSERY, HARD LANDSCAPING, HARD MAINTENANCE, HARD PEST CONTROL, THE ARMAN MINES DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECTORATE, AND THE ARMAN MINES HUMMINGBIRD INSTITUTE COLLEGE OF THE HUMMINGBIRD CENTER FOR HEALTH INSTITUTE FOR LIBERTY AND INDEPENDENCE. The "Arman Consolidated" lode mining patents, sole proprietor. Innocent landowner- operator, senior citizen, WWII veteran, retired Army Air Force non-commissioned officer - instrument flying / flight simulator pilot instruction. Founder of the Westchester Institute of Aeronautics, author of the FAA 10 hour instrument flyuing course for private pilots license developed from Colonel Duckworth's Air Force Instrument Flying School in 1948. The Westchester Institute was the first private school to offer flight simulator training. Pilots then trained in one of the Westchester Institutes two REPUBLIC Seabees amphibious aircraft. The Hummingbird Institute carries on the tradition of leadership and innovation in higher education pioneered by our founder Mr. T.W. Arman

18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2).

The United States , like any other proprietor, can only exercise their rights to the mineral in private property, in subordination to such rules and regulations as the local sovereign may prescribe. Until such rules and regulations are established, the landed proprietor may successfully resist, in the courts of the state, all attempts at invasion of his property, whether by the direct action of the United States or by virtue of any pretended license under their authority. (Biddle Boggs v Merced Min. Co,,) 14 Cal. 279.)

It has been difficult for EPA to craft jurisdictional determination guidance that is both legal and usable for field staff. For instance, many streams have no U.S. Geological Survey gauging data. In response, OWOW is partnering with ORD on a method that will turn daily field observations into something that can serve as the basis for a defensible decision about the stream's ephemerality. Ideally, one would need several years of biotic observations before he/she could really determine whether a "significant nexus" exists. Since the Army Corps of Engineers cannot conduct 130,000 jurisdictional determination field visits, some intermediate approach is preferable.

Currently, significant nexus calls are settled at the regional level. The region has 15 days to look at the draft jurisdictional determination and most nexus calls are resolved within this period. If EPA still has issues, it follows the procedure for "Special Cases" established in the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. If the Regional Administrator classifies a jurisdictional determination as a "special case," the Army Corps of Engineers must stand down for 10 days and defer the jurisdictional determination to EPA. There have been nine special case requests, six of which have been granted.

The following comments were from an interview with two staff attorneys of the Office of General Counsel (OGC), Water Law Office.

The OGC is very involved with litigation associated with Army Corps of Engineers' actions, especially the coordination of briefs between the two agencies. OGC helps the Army Corps of Engineers assess the legal ramifications of asserting jurisdiction in certain contexts in the post-Rapanos environment. Often, OGC advises the Army Corps of Engineers on whether more information is needed to support a position in a particular case.

Traditional navigable waterways evade easy definition; even the Supreme Court has been vague on the precise scope of traditional navigable waterways. Traditional navigable waterways have arisen in multiple legal contexts over the years, not just in CWA discussions. Many stakeholders find the Appendix D definition to be still too broad to adequately serve the jurisdictional issues created by the Rapanos decision. The OGC attorneys noted that there had been considerable discussion about the scope of traditional navigable waterways in Fall 2007. Traditional navigable waterways continue to be an issue in some "isolated (a)(3)" elevations.

Adjacency was not addressed by the Supreme Court. Although there are 1-2 sentences on it in the interim June 2007 guidance, it remains an imprecise term. However, OGC staff is working with various program offices to create a follow-up to the June 2007 Rapanos guidance where adjacency, among other things, will be addressed. The real debate involves the interpretation of one aspect of the "adjacency" definition: "neighboring." This "neighboring" term was a cornerstone of the debate in the Carabell case.

There have been close to 50 post-Rapanos cases: a pretty significant increase over prior case loads. Many cases have histories stretching back before the Rapanos ruling. The Circuit courts have been deciding, with varying opinions, whether the Kennedy, Scalia or both tests hold in establishing CWA jurisdiction.

Although Rapanos has "trumped everything," OGC is engaged in some other Section 404-related work.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (Atlanta) recently held that only the Kennedy test applies, even though the plurality's test is easier to apply. The 7th and 9th Circuits, meanwhile, have used Kennedy's opinions. Both EPA and the Department of Justice hope that either the plurality or Kennedy tests can be applied in Section 404 jurisdictional decisions. Prior to Rapanos, the 5th Circuit had taken a The Environmental Protection Agency is waging an unprecedented battle to end U.S. farming as we know it. Wielding regulation like a scythe, on the books or proposed, EPA is trying single-handed to make farming obsolete.

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 14 > § 663 Prev | Next

§ 663. Territorial jurisdiction over hydraulic mining; hydraulic mining injurious to navigation prohibited

How Current is This? The jurisdiction of said commission, in so far as the same affects mining carried on by the hydraulic process, shall extend to all such mining in the territory drained by the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems in the State of California. Hydraulic mining, as defined in section 668 of this title, directly or indirectly injuring the navigability of said river systems, carried on in said territory other than as permitted under the provisions of this chapter is prohibited and declared unlawful.

TITLE 48 > CHAPTER 10 > § 1491 Prev | Next

§ 1491. License, permit, etc., for transportation for storage or storage of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste; prerequisites; applicability; “territory or possession” defined

How Current is This? (a) Prior to the granting of any license, permit, or other authorization or permission by any agency or instrumentality of the United States to any person for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste for interim, long-term, or permanent storage to or for the storage of such fuel or waste on any territory or possession of the United States, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to transmit to the Congress a detailed report on the proposed transportation or storage plan, and no such license, permit, or other authorization or permission may be granted nor may any such transportation or storage occur unless the proposed transportation or storage plan has been specifically authorized by Act of Congress: Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to the cleanup and rehabilitation of Bikini and Enewetak Atolls. (b) For the purpose of this section the words “territory or possession” include the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and any area not within the boundaries of the several States over which the United States claims or exercises sovereignty.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 783 Prev | Next

§ 783. Offenses

How Current is This? (a) Communication of classified information by Government officer or employee It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or of any corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative of any foreign government, any information of a kind which shall have been classified by the President (or by the head of any such department, agency, or corporation with the approval of the President) as affecting the security of the United States, knowing or having reason to know that such information has been so classified, unless such officer or employee shall have been specifically authorized by the President, or by the head of the department, agency, or corporation by which this officer or employee is employed, to make such disclosure of such information. (b) Receipt of, or attempt to receive, by foreign agent or member of Communist organization, classified information It shall be unlawful for any agent or representative of any foreign government knowingly to obtain or receive, or attempt to obtain or receive, directly or indirectly, from any officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof or of any corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, any information of a kind which shall have been classified by the President (or by the head of any such department, agency, or corporation with the approval of the President) as affecting the security of the United States, unless special authorization for such communication shall first have been obtained from the head of the department, agency, or corporation having custody of or control over such information. (c) Penalties for violation Any person who violates any provision of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both such fine and such imprisonment, and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to hold any office, or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (d) Limitation period Any person may be prosecuted, tried, and punished for any violation of this section at any time within ten years after the commission of such offense, notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute of limitations: Provided, That if at the time of the commission of the offense such person is an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or of any corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, such person may be prosecuted, tried, and punished for any violation of this section at any time within ten years after such person has ceased to be employed as such officer or employee. (e) Forfeiture of property (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law— (A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and (B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation. (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1). (3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 853 of title 21 shall apply to— (A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection; (B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and (C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property, if not inconsistent with this subsection. (4) Notwithstanding section 524 (c) of title 28 , there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 10601 of title 42 all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law. (5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States.


TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 841 Prev | Next

§ 841. Findings and declarations of fact

How Current is This? The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of the world Communist movement, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed.

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 26 > SUBCHAPTER V > § 1362 Prev | Next

§ 1362. Definitions

(19) The term “pollution” means the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water.

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 482

§ 482. Mineral lands; restoration to public domain; location and entry

Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior, with the approval of the President, after sixty days' notice thereof, published in two papers of general circulation in the State or Territory wherein any national forest is situated, and near the said national forest, any public lands embraced within the limits of any such forest which, after due examination by personal inspection of a competent person appointed for that purpose by the Secretary of the Interior, shall be found better adapted for mining or for agricultural purposes than for forest usage, may be restored to the public domain. And any mineral lands in any national forest which have been or which may be shown to be such, and subject to entry under the existing mining laws of the United States and the rules and regulations applying thereto, shall continue to be subject to such location and entry, notwithstanding any provisions contained in sections 473 to 478 , 479 to 482 and 551 of this title.

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 511 Prev | Next

§ 511. Reinstatement of entries canceled or relinquished

How Current is This? All homestead entries which have been canceled or relinquished, or are invalid solely because of the erroneous allowance of such entries after the withdrawal of lands for national-forest purposes, may be reinstated or allowed to remain intact, but in the case of entries canceled prior to March 3, 1911, applications for reinstatement must have been filed in the proper local land office prior to July 1, 1912.

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 519 Prev | Next

§ 519. Agricultural lands included in tracts acquired; sale for homesteads

How Current is This? Inasmuch as small areas of land chiefly valuable for agriculture may of necessity or by inadvertence be included in tracts acquired under this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture may, in his discretion, and he is authorized, upon application or otherwise, to examine and ascertain the location and extent of such areas as in his opinion may be occupied for agricultural purposes without injury to the forests or to stream flow and which are not needed for public purposes, and may list and describe the same by metes and bounds, or otherwise, and offer them for sale as homesteads at their true value, to be fixed by him, to actual settlers, in tracts not exceeding eighty acres, in area, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe; and in case of such sale the jurisdiction over the lands sold shall, ipso facto, revert to the State in which the lands sold lie. And no right, title, interest, or claim in or to any lands acquired under this Act, or the waters thereon, or the products, resources, or use thereof after such lands shall have been so acquired, shall be initiated or perfected, except as in this section provided.

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 3B > § 590c Prev | Next

§ 590c. Conditions under which benefits of law extended to nongovernment controlled lands

How Current is This? As a condition to the extending of any benefits under this chapter to any lands not owned or controlled by the United States or any of its agencies, the Secretary of Agriculture may, insofar as he may deem necessary for the purposes of this chapter, require— (1) The enactment and reasonable safeguards for the enforcement of State and local laws imposing suitable permanent restrictions on the use of such lands and otherwise providing for the prevention of soil erosion; (2) Agreements or covenants as to the permanent use of such lands; and (3) Contributions in money, services, materials, or otherwise, to any operations conferring such benefits.

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 3B > § 590g Prev | Next

§ 590g. Additional policies and purposes of chapter

How Current is This? (a) Purposes enumerated It is hereby declared to be the policy of this chapter also to secure, and the purposes of this chapter shall also include, (1) preservation and improvement of soil and water quality and related resources; (2) promotion of the economic use and conservation of land; (3) diminution of exploitation and wasteful and unscientific use of national soil resources; (4) the protection of rivers and harbors against the results of soil erosion in aid of maintaining the navigability of waters and water courses and in aid of flood control; (5) reestablishment, at as rapid a rate as the Secretary of Agriculture determines to be practicable and in the general public interest, of the ratio between the purchasing power of the net income per person on farms and that of the income per person not on farms that prevailed during the five-year period August 1909–July 1914, inclusive, as determined from statistics available in the United States Department of Agriculture, and the maintenance of such ratio; (6) prevention and abatement of agricultural-related pollution, [1] and (7) the promotion of energy and water conservation through dry land farming. The powers conferred under this section and sections 590h , 590i , and 590j to 590n of this title shall be used to assist voluntary action calculated to effectuate the purposes specified in this section. Such powers shall not be used to discourage the production of supplies of foods and fibers sufficient to maintain normal domestic human consumption as determined by the Secretary from the records of domestic human consumption in the years 1920 to 1929, inclusive, taking into consideration increased population, quantities of any commodity that were forced into domestic consumption by decline in exports during such period, current trends in domestic consumption and exports of particular commodities, and the quantities of substitutes available for domestic consumption within any general class of food commodities. In carrying out the purposes of this section due regard shall be given to the maintenance of a continuous and stable supply of agricultural commodities adequate to meet consumer demand at prices fair to both producers and consumers.

• The Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act of 1953 states that each department and agency of the Federal Government charged with responsibilities concerning the discovery, development, production, and acquisition of strategic or critical minerals and metals shall undertake to decrease further, and to eliminate where possible, the dependency of the United States on overseas sources of supply of each such material.

• The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources. This act includes all minerals, including sand and gravel, geothermal, coal, and oil and gas.

• The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 reiterates that the 1970 Mining and Minerals Policy Act shall be implemented and directs that public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals and other resources.

• The National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 requires the Secretary • The Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages energy efficiency and conservation; promotes alternative and renewable energy sources; reduces dependence on foreign sources of energy; increases domestic production; modernizes the electrical grid; and encourages the expansion of nuclear energy.

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 3B > § 590i Prev | Next

§ 590i. Surveys and investigations; publication of information

The Secretary is authorized to conduct surveys, investigations, and research relating to the conditions and factors affecting, and methods of accomplishing most effectively, the policy and purposes of section 590g (a) of this title. Notwithstanding any provision of existing law, the Secretary is authorized to make public such information as he deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 22 Prev | Next

§ 22. Lands open to purchase by citizens

How Current is This? Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States.

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 26 Prev | Next

§ 26. Locators' rights of possession and enjoyment

How Current is This? The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth, the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically, although such veins, lodes, or ledges may so far depart from a perpendicular in their course downward as to extend outside the vertical side lines of such surface locations. But their right of possession to such outside parts of such veins or ledges shall be confined to such portions thereof as lie between vertical planes drawn downward as above described, through the end lines of their locations, so continued in their own direction that such planes will intersect such exterior parts of such veins or ledges. Nothing in this section shall authorize the locator or possessor of a vein or lode which extends in its downward course beyond the vertical lines of his claim to enter upon the surface of a claim owned or possessed by another.

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 28 Prev | Next

§ 28. Mining district regulations by miners: location, recordation, and amount of work; marking of location on ground; records; annual labor or improvements on claims pending issue of patent; co-owner's succession in interest upon delinquency in contributing proportion of expenditures; tunnel as lode expenditure

How Current is This? The miners of each mining district may make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the laws of the State or Territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary to hold possession of a mining claim, subject to the following requirements: The location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced. All records of mining claims made after May 10, 1872, shall contain the name or names of the locators, the date of the location, and such a description of the claim or claims located by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim. On each claim located after the 10th day of May 1872, that is granted a waiver under section 28f of this title, and until a patent has been issued therefor, not less than $100 worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year. On all claims located prior to the 10th day of May 1872, $10 worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made each year, for each one hundred feet in length along the vein until a patent has been issued therefor; but where such claims are held in common, such expenditure may be made upon any one claim; and upon a failure to comply with these conditions, the claim or mine upon which such failure occurred shall be open to relocation in the same manner as if no location of the same had ever been made, provided that the original locators, their heirs, assigns, or legal representatives, have not resumed work upon the claim after failure and before such location. Upon the failure of any one of several coowners to contribute his proportion of the expenditures required hereby, the coowners who have performed the labor or made the improvements may, at the expiration of the year, give such delinquent co-owner personal notice in writing or notice by publication in the newspaper published nearest the claim, for at least once a week for ninety days, and if at the expiration of ninety days after such notice in writing or by publication such delinquent should fail or refuse to contribute his proportion of the expenditure required by this section, his interest in the claim shall become the property of his co-owners who have made the required expenditures. The period within which the work required to be done annually on all unpatented mineral claims located since May 10, 1872, including such claims in the Territory of Alaska, shall commence at 12:01 ante meridian on the first day of September succeeding the date of location of such claim. Where a person or company has or may run a tunnel for the purposes of developing a lode or lodes, owned by said person or company, the money so expended in said tunnel shall be taken and considered as expended on said lode or lodes, whether located prior to or since May 10, 1872; and such person or company shall not be required to perform work on the surface of said lode or lodes in order to hold the same as required by this section. On all such valid claims the annual period ending December 31, 1921, shall continue to 12 o'clock meridian July 1, 1922.

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 33 Prev | Next

§ 33. Existing rights

How Current is This? All patents for mining claims upon veins or lodes issued prior to May 10, 1872, shall convey all the rights and privileges conferred by sections 21 , 22 to 24 , 26 to 28 , 29 , 30 , 33 to 48 , 50 to 52 , 71 to 76 of this title and section 661 of title 43 where no adverse rights existed on the 10th day of May, 1872.

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 35 Prev | Next

§ 35. Placer claims; entry and proceedings for patent under provisions applicable to vein or lode claims; conforming entry to legal subdivisions and surveys; limitation of claims; homestead entry of segregated agricultural land

How Current is This? Claims usually called “placers,” including all forms of deposit, excepting veins of quartz, or other rock in place, shall be subject to entry and patent, under like circumstances and conditions, and upon similar proceedings, as are provided for vein or lode claims; but where the lands have been previously surveyed by the United States, the entry in its exterior limits shall conform to the legal subdivisions of the public lands. And where placer claims are upon surveyed lands, and conform to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat shall be required, and all placer-mining claims located after the 10th day of May 1872, shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public-land surveys, and the rectangular subdivisions of such surveys, and no such location shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant; but where placer claims cannot be conformed to legal subdivisions, survey and plat shall be made as on unsurveyed lands; and where by the segregation of mineral land in any legal subdivision a quantity of agricultural land less than forty acres remains, such fractional portion of agricultural land may be entered by any party qualified by law, for homestead purposes.

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 36 Prev | Next

§ 36. Subdivisions of 10-acre tracts; maximum of placer locations; homestead claims of agricultural lands; sale of improvements

How Current is This? Legal subdivisions of forty acres may be subdivided into ten-acre tracts; and two or more persons, or associations of persons, having contiguous claims of any size, although such claims may be less than ten acres each, may make joint entry thereof; but no location of a placer claim, made after the 9th day of July 1870, shall exceed one hundred and sixty acres for any one person or association of persons, which location shall conform to the United States surveys; and nothing in this section contained shall defeat or impair any bona fide homestead claim upon agricultural lands, or authorize the sale of the improvements of any bona fide settler to any purchaser.

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 37 Prev | Next

§ 37. Proceedings for patent where boundaries contain vein or lode; application; statement including vein or lode; issuance of patent: acreage payments for vein or lode and placer claim; costs of proceedings; knowledge affecting construction of application and scope of patent

How Current is This? Where the same person, association, or corporation is in possession of a placer claim, and also a vein or lode included within the boundaries thereof, application shall be made for a patent for the placer claim, with the statement that it includes such vein or lode, and in such case a patent shall issue for the placer claim, subject to the provisions of sections 21 , 22 to 24 , 26 to 28 , 29 , 30 , 33 to 48 , 50 to 52 , 71 to 76 of this title and section 661 of title 43 , including such vein or lode, upon the payment of $5 per acre for such vein or lode claim, and twenty-five feet of surface on each side thereof. The remainder of the placer claim, or any placer claim not embracing any vein or lode claim, shall be paid for at the rate of $2.50 per acre, together with all costs of proceedings; and where a vein or lode, such as is described in section 23 of this title, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer claim, an application for a patent for such placer claim which does not include an application for the vein or lode claim shall be construed as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer claim has no right of possession of the vein or lode claim; but where the existence of a vein or lode in a placer claim is not known, a patent for the placer claim shall convey all valuable mineral and other deposits within the boundaries thereof.

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 43 Prev | Next

§ 43. Conditions of sale by local legislature

How Current is This? As a condition of sale, in the absence of necessary legislation by Congress, the local legislature of any State or Territory may provide rules for working mines, involving easements, drainage, and other necessary means to their complete development; and those conditions shall be fully expressed in the patent.


TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 46 Prev | Next

§ 46. Additional land districts and officers

How Current is This? The President is authorized to establish additional land districts, and to appoint the necessary officers under existing laws, wherever he may deem the same necessary for the public convenience in executing the provisions of sections 21 , 22 to 24 , 26 to 28 , 29 , 30 , 33 to 48 , 50 to 52 , 71 to 76 of this title and section 661 of title 43 .

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 47 Prev | Next

§ 47. Impairment of rights or interests in certain mining property

How Current is This? Nothing contained in sections 21 , 22 to 24 , 26 to 28 , 29 , 30 , 33 to 48 , 50 to 52 , 71 to 76 of this title and section 661 of title 43 shall be construed to impair in any way, rights or interests in mining property acquired under laws in force prior to July 9, 1870; nor to affect the provisions of the act entitled “An act granting to A. Sutro the right-of-way and other privileges to aid in the construction of a draining and exploring tunnel to the Comstock lode, in the State of Nevada”, approved July 25, 1866.

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 51 Prev | Next

§ 51. Water users' vested and accrued rights; enumeration of uses; protection of interest; rights-of-way for canals and ditches; liability for injury or damage to settlers' possession

How Current is This? Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; and the right-of-way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes herein specified is acknowledged and confirmed; but whenever any person, in the construction of any ditch or canal, injures or damages the possession of any settler on the public domain, the party committing such injury or damage shall be liable to the party injured for such injury or damage.

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 2 > § 53 Prev | Next

§ 53. Possessory actions for recovery of mining titles or for damages to such title

How Current is This? No possessory action between persons, in any court of the United States, for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land in which such mines lie is in the United States; but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession.

TITLE 30 > CHAPTER 28 > § 1601 Prev | Next

§ 1601. Congressional statement of findings; “materials” defined

How Current is This? (a) The Congress finds that— (1) the availability of materials is essential for national security, economic well-being, and industrial production; (2) the availability of materials is affected by the stability of foreign sources of essential industrial materials, instability of materials markets, international competition and demand for materials, the need for energy and materials conservation, and the enhancement of environmental quality; (3) extraction, production, processing, use, recycling, and disposal of materials are closely linked with national concerns for energy and the environment; (4) the United States is strongly interdependent with other nations through international trade in materials and other products; (5) technological innovation and research and development are important factors which contribute to the availability and use of materials; (6) the United States lacks a coherent national materials policy and a coordinated program to assure the availability of materials critical for national economic well-being, national defense, and industrial production, including interstate commerce and foreign trade; and (7) notwithstanding the enactment of section 21a of this title, the United States does not have a coherent national materials and minerals policy. (b) As used in this chapter, the term “materials” means substances, including minerals, of current or potential use that will be needed to supply the industrial, military, and essential civilian needs of the United States in the production of goods or services, including those which are primarily imported or for which there is a prospect of shortages or uncertain supply, or which present opportunities in terms of new physical properties, use, recycling, disposal or substitution, with the exclusion of food and of energy fuels used as such.

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 36 > § 2201

§ 2201. “Secretary” defined

How Current is This? For purposes of this Act, the term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Army.

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER V > § 2291 Prev | Next

§ 2291. Federal Project Repayment District

How Current is This? (a) The Secretary may enter into a contract providing for the payment or recovery of an appropriate share of the costs of a project under his responsibility with a Federal Project Repayment District or other political subdivision of a State prior to the construction, operation, improvement, or financing of such project. The Federal Project Repayment District shall include lands and improvements which receive identifiable benefits from the construction or operation of such project. Such districts shall be established in accordance with State law, shall have specific boundaries which may be changed from time to time based upon further evaluations of benefits, and shall have the power to recover benefits through any cost-recovery approach that is consistent with State law and satisfies the applicable cost-recovery requirement under subsection (b) of this section. (b) Prior to execution of an agreement pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary shall require and approve a study from the State or political subdivision demonstrating that the revenues to be derived from a contract under this section, or an agreement with a Federal Project Repayment District, will be sufficient to equal or exceed the cost recovery requirements over the term of repayment required by Federal law.

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER V > § 2294 Prev | Next

§ 2294. Office of Environmental Policy

How Current is This? The Secretary shall establish in the Directorate of Civil Works of the Office of the Chief of Engineers an Office of Environmental Policy. Such Office shall be responsible for the formulation, coordination, and implementation of all matters concerning environmental quality and policy as they relate to the water resources program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Such Office shall, among other things, develop, and monitor compliance with, guidelines for the consideration of environmental quality in formulation and planning of water resources projects carried out by the Secretary, the preparation and coordination of environmental impact statements for such projects, and the coordination with Federal, State, and local agencies of environmental aspects of such projects and regulatory responsibilities of the Secretary.

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (CLEAN WATER ACT)
33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387, October 18, 1972, as amended 1973-1983, 1987, 1988, 1990-1992, 1994, 1995 and 1996.

It is the policy of Congress to recognize the primary responsibilities and rights of states to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution. Congress also intends that the states manage the wastewater treatment works construction grants program and implement the discharge permit programs under the Act. The federal government will support research and provide technical services and financial aid to state and interstate agencies and municipalities. Congress emphasized that the authority of each state to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction are not superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by the Act.

Administration of the Act. Several sections of the Act are devoted to its administration, to the creation of a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, to employee protection, to federal procurement, to administrative review and procedure, and to reports to Congress. Citizen suits are permitted under the guidelines and procedures set forth in § 1365. The Act provides further that states, their political subdivisions and interstate agencies are not preempted from adopting or enforcing standards, limitations or requirements as long as they are no less stringent than their federal counterparts. Under § 1377, EPA is authorized to treat Indian tribes as states for purposes of water quality standards and numerous other provisions of the Act. §§ 1361-1377.

Appropriations Authorized. Numerous sections of the Act provide for the authorization of funds to be appropriated for programs and requirements established by the Act. §§ 1254-1258, 1262-1270, 1287-1289, 1324, 1325, 1329, 1330, 1345, 1376 and 1387.

DEMAND FOR EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AS A. SUTRO, PIERSON B. READING, WILLIAM MAGEE, AND CHARLES CAMDEN

The EPA Is Out Of Control

08/10/2010 12:45PM


The EPA's proposal to reduce the allowed amount of particulate matter (commonly known as ‘dust' outside the Washington beltway) is blowing up a controversy in farming states.

The EPA Draft Policy Assessment released last month would set the most stringent regulation of dust in U.S. history. The latest proposal would reduce the acceptable amount of dust to a level twice as stringent as the current standard, which, for agriculture, is already very difficult to attain.

The EPA proposal has created a flurry of protests from farmers as well as 21 U.S. senators who say the proposed standard would be “extremely burdensome” for farmers and livestock producers. In an appeal for common sense, the senators sent a letter to Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator.

Farmers not complying with the proposed stringent regulations could be fined. U.S Senator Mike Johanns, (R-Neb.), warns that the new EPA standards would be devastating for Nebraska agriculture.

Is common sense now extinct at EPA? "Why do they do these wacky things and then claim that we are the ones being alarmists?, Johanns said. “They are a federal department that just is out of control."

It does not require a meteorology expert to know that in times of lower rainfall and increased winds, more dust is often produced. Will EPA take weather conditions and local rainfall amounts into consideration before slapping fines on farmers?

According to Kris Lancaster, EPA official, Region 7, “EPA does not have any plans to focus on regulating dust from farm fields or gravel roads." If that were true, why put agricultural regulations in the proposed assessment policy, Johanns asks.

We would all be happy to live our lives going barefooted on dew-covered grass smelling roses and lilac whenever we are outdoors. But we must live in a practical world - at least those of us who live outside of Washington, D.C. To feed millions of Americans and many others throughout the world, U.S. farmers cannot live in a dream.

Why does the EPA insist on making farming next to impossible? It is as if the EPA, with its growing burdensome regulation, is saying, “Just try to raise food for us. We'll fine you!”

The Weather Channel recently aired a special program on the infamous Dust Bowl that ravaged the Plains states during the 1930's. Photographs and film footage documented the clouds of wind-blown dust towering thousands of feet high. Some who experienced the horror thought it was the end of the world.

Such an event would cause considerable consternation among EPA officials. Certainly it would warrant EPA's biggest fine ever. But, who would they fine?

The next thing EPA will demand is that farmers pave all gravel roads in U.S. rural settings. Or maybe not pave, after all, that would require petroleum products and fuel to operate machinery. No, maybe all rural roads should be re-surfaced with brick and stone, laid in place by human labor alone. Yes. Perfect.

Better yet, EPA should simply mandate that people really don't need to eat anymore. This way, farmers won't have to till that pesky soil, the source of all that dust which is suddenly, after 200+ years of American agriculture, going to get us all.

By Rick Jordahl, Associate Editor, Pork Magazine

Iron Mountain Mine

Redding , California

Region 9

CAD980498612

Site Exposure Potential

Iron Mountain Mine is 14.5 km northwest of Redding , California in the foothills of the

Trinity Mountains , in the northwest Sacramento Valley (Figure 1). Iron Mountain Mine is

the southernmost mine in the West Shasta Mining District, an area of silver, gold, copper,

zinc, and iron pyrite mines. Open pit and subterranean mining activities were performed at

Iron Mountain Mine from the late 1800s to 1963. Acid mine drainage is produced at the

site as water passes through the sulfide ores and discharges through mine portals and

seeps. Secondary sources of acid mine drainage result from runoff through and over waste

rock piles, tailings piles, and other surface areas. In addition to acid, mine drainage at Iron

Mountain contains high concentrations of copper, zinc, and cadmium (CDM 1987).

NOAA Trust Habitats and Species in Site Vicinity

The closest aquatic habitat supporting NOAA trust resources is the Sacramento River below

the Keswick Dam. Below the dam, the river ranges from 120 to 180 meters wide and

averages three meters deep. The substrate consists of gravel, cobble, and bedrock. The

water quality of the Sacramento River below the dam is generally good (Helley 1989).

Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and their habitats are the NOAA trust resources

potentially impacted by the Iron Mountain site. Four races of chinook salmon use the

Sacramento River and its tributaries: the fall, late fall, winter, and spring runs. Each run

is a genetically distinct stock that migrates into the river and reproduces within specific

time periods and locations. Salmon at various life stages are found in the river during

every month of the year. The spawning population of chinook salmon in the Sacramento

River has declined steadily since the 1950s: the population was estimated to be 408,000

fish in 1953, while only 27,000 were estimated to be present in 1983. Numerous fish

kills associated with drainage from Iron Mountain Mine have been documented on the

Sacramento River (EPA 1986b). In 1969, the most recent fish kill, an estimated 200,000

adult salmon were killed (CDM 1987).

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

is currently reviewing the status of Sacramento River winter-run chinook to determine

whether listing it as a threatened species is warranted (CDM 1987). Recreational fishery

of winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River below the Keswick Dam is closed

to protect the species (Helley 1989).

Restoration of anadromous fish runs above the Keswick Dam has been considered, but

was abandoned due to contamination from the Iron Mountain Mine (Helley 1989).

Response Category: Superfund Lead

Current Stage of Site Action: RI/FS activities are continuing at the site. A Record of

Decision for interim Remedial Action was signed October 3, 1986; a cap at the site is being

implemented and creek diversion is currently under design.

EPA Site Manager

Rick Sugarek 415-974-8230

NOAA Coastal Resource Coordinator

Chip Demarest 415-974-8509

References

CDM. 1987. Draft Final Report Iron Mountain Mine Endangerment Assessment.

December 4, 1987. San Francisco : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

EPA. 1986a. Quality Criteria for Water. Washington , D.C. : Office of Water Regulations

and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. EPA 440/5-86-001.

EPA. 1986b. Record of Decision - Iron Mountain Mine, Redding , CA. San Francisco :

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Helley, T., fishery biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, Napa , California ,

personal communication, January 13, 1989.

COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing; RULE 4

Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)

The Tenth Circuit noted, “We are well aware that NRD assessment is a costly
proposition. . . . Still, given the AG's original multi-billion dollar claim against GE and ACF, a
few million dollars seems not so significant a cost to take advantage of CERCLA’s rebuttable
presumption of NRDs, especially where the reasonable costs of assessment are recoverable from
PRPs.” 203
In fact, perhaps at least part of the reason NRDs have not taken off originates in the uphill
battle of sustaining an NRD case without the benefit of this presumption.204 The Tenth Circuit
cast the challenge in the following manner:
Without any CERCLA-based NRD assessment to rely on, see 43 C.F.R. Part 11, the State
undertook the arduous task of proving as an initial matter natural resources injury outside
the intended scope of a comprehensive, CERCLA-mandated remediation. The State also
confronted the problem of restrictions which both CERCLA and the NRTA [New
Mexico’s “Natural Resources Trustee Act”205] impose upon the measure of damages even
supposing some redressable injury remains.206
Although following the NRD regulations may present significant hurdles of their own,207
if the other circuits follow the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning, it may be virtually impossible to
recover without the power of the presumption. In effect, whether or not the trustee enjoys the
presumption may defacto become determinative in the face of otherwise speculative damages.
4. Valuation Pitfalls
The Tenth Circuit decision shows the modern-day vitality of the preference for
restoration in lieu of money damages, and is consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Ohio v.
DOI that Congress preferred “restoration costs as the measure of recovery in natural resource
damage cases.”208 Trustees that favor restoration projects and substitute resources for those that
were damaged also create pathways to settlement with the responsible parties. This may, in part,
explain the success of the New Jersey approach discussed in Part IV. In addition, the Tenth
Circuit’s opinion sheds light on several valuation pitfalls trustees would be advised to avoid.

Brief History of EPA's Debarment Program

EPA's Debarment Program officially began in 1982 in response to Congressional oversight hearings that revealed Government-wide inadequacies in the management of Federal contracts and assistance with regard to waste, fraud, abuse and poor performance. On the basis of those hearings, and subsequent task force studies conducted by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE), the Office of Management and Budget developed a comprehensive Government-wide debarment and suspension system for all Federal contracts, assistance, loans and benefits extended by Executive-Branch agencies.

EPA, as an Executive Branch agency, is part of that Government-wide system. In addition to its discretionary authority to debar pursuant the above, it also has mandatory debarment authority under Section 306 of the Clean Air Act, and Section 508 of the Clean Water Act.

As a result of the historical development of the Agency, these various debarment authorities were, in 1982, located in three locations. The statutory debarment was initially administered by various offices, but eventually was delegated to the Office of Enforcement (OE). Procurement debarment was administered by the then, Procurement and Contracts Management Division, while assistance debarment was administered by the Grants Administration Division.

In 1982, the Office of Administration and Resource Management (OARM) consolidated all EPA discretionary procurement and assistance debarment authority into the Grants Administration Division. In the early 1990s, the Agency further consolidated its debarment authority when OARM assumed the responsibilities for statutory debarment from OE. Today, all EPA discretionary and statutory debarment authority is delegated to the Assistant Administrator for OARM and carried out by the Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD).

The EPA Debarring Official is the Agency's national program manager. As such the EPA Debarring Official establishes the Agency's debarment policy, and is the decision official for all suspension and debarment actions before the Agency.

The Suspension and Debarment Division (SDD) interacts with EPA program offices, the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, and with Federal, state and local agencies, to develop matters for consideration by the EPA Debarring Official.

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 1 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1 Prev | Next

§ 1. Regulations by Secretary of the Army for navigation of waters generally

How Current is This? It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Army to prescribe such regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States as in his judgment the public necessity may require for the protection of life and property, or of operations of the United States in channel improvement, covering all matters not specifically delegated by law to some other executive department. Such regulations shall be posted, in conspicuous and appropriate places, for the information of the public; and every person and every corporation which shall violate such regulations shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof in any district court of the United States within whose territorial jurisdiction such offense may have been committed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment (in the case of a natural person) not exceeding six months, in the discretion of the court. Any regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army in pursuance of this section may be enforced as provided in section 413 of this title, the provisions whereof are made applicable to the said regulations.

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 1 > SUBCHAPTER II

SUBCHAPTER II—WATERS DECLARED NONNAVIGABLE: CHANGE OF NAME

How Current is This?

PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME, WATERS DECLARED NONNAVIGABLE: BUENA VENTURA RIVER FROM KESWICK DAM TO REDBLUFF DAM

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 26 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 1313a Prev | Next

§ 1313a. Revised water quality standards

How Current is This? The review, revision, and adoption or promulgation of revised or new water quality standards pursuant to section 303(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [ 33 U.S.C. 1313 (c) ] shall be completed by the date three years after December 29, 1981. No grant shall be made under title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [ 33 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.] after such date until water quality standards are reviewed and revised pursuant to section 303 (c) , except where the State has in good faith submitted such revised water quality standards and the Administrator has not acted to approve or disapprove such submission within one hundred and twenty days of receipt.

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 26 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 1315 Prev | Next

§ 1315. State reports on water quality

How Current is This? (a) Omitted (b) (1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1, 1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter, a report which shall include— (A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required by the objective of this chapter (as identified by the Administrator pursuant to criteria published under section 1314 (a) of this title) and the water quality described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; (B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on the water; (C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this chapter, together with recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what waters such additional action is necessary; (D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this chapter in such State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and (E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which must be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs. (2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and October 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter.

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 26 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 1316 Prev | Next

§ 1316. National standards of performance

How Current is This? (a) Definitions For purposes of this section: (1) The term “standard of performance” means a standard for the control of the discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest degree of effluent reduction which the Administrator determines to be achievable through application of the best available demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants. (2) The term “new source” means any source, the construction of which is commenced after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing a standard of performance under this section which will be applicable to such source, if such standard is thereafter promulgated in accordance with this section. (3) The term “source” means any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be the discharge of pollutants. (4) The term “owner or operator” means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a source. (5) The term “construction” means any placement, assembly, or installation of facilities or equipment (including contractual obligations to purchase such facilities or equipment) at the premises where such equipment will be used, including preparation work at such premises.

THE TERM "OLD SOURCE" IS SELF EXPLANATORY

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 26 > SUBCHAPTER V > § 1371 Prev | Next

§ 1371. Authority under other laws and regulations

How Current is This? (a) Impairment of authority or functions of officials and agencies; treaty provisions This chapter shall not be construed as (1) limiting the authority or functions of any officer or agency of the United States under any other law or regulation not inconsistent with this chapter; (2) affecting or impairing the authority of the Secretary of the Army (A) to maintain navigation or (B) under the Act of March 3, 1899, ( 30 Stat. 1112 ); except that any permit issued under section 1344 of this title shall be conclusive as to the effect on water quality of any discharge resulting from any activity subject to section 403 of this title, or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty of the United States.

Thomas Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolve of 1798, accompanied by Madison's Virginia Resolve, which was almost identical (See William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy). Section One of Jefferson's Kentucky Resolve reads as follows:

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution For the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force . . . . That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well as of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Madison's Virginia Resolve, in turn, declared that “in case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact [i.e., the Constitution], the States who are parties thereto, have the right and are duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

With Jefferson's election as president, the Sedition Act ended at midnight on March 3, 1801, the moment Jefferson became president. Upon assuming the office, Jefferson ended all ongoing prosecutions and pardoned those who had been convicted under the Sedition Act.

South Carolina's nullification of the Tariff of Abominations in 1832 was not even the second example of the principle of nullification being implemented. Far from it. After President Jefferson enacted a trade embargo in response to British theft of American ships and the kidnapping of American sailors, New England legislatures nullified the embargo act by quoting Jefferson himself. For example, on February 5, 1809, the Massachusetts legislature declared that the embargo was “not legally binding on the citizens of the state” and denounced the law as “unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional” (See James J. Kilpatrick, The Sovereign States). All of the New England states (where the shipping industry was concentrated), plus Delaware, officially nullified the embargo act.

When the War of 1812 broke out (also the work of Henry Clay as much as anyone), the New England Federalists essentially seceded from the union by not participating in the war. Their political vehicle was nullification. As stated by the Connecticut state assembly:

[I]t must not be forgotten that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT State; that the United States are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, ‘to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State,' as he is ‘to support the Constitution of the United States,' and the obligation to support the latter imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed.
Lesser known though were the writings by those opposed to the new Constitution. In these pamphlets the writers expressed their fears over shortcomings in how the Constitution was written. These were known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Today we are living in the nightmare scenario that the Anti-Federalists warned us about -- the concentration of power in the hands of a few and the subsequent bypassing or outright ignoring of the limits on power mandated in the Constitution.

President Obama signs into law the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer Act;

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer Act will transfer the administrative jurisdiction of certain Federal lands located in northern California. The Act provides for resolution of land use, prior rights and hazardous substance issues.

H.R.689

One Hundred Eleventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

An Act

To interchange the administrative jurisdiction of certain Federal lands between the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Shasta-Trinity National Forest Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer Act'.

SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION TO THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General- Administrative jurisdiction over the Federal land described in subsection (b) is transferred from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior.

(b) Description of Land- The Federal land referred to in subsection (a) is the land within the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California, Mount Diablo Meridian, as generally depicted on the map entitled ‘Shasta-Trinity Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer: Transfer from Forest Service to BLM, Map 1' and dated November 23, 2009.

(c) Management and Status of Transferred Land- The Federal land described in subsection (b) shall be administered in accordance with--

(1) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ( 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and

(2) any other applicable law (including regulations).

SEC. 3. TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION TO THE FOREST SERVICE.

(a) In General- Administrative jurisdiction over the Federal land described in subsection (b) is transferred from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture.

(b) Description of Land- The Federal land referred to in subsection (a) is the land administered by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management in the Mount Diablo Meridian, California, as generally depicted on the map entitled ‘Shasta-Trinity Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer: Transfer from BLM to Forest Service, Map 2' and dated November 23, 2009.

(c) Management and Status of Transferred Land-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Federal land described in subsection (b) shall be--

(A) withdrawn from the public domain;

(B) reserved for administration as part of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest; and

(C) managed in accordance with the laws (including the regulations) generally applicable to the National Forest System.

(2) WILDERNESS ADMINISTRATION- The land transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture under subsection (a) that is within the Trinity Alps Wilderness shall--

(A) not affect the wilderness status of the transferred land; and

(B) be administered in accordance with--

(i) this section;

(ii) the Wilderness Act ( 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and

(iii) the California Wilderness Act of 1984 ( 16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 98-425 ).

SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

(a) Corrections-

(1) MINOR ADJUSTMENTS- The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior may, by mutual agreement, make minor corrections and adjustments to the transfers under this Act to facilitate land management, including corrections and adjustments to any applicable surveys.

(2) PUBLICATIONS- Any corrections or adjustments made under subsection (a) shall be effective on the date of publication of a notice of the corrections or adjustments in the Federal Register.

(b) Hazardous Substances-

(1) NOTICE- The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall, with respect to the land described in sections 2(b) and 3(b), respectively--

(A) identify any known sites containing hazardous substances; and

(B) provide to the head of the Federal agency to which the land is being transferred notice of any sites identified under subparagraph (A).

(2) CLEANUP OBLIGATIONS- To the same extent as on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, with respect to any Federal liability--

(A) the Secretary of Agriculture shall remain responsible for any cleanup of hazardous substances on the Federal land described in section 2(b); and

(B) the Secretary of the Interior shall remain responsible for any cleanup of hazardous substances on the Federal land described in section 3(b).

(c) Effect on Existing Rights and Authorizations- Nothing in this Act affects--

(1) any valid existing rights; or

(2) the validity or term and conditions of any existing withdrawal, right-of-way, easement, lease, license, or permit on the land to which administrative jurisdiction is transferred under this Act, except that beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the head of the agency to which administrative jurisdiction over the land is transferred shall be responsible for administering the interests or authorizations (including reissuing the interests or authorizations in accordance with applicable law).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC. TO BUILD SUPERCONDUCTOR FROM SHASTA TO ALAMEDA, CONTRA COSTA, MONTEREY, SACRAMENTO, SAN FRANCISCO, SANTA CLARA, SANTA CRUZ; Covenant not to sue divests DOJ jurisdiction over invalidity

Tuesday, August 03, 2010 Declaratory Relief in CERCLA Actions The Ninth Circuit today held that a CERCLA plaintiff that fails to prove liability for recoverable response costs may not obtain declaratory relief for future response costs that it may incur. In City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, Inc. , the Ninth Circuit first affirmed summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claims for responses costs because plaintiff had admittedly not complied with the National Contingency Plan. The court then held, in a case of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, that plaintiff was not entitled to declaratory relief for future costs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment (DJ) invalidity, non-infringement claim in which the patent owner offered the DJ plaintiff a covenant not to sue for infringement.

In the 9th Circuit, Under CERCLA, the Liable Owner is the One on Deck When the Cleanup Occurs, Not When the Suit is Instituted

Believe it or not, in the 30 years of recorded decisions under CERCLA, the issue of who is an “owner” has not been decided, according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California v. Hearthside Residential Corp. , case 09-55389 (Decided July 22, 2010).

annuit coeptis - ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES BEGINS CLEANUP OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINES SUPERFUND

Seventh Circuit resolves the issue of whether denial of class certification eliminates subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA.

The Seventh based its opinion almost entirely on the language of the Act. Crucially, the law says it applies to “any class action [within the Act's scope] before or after the entry of a class certification order.” The majority wrote that this language was probably intended to give defendants the option of removing the case either before or after class certification. But they seized on the use of the indefinite article -- a class certification order rather than the class certification order. This word choice shows that the law is not limited to cases in which a class certification order is eventually issued, the court wrote. In addition the law's definition of a class action is any civil action filed under rules authorizing a class action -- not as an action with a certified class. “As actually worded, (d)(8)... implies at most an expectation that a class will or at least may be certified eventually,” the court wrote.

Another part of the Act says a class certification order is “an order issued by a court approving the treatment of some or all aspects of a civil action as a class action.” This could imply that a class certification order is required for the claim to be a class action -- if read in isolation. But again, the definition of a class action in this Act is a claim that is filed as a class action, not necessarily certified as one, the majority wrote. The court interpreted this language to mean that a class-action suit cannot be maintained as a class-action suit without the eventual certification of a class.

The Seventh then reviewed previous federal appellate decisions in agreement with this interpretation, including Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. , 564 F.3d 1256, 1268 n. 12 (11th Cir. 2009) as well as its own previous assumption in Bullard v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. , 535 F.3d 759, 762 (7th Cir. 2008) . If a state has different standards for class certification than Rule 23, the federal standard, the case could be denied class certification at the federal level, remanded, then continue as a class action at the state level. That would be contrary to the purpose of the Act, the court said. Finally, the Seventh cited the general principle that proper diversity jurisdiction is not revoked by changes that take place after the suit is filed. If diversity jurisdiction is proper before a class is certified, the majority wrote, it's proper after a class is not certified.

Now all types of consumer rights and property rights cases can be brought by individuals against companies or agencies that have defrauded them, overcharged them or otherwise violated their rights with deceptive practices, bad faith, violations of private property, free speech, privacy and wage and hour claims, breach of fiduciary duty, trespass, &c.. Many of these claims are worth so little individually that attorneys won't bring them -- and businesses and agencies know it. By banding together into a class action, the same plaintiffs can seek justice without paying onerous legal fees.

The National Mining Association has filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, requesting the court to vacate recent federal rulings on surface mining and process a backlog of permit applications. The lawsuit, filed on July 20, alleges that the defendants violated federal law and overreached their authority by "substantially and illegally" amending the permitting process Arch argued that the EPA doesn't have the authority to revoke a Clean Water Act permit once it has been issued; the permit is for the Spruce No.1

The Inspector General report said that failure to document agency activities is a violation of EPA policy and federal law, which require the preparation and preservation of “adequate and proper” records of agency functions, decisions and transactions.

AIG has published their quarterly earnings.

They are finally making money now. Everyone should be happy about that, even those that were against the bailout, via AIG :
Second quarter 2010 adjusted net income was $1.3 billion (compared to $1.1 billion in the second quarter of 2009), including operating income of $2.2 billion from continuing insurance operations, Mortgage Guaranty operating income of $226 million, $604 million in income from the Asia life insurance operating segment (principally American International Assurance Company, Ltd. (AIA)), and fair value gains on Maiden Lane III of $358 million, partially offset by interest and amortization on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) Credit Facility and third party debt, invested asset impairment charges and other net restructuring and legal settlement charges, and a decrease in the net deferred tax asset. More good news is that adjusted net income has stabilized. The bad news is that it is way insufficient to repay the government what it is owed.

The total outstanding debt and equity assistance given by the government is $132.1 billion. Of that amount, the amount requiring repayment from AIG to taxpayers is $101.2 billion. The difference between the $132.1 billion in government assistance outstanding and the $101.2 billion debt and equity balance requiring repayment is attributable to the $30.9 billion outstanding on the Maiden Lane II and III loans as of June 30, 2010.

Recap of the amount outstanding, via AIG :
Debt: Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) initially provided AIG with a revolving credit facility of $85 billion. The current outstanding balance of $26.5 billion at June 30, 2010 includes accumulated interest and fees. Accumulated interest does not reduce the available balance of the revolving credit facility. EQUITY: U.S. Dept. of Treasury TARP Shares were issued to pay down the FRBNY Revolving Credit Facility. These shares were later exchanged for TARP Series E noncumulative preferred shares. Unpaid dividends on the series D shares were added to the liquidation preference of the Series E shares. As of June 30 2010, the balance outstanding on the series E shares was $41.6 billion. EQUITY: Preferred Interests in AIA and ALICO Held by FRBNY: In December 2009, AIG transferred to the FRBNY preferred equity interests in newly-formed special purpose vehicles (SPVs) in exchange for a $25 billion reduction of the balance outstanding and the maximum credit available under the FRBNY Credit Facility. As of June 30, 2010, the equity balance outstanding was $25.6 billion. The debt to equity swaps that the FRBNY has done has hidden the true nature of the problem. Looking at strictly the current earnings and ignoring the restructuring plans, it will be next to impossible for the taxpayers to be paid back with a return above inflation. AIG probably will be able to eventually payoff the 26.5 Million. Their quarterly earnings are at roughly 1BB which means it would take approximately 7 years for the taxpayers to get repaid with a 6% interest rate if all of their earnings were diverted into debt repayment. If only half of their Earnings go to debt repayment, then it will take approximately 15 years.

If we take all earnings and plug back into debt reduction, in seven years we have a company which is approximately worth 56 Billion if we have a discount rate of 10% with a 2% growth rate. The taxpayers aren't getting paid back this way.

As of today we are owed 26.5 in debt and 75 Billion in equity

The 55 Billion that is still owed the taxpayers is almost exactly equal to what the company is worth at the end of seven years. However, the assumption which is being made is that the pieces that are being sold off will not materially be affecting earnings. That assumption is highly unrealistic.

So from the companies own financial statements, it should be clear that AIG will begin paying back the money which it is owed. However, that the taxpayer gets paid in full out of this seven headed beast is a pipe dream.

Three or four years down the road we will hear that the AIG rescue was effective and the taxpayer received all the money owed. Don`t buy it.

The debt will likely be repaid. The equity will likely never get even half paid down. But since it is equity, it doesn`t have to. It was an accounting sleight of hand .

Owner-Operators Reject Liability Under CERCLA for Discharging to River

The federal government is seeking response costs for cleaning up contaminated sediments in the waterways.  Iron Mountain Mines roadways and storm sewers could not be considered a single CERCLA facility along with the waterway because they “are reasonably or naturally divided into multiple parts or functional units.” 

CERCLA Recovery; August 03, 2010 -- The Ninth Circuit has struck a bid to hold companies liable for anticipated cleanup costs citing failure to hold the same companies liable for costs already incurred. Characterizing the case as a question of first instance, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals on Monday affirmed a lower court's ruling

OLD WORLD MIX - MINERALS & METALS, PAINTS, STAINS & DYES, CATALYSTS & NANOSTUFF

PAHOMAKI FERTILIZER ADDS IMMI MINERALS SLOW RELEASE ESSENTIAL MICRONUTRIENTS

SULFUR COATED IBDU/UREA & ARMAN MIX OFFERED FOR NURSERYMANS SPECIALTY BLEND

HUMATE RICH CORN GLUTEN MICROBIAL INNOCULANT FOR HU/MOUNTAIN COMPOST

ARMAN MINES MINISTRY PLEDGES BILLION LBS. IRON MOUNTAIN MINERALS RESTORATION

PIPESTONE PIGMENT CO. OFFERS 72% GYPSUM 22% IRON OXIDES NATURAL IRON MOUNTAIN COLOR FOR CEMENT , CONTACT BY FAX MR. T.W. ARMAN, PRICES AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.

We are continuingly being injured and delayed by incompetent agencies and factors of the federal executive and judicial branches, environmentalism is religion for atheists and non-scientists. The Obama administration has ordered EPA to regulate "climate change"

As the Washington Post tells us, the Obama administration is comprised of "true believers."

ARMAN MINES INSTITUTE & MINISTRY PREPARES FOR GLOBAL WARMING, IT'S NATURAL AND INEVITABLE; YOU SHOULD TOO!

D.C. IS DOOMED; BUILD A NEW CAPITAL CITY OF BRANDEIS, DISTRICT OF JEFFERSON ON HIGH GROUND AT IRON MOUNTAIN

CITIZENS & PEOPLES CLASS ACTION TO RESTORE THE SWAMPS IN SACRAMENTO AND WASHINGTON D.C.

Are the Democrats Really the “Party of the People?”

 

WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE LEGAL/MEDICAL/INSURANCE/PHARMACEUTICAL/FEDERAL COERCIVE MONOPOLY FRAUD IF EVERYONE COULD JUST EAT NUTRITIOUS FOOD

WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, CA - JOINT & SEVERAL TRESSPASSERS

Stimulus Funds Awarded: $25,592,671.40 - LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; DUNS: 808321913 SEIZURE & EJECTMENT

Fire reported at Iron Mountain Mine CONTACT: Dave Ryan 202-564-7827 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Water

Initiation of Risk Assessments for Chemicals in Drinking Water
[07/09/10]

Download this notice and a brief description of these chemicals in PDF format

A. Requirements

The Calderon-Sher California Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 requires the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to post notices on its web site of water contaminants for which it is initiating development of public health goals (PHGs) for the chemicals in drinking water.  The law also describes the intent and general context of the PHGs.  PHGs are concentrations of chemicals in drinking water that are not anticipated to produce adverse health effects following long-term exposures.  OEHHA is required to consider potential adverse effects on members of subgroups that comprise a meaningful proportion of the population, including but not limited to infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals with a history of serious illness.  The public health goals are non-regulatory in nature but are to be used as the health basis to update the state's primary drinking water standards (maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs) established by the California Department of Public Health (DPH) for chemicals subject to regulation.
The act requires PHGs to be developed for the approximately 90 chemicals for which state or federal MCLs are provided, and review and update the risk assessments that form the basis for the PHGs as appropriate at least every five years.  Other chemicals may be added to the list by legislative or interdepartmental request.  Opportunities for public comment and peer review are provided.

B. Implementation

OEHHA has published 85 PHGs as of July 2010.  Two MCLs, for gross alpha and gross beta radionuclides, represent screening levels for contaminants rather than specific regulatory standards; for these, OEHHA has provided risk assessments and guidance memoranda.  In addition, re-evaluations of the original PHG have been completed for 18 chemicals.  OEHHA concluded that no new information was available on some of these that would require significant changes to the PHG document.  The re-reviews of several other chemicals required more extensive efforts, for which complete updated documents have been published.  The supporting documents are available at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/index.html. 
PHG review documents for all the other chemicals that have state MCLs are currently in preparation, as well as updates of the PHG for several chemicals.  Drafts for public comment on eight of these chemicals (antimony, benzo(a)pyrene, hexavalent chromium, methoxychlor, selenium, styrene, TCDD (dioxin) and trihalomethanes) are currently posted on the OEHHA web site.  Draft PHG documents for several more chemicals should be released this year.  At the initial posting, a 45-day public comment period is provided, followed by a public workshop.  All comments received are considered in the preparation of a second draft, which is then posted for a 30-day public comment period.  After consideration of comments, the final PHG is then published on the OEHHA web site for public reference and use by DPH in developing California MCLs.
Evaluation is now being initiated for two more chemicals for which PHGs were developed earlier (see Section D).  These are now being re-reviewed as part of the ongoing PHG update process.  Information relevant to the development of PHGs is requested on each of these chemicals.

C. PHGs to be released for public review

Draft documents for updated PHGs for three chemicals (alachlor, fluoride, and perchlorate) are nearing completion, and second postings for methoxychlor, selenium, and trihalomethanes are also being finalized. 
Risk assessments are currently in progress for several other chemicals for which initiation of review has previously been announced.  Workload considerations and in a few cases, complicated and difficult toxicological interpretations, do not allow us to project completion schedules for these draft updates:

D. Initiation of risk assessments

Risk assessment is being initiated for the following chemicals for which PHGs have already been released, but are being updated after prioritization on the basis of availability of new data, concern about environmental exposures, and potential significance as drinking water contaminants:

A brief description of these chemicals is provided below.  This announcement solicits the submission of pertinent information on these contaminants that could assist our office in updating the risk assessment and deriving a revised PHG.

Information submitted to OEHHA in response to this request should not be proprietary in nature, because all information submitted is a matter of public record.  Information should be submitted by September 1, 2010 to:
Michael Baes
PHG Project
Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
1515 Clay St., 16th floor
Oakland, California 94612

All data submitted will be considered in the development of the PHG for these chemicals.  If substantive revisions to the original PHG documents are required, the draft documents will be available for discussion in a public workshop and public comment will be solicited as described above in Section B.  The final risk assessments will be utilized by DPH for potential revisions to the MCLs for the chemical in drinking water, as described in more detail on the DPH Web site at http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/MCLsandPHGs.aspx .

 

FREEMINERS T.W. ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC

EPA wants environmental justice part of rulemaking, FREEMINERS WANT JUSTICE; MINERS MAKE NEW RULES

Extraterrestrial Legal Advice & Personal Jurisdiction

First, the jurisdiction of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) created by the Act specifically extends to any person or entity that offers ... RIGHT OF REVOLUTION

In these and the like Cases, when the Government is dissolved, the People are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new Legislative, differing from the other, by the change of Persons, or Form, or both as they shall find it most for their safety and good. For the Society can never, by the fault of another, lose the Native and Original Right it has to preserve it self, which can only be done by a settled Legislative, and a fair and impartial execution of the Laws made by it. But the state of Mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this Remedy, till it be too late to look for any. To tell People they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new Legislative, when by Oppression, Artifice, or being delivered over to a Foreign Power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them they may expect Relief, when it is too late, and the evil is past Cure. This is in effect no more than to bid them first be Slaves, and then to take care of their Liberty; and when their Chains are on, tell them, they may act like Freemen. This, if barely so, is rather Mockery than Relief; and Men can never be secure from Tyranny, if there be no means to escape it, till they are perfectly under it: And therefore it is, that they have not only a Right to get out of it, but to prevent it.

221. There is therefore, secondly, another way whereby Governments are dissolved, and that is; when the Legislative, or the Prince, either of them act contrary to their Trust.

First, The Legislative acts against the Trust reposed in them, when they endeavour to invade the Property of the Subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the Community, Masters, or Arbitrary Disposers of the Lives, Liberties, or Fortunes of the People. - Locke

TREASON AGAINST THE PEOPLES TRUST, PIRACY OF THE PUBLIC TRUST, WRONGFUL JUDICIAL TAKINGS, WRONGFUL USURPATION OF MINING COMPANY, EPIC LARCENY OF MINING COMPANY SECURITY AND COLLATERAL, MISPRISON OF TREASON AND FELONIOUS TRESPASS OF ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGN PATENT TITLE, COMPLETE ABSENCE OF CAPACITY FOR JURISDICTION, LEGISLATION, OR ADMINISTRATION, 100 YEARS OF REASONABLE DOUBT, NO REASONABLE BASIS, NO PROBABLE CAUSE, NO PLAUSIBLE EXIGENCY, NO DUE PROCESS, NO EQUAL PROTECTION, NO DEAD FISH, NOBODY SICK, NO RIGHT, DAMAGES WITHOUT INJURY, ATTAINDER AFTER THE FACT, POISONING WITH INFAMY, LIBEL & SLANDER, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS RECKLESS NEGLIGENCE AND FELONIOUS UNLAWFUL DETAINER WITH WRONGFUL TAKINGS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES OF OFFICIAL RIGHT AND UNDER COLOR OF LAW AND WITH RECKLESS AND EXTRAVAGANT DISREGARD AND ENDANGERMENT TO OUR PEACE AND SAFETY BY FRAUD AND FALSE CLAIMS TO PERPETUATE AN INSIDIOUS BUREAUCRACY . $25,000 PER DAY FINE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 104(e) OSWER Directive No. 9829.2, Entry and Continued Access Under CERCLA (1987). Nothing in the OSWER language suggests that consent is mandatory

We conclude that failure to obtain written consent and in the absence of harm or injury and without QA or QAPP is arbitrary and capricious and is punishable by nonupled EPCRA 313/ RCRA 3007 GOVERNMENT FRAUD AND DERELICTION OF DUTIES damages and civil penalties under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e)(5)(B). of $375,000 per day SINCE SEPTEMBER 4TH, 1983.

Earlier this week, the Environmental Protection Agency released an interim guidance document showing EPA staff how to incorporate environmental justice into the agency's process of developing rules and regulations, news release said.

The guide is part of the EPA's efforts to protect the health and safety of groups that have been historically underrepresented in the decision-making process and are often most at risk from environmental hazards.

"Historically, the low-income and minority communities that carry the greatest environmental burdens haven't had a voice in our policy development or rulemaking. We want to expand the conversation to the places where EPA's work can make a real difference for health and the economy," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "This plan is part of my ongoing commitment to give all communities a seat at the decision-making table. Making environmental justice a consideration in our rulemaking changes both the perception and practice of how we work with overburdened communities, and opens this conversation up to new voices."

The guide allows the EPA to meet responsibilities under Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which orders all federal agencies to make environmental justice part of its mission.

CONTACT: Dave Ryan Ryan.dave@epa.gov 202-564-7827 202-564-4355

July 30, 2010 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

EPA To Hold Listening Sessions on Potential Revisions to Water Quality Standards Regulation

Natural Resource Damage Claims not Federal Jurisdiction
On August 21, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands held that a territory’s common law claims for natural resourse damages against manufacturers of dry cleaning chemicals for a site on the National Priorities List are not subject to federal jurisdiction. Mathes v. Vulcan Materials Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74736 (D.V.I. Aug. 21, 2009).

WASHINGTON The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold two public listening sessions on potential changes to the water quality standards regulation before proposing a national rule. The current regulation, which has been in place since 1983, governs how states and authorized tribes adopt standards needed under the Clean Water Act to protect the quality of their rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries. Potential revisions include strengthening protection for water bodies with water quality that already exceeds or meet the interim goals of the Clean Water Act; ensuring that standards reflect a continued commitment to these goals wherever attainable; improving transparency of regulatory decisions; and strengthening federal oversight.

Water quality standards are the foundation of the water quality-based approach to pollution control, including Total Maximum Daily Loads and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. Standards are also a fundamental component of watershed management.

The public listening sessions will be held via audio teleconferences on August 24 and 26, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT. At the sessions, EPA will provide a review of the current regulation and a summary of the revisions the agency is considering. Clarifying questions and brief oral comments (three minutes or less) from the public will be accepted at the sessions, as time permits. EPA will consider the comments received as it develops the proposed rulemaking.

EPA will also hold separate listening sessions for state, tribal and local governments.

EPA expects to publish the proposed revisions to the water quality standards regulation in summer 2011.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/rules/wqs/

RCRA default judgment sanctions discovery violation
On June 5, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, in response to what it determined were extraordinary discovery abuses by the defendant in a RCRA citizen suit case, entered a default judgment against the defendant. 1100 West, L.L.C. v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., 2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 47439 (S.D. Ind. Jun. 5, 2009).

WHAT IF EVERYBODY ATE HEALTHY FOOD AND NOBODY GOT SICK? WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE LEGAL/MEDICAL/INSURANCE/PHARMACEUTICAL/FEDERAL COERCIVE MONOPOLY FRAUD

ARREST EPA DREDGING OF EVIDENCE

July 26, 2010 EPA Releases Rulemaking Guidance on Environmental Justice

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing an interim guidance document to help agency staff incorporate environmental justice into the agency's rulemaking process. The rulemaking guidance is an important and positive step toward meeting EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's priority to work for environmental justice and protect the health and safety of communities who have been disproportionally impacted by pollution.

"Historically, the low-income and minority communities that carry the greatest environmental burdens haven't had a voice in our policy development or rulemaking. We want to expand the conversation to the places where EPA's work can make a real difference for health and the economy," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "This plan is part of my ongoing commitment to give all communities a seat at the decision-making table. Making environmental justice a consideration in our rulemaking changes both the perception and practice of how we work with overburdened communities, and opens this conversation up to new voices."

The document, Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action, seeks to advance environmental justice for low-income, minority and indigenous communities and tribal governments who have been historically underrepresented in the regulatory decision-making process. The guidance also outlines the multiple steps that every EPA program office can take to incorporate the needs of overburdened neighborhoods into the agency's decision-making, scientific analysis, and rule development. EPA staff is encouraged to become familiar with environmental justice concepts and the many ways they should inform agency decision-making.

EPA is seeking public feedback on how to best implement and improve the guide for agency staff to further advance efforts toward environmental justice.

To view the interim guidance and submit feedback: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej-rulemaking.html

More information on environmental justice: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/

Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

Those who won our independence... valued liberty as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty.

Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent.

If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.

In the frank expression of conflicting opinions lies the greatest promise of wisdom in governmental action.

Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.

Those who won our independence... valued liberty as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty.

To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means is to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure a conviction of a private citizen, and would bring terrible retribution.

We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

The most important political office is that of private citizen.

That the existing unemployment is, in large part, of the gross inequality in the distribution of wealth and income which giant corporations have fostered; that by the control which few have exerted through giant corporations, individual initiative and effort are being paralyzed, creative power impaired and human happiness lessened; that the true prosperity of our past came not from big business, but through the courage, the energy and the resourcefulness of small men; that only by releasing from corporate control the faculties of the unknown many, only by reopening to them the opportunities for leadership, can confidence in our future be restored and the existing misery overcome; and that only through participation by the many in the responsibilities and determinations of business, can America secure the moral and intellectual development which is essential to the maintenance of liberty.- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

Plaintiffs claim their injury results from EPA's inaction while intervenors claim plaintiffs' injury results from the actions of third parties whose decision-making process may or may not be affected by EPA's failure to promulgate financial assurance requirements. Plaintiffs have the better argument and they are supported by evidence from the GAO, EPA and other government agency reports. In support of their summary judgment motion, plaintiffs submitted the August 2005 United States Government Accountability Office report (“GAO report”), which found that bankruptcy laws and laws meant to force polluting facilities to be responsible for cleaning up hazardous waste conflict, allowing some facilities to escape responsibility for cleaning up their hazardous waste. The GAO report also found that if EPA began promulgating financial assurance requirements, then businesses would not be able to limit environmental cleanup liability through bankruptcy or reorganization because they would have to meet assurance requirements through a bond, trust fund, or other financial guarantee. The GAO report stated:
EPA has not yet implemented a 1980 statutory mandate under Superfund to require businesses handling hazardous substances to maintain financial assurances that would provide evidence of their ability to pay to clean up potential spills or other environmental contamination that could result from their operations.

By its inaction on this mandate, EPA has continued to expose the Superfund program, and ultimately the U.S. taxpayers, to potentially enormous cleanup costs at facilities that currently are not required to have financial assurances for cleanup costs . . .
Although implementing the requirement could help avoid the creation of additional Superfund sites and could provide funds to help pay for cleanups, EPA has cited, among other things, competing priorities and lack of funds as reasons for having made no progress in this area for nearly 25 years.

GAO Rep. No. 05-658 at 5 (August 2005). The GAO report found that EPA does not dispute the potential effectiveness of promulgating financial assurance requirements but that they lack resources to implement such a program. CERCLA was enacted in order to make the producers of hazardous waste responsible for cleaning up their waste. Section 108 was created to make sure that those facilities maintain evidence of financial assurance commensurate with the level of risk they pose. By not promulgating financial assurance requirements, EPA has allowed companies that otherwise might not have been able to operate and produce hazardous waste to potentially shift the responsibility for cleaning up hazardous waste to taxpayers. GAO Rep. No. 05-658 (August 2005).

The Constitution addresses piracy in Article 1, Section 8. It gives Congress "the Power … To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations."

In 1790 Congress enacted the first substantive antipiracy law, a broad ban on murder and ROBBERY at sea that carried the death penalty. In 1818, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the law was limited to crimes involving U.S. citizens: U.S. jurisdiction did not cover foreigners whose piracy targeted other foreigners ( United States v. Palmer , 16 U.S. [3 Wheat.] 610). A year later, in 1819, Congress responded by passing an antipiracy law to extend U.S. jurisdiction over pirates of all nationalities.

By the mid-nineteenth century, two other important changes occurred. Penalties for certain piracy crimes—revolt and mutiny—were reduced and were no longer punishable by death. Then the Mexican War of 1846–48 brought a radical extension of the definition of a pirate. The traditional definition of an independent criminal was broadened to include sailors acting on commissions from foreign nations, if and when their commissions violated U.S. treaties with their government. The Piracy Act of 1847, which established this broader definition, marked the last major change in U.S. piracy law.
Piracy can also be committed against a ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state, in fact piracy has been the first example of universal jurisdiction. Nevertheless today the international community is facing many problems in bringing pirates to justice .

Definition of War Crime
The term “war crime” broadly refers to prohibited acts committed in time of war against a person or property protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Under international law, war crimes are grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions known today as “International Humanitarian Law.” 
  The 1949 Geneva Conventions consist of Protocol I and Protocol II . The minimum rules of conduct adopted under Protocol I apply to international armed conflict between states; whereas the minimum rules of conduct adopted under Protocol II   apply to internal armed conflict or civil war between local citizen groups. In olden- day armed conflicts, states were accountable for war crimes, not individuals. In today's armed conflicts, military and civilians are individually accountable for war crimes, not states. 

Texas officials denounce EPA on two fronts

Letter rejects greenhouse gas rules, recent air permit issues.

Consolidating the fronts on which they're doing battle with Washington, Texas officials sent a defiantly worded letter to environmental officials Monday that merged attacks against greenhouse gas regulation and federal disapproval of the state's air permitting program.

"In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrial development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency's recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations — regulations that are plainly contrary to United States law," reads the Aug. 2 letter from state Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan Shaw to EPA head Lisa Jackson and EPA regional administrator Al Armendariz .

"To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to" the EPA, the letter says.

that which is so clearly stated or distinctively set forth that there is no doubt as to its express meaning of clear and explicit reservation of common law rights

appeal certified under Rule 54(b) when “there is some danger of hardship or injustice which an immediate appeal would alleviate.” Taco John’s, 569 F.3d at 402 (citing McAdams, 533 F.3d at 928).

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT MR. HARRY VINE AND JUDGE JOHN MENDEZ

ERROR AND MISTAKE OF IDENTITY, FATALLY DEFECTIVE, FRAUD UPON THE COURT

Dear Mr. Harry Vine,

I received an envelope at P.O. box 182 , Canyon, Ca. 94516, but apparently addressed to Mr. T.W. Arman. As you know, Mr. Arman has been the subject of litigation in your court since 1991, so you should be able to address correspondence to him without my assistance.

As this is not the first time I have informed you of this matter, I assume no responsibility for your failure to effect service upon Mr. T.W. Arman..

That said, I would like to take this opportunity to inform you of some other corrections that need to be made to your court that you should be aware of.

First, there appears to be some confusion in your court concerning ARMAN. Your court continues to oppress Mr. T.W. Arman regarding certain mine drainage at Iron Mountain Mine, which is actually the result of the actions of ARMAN, “archaeal Richmond Mine acidophilic nanoorganisms”, so named by Dr. Jillian Banfield of the University of California at Berkeley, and if you would have addressed your summary judgment to ARMAN at this address, would probably have been correct.

As the curator for the College of the Hummingbird and the Hummingbird Institute, and at the behest of Mr. T.W. Arman, the Arman Mines Institute, the Arman Mines Ministry of Natural Resources, the Arman Mines Hazard and Remediation Directorate and Disaster Assistance Directorate, it is my duty as resident expert to convey to you the facts concerning allegations of ‘hazardous' substances.

I read with interest the partial summary judgment of Mr. Mendez and can only conclude that your court lacks even one scintilla of common sense, has been entirely brainwashed by established beliefs of environmental religion, or are under a witches spell. Come to IMMI and walk it off.

Since there are no hazardous materials at Iron Mountain Mines we wish you would stop demonizing, libeling and slandering the good name of Iron Mountain Mine and Mr. T.W. Arman, as these damages continue to mount against the United States of America State of California.

Furthermore, since Mr. T.W. Arman has been trying for years to supply his minerals to farmers, gardeners, landscapers, horticulturalists, and others who work in agricultural enterprises that provide our food and sustain our environment, and it is well documented that minerals are necessary, for instance:

“Minerals in the soil control the metabolism of plants, animals and man. All of life will be either healthy or unhealthy according to the fertility of the soil.”

This was a statement made by Dr Alexus Carrel, Nobel Prize Winner, in 1912. Almost a hundred years later, agriculturist and writer, Graham Harvey, wrote in The Daily Telegraph , 18 February 2006: “ Britain 's once fertile soil has been systematically stripped of its crucial minerals by industrial farming, leaving our fruit and vegetables tasteless and a nation in chronic ill health.”

William Albrecht (1896-1974 Illinois), referred to as the Father of Soil Research for his pioneering studies of the effects of infertile soil on plants and animals, warned in 1930s that if the land was not remineralised, there would be a massive increase in human degenerative diseases.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that your actions are an act of aggression and war crime of attrition on us. Please void and vacate, grant us intervention, remission, reversion, & detinue sur bailment.

In fact our minerals were naturally distributed by the cycles of the seasons and the annual flooding that for half a million years fertilized the great valleys of California . In 1943 the United States of America State of California constructed the Shasta dam forever destroying this process, at the same time killing all the native anadramous fish such as the various Chinook Salmon of the McCloud river that were famously propagated around the world by the United States Baird Hatchery.

Now this court has blamed Mr. T.W. Arman for the fisheries demise.

We object to the government perpetuating such a heinous deception

These injuries are a continuing negligent imminent hazard with felonious unlawful detainer and breach of warrantee for patent title from President Abraham Lincoln, May 1st, 1862; and breach of patent title from Governor Newton Booth, recorded January 4th, 1875 .

The California Department of Fish and Game has made no claim against Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. for Damages to Fish Species.

THE WATER BOARD KNOWS - THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY KNOWS

matters for which the court may wish to take judicial notice

Rancho Buena Ventura (also called "San Buena Ventura") was a 26,632-acre (107.78 km 2 ) Mexican land grant in present day Shasta County, California , given in 1844 by Governor Manuel Micheltorena to Major Pierson B. Reading (1816–1868). [ 1 ] The land grant is named for the former name of the adjacent Sacramento River , Buena Ventura, which meant good fortune in Spanish. The grant extended some nineteen miles on the west side of the Sacramento River, from Cottonwood Creek on the south to Salt Creek on the north, and extended approximately three miles west of the Sacramento River the length of the grant. [ 2 ] The grant encompassed present day towns of Anderson , Cottonwood and Redding . [ 3 ] This was the northernmost land grant in California. [ 2 ] Redding, however, was not named for Major Reading; it was named for B. B. Redding, a land agent for the Central Pacific Railroad . [ 2 ]

History

Governor Micheltorena and John Sutter , his alcalde granted Rancho Buena Ventura to Pierson B. Reading (listed as Pearson B. Reading in the land case documents) in 1844. Reading, who was at that time working for John Sutter at Sutter's Fort in Sacramento as a clerk and trapper, visited the land grant but did not move onto it. He stocked the land with cattle and built a house for his overseer but it was burned down by natives in 1846. [ 2 ] Reading was active in promoting the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846. After serving as an artillery lieutenant then as paymaster at the rank of major in a battalion led by John C. Frémont , he built a permanent adobe dwelling and settled on his grant in 1847. [ 2 ] He became the second (after Lansford Hastings ) permanent settler of what was to become Shasta County. [ 2 ]

With the cession of California to the United States following the Mexican-American War , the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided that the land grants would be honored. As required by the Land Act of 1851, a claim for Rancho Buena Ventura was filed with the Public Land Commission in 1852. [ 4 ] The US appealed the claim on the grounds that Reading was not a Mexican citizen. [ 5 ] In 1854 Reading went to Washington, D.C. for the hearing before the US Supreme Court on his land grant claims. There he met and married Fanny Wallace Washington. The claim was upheld by the Supreme Court [ 5 ] and the grant was patented to Pearson B. Reading in 1857. [ 6 ]

The first land sale was made in 1853. By 1866, over 5,000 acres (20.2 km 2 ) of the land grant was sold. In 1866, Reading borrowed from the estate of his longtime friend Samuel J. Hensley, using the remaining rancho lands as collateral. After Reading's unexpected death in 1868, the remaining rancho lands were sold to James Ben Ali Haggin at public auction in 1871 to satisfy the unpaid debt. [ 7 ] After the auction, the only remaining land from the original land grant was the one square mile (640 acres (2.6 km 2 )) Washington section purchased by Fanny Washington's mother.

William Magee was the U.S. deputy surveyor for Shasta County . Charles Camden was the most successful miner in Shasta County, he bought and sold much of the land at the Rancho, 800 acres for Military Scrip Warrants ( U.S. Patent Title), They were partners. Under their rights of Pre-emption The U.S. Land Office at Marysville granted 360 acres of land on Iron Mountain in lieu of land in the Rancho Buena Ventura. Mining was insignificant until James Sallee discovered a seam of sliver in the ore and the Lost Confidence Mine was recorded April 8, 1880.

You are here: The Mythical State of Jefferson

State of Jefferson flag

You may see the XX flag , or hear mention of the State of Jefferson . While you're visiting far Northern California you may notice that the public radio station is Jefferson Public Radio. Why is Jefferson so popular, you may wonder. Well, it's not homage to a past president, but to an idea and movement that lives on today in the hearts and minds of her residents: in 1941 a handful of counties in far Northern California and Southern Oregon attempted to become the 51st state – Jefferson. While the secession movement died with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the identity of the region as Jefferson has lived on. While you're visiting Siskiyou County you are in the heart of Jefferson, where the county seat (Yreka) was designated as the state capitol during the secession movement.

Mt. Shasta and the Shasta Valley

Today you can experience the (now mythical) State of Jefferson by touring its vast geographic area and talking with its people. You will see bumper stickers proclaiming residency of the State of Jefferson, the occasional flag and t-shirts for sale in gift shops. Yreka, Fort Jones and Montague are likely spots for finding your own t-shirt or bumper sticker. The State of Jefferson Scenic Byway winds through the region, from Yreka to the coast. Visit Siskiyou's scenic drive page provides some info about the Byway and other shorter drives in the area. You can read about it in the new magazine Jefferson Backroads , which shares history, coming events and advertisements from local businesses.

Mostly, the State of Jefferson is something to be searched for as you explore the rugged land and small towns that make up the region, a sense to be discovered as you stretch your own independence and self reliance. It's a mythology you can build on as you create your own experiences here, whether you drive down backroads or head for the hills.

 

Fireworks Company Wins 9 th Circuit Environmental Cleanup Case

SAN FRANCISCO--( BUSINESS WIRE )--In a precedent-setting decision, the 9 th Circuit District Court of Appeals on Monday ruled in favor of Pyro Spectaculars, Inc. (PSI) and 16 other defendants, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the City of Colton, California, which sought up to $124 million in past and future environmental cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The 9 th Circuit Court also affirmed the dismissal of Colton's declaratory relief claim and reinstated PSI's CERCLA cost-recovery claims against other potentially responsible parties.

“ “This decision makes it clear to governmental entities seeking to recover tens of millions of dollars in costs that they must play by CERCLA's rules,” said PSI's attorney, Brian Zagon of Hunsucker Goodstein & Nelson, PC.

The decision upheld a lower court's 2006 summary judgment ruling against Colton, agreeing that Colton failed to show that $4 million in incurred cleanup costs were necessary and consistent with CERCLA's National Contingency Plan requirements.

In 2005, Colton filed a lawsuit claiming that PSI and other defendants had contaminated local wells with perchlorate, seeking $4 million in reimbursement for incurred cleanup costs and declaratory relief for future costs to remove low levels of the chemical from wellheads. Estimates by some of the parties of the future cleanup costs are in the range of $120 million. The US District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment against Colton and dismissed the case in 2006. The lower Court also dismissed CERCLA cost recovery claims sought by PSI and other defendants, a decision which the 9 th Circuit Court reversed on Monday.

This is the first time that the 9 th Circuit Court has considered whether a plaintiff who failed to prove a defendant's liability for past cleanup costs can obtain a declaratory judgment for future costs against that defendant.

9 th Circuit Court Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote the opinion affirming the lower court's ruling, stating that “CERCLA's purpose would be better served by encouraging a plaintiff to come to court only after demonstrating its commitment to comply with the [National Contingency Plan] and undertake a CERCLA-quality cleanup.”

PSI was represented in the matter by attorneys Philip Hunsucker and Brian Zagon of Hunsucker Goodstein & Nelson, PC; an environmental litigation firm with offices in California, Indiana, and Washington, DC.

 

Watchdog: Treasury, Fed Failed in AIG Oversight - OPEN THE MINT! CLAW BACK TARP - LIQUIDATE AIG

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP says that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is “ultimately responsible”

July 29 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Treasury said in a statement today.

Geithner met with heads of agencies with consumer protection duties that will be consolidated into the new agency, which was set up under the financial regulatory overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama on July 21.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair were among the officials who met to discuss the transition period, the Treasury said.

“The agency heads each agreed to appoint liaisons from their respective staffs” to help the Treasury coordinate the transition, the department said in the statement. --Editors: Brendan Murray, Christine Spolar Ian Katz in Washington at ikatz2@bloomberg.net / Christopher Wellisz at cwellisz@bloomberg.net

Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” - Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 1

In short, this is not the change that the American people envisioned. Americans as a whole know that we have problems that need to be fixed, but they also know that ours is the greatest nation in the world and it does not need to be “fundamentally transformed”, but rather restored to the founding principles that made us great in the first place. I pray that more Americans will join the spontaneous uprising of their fellow citizens and take the time to study the Constitution and the Declaration and other foundational documents, so that we can understand American exceptionalism and help to restore it.

States And Small Business Respond To Government Motion On Health Care Challenge

Opposition filing says states have standing and face “profound harm” from individual mandate

For_Immediate_Release

Plaintiffs including twenty states, the National Federation of Independent Business, and several individuals filed a response in a Pensacola federal court to the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss their challenge to Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or “ACA.”

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum argues in the filing that the individual mandate, or compulsion to buy insurance, is “manifestly unconstitutional” and that the case is primarily about continuing our federalist system and preserving the sovereignty of the states from “unprecedented intrusion” onto the freedom of its citizens.

Although the mandate does not take effect until 2014, McCollum writes that the states have standing considering they will incur costs immediately from spending on expanding Medicaid enrollment and "enact[ing] statutes or state constitutional provisions to protect their state citizens from compulsion in their healthcare choices.”

Among the key points made by McCollum and the plaintiffs' lead attorney team of David B. Rivkin and Lee. A. Casey:

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson has set a Sept. 14 hearing to consider arguments on the motion to dismiss.

The states that have joined the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

North Idaho Residents Blast EPA Mine Cleanup Proposal

Doug Nadvornick

The Environmental Protection Agency has re–ignited a contentious debate in north Idaho. The agency proposes to expand its work to clean up heavy metals around a federal Superfund site. But residents are not happy. They vented Monday night at a town hall meeting in Kellogg, Idaho.

TRANSCRIPT

Since 1983, the people of Idaho's Silver Valley have reluctantly accepted the EPA as neighbors. Now, many are angry that the agency wants to stay another 50–90 years and spend more than a billion dollars to continue its work.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem . From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

... Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981.

 

JULY, 2010: MR. T.W. ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINE COMMUNITY NOTICE OF LODGING CRIMINAL TRESPASS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA - GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER - ATTORNEY GENERALS BROWN AND HOLDER - CONGRESS - CALIFORNIA - EPA - DOJ - CVRWQCB - CAL FED - CAL DTSC - UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT COURT SACRAMENTO - NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES - HOMELAND SECURITY - DEPT. OF INTERIOR - BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT - CH2MHILL - AISLIC - IRON MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS, LLC - AIG CONSULTANTS - AIG - BAYER CROP SCIENCES - FEMA - ASTRAZENECA - SANOFI/AVENTIS - JARDINE MATHESON; FRAUDS, THIEVES, KILLERS, JOINT AND SEVERAL TRESSPASSERS, PIRATES, ENSLAVERS, STARVATION! EJECTMENT:

SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF - POSSE FOR TRESPASS OF TREASON AND MISPRISON OF FELONY WRIT OF POSSESSION UPON ADVERSE CLAIMS TRESSPASSERS OF PATENT TITLE; EXTORTION; FRAUD; DECEIT; MALICIOUS AND ABUSIVE NEGLIGENT ENDANGERMENT; ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION AND SLAVERY; CONSPIRACY; EVIL UPON THE PUBLIC TRUST; APEX LAW AGGRAVATED LARCENY OF MINING COMPANY SECURITY & COLLATERAL LR10-20762

INNOCENT PRISONERS OF THE EPA - DOJ SINCE 1983

FREE MR. T.W. ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC.

18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2).

Administrative - EPA Order 3120.1b Scientific misconduct, fabrication or knowing falsification of data, research procedures, or data analysis is an offense which can result in

immediate removal/ Suspension and Debarment / Civil Sanctions / Fines / Local AUSA Must Decide If Fraud Meets Criminal Prosecution Threshold / Culpability / Harm

Laboratory Fraud, Title 18 United States Criminal Code; Is It Criminal or Civil?

Fraud - 18 USC 1341 - 1343 , PROCEDURAL FRAUD, MEASUREMENT FRAUD

False Statements - 18 USC 1001

Conspiracy - 18 USC 371

Concealment of a felony - 18 USC 4 (misprision)

False Claims - 18 USC 287

Obstruction of Justice - 18 USC 1505 Consequences Ferro incumbere.

Penalties up to 20 years imprisonment for destroying, concealing or falsifying records with intent to obstruct or impede a legal investigation

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire; it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

MILITIA & POSSE - LOCKE & LODE!

INTERVENTION OF RIGHT! NINTH CIRCUIT RULES!

Mr. President Barack Obama, PILLAGE AND SLAVERY!

ARMAN MINERALS RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL & THE LOST HUMAN USE REMEDIATION & RESTORATION TRUST Hazard & Remediation Directorate offers $72 Billion Senior Notes, Tender Offers, & Renewable Energy Bonds

HAZARD AND REMEDIATION DIRECTORATE AND THE DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECTORATE ORDERS CHINOOK FOR ARMAN MINES MINISTRY & FOREST FIRE-FIGHTERS

I am corresponding to you again concerning my property known as Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., located in the Jefferson mining district of Shasta County, California .

I am again seeking your executive authority to resolve the status of my potential liability for the supposedly “unrecovered past response costs” that the EPA claims justify their liens against my properties.

I believe that you should provide this administrative order because:

(A) I am not a contributor to the 'hazardous' substances not at my facility or the toxic affects of the 'hazardous' substances not found at my facility, and

(B) I am the owner of the real property on which the facility is located and I did not conduct or permit the generation, transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of any 'hazardous' substance at the facility; and I did not contribute to the release or threat of release of a 'hazardous' substance at the facility through any action or omission.

I believe I have not received a fair deal from the EPA, and I have persevered in proclaiming my innocence and my entitlement to the innocent land owner defense despite the incredible hardship that I have had to endure for the last 33 years protesting the allegation that I have contributed to or caused the pollution that is the subject of this Superfund site.

I was denied the innocent landowner defense of 9601 (35) (A) (i) in a partial summary judgment proceeding in October of 2002 that incorrectly alleges that the innocent landowner defense is unavailable to me. The EPA stated to the Court that “This defense, however, is only available to PRPs who, at the time of purchase, “did not know, or had no reason to know that any hazardous substance which is the subject of the release or threatened release is disposed of on, in, or at the facility.” The EPA then incorrectly states that “Because IMMI purchased the property with knowledge of – indeed, at least in part, because of – the presence of hazardous materials, the innocent landowner defense is not available to IMMI.

I try to be understanding about how these things get confusing after all these years, and I hope that this was simply an error and was not perpetrated out of malice or ill will, and I can certainly understand how the Court would defer to the experts at the EPA in determining such matters, however, the fact is that when I purchased the property in October of 1976 Copper, Cadmium, and Zinc were not considered “hazardous substances” in storm water run-off. This determination did not occur until July, 1977 of the following year, when the Congress Transportation Subcommittee approved new regulations for the Clean Water Act regulating these metals in storm run-off as “hazardous substances”. Indeed, the Copper in the storm drainage, or Acid Mine Drainage as it is now called, was represented as a valuable asset by the sellers of the property to me at the time, and whatever they knew about pending legislation or other environmental matters they concealed from me (as was latter proven by the EPA and DOJ counsel when they subpoenaed the seller's records), and after the purchase the principle occupation of my company along with the sales of mine tailings was operating the cementation plant, which recovered the Copper from the drainage before it got to the river.

I recently read an EPA web page that refers to the Iron Mountain Mines Superfund site, which the EPA published back in 2000, entitled the “Superfund 20th Anniversary Report”.

Making the Program Faster, Fairer, and More Efficient (Continued)

Resolving Disputes Outside of Court
Some of the most complex and contested cases can be settled using an outside mediator -- allowing all the parties to spend their time and resources cleaning up sites rather than litigating cases in court.

For example, at the Landfill & Resource Recovery site in Rhode Island , the parties included 18 PRPs, along with the United States and the State of Rhode Island . Both the Federal and State claims were resolved with the help of a Federal district court judge with a settlement that reimbursed the government for 97 percent of its expected costs. The mediated settlement also provided funds to purchase wetlands to expand the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Center .

At the Auburn Road Landfill site in New Hampshire , a voluntary mediation led to a consent decree that resolved the government's claims against 31 PRPs. The settlers agreed to perform the remedy and to reimburse the United States for its past cleanup costs and future oversight costs. In addition, the settlers are reimbursing the State of New Hampshire and the Town of Londonderry for past cleanup costs and future oversight costs.

Protecting the "Little Guy"
Some Superfund sites have hundreds of PRPs, including small companies (or even individuals) who have contributed only a minor portion of the waste. These small contributors may be dragged into burdensome litigation by the PRPs which were primarily responsible for the contamination. EPA attempts to identify and resolve the liability of these small party contributors early in the process, leading to de micromis and de minimis settlements.

A de micromis party is someone whose contribution of waste is minimal. In fact, the costs of hiring a lawyer, and negotiating a settlement, would dwarf any amount the party could reasonably be expected to contribute to cleanup costs. Many times, the PRPs who contributed a major portion of the waste to a site sue the de micromis parties for contribution. EPA enters into a de micromis settlement with these parties to protect them from such suits.

For example, 47 homeowners who lived around the Raymark Industries site in Connecticut could be seen as de micromis parties since they only contributed household wastes to the site. EPA and the State of Connecticut protected these homeowners from being sued by entering into a settlement where each homeowner paid $1 to be protected from "third party" law suits brought by the major contributors.

A de minimis party has contributed more waste than a de micromis party, but the amount is still insignificant when compared with what has been contributed by some of the major PRPs -- for example, less than 1 percent of the waste at a site. With de minimis parties, EPA has placed a priority on achieving a quick, efficient resolution of their liability to protect them from burdensome litigation.

At the Tulalip Landfill in Washington , EPA settled with 207 de minimis parties very early in the process, resulting in the recovery of approximately $10 million and the identification of PRPs who made major contributions of waste to the site. At the Cherokee Oil Resources site in North Carolina , EPA entered into an early de minimis settlement with over 200 small contributors. Both the de minimis and the major contributors agreed not to sue over 1,000 de micromis parties.

EPA gets the "little guys out" of the Superfund enforcement. Over the years, 460 de minimis settlements have been reached with nearly 23,000 small waste contributors.

$1 Billion Settlement Reached at Iron Mountain Mine Site

Redding, California (October 19, 2000) -- The United States and the State of California announced a settlement today with Aventis Crop Sciences USA, Inc. to fund future cleanup costs that could approach $1 billion at the Iron Mountain Mine site . The settlement is one of the largest to be reached with a single private party in the history of the Superfund Program. The agreement will ensure long-term control of more than 95 percent of the releases from the site.

This 4,400-acre site, which operated from the 1860s through 1963, is historically the largest point source of toxic metals in the country, and the source of the most acidic mine drainage in the world. Prior to remediation, the mine discharged an average of a ton of toxic metals a day into the Upper Sacramento River, a critical salmon spawning habitat and central feature in the State's water system. Approximately 70,000 people used surface water within 3 miles of the site as their source of drinking water.

In 1983, EPA listed the site on the NPL at the State's request. Since then, numerous Federal and State agencies have worked together on this site which has been addressed in six stages starting with a series of emergency actions. In 1994, a high density sludge treatment plant was installed that removes 99.99 percent of metals from the site's toxic runoff.

The settlement pays for natural resource restoration projects, provides for operation and maintenance for 30 years, and guarantees additional funding for site costs incurred after the year 2030.

It seems somewhat ironic to me that the EPA is touting how they are “ Resolving Disputes Outside of Court” and “ Protecting the "Little Guy"” proclaiming the benefits of de micromis and de minimis settlements and apparently claiming that their dealings with Iron Mountain Mines is a good example of this.

Once again I respectfully submit that I am entitled to an innocent land owner defense.

The EPA treatment program has resulted so far in the accumulation of some 500,000 tons of sludge upon my property, and since the EPA apparently plans to let me continue making this sludge for another 3000 years, I am also asking for your assistance pursuant to Executive Order No. 13352, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq (a)(4), (b)(1 thru 8), and (c)(1 thru 3), and 6902 et seq (a)(1 thru 11) and (b), and 9622 (a), (b)(1 thru 4) to help me to correct this problem.

This is the umpteenth letter I have transmitted to you. I am wondering if you are even receiving these correspondences.

I am also seeking your assistance in promoting “cooperative conservation”, as provided for in your Executive Order No. 13352, and in accordance with the purposes expressed therein.

As used in this order, the term ``cooperative conservation'' means actions that relate to use, enhancement, and enjoyment of natural resources, protection of the environment, or both, and that involve collaborative activity among Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, private for-profit and nonprofit institutions, other nongovernmental entities and individuals.

The last reply to my request, dated May 1, 2008, and signed by Kathleen Salyer , Chief of the Site Cleanup Branch of Region IX of the EPA, states that “businesses and individuals are not eligible for EPA technical assistance under the provisions of 6913 of RCRA.”

Clearly my request has been entirely misunderstood, as I believe that it is the EPA that is in need of assistance under the provisions of 6913 of RCRA.

I provide for your convenience the relevant text of 6901 of the Solid Waste Act.

b) Environment and health   The Congress finds with respect to the environment and health, that-- (1) although land is too valuable a national resource to be needlessly polluted by discarded materials, most solid waste is disposed of on land in open dumps and sanitary landfills; (2) disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste in or on the land without careful planning and management can present a danger to human health and the environment; (3) as a result of the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.], the Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.], and other Federal and State laws respecting public health and the environment, greater amounts of solid waste (in the form of sludge and other pollution treatment residues) have been created. Similarly, inadequate and environmentally unsound practices for the disposal or use of solid waste have created greater amounts of air and water pollution and other problems for the environment and for health; (4) open dumping is particularly harmful to health, contaminates drinking water from underground and surface supplies, and pollutes the air and the land; (5) the placement of inadequate controls on hazardous waste management will result in substantial risks to human health and the environment; (6) if hazardous waste management is improperly performed in the first instance, corrective action is likely to be expensive, complex, and time consuming; (7) certain classes of land disposal facilities are not capable of assuring long-term containment of certain hazardous wastes, and to avoid substantial risk to human health and the environment, reliance on land disposal should be minimized or eliminated, and land disposal, particularly landfill and surface impoundment, should be the least favored method for managing hazardous wastes; and (8) alternatives to existing methods of land disposal must be developed since many of the cities in the United States will be running out of suitable solid waste disposal sites within five years unless immediate action is taken.   (c) Materials   The Congress finds with respect to materials, that-- (1) millions of tons of recoverable material which could be used are needlessly buried each year; (2) methods are available to separate usable materials from solid waste; and (3) the recovery and conservation of such materials can reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign resources and reduce the deficit in its balance of payments.   (d) Energy   The Congress finds with respect to energy, that-- (1) solid waste represents a potential source of solid fuel, oil, or gas that can be converted into energy; (2) the need exists to develop alternative energy sources for public and private consumption in order to reduce our dependence on such sources as petroleum products, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric generation; and (3) technology exists to produce usable energy from solid waste.   Since the EPA is administering the cleanup of the Acid Mine Drainage under the provisions of CERCLA, it is therefore a federal activity, as described in your Executive Order No. 13352.   “Sec. 3. Federal Activities. To carry out the purpose of this order, the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations and in coordination with each other as appropriate: (a) carry out the programs, projects, and activities of the agency that they respectively head that implement laws relating to the environment and natural resources in a manner that: (i) facilitates cooperative conservation; (ii) takes appropriate account of and respects the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land and other natural resources; (iii) properly accommodates local participation in Federal decisionmaking; and (iv) provides that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety; (b) report annually to the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality on actions taken to implement this order; and (c) provide funding to the Office of Environmental Quality Management Fund (42 U.S.C. 4375) for the Conference for which section 4 of this order provides.”

As Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. is a private for-profit organization, and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. has ownership and other legally recognized interests in land and other natural resources, I believe I am entitled to the benefit of these provisions, and deserve to have the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration take and show “appropriate account of and respects the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land and other natural resources.”

I offer these further observations:

Since the EPA undertook cleanup of Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. under the provisions of CERCLA and my designation on the National Priority List (NPL) in 1983, a great deal of research has been conducted by private, government, and academic experts.

It is now recognized and understood that the cause of the Acid Mine Drainage is due to the activity of a biological community of micro-organisms inhabiting the rock formations underground, and that these bacterium have shown us their remarkable ability to extract from the earth with ease those very metals which miners have struggled and toiled to extract for the benefit of mankind.

Words and Worlds: The Supreme Court in Rapanos and Carabell
Jonathan Z. Cannon
University of Virginia (UVA); University of Virginia - School of Law

Chairman Towns Announces Hearing to Examine AIG's Federal Financial Assistance

  1. Peer-Reviewed Study: Climate models can not predict significant climate change --- 'cannot recreate the noise and therefore can not predict climate change in the future'
  2. Mt Everest melting! But who says it's so?
  3. Read all about it: Climate Scandals: List Of 94 Climate-Gates -- 94 climate-gates total -- 28 new gates -- 145 links to reports with details
  4. Warmist turned Skeptic? Judith Curry Speaks: 'The level of vitriol in climate blogs reflects last gasp of those who thought they could influence international energy policy through power politics'
  5. Atlantic's Editor Clive Crook under fire for dissent: 'Joe Romm tells me to "retract [my] libelous misinformation and apologize to Michael Mann'Warns of 'the dangers of groupthink'
  6. The late Schneider speaks about Climate Depot: 'Implying that our [black] list is comparable to that created by Marc Morano when he worked for Sen. Inhofe is decidedly unconvincing and irresponsible'
  7. RealClimate.org Smackdown: 'They are now just the propaganda arm of the extreme end of the climate/political spectrum'
  8. German Scientist Laments: 'Climate science attempted to work too much with catastrophe reports. But that bubble blew last fall. As a result, trust suffered immeasurably'
  9. Yet another alarmist visits the Arctic and nearly freezes to death; also warns children that it's too warm up there
  10. Latest Peer-Research on Mayan Civilization Confirms Medieval Climate Change Was Unprecedented - The Worst In Last 3,000 Years
  11. Global Sea Surface Temperature Cooling Continues
  12. New Paper: 'The the basic assumptions of a terrestrial greenhouse effect dismissed as unrealistic'
  13. Climatologist Pielke Sr. Slams Washington Post for 'media disconnect' and 'erroneous claims'
  14. Climate Profiteers: General Electric 'spent more than $9.5 million on federal lobbying from April to June as it 'stands to make money if cap-and-trade' passes
  15. EPA to Crack Down on Farm Dust: 'Would establish most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in nation's history' -- But 'dust is a naturally occurring event'



Virginia Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 25, No. 277, 2007

Abstract:
This paper explores the expression of competing worldviews in the opinions of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. An “ecological” worldview identified with modern environmentalism appears in Justice Steven's dissent and in Justice Kennedy's concurrence in these cases. An opposed “atomistic” worldview is evidenced in Justice Scalia's plurality opinion. These competing worldviews reflect different beliefs and values held by the justices affecting environmental regulatory cases such as Rapanos. The atomistic worldview is consistent with values of individual autonomy and mastery of the physical environment for economic advancement, the ecological worldview with values of individual restraint in support of a common good and fitting harmoniously into the natural and social environment. These competing worldviews, and their associated values, have contrary implications for law. Justices embracing the ecological worldview tend to favor a broad scope of federal regulatory power, limited property rights, and general interpretations of environmental regulatory authority. Justices resisting this worldview tend to have contrary views on these issues. The paper also argues that the same values that animate the substantive differences of the justices in cases such as Rapanos also may affect the justices' preferences for interpretational approaches. That is, the values that lead justices to be more or less accepting of the ecological model are also among the values that may influence justices to be textualists or intentionalists.

In re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co ., 2010 WL 1980172 (C.A. 7 (Wis.) May 19, 2010).

CAFO Implementation Guidance under the CWA

- Nick Welding, UNL Law '11

The recent release of the EPA's “Implementation Guidance on CAFO Regulations” is likely to add to the conflict between the EPA, environmental groups, and CAFO owners/operators regarding proper implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The guidance, released on May 28th, is the product of a settlement agreement between the EPA and Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Waterkeeper Alliance . According to the settlement, the guidance is to assist permitting authorities with implementation of the NPDES permit regulations and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for CAFOs. The released guidance identifies certain factors and circumstances that the EPA believes will lead to a “discharge into waters of the United States,” which, in turn, will trigger the NPDES permit requirement. However, none of the standards or levels provided by the guidance are dispositive. Overall, the guidance seems to further obscure the already muddy waters surrounding exactly when a CAFO must obtain a NPDES permit and whether the EPA has authority to regulate CAFO's under the Clean Water Act absent an actual “discharge”.

The EPA's first attempt to require CAFOs to obtain NPDES permits absent an actual “discharge” was in 2003. Under the 2003 regulations, any CAFO that was found to have the “potential to discharge” was required to obtain a permit, whether or not an actual discharge occurred. Opponents of the 2003 rule successfully thwarted this attempt in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA , where the 2nd Circuit invalidated several parts of the rule, including the “potential to discharge” permit requirement. The 2nd Circuit held that the EPA lacked statutory authority to require a NPDES permit when an actual “discharge” has not occurred. In direct response to Waterkeeper , the EPA promulgated a revised rule in 2008. In the 2008 rule , the EPA again attempted to require CAFO's to obtain a NPDES permit absent an actual discharge. Under the 2008 rule, a CAFO must obtain a NPDES permit if it is found to “propose to discharge.” The rule calls for an objective assessment by a CAFO owner/operator to determine if the operation is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained such that a discharge will occur.
Following the release of the 2008 regulation, environmental groups sued the EPA and obtained the EPA's agreement to publish the Implementation Guidance at issue. According to the settlement, the guidance is to assist permitting authorities by “ specifying the kinds of operations and factual circumstances that EPA anticipates may trigger the duty to apply for permits as discharging or proposing to discharge.” CAFO owners/operators/permitting authorities are to consider these factors and circumstances when determining if a particular operation “proposes to discharge” and is subject to NPDES permit requirements. The EPA acknowledges in the new guidance that no one factor is determinative as to whether a permit is required. Rather, the factors are to be considered collectively.
The new guidance seeks to supplement the 2008 regulations by calling for an assessment of climatic, hydrologic, and topographic factors in “relevant areas of consideration” for all CAFO's, regardless of the type of on-site livestock. These areas include the animal confinement, waste storage and handling, mortality management, and land application areas. These areas are considered potential sources of pollution that are related to the design, construction, operation and maintenance of a CAFO. The guidance then identifies livestock-specific factors that should be considered for dairy, beef cattle, swine, and poultry CAFO's.
Since the guidance is based off of factors and circumstances other than an actual discharge into waters of the U.S. , it seems as though the EPA is attempting to create a regulatory presumption that a CAFO which does not satisfy the identified appropriate factors and circumstances will eventually (and unlawfully, unless permitted to do so) discharge into waters of the U.S. Even before its release, some environmentalists believed that the EPA would ground its authority to establish such a presumption on a footnote found in Waterkeeper . In the footnote, the 2nd Circuit appears to hint that the EPA can create a presumption by stating, “we need not consider whether the record here supports the EPA's determination that Large CAFOs may reasonably be presumed to be such potential dischargers... In our view, the EPA has marshaled evidence suggesting that such a prophylactic measure may be necessary to effectively regulate water pollution from Large CAFOs, given that Large CAFOs are important contributors to water pollution and that they have, historically at least, improperly tried to circumvent the permitting process.”
Even if the EPA does have the authority establish a regulatory presumption and to require CAFO's to obtain NPDES permits absent an actual discharge, the question remains how much weight it should be given. The guidance states that it is not legally enforceable and does not confer any legal rights or impose any legal obligations on any CAFO operation. The EPA suggests that an objective assessment will provide permitting authorities with a common basis for determining if the CAFO is required to obtain a permit. Nevertheless, the EPA asserts in pending litigation in the 5th Circuit (National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, et al) that it has the authority under Chemical Manufacturers Association v. DOT (D.C. Circuit) to establish appropriate regulatory presumptions and that courts have and will give deference to these presumptions.
When the guidance hits the ground and is put into use by permitting authorities, it will be interesting to see how a combination of factors will lead to a final determination of whether a permit is required. A substantial amount of disagreement is likely when state agencies, which are responsible for issuing NPDES permits in accordance with the CWA, base permit requirements off of an “objective assessment” performed by the CAFO owner/operator--- an objective assessment that consists of an almost endless number of factors, some of which are not within the control of the CAFO owner/operator. It is reasonable to surmise that avoiding such an unpredictable and potentially varied basis for determining permit requirements was in the mind of the 5th Circuit when it limited EPA authority to actual discharges in Waterkeeper .
At the end of the day, one has to question the EPA ‘s attempt to sidestep Waterkeeper and wonder how the costly new requirements will impact CAFO's and production agriculture as a whole. Of course protecting water quality is crucial and CAFO's have traditionally been able to avoid CWA coverage, but at what point does the CAFO regulation not fit within the intent of the CWA and instead call for an effort that addresses both agricultural and environmental interests?

Pursuant to the provisions of CERCLA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and the definitions contained therein, that henceforth AMD should be recognized as an “Act of God”, because it is a “natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable, and irresistible character, the effects of which could not have been prevented or avoided by the exercise of due care or foresight.”   Also we would suggest that mines do not fit within the description of a “facility”, which requires that a site is: “any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed.”   In as much as the presence of any “hazardous substance” that is a naturally occurring element whose source is located in the earth must necessarily be acknowledged as an “Act of God” for such an expression to have any meaning, and since no person is responsible for it having been “deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed”, it should therefore be understood that persons may no longer be blamed for AMD, and the “cooperative conservation” of such resources may proceed without the acrimonious litigation and waste which has heretofore been the hallmark of this debate.  

VERDICT OF THE MINER'S CHIEF AND THE WARDEN'S COURT: COERCIVE MONOPOLY FRAUD, LABORATORY FRAUD, EXTORTION. TRUST, DESPOTISM AND TYRANNY, PERPETUATION OF INSIDIOUS EVIL ALLIANCE, PUBLIC ATTRITION AND MALNUTRITION, FEDERAL RESERVE ACT PIRACY, TREASON, ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION BY FALSE CLAIMS OF SCIENCE, PILLAGE AND SLAVERY; LIQUIDATE AIG - REMISSION EPA - REVERSION BY DOJ AND THE STATES WILL CHARGE THE TREASURY BACK IN LAND.

community profile - Shasta County EDC

Approximately $7.8 million in federal stimulus dollars are now available ... If you need to refer to the address ranges from the expired Shasta Metro .... County please visit the Shasta County Office of Education's website at www. shastacoe.org. ... The City of Shasta Lake has three fire stations and 27 employees. ...
www. shasta edc.org/community-profile.asp

Whiskeytown Environmental School

Whiskeytown Environmental School (AKA: W.E.S. or N.E.E.D. Camp, depending on when you, your children or your grandchildren attended) is located at the N.E.E.D. Camp, twelve miles west of Redding in the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area. The camp facility is owned and maintained by the National Park Service while the educational program is provided by the Shasta County Office of Education.  The camp facility consists of eighteen cabins, each of which houses up to nine people, fully equipped kitchen, multi-purpose room, restroom/shower building, teacher and staff quarters, and administrative office.

The general environment near the facility is a mixed forest of manzanita, pine and oak. Nearby are deep canyons with tall ferns, fresh water ponds, many streams, and a man-made lake. There is also an abundance of wildlife living at or near the campus. Deer graze on the campus lawn, and bald eagles nest and feed within the area. Clear Creek provides a habitat that attracts great blue herons, ducks and many other animals.  

Our facility offers a variety of unique and exciting experiences:

Summary Judgment for Defendants in CERCLA Action Affirmed

August 2, 2010

City of Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, No. 06-56718 , concerned an action by the City of Colton, California, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for response costs allegedly incurred as a result of perchlorate contamination in its water supply.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the grounds that 1) plaintiff conceded that it failed to comply with the national contingency plan (NCP) in its past response action; and 2) CERCLA's purposes would be better served by encouraging a plaintiff to come to court only after demonstrating its commitment to comply with the NCP and undertake a CERCLA-quality cleanup.

Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP David Erickson and James Neet
USA
July 30 2010

A national mining group has sued EPA over its April 1, 2010, guidance, which focused on coal operations that involve mountaintop removal and the deposit of waste rock in stream valleys.

Cuccinelli: New constitutional 'check' needed on federal government

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says he'll be supporting a constitutional amendment to provide a new "check" on the power of the federal government. The idea came up during a live online chat with Washington Post readers Friday afternoon.

A reader asked Cuccinelli whether he supports the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which requires the direct election of U.S. senators by popular vote. Before the 17th Amendment, senators were chosen by state legislatures. Repealing the amendment has become a popular idea among some members of the Tea Party movement, who think that the direct election of senators has deprived states of the power the country's founders intended for them to hold in a federalist system.

In his response, Cuccinelli indicated that he doesn't support repealing the 17th Amendment, but he believes "the 17th Amendment had consequences that were not anticipated."

"I expect to support an effort to create a new constitutional 'check' b/n the states and fed gov, but not a repeal of the 17th amendment. More on that later ... " he continued, somewhat cryptically.

We've asked his spokesman for more details. Meanwhile, we hear that Virginia House Speaker Bill Howell (R-Stafford) was scheduled to speak on a panel at this past week's National Conference of State Legislatures conference in Louisville. The topic: Should the states amend the U.S. Constitution?

Howell's flight was canceled and he didn't make it, but the show went on without him. The panel apparently discussed constitutional changes, including an amendment requiring Congress to adopt a balanced budget.

Another amendment the group proposed would allow the states to nullify any federal law approved by Congress, if a certain number of state legislatures agreed. Is that the constitutional "check" Cuccinelli is referring to? Stay tuned.

 

At its peak, American International Group (AIG) was one of the largest and most successful companies in the world, boasting a AAA credit rating, over $1 trillion in assets, and 76 million customers in more than 130 countries. Yet the sophistication of AIG ‘ s operations was not matched by an equally sophisticated risk-management structure. This poor management structure , combined with a lack of regulatory oversight, led AIG to accumulate staggering amounts of risk , especially in its Financial Products subsidiary, AIG Financial Products (AIGFP). Among its other operations, AIGFP sold credit default swaps (CDSs), instruments that would pay off if certain financial securities, particularly those made up of subprime mortgages, defaulted. So long as the mortgage market remained sound and AIG ‘ s credit rating remained stellar, these instruments did not threaten the company ? s financial stability. The financial crisis, however, fundamentally changed the equation on Wall Street . As subprime mortgages began to default, the complex securities based on those loans threatened to topple both AIG and other long-established institutions. During the summer of 2008, AIG faced increasing demands from their CDS customers for cash security – known as collateral calls – totaling tens of billions of dollars. These costs put AIG ‘ s credit rating under pressure, which in turn led to even greater collateral calls, creating even greater pressure on AIG ‘ s credit. By early September, the problems at AIG had reached a crisis point. A sinkhole had opened up beneath the firm, and it lacked the liquidity to meet collateral demands from its customers.  In only a matter of months AIG ‘ s worldwide empire had collapsed, brought down by the company ‘ s insatiable appetite for risk and blindness to its own liabilities.

AIG sought more capital in a desperate attempt to avoid bankruptcy. When the company  could not arrange its own funding, Federal Reserve Bank of New York President  Timothy Geithner, who is now Secretary of the Treasury, told AIG that the government would attempt to orchestrate a privately funded solution in coordination with JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. A day later, on September 16, 2008, FRBNY abandoned its effort at a private solution and rescued AIG with an $85 billion, taxpayer-backed Revolving Credit Facility (RCF). These funds would later be supplemented by $49.1 billion from Treasury under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as well as additional funds from the Federal Reserve, with $133.3 billion outstanding in total.

The total government assistance reached $182 billion.

What was wrong with the way Geithner structured the bailout? The panel's members observe these faults:

1 . “ The government failed to exhaust all options before committing $85 billion in taxpayer funds. “ There were many untried options that could have saved a lot of money.

2 . “ The rescue of AIG distorted the marketplace by transforming highly risky derivative bets into fully guaranteed payment obligations. “ Talk about “moral hazard” — AIG shareholders keep the profits, if there are any, and the U.S. taxpayer bears the loss, if the bet doesn't pay off.   A lot of companies and individuals would love to have THAT deal.

3. “ Throughout its rescue of AIG, the government failed to address perceived conflicts of interest. “ People from the same small group of law firms, investment banks, and regulators appeared in the AIG saga in many roles, sometimes representing conflicting interests.

4. “ Even at this late stage, it remains unclear whether taxpayers will ever be repaid in full. AIG and Treasury have provided optimistic assessments of AIG ‘ s value. As current AIG CEO Robert Benmosche told the Panel, “I ‘ m confident you ? ll get your money, plus a profit.” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), however, currently estimates that taxpayers will lose $36 billion . “

5. “ The government's actions in rescuing AIG continue to have a poisonous effect on the marketplace .”

AIG's Six Year Saga Of Alleged Fraud 

The recent outcry over $165 million in post-bailout bonus payments has put AIG on the hot seat. But, in fact, the bonus disbursement is perhaps the least serious in a string of actions by the insurance giant that span six years and involve several cases of alleged fraud.

"AIG has a culture of complicity. "You don't get into these kinds of problems by having a good corporate culture," said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business and the former chief economist at the US International Trade Commission. "Clearly this company has had endemic problems and it'd be best if we broke it up and sold it off so others can run its parts."

February 2006:

-AIG agreed to pay more than $1.6 billion -- the biggest regulatory settlement by a single company in U.S. history, according to Reuters -- to settle claims related to the 2000 case involving General Re and AIG. The settlement was for improper accounting, bid rigging and practices involving workers' compensation funds. Then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said at the time that AIG "finds itself in this position solely because some senior managers thought it was acceptable to deceive the investing public and regulators."

DECLARATION: ENVIRONMENTAL WARFARE, TREATY VIOLATION; BREACH OF THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, PLUNDER. LIQUIDATE AIG

When AIG can repay federal bailout is unknown: GAO

Posted On: Aug. 04, 2010 2:01 PM CENTRAL | 1 comment | Reprints Judy Greenwald

WASHINGTON—When American International Group Inc. will be able to repay the government is unknown, although several scenarios are being considered, the Government Accountability Office said in a report.

The investigative arm of Congress said Tuesday that the government, which bailed out AIG in September 2008, has provided $134 billion in equity, debt and indirect assistance to AIG as of March 31.

“When AIG will be able to pay the government completely back for its assistance is currently unknown because the federal government's exposure to AIG is increasingly tied to the future health of AIG, its restructuring efforts and its ongoing performance as more debt is exchanged for equity,” the GAO said in the report that discussed AIG and other firms that have received government assistance. “While AIG is making progress in reducing the amount of debt that it owes, this is primarily due to the restructuring of the composition of government assistance from debt to equity.”

As noted in its April report on AIG, the latest GAO report said “the government's ability to fully recoup the federal assistance will be determined by the long-term health of AIG, the company's success in selling businesses as it restructures, and other market factors such as the performance of the insurance sectors and the credit derivatives markets that are beyond the control of AIG or the government.” ( BI , May 3 ).

The Treasury Department is considering various options to divest the Series C preferred stock, which is convertible into 79.9% of AIG's common stock, but the Treasury team that manages the AIG investment “has not decided which strategy to employ,” the GAO report said.

The options include having AIG redeem shares owned by the Treasury Department, converting the shares to common stock and selling them later in a public offering, or selling the shares to an institutional buyer or buyers in a private sale. Treasury “is devoting significant resources to planning the eventual exit strategy from its AIG investments,” the GAO said in the report.

In March, the Congressional Budget Office estimated AIG's financial assistance may cost up to $36 billion compared with the $30 billion that Treasury estimated in September 2009, according to the report.

The GAO is required to report at least every 60 days on findings resulting from the Troubled Asset Relief Program's oversight. The report, “Financial Assistance, Ongoing Challenges and Guiding Principles Related to Government Assistance for Private Sector Companies,” is available online at www.gao.gov/new.items/d10719.pdf .

 

Keith Takata - EPA
Thomas A. Bloomfield - EPA Region 9
As the assistant regional counsel for Region 9 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Thomas A. Bloomfield brokered a $1 billion settlement with the former owner of Iron Mountain Mine near Redding. The settlement is one of the largest in the history of both federal and California environmental protection programs and was made possible by an innovative insurance-based financing program.

In 1983 the EPA placed Iron Mountain on its Superfund list of the nation's most dangerous toxic sites. Litigation was brought by state and federal officials against the owner of the mine, formerly Rhone-Poulenc, now Aventis CropSciences USA, a chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology company, for past and future cleanup costs.

The final settlement negotiated by Bloomfield sets up a finance program to fund a treatment plant that will process the contaminated runoff. The key piece of the deal is an insurance policy that will be purchased by the former owner of the mine and will pay out an estimated $200 million over 30 years for cleanup costs and will cover an additional $100 million if necessary, along with additional payouts to the EPA and state and federal trustee agencies. In 2030 the policy will pay a lump sum of $514 million to the state and federal government to continue the cleanup.

Michael Hingerty, deputy branch chief for Region 9, worked on the case from 1987
until turning it over to Bloomfield in 1996. Tim Gallagher of Gallagher & Gallagher in Los Angeles also contributed significantly to the settlement.

July 30, 2010

Ninth Circuit Defines When “Ownership” is Determined for Cost Recovery Purposes

View PDF.

According to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ownership for purposes of cleanup liability under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA,” also known as the “Superfund” law) is determined at the time that cleanup costs are incurred and not when a later cost recovery lawsuit is filed. Although CERCLA is 30 years old and has been amended several times, this is the first time that any court has directly addressed the question of when an owner is liable for cleanup costs, clarifying what had been one of many murky areas in CERCLA.

In California v. Hearthside Residential Corp ., the defendant bought undeveloped wetlands in Huntington Beach, Calif. The wetlands were contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) and were believed to be the source of PCB contamination that had migrated to adjacent residential properties, which Hearthside did not own. While Hearthside agreed to clean up the wetlands, it denied any responsibility for remediating the residential properties. Hearthside completed the wetlands cleanup and sold the property to the California Lands Commission. Meanwhile, the state paid for the cleanup of the residential parcels and then sued Hearthside under CERCLA to recover the costs.

The statute provides that an “owner or operator of a vessel or facility” is one class of persons who can be held strictly liable for the costs of investigation and cleanup of hazardous substances, as well as natural resources damages. The statute, however, does not specify the date from which ownership is measured and no case before Hearthside directly considered that question.

Hearthside claimed that it was not liable under CERCLA because it had sold the property before the lawsuit was filed and, therefore, was not an “owner.” The trial court ruled that “owner” status for purposes of CERCLA is determined when the cleanup takes place and not when the lawsuit is filed. The Ninth Circuit agreed.

The Ninth Circuit held that ownership should be measured from the time the cleanup begins because that best aligns with the purpose of CERCLA, which is to encourage responsible parties to remediate hazardous facilities without delay. Most cost recovery lawsuits are not filed until cleanup is complete and the total costs are known. The court said if the date of filing a lawsuit was the determining factor for ownership, then a landowner seeking to avoid liability would have every incentive for delay of cleanup until it could find a buyer.

The court recognized that pinpointing ownership based on cleanup activities might introduce some factual uncertainty because of questions about when cleanup began, when it was completed, and when enough response costs were incurred to give rise to a cost recovery claim. The court, however, ruled that such factual determinations are routine and familiar components of CERCLA actions and can be resolved without difficulty.

An important lesson of Hearthside is that property owners cannot avoid cleanup liability by transferring ownership of a property. The decision also points to the importance of making sure other responsible parties are part of the cleanup early in the process.

Hearthside also is likely to be a guide for interpreting owner and operator liability under the Washington Model Toxics Control Act and the Oregon hazardous substances statute. Those two statutes, as well as many other states' similar laws, use identical wording to CERCLA's owner and operator language.

 

EPA To Hold Listening Sessions on Potential Revisions to Water Quality Standards Regulation

Release date: 07/30/2010

Contact Information: Dave Ryan Ryan.dave@epa.gov 202-564-7827 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold two public listening sessions on potential changes to the water quality standards regulation before proposing a national rule. The current regulation, which has been in place since 1983, governs how states and authorized tribes adopt standards needed under the Clean Water Act to protect the quality of their rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries. Potential revisions include strengthening protection for water bodies with water quality that already exceeds or meet the interim goals of the Clean Water Act; ensuring that standards reflect a continued commitment to these goals wherever attainable; improving transparency of regulatory decisions; and strengthening federal oversight.

Water quality standards are the foundation of the water quality-based approach to pollution control, including Total Maximum Daily Loads and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. Standards are also a fundamental component of watershed management.

The public listening sessions will be held via audio teleconferences on August 24 and 26, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT. At the sessions, EPA will provide a review of the current regulation and a summary of the revisions the agency is considering. Clarifying questions and brief oral comments (three minutes or less) from the public will be accepted at the sessions, as time permits. EPA will consider the comments received as it develops the proposed rulemaking.

EPA will also hold separate listening sessions for state, tribal and local governments.

EPA expects to publish the proposed revisions to the water quality standards regulation in summer 2011.

 

$336,706,450 + $93,590,773 = $430,297,223 PAYABLE TO BEGIN SUPERFUND REMEDIATION

 

* 9 = $3,872,675,007 NONUPLED DAMAGES

Fed Said to Plan Reining in AIG's Credit Line by $3.6 Billion

By Hugh Son - Aug 22, 2010 4:45 PM PT

FROM AIG

 

TWO DECIMAL POINTS AND EXPONENTIAL DAMAGES; HUNDREDS OF THE ARMANSHIRE

GREAT PAST AND BRIGHT FUTURE OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINE!

 

 

State water agency has fined ratepayers vast sums of money

You might call them the water police.

Their beat runs from storm water runoff to overt dumping and extends throughout California.

Their staff of 12 is evenly split between scientists and Special Investigations team members, their cases made and culprits exposed through lab work.

While they carry no firearms, the sting of their punishment — including millions of dollars in fines — has proven so punitive and persistent that it's prompted some cities to band together under the League of California Cities and draft a state bill to try to soften their impact.

And we in the Santa Clarita Valley may be next.

The agency is called the Office of Enforcement, and it reports directly to the California Water Resources Control Board, diligently reaching back over the past decade to enforce cold-case violations of state and federal clean water laws.

Thanks to its Office of Enforcement, the state water board last year collected $13.65 million in water-quality fines and penalties — more money from fines than during any year prior, and almost double the board's highest tally on record.

The maximum collected before last year's precedent-setting total was $7.37 million — in the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the year the Office of Enforcement took effect.

Residents of Fillmore were hit with $243,000 in fines; the tiny farm town of Dixon paid $223,000; even tinier San Juan Batista is poised to shell out at least $25 for each man, woman and child in town — just the latest round of fines suffered by the Salinas Valley hamlet.

Are we next?
The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District is facing possible fines of at least $3,000 a day. That tab would likely be picked up by homeowners and businesses in the form of rate increases.

Hook-up fees for new businesses could skyrocket to as much as $300,000, a devastating blow to the local economy.

Despite repeated phone calls and e-mails last week to its director, Reed Sato, and lead attorney David M. Boyers, neither would talk directly to The Signal about fines or the Office of Enforcement.

Need for money
It was June 2006. California housing prices began their steep decline, and as news began trickling in about the prospect of devastating financial implications of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger created an agency within the state Water Resources Control Board that would bring in more money.

With the state facing a $6.4 billion operating deficit that year, the governor predicted in his proposed 2006-2007 budget that “revenues will be $929 million more than the LAO (Legislative Analyst's Office) forecast.”

The Office of Enforcement was set up to issue fines and enforce outstanding violations of the state and federal clean water laws — the 1972 Clean Water Act and the state's 1969 Porter-Cologne Act.

The monies collected from fines and penalties are deposited in a fund dedicated to improving the environment.

Although top officials for the Office of Enforcement would not talk to The Signal, a Signal investigation into their records indicate the enforcers shifted the water boards' focus. Previously, the focus had been encouraging compliance through dialogue and compromise.

After the enforcers received their mandate, the focus became “fair and firm enforcement of compliance,” which translated into  revenue-generating — and punitive — fines.

Enforcers scrutinized a backlog of hundreds of water-quality violations over an entire decade.

They found 7,880 violations — between Jan, 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2007 — had not received a penalty at or above the mandatory minimum amount, according to the 2007 Water Board's Enforcement Report. These violations provided opportunities for “direct action” as spelled out in the water board's mandate.

In its 2008 report, the water board stated: “After discussing the ways to efficiently address these outstanding violations, the water boards started the statewide initiative for MMP enforcement.”

MMP means mandatory minimum penalties, which were deemed absolutely enforceable by Senate Bill 709, a 2003 state law.

The agencies charged with monitoring water quality, limiting pollution and enforcing water-quality standards are the nine state Regional Water Quality Control boards, each of which has nine members appointed by the governor.

The governor also appoints the state water board members.

Looming fines
The prospect of being fined by the state water board through its regional office in Los Angeles remains worrisome for local city and sanitation officials struggling to clean up the water discharged into the Santa Clara River.

In order to ensure salty chloride levels do not exceed 117 milligrams per liter — a threshold Ventura County farmers growing salt-sensitive crops such as strawberries and avocados downstream expect the regional board to uphold — the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District plans to build a $210-million salt-ridding reverse-osmosis plant.

To build it, the district has to raise money. It proposed raising Santa Clarita Valley homeowners' and businesses' sewer rates over four years.

At a public meeting held last month to address proposed rate hikes, chloride levels, river water quality, strawberries and money, attendees sent a clear message to Sanitation District board members:

We will fight the rate increases and challenge the water board.

The discussion of rate hikes was put off until spring.

Will the state water board's new water-policing Office of Enforcement fine Santa Clarita Valley homeowners over excessive chloride levels in the Santa Clara River?

You can ask city officials in Fillmore, population 15,000, who were fined $231,000 — the year after they built a state-of-the-art water-treatment plant.

You can also ask the homeowners of Dixon, which is near Sacramento and has a population of 14,000 — a farming
town with neither river nor lake — who were fined $250,000 over chloride levels.

The Signal went to each of these towns looking for answers, insight and advice about fighting the fines, about paying them and about working to provide clean, uncontaminated water for the farmers who surround both communities.

Small town, big fine
The short answer, however, could probably be found in the tiny farm town of San Juan Batista, near Salinas.

This year, the 1,549 town folk who live in San Juan Batista can expect a $39,000 fine from the Office of Enforcement,

The Signal has learned from a member of the Central Coast Regional Water Board.

The penalty, not yet formally announced and still being drafted, averages to at least $25 for every man, woman and child in the town.

Including the pending fine, the cumulative average fine amount for every man, woman and child in San Juan Batista works out to at least $57 for all fines since 2002.

Their crime?

They were cited for eight chloride violations, having discharged the salt into a San Benito River tributary, so small it doesn't have a name, which is upstream from the Salinas River and the watershed for Salinas, commonly called the Salad Bowl of America.

Should we consider the lesson learned at San Juan Batista as a barometer by which to gauge the likelihood of a fine leveled here? Consider this:

San Juan Batista was also fined $12,000 last year, again for chloride excesses. It was also fined $18,000 in 2003 and another $20,000 the year before that, all for making the Salinas River too salty for “beneficial uses” downstream such as farming.

The Clean Water Act guarantees natural, uncontaminated water for downstream beneficial uses.

Cecile DeMartini, one of nine members on the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, was asked if she and her fellow board members reflected on how such big fines would affect such a small community.

She replied: “It is what it is. We just follow the law.”

Chloride equals fines
The city of Paso Robles was also fined for having contaminated the Salinas River with chloride, netting four chloride violations.

Other chloride violators hit with fines last year include:
— The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for eight chloride violations at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo, for having discharged excessive amounts of chloride into Chorro Creek.

— The Antioch Pulp and Paper Mill owned by the Gaylord Container Corp. for having twice discharged unlawful amounts of chloride into the San Joaquin River.

League of Cities
Officials in some cities hit with hefty water fines appealed to the League of California Cities for help.

“A lot of the cities hit don't have the money, and have to pay out of their general fund,” said a source close to the fines issue at a state level who did not want to be identified.

“A lot of folks feel it's like kicking someone when they're down,” the source said, referring to an economy struggling to rebound.

Next month, a state bill articulating the resentment expressed by cities over high fines is expected to hit the state Legislature's floor.

Officials with the League of California Cities helped draft Senate Bill 1284 in response to city representatives' concerns over fines issued for water quality paperwork that isn't filed to the board on time.

SB 1284 would not take on the fines for pollution being levied by the Office of the Enforcement. It would tackle fines for filing late paperwork.

“We have a number of cities that have not discharged excessive amounts of anything but have failed to file their paperwork,” said League spokeswoman Kyra Ross.

“And, these fines are enormous — from $200,000 to $600,000 — issued to very little cities, very little towns with very little water plants.

“This bill attempts to correct that in a way that caps these fines at $3,000 for each discharge violation.”

Ross said league officials have fielded complaints from various city leaders about punitive fines leveled by the Office of Enforcement specifically for excessive chloride discharge, which SB 1284 would not address.

First things first, she said.

In Monday's paper, Santa Clarita Valley weighs options and consequences of being fined.

History of the clean Water Act and What Caused Its Failure

By Peter Maier, PhD, PE

August 2008

Prior to 1972, states had their own water pollution regulations, but since they were different, industries in ‘clean' states moved to ‘dirty' states. This led to employment loses in the ‘clean' states and Congress was asked to set national water pollution standards.

When reading the historical discussions prior to the actual CWA, it becomes clear that the Act was not yet able to set sewage treatment standards, but instead established a principle in order to achieve a goal that when somebody uses water, it should be returned at least in the same or better conditions, hence the ultimate goal of the Act to eliminate all water pollution, by 1985. 

It was also realized that such a goal was not yet achievable, since the only technical term used in the legislation was demanding ‘secondary treatment', without any further definition, but which was supposed to be 85% treatment. 

The legislation also selected a ‘technology-based' program, in stead of a ‘water quality-based' program, as it was felt that this would allow local politicians to manipulate local treatment requirements, thus avoiding the purpose and goal of the Act itself.

A technological-based program meant that everybody treating wastewater has to do so with the best treatment available, while a water-quality based program means that treatment standards could be determined by the water quality of the receiving water bodies.

The Act also acknowledged that ‘secondary treatment' would not any longer be acceptable if better treatment would become available and incorporated special legislation to allow EPA to set stricter treatment standards to achieve the ultimate goal of 100% treatment. The Act also provided funding for R&D to achieve better treatment than the initial required ‘secondary treatment'.

When EPA implemented the CWA, it established the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit system and established 85% treatment of two commonly used pollution tests, the TSS (Total Suspended Solids) and the BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand test after 5 days) test.

The BOD5 test was widely used worldwide, but what was forgotten was the fact that the 5-day test was mainly used as a timesaver and only measured the pollution caused by fecal waste. When EPA assumed that the BOD5 of raw sewage is 200 mg/l to establish the ‘secondary treatment' standards, it only addressed 40% of the ultimate BOD, which is 500 mg/l.

By setting 85% BOD5 treatment standards, EPA ignored all the water pollution caused by nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste. For those interested in how the BOD test should be applied, visit www.petermaier,net and look in the Technical PDF file.

Using the BOD5 test without any nitrogen data does not allow the real performance evaluation of sewage treatment plants nordetermine the real waste loadings on receiving water bodies.

Although EPA acknowledged the problems with the test in 1984, in stead of correcting the test, it allowed an alternative test and officially ignored the water pollution caused by nitrogenous waste, while this waste, like fecal waste, not only exerts an oxygen demand, but also in all its forms is a nutrient for algae and other aquatic plant life. Utah States' Science Council in 1984, recommended correcting this essential test, but their recommendation was rejected.

Nitrogenous waste, called a nutrient, according to EPA's 1992 “National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress” is now causing mayor problems in the nation's rivers, lakes and estuaries.

The sad conclusion is that; solely due a lack of understanding of an essential pollution test, the Clean Water Act, the second largest federally funded public works program, was a failure and nobody seems to either care or can be held accountable.

Peter Maier, PhD, PE

Thank You for your consideration of this matter, Please make checks payable to: MR. T.W. Arman , owner,

According to the state supreme court, “[i]t is misconduct… to elicit or attempt to elicit inadmissible evidence… Because we consider the effect of the prosecutor's action on the defendant, a determination of bad faith or wrongful intent by the prosecutor it is not required for a finding of prosecutorial misconduct.” ( People v. Crew (2003) 31 Ca) The role of the prosecutor differs significantly from that of others who practice law, including criminal defense lawyers.

“ A Prosecutor is held to a standard higher than that imposed on other attorneys because of the unique function he or she performs in representing the interests, and in exercising the sovereign power, of the state. ... the prosecutor represents “a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall 'win a case,' but that justice shall be done.” ( Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88.)' ” ( People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820.)

“Prosecutors have a special obligation to promote justice and the ascertainment of truth. ... ‘The duty of the attorney general is not merely that of an advocate. His duty is not to obtain convictions, but to fully and fairly present... the evidence...' ” ( People v. Kasim (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1378.) “The prosecutor's job isn't just to win, but to win fairly, staying well within the rules.” (United States v. Kojayan (9th Cir. 1993) 8 F.3d 1315, 1323.) “As an officer of the court, the prosecutor has a heavy responsibility… to the court and to the defendant to conduct a fair trial …” (United States v. Escalante (9th Cir. 1980) 637 F.2d 1197, 1203.)

Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include ( Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861:) "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists." ( People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448].) "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) An illegal order is forever void. Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered, ( B & C Investments, INc. v. F &amp ; M Nat. Bank &amp ; Trust , 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App.Div 3, 1995). "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." ( Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150)

When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason. (The Court: Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates , Illinois , 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962)

“The most obvious misconduct is to present false testimony or false evidence.” Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264; United States v. Young (9th Cir. 1993) 17 F.3d 1201; United States v. Valentine (2nd Cir. 1987) 820 F.2nd 565; SEE: Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(d); Penal Code § 1473(b), and Rule 5-200, Rules Prof. Conduct of State Bar.)

Due process is violated when false evidence is presented, whether offered intentionally or inadvertently. “Under well-established principles of due process, the prosecutor cannot present evidence it knows is false and must correct any falsity of which it is aware… even if the false evidence was not intentionally submitted.” ( Giles v. Maryland (1967) 386 U.S. 66… Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264… People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 33 …” People v. Seaton , 26 Cal.4th 598, 647; see People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213-214; People v.Morales (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1192-1196.) “Rulings made in violation of Due Process are void.” ( Sabariego v Maverick , 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461)

:" Rules of Professional Conduct - 3-200, Prohibitive Objectives -- Rules of Professional Conduct - 5-200 Deception to Court -- Business and Profession Code Section 6068 – SEE: Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, cmt. 5 (1983) (amended 1998) “…competent handling of a particular matter involves inquiry into analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioner."

When a breach of ethics, and a duty of omission results in a wrong of commission, it is often because of ignoring empirical evidence, i.e., then the abused victim and the laws that protect the victim -- even though it is relatively easy to know that a crime has, or has not been committed through empirical evidence, and the law -- but if the agents turn a blind eye to both evidence and the law, justice is lost .

This is NOT “harmless error,” rather it is unethical, blatant, deliberate and willful misconduct, and may be moral turpitude, malum in se, ( State v. Stiffler , 788 P.2 2205 (1990); Bus & Professional Code 6107-6109).

. Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud. [Citations.]" 7 Witkin , Cal. Procedure, Judgment, § 286, p. 828.). ( Burns v. Municipal Court (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 596, 599 .)

A void judgment or proceeding founded on a void judgment is void: 30A Am Jur Judgments


ABUSE OF DISCRETION : A failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom.

The human condition, which can be ignorance and fallibility -- especially for those in authority, perhaps deceived by their own, as Shakespeare says, "insolence of office" -- is what makes the presumption of innocence a good principle, if it is put into practice, for it is the basis for the protection of the innocent, allowing for the lay citizen to have the protection of the law beyond their own familiarity or understanding of it.

A judge is mandated to report attorneys for misconduct: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(2). The State Bar sends out a letter each year reminding judges of the statutory requirements. California Code of Judicial Ethics: Currently, the code directs a judicial officer to "take appropriate corrective action whenever information surfaces that a lawyer has violated ethical duties." ( Cal. Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 3D(2).) and, ABA Model Rule 3.8, covers the conduct of prosecutors.

Judges have the option to hold those responsible in prosecutorial misconduct in contempt of court -- and to impose upon them fines, or even temporary imprisonment.
“Attorneys should be disciplined for conduct that violates clearly established law, or conduct so outrageous that its illegality is obvious,”

Watchdog: Treasury, Fed Failed in AIG Oversight

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP says that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is “ultimately responsible”

Geithner Acting Director of Consumer Bureau During Transition

July 29 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Treasury said in a statement today.

Treasury Cuts Backing for Fed Program After Loans Lag Capacity

July 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury Department reduced by 79 percent its support for a Federal Reserve program designed to spur consumer and business lending to reflect the under- capacity use of the plan.

The Treasury's credit protection for the Fed's Term Asset- Backed Securities Loan Facility, which closed to new loans June 30, will now be $4.3 billion on the $43 billion of loans outstanding, the Fed said in a statement in Washington. That's down from $20 billion of protection taken from the $700 billion financial-rescue fund for the original $200 billion of authorized loans under the Fed program known as TALF.

The TALF extended $70 billion of loans during its 16-month life, many of which have been repaid early, the central bank said. The program has had no losses, and remaining loans are “well collateralized,” the Fed said. The loans have initial maturities of as long as five years.

--Editor: Christopher Wellisz at cwellisz@bloomberg.net

 

4400 acres of land in Shasta County

Detinue Sur Bailment should be granted immediately, and the EPA lien void & vacated..
“A patent to land, issued by the United States under authority of law, is the highest evidence of title, something upon which its holder can rely for peace and security in his possession. It is conclusive evidence of title against the United States and all the world. ..” 2 The American Law of Mining, § 1.29 at 357. Nichols v. Rysavy, (S.D. 1985) 610 F. Supp. 1245.
"Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States … and [Congress] [D]eclares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title." Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74 (1888).
The “general rule” at least is, “that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” [Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon , 260 U.S. 393, 415, 67 L. Ed. 322, 43 S. Ct. 158 (1922).]
The Court stated, “Takings jurisprudence balances the competing goals of compensating landowners on whom a significant burden of regulation falls and avoiding prohibitory costs to needed government regulation. Citing Dolan v. City of Tigard , 512 U.S. 374, 384 (1994), “TheTakings Clause assures that the government may not force 'some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.'"
In the history of the United States , no Land Patent has ever lost an appellate review in the courts. In Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Comm'n 466 US 198, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Land Patent would always win over any other form of title. In that case, the land in question was tidewater land and California 's claim was based on California 's constitutional right to all tidewater lands. The patent stood supreme even against California 's Constitution, to wit:
[The patent] “[P]assing whatever interest the United States has in the premises and thereby settling any question of sovereign ownership….” Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Baca (CA10 NM) 844 F2d 708; Whaley v. Wotring ( Fla App D1) 225 So 2d 177; Dugas v. Powell, 228 La 748, 84 So 2d 177. [quote at 28 Am. Jur. 2D, F. 2 § 49].
With the title passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land and over the title which it has conveyed. Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 533, 24 L. Ed. 848.
There is no license from the United States or the state of California to miners to enter upon private lands of individuals for the purpose or extracting the minerals in the soil. (Biddle Boggs v Merced Min. Co.) 14 Cal. 279.)

The United States , like any other PRIVATE PROPRIETOR, with the exception of exemption from state taxation, having no municipal sovereignty or right of eminent domain within the limits of the state-cannot, in derogation of the rights of the local sovereign to govern the relations of the citizens of the state, and to prescribe the rules of property, and its mode of disposition, and its tenure, enter upon, or authorize an entry upon, private property, for the purpose of extracting minerals. The United States , like any other proprietor, can only exercise their rights to the mineral in private property, in subordination to such rules and regulations as the local sovereign may prescribe. Until such rules and regulations are established, the landed proprietor may successfully resist, in the courts of the state, all attempts at invasion of his property, whether by the direct action of the United States or by virtue of any pretended license under their authority. (Biddle Boggs v Merced Min. Co,,) 14 Cal. 279.)
“A valid and subsisting location of mineral lands, made and kept in accordance with the provisions of the statutes of the United States , has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession of the lands located.”
U.S. Supreme Court, 1884
With the title passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land and over the title which it has conveyed. It would be as reasonable to hold that any private owner who has conveyed it to another can, of his own volition, recall, cancel or annul the instrument which he has made and delivered. If fraud, mistake, error, or wrong has been done, the courts of justice present the only remedy. These courts are as open to the United States to sue for the cancellation of the deed or reconveyance of the land as to individuals, and if the government is the party injured this is the proper course”.
Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 533, 24 L. Ed. 848.
That whenever the question in any court, state or federal, is whether a title to land which has once been the property of the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States; but that whenever, according to those laws, the title shall have passed, then that property, like all other property in the state, is subject to state legislation, so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States”.
Wilcox v. McConnell, 13 Pet. ( U.S. ) 498, 517, 10 L. Ed. 264.
“Title by patent from the United States to a tract of ground, theretofore public, prima facie carries ownership of all beneath the surface, and possession under such patent of the surface is presumptively possession of all beneath the surface.
Lawson v. United States Min. Co. 207 U.S. 1, 8, 28 Sup. Ct. 15, 17, 52, L. Ed. 65.
Grub-stake contracts will be enforced by the courts, but only as other contracts; that is to say, it is not enough for parties to assert that they have rights, in order to secure legal protection, but they must be able to prove in each case a clear and definite contract, and that by the terms and conditions of such contract, and compliance therewith on their part, rights have become vested.
Cisna v. Mallory (C.C.) 84 Fed. 851, 854.
The common-law rule is that the lessee of real property may work already opened mines, but cannot open new ones. But the lease may expressly, or by implication from express powers, give the right to take the minerals, the instrument is a genuine lease.

Oshoon v. Bayaud 123 N.Y. 298. 25 N.E. 376
On the other hand, if an attempt is made by the instrument to pass title to the minerals in place, there is really a sale of the mineral.
Plummer v. Hillside Coal & Iron Co. 104 Fed. 208, 43 C.C. A. 490
Whatever the form of the instrument of conveyance, and even though the parties speak of it in its terms as a lease, if its fair construction shows that the title to the minerals in place is to pass upon the delivery of the instrument, while the surface is retained, or vice versa, and, of course, for all time, if the fee is granted, except that the fee to the space occupied by the minerals seems to terminate when the mine is exhausted.
McConnell v. Pierce, 210 Ill. 627, 71 N.E. 622., Moore v. Indian Camp Coal Co.,493, 0 N.E. 6.
The relationship among joint venturers was eloquently described by United States Supreme Court Justice Cardozo in the seminal 1928 case of Meinhard v. Salmon - “joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty. Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm's length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. As to this there has developed a tradition that is unbending and inveterate. Uncompromising rigidity has been the attitude of courts of equity when petitioned to undermine the rule of undivided loyalty by the ‘disintegrating erosion' of particular exceptions. Only thus has the level of conduct for fiduciaries been kept at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd.”)
Artesian Mineral Development & Consolidated Sludge, Inc.& Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.
insitu remediation summary & history of copper cementation and bioleaching
Cementation of copper began with the discovery of silver at the Lost Confidence Mine by 1890 and before the beginning of copper mining at Iron Mountain and Mountain Copper Co. Ltd. around 1896. By 1908 the State Geologist reported that the operation was so extensive that a building was being constructed over and around it. In 1919 copper prices crashed and the mine closed, in 1920 fish kills were reported. In 1921 copper cementation resumed and was thereafter operated continuously until the EPA implemented their High Density Sludge treatment and driven Ted Arman from the business.. After WWII Iron Mountain mines produced sulfur and iron for fertilizers until 1963. Iron Mountain has 20,000,000 tonnes proven and 5,000,000 tonnes probable ore reserves. The naturally occurring archaea living in the Richmond mine are reported to be capable of producing the most acidic natural mine waters on the planet, pH -3.6. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. bioleaching naturally produces about 8 tons of metals per day. One of the earliest records of the practice of leaching is from the island of Cyprus. Galen, a naturalist and physician reported in AD 166 the operation of in situ leaching of copper. Surface water was allowed to percolate through the permeable rock, and was collected in amphorae. In the process of percolation through the rock, copper minerals dissolved so that the concentration of copper sulphate in solution was high. The solution was allowed to evaporate until copper sulphate crystallized. Pliny (23-79 AD) reported that a similar practice for the extraction of copper in the form of copper sulphate was widely practiced in Spain. The cementation of copper was also known to the Chinese, as documented by the Chinese king Lui-An (177-122 BC). The Chinese implemented the commercial production of copper from copper sulphate using a cementation process in the tenth century.

 

SAFE AND NATURAL MINERALS FOR HEALTHY SOIL

(not for marijuana cultivation) no smoking

Symptoms of mineral deficiency in soil

Element Deficiency symptoms Probable cause and ordinary remedy
Nitrogen Growth is poor; shoots are short; leaves are small; and yellow brassicas turn pink then orange. Fruit or tubers
are small.
As an immediate booster, spray with diluted liquid
seaweed or fish fertiliser. Incorporate as much compost
and manure as possible.

Phosphorus
Root development and flower bud formation are poor, and plants sometimes also show symptoms similar to that of nitrogen deficiency. Brown spots may appear on leaves, or leaf edges may turn brown. Fruit has an acid flavour. Bonemeal is rich in phosphorus. Incorporate 120 g per square metre before planting. The deficiency appears more often in acid soils.
Potassium Growth becomes stunted, and leaves turn a dull bluegreen, with browning at the leaf tips or leaf margins, or showing as blotches. Leaves of broad-leaved plants
curl downwards.
Most often seen on light, sandy soils. Comfrey tea is high in potassium; dilute 1 part tea to 15 parts water and apply to soil. Wood ash is high in potassium.
Magnesium Magnesium deficiency shows either as a loss of colour or as a mottling of red, orange, brown and purple tints. Excessive potash application may be responsible. Spray with a solution of Epsom salts (250 g in 12 litres water).
If liming soil, apply dolomite, which is rich in magnesium as well as calcium, or green sand.
Manganese Manganese deficiency occurs in sandy and alkaline soils, frequently in combination with iron defi ciency. Chlorosis (loss of colour) begins on older leaves. The leaves of green peas develop brown patches. Beetroot leaves have red-brown speckling. This is most evident in poorly drained soils. Lift beds to
improve drainage. Overliming can also be responsible. Never apply manganese to soils with a pH below 6.

Iron
Chlorosis (loss of colour) occurs on young shoot tips and leaves, while the veins remain green. Eventually, shoots die back. This condition usually occurs in alkaline soils,
which prevent plants from absorbing iron.
Sequestered iron (iron EDTA) used as a foliar spray produces rapid results. Check soil pH and acidify with sulphur and regular compost additions.
Boron The roots of beetroots, swedes and turnips turn brown. Cauliflower curds also turn brown. Brown cracks appear across the stalks of celery. Apple cores become ‘corky'. The growing points of plants die off. Mix 30 g borax with sand and disperse evenly over 18 square metres of soil. Or spray crops fortnightly with liquid seaweed fertiliser. Overliming can cause
this problem.

Molybdenum
Leaves, particularly of broccoli and cauliflowers, develop a disorder known as whiptail. Leaves become distorted and shrink back to the midrib, giving a tail-like appearance. On tomatoes, leaves become mottled and roll forward. Apply ground dolomite to acidic soils. Add kelp meal to soil. For a short-term remedy, apply sodium molybdate at 30 g per 8 litres water. This will treat 8 square metres of soil.
Calcium This shows most commonly in tomatoes and capsicums as a darkened, shrivelled end on fruit. It also causes bitter pit in apples. Uneven soil moisture causes a failure of calcium uptake from the soil. This is particularly evident in pot-grown plants and in light soils. Water regularly. To add calcium,
incorporate crushed eggshells into compost.

TRY AG-GEL!

Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate offers growers these performance benefits in agricultural applications:

Ag-Gel micronutrient with silicate reduces the stress from diseases including powdery mildew, pythium root rot, and rice blast. It resists or prevents toxicity from phosphorous, manganese, aluminum, and iron, and increases plant tolerance to salt.

Application of Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate improves leaf erectness, reduces susceptibility to lodging in grasses, and improves photosynthesis efficiency.

Crops that have demonstrated benificial responses to Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate application include rice, wheat, barley, sugar cane, tomatoes, beans, cucurbits, strawberries, grapes, roses, apples, grass, and ornamental plants.

Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate can increase growth and yield by providing micronutrients and by reducing susceptibility to diseases and pests.

Iron in Plants

Iron is a absorbed by plant roots as Fe²+ and Fe³+. The chemical properties of iron making it an important part of oxidation-reduction reactions in both soils and plants. Because iron can exist in more than one oxidation state, it accepts or donates electrons according to the oxidation potential of the reactants. The transfer of electrons between the organic molecule and iron provides the potential for many of the enzymatic transformations. Several of these enzymes are involved in chlorophyll synthesis, and when iron is deficient chlorophyll production is reduced, which results in the characteristic chlorosis symptoms of iron stress.

Iron is a structural component of porphyrin molecules. These substances are involved in band oxidation-reduction reactions in respiration and photosynthesis. As much as 75% of the total cell iron is associated with chloroplast, and up to 90 percent of the iron in the leaves occurs with lipoprotein of the chloroplast and the mitochindria membranes.

The sufficiency range of time in plant tissue is normally between 50 and 250 ppm. and in general, when iron contents are 50 ppm or less in the dry matter, deficiency is likely to occur. Iron deficiency symptoms show up in the young leaves of plants, first because iron does not readily translocate from older tissues to the tip meristem; as a result, growth ceises. The young leaves develop an interveinal chlorosis, which progresses rapidly over the entire leaf. In severe cases the leaves turn entirely white. Iron toxicity can be observed under certain conditions. For example, in rice grown on poorly drained or submerge soils, a condition known as a bronzing is associated with greater than 300 ppm iron levels in rice leaves at telling.

Iron in soil

Mineral Fe. Iron comprises 5% of the earth's crust and is the fourth most abundant element in the lithosphere. Common primary and secondary iron minerals are olivene, siderite, hematite, goethite, magnetite, and limonite. Iron can be either concentrated or depleted during soil development; thus, iron concentrations in soil vary widely, from 0.7 to 55%. Most of the soil iron is found in primary minerals, clays, oxides, and hydroxides.

Forms and functions of Calcium in plants.

Ca is absorbed by plants as Ca²+ from the soil solution and is supplied to the root surface by mass flow and root interception. Ca deficiency is uncommon but can occur in highly leached and unlimed acidic soils. In soils abundant in Ca²+, excessive accumulation in the vicinity of roots can occur.

Ca²+ concentration in plants range from 0.2 to 1.0%. Ca is important in the structure and permeability of cell membranes. Lack of Ca²+ causes a breakdown of membrane structure, with resultant loss in retention of cellular diffusible compounds. Ca enhances uptake of NO3 and therefore is interrelated with N metabolism. Ca²+ provides some regulation in cation uptake. For example, studies have shown that K+ and Na+ uptake are about equal in the absence of Ca²+, but in its presence, K+ uptakes greatly exceeds Na+ uptake.

Ca is essential for cell elongation and division, and Ca²+ deficiency manifests itself in the failure of terminal buds of shoots and apical tips of roots to develop, which causes plant growth to cease. In corn Ca²+ deficiency prevents the emergence and unfolding of new leaves, the tips are almost colorless and are covered with sticky gelatinous material that causes them to adhere to one another. In fruits and vegetables, the most frequent indicator of Ca²+ deficiency consists of disorders in the storage tissues. Examples of Ca²+ disorders are bloom-end rot in tomato and bitter pit of apples. Finally, Ca²+ is generally immobile in the plant. There is very little translocation of Ca²+ in the phloem, and for this reason there is often a poor supply of Ca²+ to fruits and storage organs. Downward translocation of Ca²+ is also limited in roots, which usually prevents them from entering low-Ca soils.

Conditions impairing the growth of new roots will reduce root access to Ca²+ and induce deficiency. Problems related to inadequate Ca²+ uptake are more likely to occur with plants that have smaller root systems than with those possessing more highly developed root systems.

Special attention must be given to the Ca²+ requirements of certain crops, including peanuts, tomatoes, and celery, which are often unable to obtain sufficient Ca²+ from soils supplying adequate Ca²+ for most other crops. Proper Ca²+ supply is important for tree fruits and other crops such as alfalfa, cabbage, potatoes, and sugar beets, which are known to have high Ca²+ requirements.

Ca in Soil

The Ca concentration in the earth's crust is about 3.5%; however, the Ca²+ content in soils varies widely. Sandy soils of humid regions contain very low amounts of Ca²+, whereas Ca²+ normally ranges from 0.7 to 1.5% in noncalcareous soils of humid temperate regions; however, highly weathered soils of the humid tropics may contain as little as 0.1 to 0.3% Ca. Ca levels in calcareous soils vary from less than 1% to more than 25%.

Calcium concentrations in the soil higher than necessary for proper plant growth normally have low affect on the Ca²+ uptake, because Ca²+ uptake, is genetically controlled. Although the concentration of the soil solution is about 10 times greater than that of potassium, it's a uptake is usually lower than that a potassium. Plants capacity for uptake is limited because it can be absorbed only by young root tips in which the cell walls of the in the endodermis are still unsuberized.

As a general rule, course-textured, humid-region soils formed from rocks low in calcium minerals are low in calcium. The fine-textured soils formed from rocks high in calcium are much higher in both exchangeable and total calcium. However, in humid regions, even soils formed from limestone are frequently acetic in the surface layers because of the removal of calcium and other cations by excess leaching. As water containing dissolved CO2 percolates through the soil, the H + forms displaces Ca²+ (and other basic cations) on the exchange complex. If there is considerable percolation of such water through the soil profile, soils gradually become acidic. When leaching occurs, Na+ is lost more readily than Ca²+, however, since exchangeable and solution Ca²+ is much greater than Na+ in most soils, the quantity of Ca²+ lost is also much greater. Calcium is often the dominant cation in drainage waters, springs, streams, and lakes. Leaching of calcium ranges from 75 to 200 lbs. per acre per year. Since Ca²+ is absorbed on the cation exchange capacity (CEC), losses by erosion may be considerable in some soils.

Copper in plants.

Cu is absorbed by plants as the cupric ion, Cu²+, and may be absorbed as a component of either natural or synthetic organic complexes. It's normal concentration in plant tissue ranges from 5 to 20 ppm. Deficiencies are probable when Cu levels in plants fall below 4 ppm in the dry matter.

Symptoms of Cu deficiency vary with crop. In corn the youngest leaves become stunted, and as the deficiency becomes more severe, the young leaves pale and the older leaves die back. In advanced stages, dead tissue appears along the tips and edges of the leaves in a pattern similar to that of K deficiency. Cu-deficient small-grain plants lose color in young leaves, which eventually break, and the tips die. Stem melanosis and take-al root rot disease occur in certain wheat varieties when Cu is deficient. Also ergot infection is associated with Cu deficiency in some wheat and barley varieties. In many vegetables crops the leaves lack turgor. They develop a bluish-green cast, become chlorotic, and curl, and flower production fails to take place.

Cu in it's reduced form readily binds and reduces O2. In the oxidized form the metal is readily reduced, and protein-complexed Cu has a high redox potential. Enzymes that create complex polymers such as lignin and melanin exploit these properties of Cu. Cu is unique in its involvement in enzymes, and its cannot be replaced by any other metal ion.

Toxicity symptoms include reduced shoot vigor, poorly developed and discolored root systems, and leaf chlorosis. The chlorotic condition in shoots superficially resembles Fe deficiency. Toxicities are uncommon, occurring in limited areas of high Cu availability; after additions of high-Cu materials such as sewage sludge, municipal composts, pig and poultry manure's, and mine wastes; and from repeated use of Cu-containing pesticides.

Copper in soil.

Cu concentration in the earth's crust average about 55 t0 70 ppm. Igneous rocks contain 10 to 100 ppm Cu, while sedimentary rocks contain between 4 and 45 ppm Cu. Cu concentration in soils ranges from 1 to 40 ppm and averages about 9 ppm. Total soil Cu may be 1 or 2 ppm in deficient soils.

Copper interaction with other nutrients.

There are numerous interactions involving Cu. Applications of N-P-K fertilization can induce Cu deficiencies. Furthermore, increased growth resulting from the application of N or other nutrients may be proportionally greater than Cu uptake, which dilutes Cu concentration in plants. Increasing the N supply to crops can reduce mobility of Cu in plants, since large amounts of N in plants impede translocation of Cu from older leaves to new growth. High concentration of Zn, Fe, and P in soil solution can also depress Cu absorption by plant roots and may intensify Cu deficiency.

Plant Factors.

Crops vary greatly in response to Cu. Among small-grain species, rye has exceptional tolerance to low levels of soil Cu and will be healthy, whereas wheat fails completely without the application of Cu. Rye can extract up to twice as much Cu as wheat under the same conditions. The usual order of sensitivity of the small grains to Cu deficiency in the field is wheat > barley > oats > rye. Varietal differences in tolerance to low Cu are important, and sometimes they can be as large as those among crop species.

Severe Cu deficiency in crops planted in soils with high C/N residues is related to (1) reactions of Cu with organic compounds originating from decomposing straw, (2) competition for available Cu by stimulated microbial populations, and (3) inhibition of root development and the ability to absorb Cu. If the soil-available Cu is low, manure added to a field may accentuate the problems. Organic material from manure, straws, or hay can tie up Cu, making it unavailable to plants.

Copper - Functions in the plant or soil

  1. Essential for chlorophyll formation

  2. Essential in many plant enzymes (oxidases in particular)

  3. It is involved in electron transfer

  4. Essential in enzyme systems associated with grain, seed, and fruit formation

  5. It has a marked effect on the formation and chemical composition of cell walls - Very distinct on stem tissue

Copper - Special considerations

  1. Copper can be used as a fungicide on plants

  2. Excessive amounts of copper can cause iron deficiency

  3. It is rather immobile in plants, therefore deficiency symptoms usually occur on new growth

Copper - The conditions associated with deficiencies

  1. Sandy soils

  2. High organic soils

  3. Overlimed soils

  4. High pH soils

  5. Soils with high concentrations of phosphate and nitrogen

Copper - Deficiency Symptoms

Corn

  1. General chlorosis of younger leaves

  2. Leaf tips die and curl like pig tails

  3. Interveinal chlorosis toward lower end of leaves

Small Grains

  1. High organic matter soils - Yellowing of plant

  2. Leaf tip dieback and twisting of leaf tips

Alfalfa

  1. Youngest tissue turns faded green with grayish cast

  2. Plants appear bushy and drought-stricken

Forms and Functions of Magnesium (Mg) in Plants

Mg is absorbed by plants as Mg²+ from the soil solution and, like Ca²+, is supplied to plant roots by mass flow and diffusion. Root interception contributes much less Mg²+ to uptake than Ca²+. The amount of Mg²+ taken up by plants is usually less than that of Ca²+ or K+.

Mg²+ concentration in crops varies between 0.1 to 0.4%. Mg²+ is a primary constituent of chlorophyll, and without chlorophyll the autotrophic green plant would fail to carry on photosynthesis. Chlorophyll usually accounts for about 15 to 20% of the total Mg²+ content of plants.

Mg also serves as a structural component to ribosomes, stabilizing them in the configuration necessary for protein synthesis. As a consequence of Mg²+ deficiency, the proportion of protein N decreases and that of non proteins N generally increases in plants.

Mg is associated with transfer reactions involving phosphate-reactive groups. Mg is required for maximum activity of most every phosphorylating enzyme in carbohydrate metabolism. Most reactions involving phosphates transfer from bad adenosine triphosphate (ATP) require Mg²+. Since the fundamental process of energy transfer occurs in photosynthesis, glycolysis, the citric or acid cycle, and respiration, Mg²+ is important throughout plant metabolism.

Because of the mobility of plant Mg²+ and it's ready transportation from older to younger plant parts, deficiency symptoms often appear first on the lower leaves. In many species, shortage of Mg²+ results in interveinal chlorosis of the leaf, in which only the veins remain green. In more advance stages the leaf tissue becomes uniformly pale yellow, then brown and necrotic. In other species, notably cotton, the lower leaves may develop a reddish-purple cast, gradually turning brown and finally necrotic.

Mg in Soil

Mg constitutes 1.93% of the earth's crust; however, the Mg²+ content of soils ranges from 0.1% in course, sandy soils in humid regions to 4% in fine-textured, arid, or semiarid soils formed from high-Mg parent materials.

The Mg concentration of soil solutions is typically 5 to 50 ppm in temperate- region soils, although Mg²+ concentrations between 120 and 2,400 ppm have been observed. Mg²+, like Ca²+, can be leached from soils, and Mg losses of 5 to 60 lbs./acre have been observed. The amounts lost depend on the interaction of several factors, including the Mg content of soil, rate of weathering, intensity of leaching, and the uptake by plants. Leaching of Mg²+ is often a problem in sandy soils, particularly following the addition of fertilizer such as KCL and K2SO4. Very little Mg displacement occurs when equivalent amounts of K are applied as either CO3²-, HCO3, or H2PO4-. Apparently, Mg²+ desorption and leaching in coarse-texture soils are enhanced by the presence of soluble Cl- and SO4²-. As with Ca²+, erosion losses can be considerable in some soils.

Mg in clay minerals is slowly weathered out by leaching and exhaustive cropping. Conditions in which Mg is likely to be deficient include acidic, sandy, highly leached soils with low CEC; calcareous soils with inherently lower Mg levels; acidic soils receiving high rates of lining materials low in Mg; higher rates of NH4+ or K+ fertilization; and crops with Mg demand.

Mg Sources

In contrast to calcium, the primary nutrient fertilizers contain magnesium, with the exception of K2SO4 · MgSO4. Dolomite is commonly applied to low-Mg acidic soils. K2SO4 · MgSO4 and MgSO4 (Epsom salts) are the most widely used materials in dry fertilizer formulation. Other materials containing Magnesium are magnesia (MgO, 55% Mg), magnesium nitrate [Mg(NO3)2. 16% Mg], magnesium silicate (basic slag, 3 to 4 % Mg; serpentine, 26% Mg), magnesium chloride solution (MgCl2 ( 10 H20, 8 to 9% Mg), synthetic chelates (2 to 4% Mg), and natural organic complexing substances (4 to 9% Mg). MgSO4, MgCl2, Mg(NO3)2, and synthetic and natural magnesium chelates are well-suited for application in clear liquids and foliar sprays. Magnesium deficiency of citrus trees in California is frequently corrected by foliar applications of Mg(NO3)2. In some tree-fruit growing areas, MgSO4 solutions are applied to maintain levels, and in seriously deficient orchards several annual applications are necessary. K2SO4 ¸ MgSO4 are the most widely used magnesium additives in suspensions. Special suspension grade [100% passing through a 20-mesh screen] of this material is available commercially. Magnesium content in animal and municipal waste is similar to S content and can therefore be used to supply sufficient magnesium.

Manganese in Soil

Mineral manganese. Manganese concentration in the earth's crust average 1000 ppm, and manganese is found in most iron-magnesium rocks. Manganese, when released through weathering of primary rocks, will combine with O2 to form secondary minerals, including pyrolusite (MnO2), hausmannite (Mn3O4), and manganite (MnOOH). Pyrolusite and manganite are the most abundant.

Total manganese in soils generally range between 20 and 3,000 ppm and averages about 600 ppm. Manganese in soils occurs as various oxides and hydroxide coated on soil particles, deposited in cracks and veins, and mixed with iron oxides and other soil constituents.

Soil solution manganese. The principal species in solution is Mn²+ , which decreases 100-fold for each unit increase in pH, similar to the behavior of other divalent metal cations. The concentration of Mn²+, in solution is predominately controlled by MnO2. Concentration of Mn²+ in the soil solution of the acidic and neutral soils is commonly in the range of 0.01 to 1 ppm, with organically complexed Mn²+ comprising about 90 percent of solution Mn²+. Plants take up Mn²+, which moves to their root surface by diffusion.

Manganese in soil solutions is greatly increased under acidic, low-redox conditions. In extremely acidic soils, Mn²+ solubility can be sufficiently great to cause toxicity problems in sensitive plant species.

Interaction with other nutrients

High levels of copper, iron, or zinc, can reduce manganese uptake by plants. Addition of acid-forming NH4+ to soil will enhance manganese uptake.

Plant Factors

Several plant species exhibit differences in sensitivity to manganese deficiency. These differences in the response of manganese deficient and manganese inefficient plants are due to internal factors rather than to the facts of the plants on the soil. Reductive capacity at the root may be the factor restricting manganese uptake and translocation. There may also be significant differences in the amounts and properties of root exudates generated by plants, which can influence Mn²+ availability. It is possible that plant characteristics possessed by irony fission plants may similarly influence manganese uptake in plants and their tolerance to manganese stress.

Manganese sources

Organic manganese. The manganese concentration in most animal wastes is similar to zinc, ranging between 0.01 and 0.05% (0.2and 1 lb. / t). Thus, with most manures, average application rates will provide sufficient plant available manganese. As with iron, zinc, and copper, the primary benefits of organic waste application is increased organic material and associated natural chelation properties that increased manganese concentration in soil solution and plant availability. As with the other micronutrients, manganese content in municipal waste varies greatly depending on the stores. On average, manganese content is about half the copper content (0.05%, or one pound per ton).

Organic manganese. Manganese sulfate is widely used for correction of manganese deficiency and may be soil or foliar applied. In addition to organic manganese fertilizers, natural organic complexes and chelated manganese are available and are usually foliar applied.

Manganese oxide (MnO) is only slightly water soluble, but it is usually a satisfactory source of manganese. Manganese oxide must be finely ground to be affected. Rates of manganese applications range from 1 to 25 lbs. per acre; higher rates are recommended for broadcast application, while lower rates are foliar applied. Band-applied manganese is generally more effective than broadcast manganese, and band treatments are usually about one-half of the broadcast rates. Oxidation to less available forms of manganese is apparently delayed with band-applied manganese. Applications at the higher rates may be required on organic soils. Band application of manganese in combination with N-P-K fertilizers is commonly practiced.

Broadcast application of manganese chelates and natural organic complexes is not normally advised because soil calcium or iron can replace manganese in these chelates, and the freed manganese is usually converted to unavailable forms. Meanwhile, the more available chelated calcium or iron probably accentuates the manganese deficiency. Limestone or high-pH-induced manganese deficiency can be rectified by acidification resulting from the use of sulfur or other assets-forming materials.


Manganese - Functions in plant or soil

  1. It has a role in production of chlorophyll but is not a component

  2. It is involved in electron transfer reactions

  3. Involved in enzyme systems, arginase and phosphotransferase

  4. Involved in enzyme systems of sugar metabolism

  5. Participates in oxygen-evolving system of photosynthesis

  6. Involved in electron transport in chloroplasts

  7. Involved in transfer of electrons from water to the photosynthetic II protein fraction

  8. It accelerates germination and maturity

Manganese - Special considerations

  1. Its solubility increases 100 fold per unit drop in pH - can be toxic in low pH soils

  2. Manganese concentrated in leaves and stems - seeds contain only small amounts

  3. High concentration of Mn in soil can lead to poor iron absorption

Manganese - The conditions associated with deficiencies

  1. High soil pH

  2. High organic soils

  3. Cool wet soil conditions

  4. Overlimed soils - High calcium levels

Manganese - Deficiency symptoms

Corn & Grain Sorghum

  1. Interveinal chlorosis with general stunting similar to iron deficiency except iron is seldom short on high organic matter soils

Small Grains

  1. Marginal gray and brown necrotic spots and streaks appearing on basal portion of leaves

  2. Ends of affected leaves may stay green for an extended time

  3. On older affected leaves the spots are oval and gray brown

Soybeans

  1. Interveinal chlorosis

  2. As deficiency becomes more severe, leaves become pale green, then yellow

  3. Brown necrotic spots develop as deficiency becomes more pronounced

  4. Veins remain darker as compared to iron deficiency

 

Zinc (Zn)

Zinc is involved in many enzymatic activities, but it is not known whether it acts as a functional, structural, or regulatory cofactor.

Zinc - Functions in plant or soil

  1. Involved in large number of enzymes - including dehydrogenases, aldolases, isomerases, transphosphorylases, RNA and DNA polymerases

  2. Involved in carbohydrate metabolism

  3. Involved in the rate of protein synthesis

Zinc - Special considerations

  1. Availability enhanced significantly by presence of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil

  2. It is not subject to oxidation-reduction reactions in soil-plant system

  3. It is quite immobile in the soil

  4. It will bond strongly with sulfide formed from decomposing humus under anaerobic conditions

  5. Solubility increases 100 fold for each pH unit lowered

Zinc - The conditions associated with deficiencies

  1. High pH soils

  2. Calcareous soils

  3. Overlimed soils

  4. Sandy soils

  5. Soils where anaerobic decomposition is present

  6. High soil phosphorus levels - Varies by crop

  7. Cold wet soils

Zinc - Deficiency symptoms

Corn

  1. Appear within first 2 weeks after emergence

  2. Broad band of chloritic tissue on one or both sides of leaf midrib - most pronounced towards base of leaf

  3. Young leaves most severely affected

  4. Delayed maturity and reduced yields

Grain Sorghum

  1. Similar to corn

Small Grain

  1. Similar to corn

Soybeans

  1. Chlorosis of younger leaves

  2. Chlorosis may extend to all leaves on plant

  3. Total chlorosis without green veins

Silica (Si)

Silica is one of the most abundant elements on the surface of the earth. Silica contributes to the structure of cell walls. Concentrations of up to 10% occur in silica rich plants. Silica primarily impregnates the walls of epidermis and vascular tissues, where it appears to strengthen the cell wall, reduce water loss, and retard fungal infection.

The involvement of silica in root functions is believed to be its contribution to the drought tolerance of crops. Although no biochemical role for silica in plant development has been positively identified, it has been proposed that in enzyme-silicon complexes they act as protectors or regulators of photosynthesis and enzyme activity.

The beneficial effects of silicon have been attributed to corrections of soil toxicity arising from high levels of available manganese, iron, and aluminum; plant disease resistance; increased availability of phosphorus; and reduced transpiration.

Silica - Functions in plant or cell

  1. In epidermal cell walls silica reduces water loss by cuticular transpiration

  2. Silica acts as a barrier against invasion of parasites and pathogens in endodermis cells of roots

  3. Silica increases epidermal layer of leaves resistance to fungal attacks.

  4. Silica is associated with incorporation of inorganic phosphate into ATP, ADP, and sugar phosphates

Silica - Special considerations

  1. Because of the abundance of silica in the soil, it is difficult to prove it is an essential micronutrient for higher plants

  2. Silica reduced manganese and iron toxicity where soil levels are excessive

Silica - The conditions associated with deficiencies

  1. Undefined

Silica - Deficiency symptoms

Wetland Rice

  1. Reduced vegetative growth and grain production

Sugarcane

  1. Drastic reduction in growth

  2. Leaf freckling on leaf blades directly exposed to full sunlight

Sulfur (S)

Although more than 95% of soil sulfur is bonded in organic forms and present in the upper layers of most soils, these reserves are not readily available to the plant.

Forms of Sulfur in Plants:

Sulfur is absorption by plant roots almost exclusively as sulfate, SO4-². Small quantities of SO2 can be absorbed through plant leaves and utilized within plants, but high concentrations are toxic. Typically concentrations of sulfur in plants range between 0.1 and 0.5%. Among the families of crop plants sulfur content increases in order Gramineae < Leguminosae < Cruciferae and is reflected in the differences in sulfur content of their seeds: 0.18-0.19%, 0.25-0.3%, and 1.1-1.7%, respectively.

Functions of Sulfur in Plants

Sulfur is required for synthesis of the S-containing amino acids, which are essential components of protein. Approximately 90% of the sulfur in plants is found in these amino acids. Increasing sulfur availability increase sulfur content in leaves, which increases sulfur containing amino acids.

Plants suffering sulfur deficiency accumulate non-protein nitrogen in the form of NH2 and NH3. It is apparent that sulfur fertilization improves the quality of this forage by narrowing the nitrogen to sulfur ratio. A Nitrogen to sulfur ratio of between 9:1 and 12: 1 is needed for effective use of nitrogen by rumen and microorganisms. This beneficial effect of sulfur fertilization on improving crop quality through reductions in the nitrogen to sulfur ratio is important in animal nutrition.

Ag-Gel is a naturally occurring micronutrient plant fertilizer concentrated into a soluble silicate gel. Produced from naturally occurring micronutrient mineral sources, Ag-Gel is a semi-permeable gel membrane that absorbs and holds over 700% its dry weight in water. When applied to the soil it creates a nutrient rich moisture barrier which helps reduce evaporation from the soil while providing plants essential nutrients they need to thrive.

The Solution to our Chronic Mineral Deficiency Now!

Categories: Food , Health

by Dawn Adrienne Taylor

Information has finally reached the daily press warning of the link between
mineral-deficient foods and degenerative diseases. But what can we
do to improve our health immediately and prevent future disease?
It took almost 30 years of sourcing optimum nutrition before
I discovered a unique 75 organic plant-derived mineral
supplement that is transforming my health
and that of countless others.

“Minerals in the soil control the metabolism of plants, animals and man.
All of life will be either healthy or unhealthy according to the fertility of the soil.”

This was a statement made by Dr Alexus Carrel, Nobel Prize Winner, in 1912. Almost a hundred years later, agriculturist and writer, Graham Harvey, wrote in The Daily Telegraph , 18 February 2006: “Britain's once fertile soil has been systematically stripped of its crucial minerals by industrial farming, leaving our fruit and vegetables tasteless and a nation in chronic ill health.”

William Albrecht (1896-1974 Illinois), referred to as the Father of Soil Research for his pioneering studies of the effects of infertile soil on plants and animals, warned in 1930s that if the land was not remineralised, there would be a massive increase in human degenerative diseases.

under the circumstances of the case the demand for entry or inspection is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Iron Mountain Mine and T.W. Arman intervene, "two miners"

forbidden from taking petitioners' land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. See Midkiff, 467 U.S. , at 245

no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void”); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska , 164 U.S. 403 (1896

evidence of an illegitimate purpose in this case. 6 when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g. , Fallbrook Irrigation Dist . v. Bradley , 164 U.S. 112 , 158—164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company's use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes' opinion for the Court stressed “the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test.” Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527 , 531 (1906). 9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since. 10

Reaffirming Berman 's deferential approach to legislative judgments in this field, we concluded that the State's purpose of eliminating the “social and economic evils of a land oligopoly” qualified as a valid public use. 467 U.S. , at 241—242. Our opinion also rejected the contention that the mere fact that the State immediately transferred the properties to private individuals upon condemnation somehow diminished the public character of the taking. “[I]t is only the taking's purpose, and not its mechanics,” we explained, that matters in determining public use. Id. , at 244.

Our earliest cases in particular embodied a strong theme of federalism, emphasizing the “great respect” that we owe to state legislatures and state courts in discerning local public needs. See Hairston v.Danville & Western R. Co ., 208 U.S. 598 , 606—607 (1908) (noting that these needs were likely to vary depending on a State's “resources, the capacity of the soil, the relative importance of industries to the general public welfare, and the long-established methods and habits of the people”). 11 For more than a century, ourpublic use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power

Quite simply, the government's pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties. For example, in Midkiff , the forced transfer of property conferred a direct and significant benefit on those lessees who were previously unable to purchase their homes

“When the legislature's purpose is legitimate and its means are not irrational, our cases make clear that empirical debates over the wisdom of takings–no less than debates over the wisdom of other kinds of socioeconomic legislation–are not to be carried out in the federal courts.” Midkiff, 467 U.S. , at 242. 20 Indeed, earlier this Term we explained why similar practical concerns (among others) undermined the use of the “substantially advances” formula in our regulatory takings doctrine. See Lingle v. Chevron U.S. A. Inc. , 544 U.S. ___, ___ (2005) (slip op., at 14—15) (noting that this formula “would empower–and might often require–courts to substitute their predictive judgments for those of elected legislatures and expert agencies”). The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case. Orderly implementation of a comprehensive redevelopment plan obviously requires that the legal rights of all interested parties be established before new construction can be commenced. A constitutional rule that required postponement of the judicial approval of every condemnation until the likelihood of success of the plan had been assured would unquestionably impose a significant impediment to the successful consummation of many such plans.

1.  “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const., Amdt. 5. That Clause is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment . See Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).

2.  Various state agencies studied the project's economic, environmental, and social ramifications. As part of this process, a team of consultants evaluated six alternative development proposals for the area, which varied in extensiveness and emphasis. The Office of Planning and Management, one of the primary state agencies undertaking the review, made findings that the project was consistent with relevant state and municipal development policies. See 1 App. 89—95.

3.  In the remainder of the opinion we will differentiate between the City and the NLDC only where necessary.

4.  While this litigation was pending before the Superior Court, the NLDC announced that it would lease some of the parcels to private developers in exchange for their agreement to develop the land according to the terms of the development plan. Specifically, the NLDC was negotiating a 99-year ground lease with Corcoran Jennison, a developer selected from a group of applicants. The negotiations contemplated a nominal rent of $1 per year, but no agreement had yet been signed. See 268 Conn. 1, 9, 61, 843 A. 2d 500, 509—510, 540 (2004).

5.  See also Calder v. Bull , 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legis-
lative authority… . A few instances will suffice to explain what I
mean… [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them” (emphasis deleted)).

6.  See 268 Conn., at 159, 843 A. 2d, at 595 (Zarella, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“The record clearly demonstrates that the development plan was not intended to serve the interests of Pfizer, Inc., or any other private entity, but rather, to revitalize the local economy by creating temporary and permanent jobs, generating a significant increase in tax revenue, encouraging spin-off economic activities and maximizing public access to the waterfront”). And while the City intends to transfer certain of the parcels to a private developer in a long-term lease–which developer, in turn, is expected to lease the office space and so forth to other private tenants–the identities of those private parties were not known when the plan was adopted. It is, of course, difficult to accuse the government of having taken A 's property to benefit the private interests of B when the identity of B was unknown.

7.  See, e.g. , Dayton Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. Seawell , 11 Nev. 394, 410, 1876 WL 4573, *11 (1876) (“If public occupation and enjoyment of the object for which land is to be condemned furnishes the only and true test for the right of eminent domain, then the legislature would certainly have the constitutional authority to condemn the lands of any private citizen for the purpose of building hotels and theaters. Why not? A hotel is used by the public as much as a railroad. The public have the same right, upon payment of a fixed compensation, to seek rest and refreshment at a public inn as they have to travel upon a railroad”).

8.  From upholding the Mill Acts (which authorized manufacturers dependent on power-producing dams to flood upstream lands in exchange for just compensation), to approving takings necessary for the economic development of the West through mining and irrigation, many state courts either circumvented the “use by the public” test when necessary or abandoned it completely. See Nichols, The Meaning of Public Use in the Law of Eminent Domain, 20 B. U. L. Rev. 615, 619—624 (1940) (tracing this development and collecting cases). For example, in rejecting the “use by the public” test as overly restrictive, the Nevada Supreme Court stressed that “[m]ining is the greatest of the industrial pursuits in this state. All other interests are subservient to it. Our mountains are almost barren of timber, and our valleys could never be made profitable for agricultural purposes except for the fact of a home market having been created by the mining developments in different sections of the state. The mining and milling interests give employment to many men, and the benefits derived from this business are distributed as much, and sometimes more, among the laboring classes than with the owners of the mines and mills. … The present prosperity of the state is entirely due to the mining developments already made, and the entire people of the state are directly interested in having the future developments unobstructed by the obstinate action of any individual or individuals.” Dayton Gold & Silver Mining Co. , 11 Nev. , at 409—410, 1876 WL, at *11.

9.  See also Clark v. Nash, 198 U.S. 361 (1905) (upholding a statute that authorized the owner of arid land to widen a ditch on his neighbor's property so as to permit a nearby stream to irrigate his land).

10.  See, e.g. , Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v. Alabama Interstate Power Co. , 240 U.S. 30 , 32 (1916) (“The inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test is established”); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. , 467 U.S. 986 , 1014—1015 (1984) (“This Court, however, has rejected the notion that a use is a public use only if the property taken is put to use for the general public”).

11.  See also Clark , 198 U.S., at 367—368; Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527 , 531 (1906) (“In the opinion of the legislature and the Supreme Court of Utah the public welfare of that State demands that aerial lines between the mines upon its mountain sides and railways in the valleys below should not be made impossible by the refusal of a private owner to sell the right to cross his land. The Constitution of the United States does not require us to say that they are wrong”); O'Neill v. Leamer, 239 U.S. 244 , 253 (1915) (“States may take account of their special exigencies, and when the extent of their arid or wet lands is such that a plan for irrigation or reclamation according to districts may fairly be regarded as one which promotes the public interest, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution which denies to them the right to formulate this policy or to exercise the power of eminent domain in carrying it into effect. With the local situation the state court is peculiarly familiar and its judgment is entitled to the highest respect”).

12.   Cf. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. , 272 U.S. 365 (1926).

13.  It is a misreading of Berman to suggest that the only public use upheld in that case was the initial removal of blight. See Reply Brief for Petitioners 8. The public use described in Berman extended beyond that to encompass the purpose of developing that area to create conditions that would prevent a reversion to blight in the future. See 348 U.S. , at 34—35 (“It was not enough, [the experts] believed, to remove existing buildings that were insanitary or unsightly. It was important to redesign the whole area so as to eliminate the conditions that cause slums. . . . The entire area needed redesigning so that a balanced, integrated plan could be developed for the region, including not only new homes, but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers. In this way it was hoped that the cycle of decay of the area could be controlled and the birth of future slums prevented”). Had the public use in Berman been defined more narrowly, it would have been difficult to justify the taking of the plaintiff's nonblighted department store.

14.  Any number of cases illustrate that the achievement of a public good often coincides with the immediate benefiting of private parties. See, e.g. , National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S. 407 , 422 (1992) (public purpose of “facilitating Amtrak's rail service” served by taking rail track from one private company and transferring it to another private company); Brown v. Legal Foundation of Wash. , 538 U.S. 216 (2003) (provision of legal services to the poor is a valid public purpose). It is worth noting that in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), Monsanto , and Boston & Maine Corp ., the property in question retained the same use even after the change of ownership.

15.  Notably, as in the instant case, the private developers in Berman were required by contract to use the property to carry out the redevelopment plan. See 348 U.S. , at 30.

16.  Nor do our cases support Justice O'Connor's novel theory that the government may only take property and transfer it to private parties when the initial taking eliminates some “harmful property use.” Post , at 8 (dissenting opinion). There was nothing “harmful” about the nonblighted department store at issue in Berman , 348 U.S. 26 ; see also n. 13, supra; nothing “harmful” about the lands at issue in the mining and agriculture cases, see, e.g. , Strickley , 200 U.S. 527 ; see also nn. 9, 11, supra; and certainly nothing “harmful” about the trade secrets owned by the pesticide manufacturers in Monsanto , 467 U.S. 986 . In each case, the public purpose we upheld depended on a private party's future use of the concededly nonharmful property that was taken.  By focusing on a property's future use, as opposed to its past use, our cases are faithful to the text of the Takings Clause. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 5. (“[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”). Justice O'Connor's intimation that a “public purpose” may not be achieved by the action of private parties, see post , at 8, confuses the purpose of a taking with its mechanics , a mistake
we warned of in Midkiff , 467 U.S. , at 244. See also Berman , 348 U.S. , at 33—34 (“The public end may be as well or better served through
an agency of private enterprise than through a department of
government”).

17.  Courts have viewed such aberrations with a skeptical eye. See, e.g. , 99 Cents Only Stores v. Lancaster Redevelopment Agency , 237 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (CD Cal. 2001); cf. Cincinnati v. Vester , 281 U.S. 439 , 448 (1930) (taking invalid under state eminent domain statute for lack of a reasoned explanation). These types of takings may also implicate other constitutional guarantees. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech , 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (per curiam).

18.  Cf. Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U.S. 218 , 223 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting) (“The power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits”).

19.  A parade of horribles is especially unpersuasive in this context, since the Takings Clause largely “operates as a conditional limitation, permitting the government to do what it wants so long as it pays the charge.” Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel , 524 U.S. 498 , 545 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part). Speaking of the takings power, Justice Iredell observed that “[i]t is not sufficient to urge, that the power may be abused, for, such is the nature of all power–such is the tendency of every human institution: and, it might as fairly be said, that the power of taxation, which is only circumscribed by the discretion of the Body, in which it is vested, ought not to be granted, because the Legislature, disregarding its true objects, might, for visionary and useless projects, impose a tax to the amount of nineteen shillings in the pound. We must be content to limit power where we can, and where we cannot, consistently with its use, we must be content to repose a salutory confidence.” Calder , 3 Dall., at 400 (opinion concurring in result).

20.  See also Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S., at 422—423 (“[W]e need not make a specific factual determination whether the condemnation will accomplish its objectives”); Monsanto , 467 U.S., at 1015, n. 18 (“Monsanto argues that EPA and, by implication, Congress, misapprehended the true ‘barriers to entry' in the pesticide industry and that the challenged provisions of the law create, rather than reduce, barriers to entry… . Such economic arguments are better directed to Congress. The proper inquiry before this Court is not whether the provisions in fact will accomplish their stated objectives. Our review is limited to determining that the purpose is legitimate and that Congress rationally could have believed that the provisions would promote that objective”).

21.  The amici raise questions about the fairness of the measure of just compensation. See, e.g. , Brief for American Planning Association et al. as Amici Curiae 26—30. While important, these questions are not before us in this litigation.

22.  See, e.g. , County of Wayne v. Hathcock , 471 Mich. 445, 684 N. W. 2d 765 (2004).

23.  Under California law, for instance, a city may only take land for economic development purposes in blighted areas. Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§33030—33037 (West 1997). See, e.g. , Redevelopment Agency of Chula Vista v. Rados Bros ., 95 Cal. App. 4th 309 (2002).

24.  For example, some argue that the need for eminent domain has been greatly exaggerated because private developers can use numerous techniques, including secret negotiations or precommitment strategies, to overcome holdout problems and assemble lands for genuinely profitable projects. See Brief for Jane Jacobs as Amicus Curiae 13—15; see also Brief for John Norquist as Amicus Curiae . Others argue to the contrary, urging that the need for eminent domain is especially great with regard to older, small cities like New London , where centuries of development have created an extreme overdivision of land and thus a real market impediment to land assembly. See Brief for Connecticut Conference for Municipalities et al. as Amici Curiae 13, 21; see also Brief for National League of Cities et al. as Amici Curiae .

Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.

Section 489. Civil remedies and penalties.

(a) Immunity of officers or employees of Government.

Exempts officers and employees of the Government disposing of property under Property Act from liability with respect to such disposition, except for their own fraud, and from liability for the collection of any purchase price determined to be uncollectible.

(b) Fraudulent tricks, schemes, or devices.

Deals with the civil liability of persons who engage in fraudulent activities for obtaining any payment, property, or other benefit from the United States in connection with procurement, transfer, or disposition of property.

(c) Jurisdiction and venue.

Confers jurisdiction on the courts to hear, try, and determine the suits provided for in subsection (b).

(d) Additional remedies.

Provides that civil remedies provided for under this section shall be in addition to all other criminal penalties and civil remedies provided by law.

SUBCHAPTER V--URBAN LAND UTILIZATION

Section 531. Declaration of purpose and policy.

Directs that urban land transactions (acquisition, use, and disposition) entered into for GSA or on behalf of other Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent with zoning and land-use practices and in accordance with planning and development objectives of the local governments and local planning agencies concerned.

Section 532. Disposal of urban lands.

Directs the Administrator, prior to offering urban land for sale, to notify and provide the local zoning office an opportunity of zoning for the use of such land in accordance with local comprehensive planning. Further directs the Administrator to furnish prospective purchases with information concerning zoning and availability of utilities to urban property.

Section 533. Acquisition or change of use of real property.

Directs the Administrator, when proposing to acquire or change the use of any real property situated in an urban area, to notify the local zoning and land-use office and, to the extent practical, comply with and conform to regulations and the planning and development objectives of the local government.

Section 534. Waiver of procedures for disposal of urban lands, acquisition or change of use of real property.

Authorizes the waiver of sections 532 and 533 during national emergencies.

Section 535. Definitions.

Provides the definition of terms used in Subchapter V--Urban Land Utilization.

SUBCHAPTER VI--SELECTION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

Section 541. Definitions.

Provides the definition of terms used in Subchapter VI.

Section 542. Congressional declaration of policy.

States the intent of Congress that the Federal Government publicly announce all requirements for architectural and engineering services, and to negotiate contracts for such services on the basis of demonstrated competence, qualifications and fair and reasonable prices.

Section 543. Requests for data on architectural and engineering services.

Directs an agency head, for each proposed project, to evaluate statements of qualifications and performance data and conduct discussions with no less than 3 firms and select therefrom, in order of preference, no less than 3 firms deemed to be the most qualified to perform the services required.

Section 544. Negotiation of contracts for architectural and engineering services.

(a) Negotiation with highest qualified firm.

Directs the agency head to negotiate a contract with qualified firm at fair and reasonable compensation taking into account the estimated value of the services to be rendered, the scope, complexity and professional nature thereof.

(b) Negotiation with second and third, etc., most qualified firms.

Should the agency head be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the highest qualified firm, negotiates should be formally terminated. The agency head should then undertake negotiations with the second most qualified firm. Failing accord with the second firm, the agency head should terminate negotiations and undertake negotiations with the third most qualified.

(c) Selection of additional firms in event of failure of negotiation with selected firms.

Failing to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected firms, the agency head should select additional firms in order of their competence and qualification and continue negotiations in accordance with this section until an agreement is reached.

EPA Guidance on the Transfer of Federal Property by Deed Before All Necessary Remedial Action Has Been Taken Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120(h)(3) -- (Early Transfer Authority Guidance)

I. PURPOSE

This guidance addresses the transfer by deed, under Section 120(h)(3)(C) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), of real property listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) held by a federal agency (landholding federal agency (1) ) where the release or disposal of hazardous substances has occurred, but where all necessary remedial action has not yet been taken. This document provides guidance to the EPA Regions that have received a request from a landholding federal agency for the deferral of the covenant mandated by CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii)(I) that all necessary remedial action has been taken prior to the date of transfer. This guidance establishes EPA's process to determine, with the concurrence of the Governor, that the property is suitable for transfer prior to all necessary remedial action being taken.

II. EPA's REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVING A DEFERRAL REQUEST

When a federal agency transfers to another person (i.e., an entity other than another federal agency) real property on which hazardous substances have been stored for one year or more, known to have been released, or disposed of, the deed must contain a covenant warranting that "all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any such substance remaining on the property has been taken before the date of transfer" (the CERCLA 120(h)(3)(A)(ii)(I) Covenant) and that "any additional remedial action found to be necessary after the date of the transfer shall be conducted by the United States." (2) EPA, with the concurrence of the Governor of the State in which the facility is located, may defer the CERCLA Covenant for parcels of real property at facilities listed on the NPL. (3)

The Agency's general current view is that it will seek the concurrence of federally recognized Indian tribes for purposes of determining whether the covenant requirement under CERCLA 120(h) should be deferred pursuant to CERCLA 120(h)(3)(C) for property located in Indian country within tribal jurisdiction. However, the Agency will only make a final determination as to the appropriate tribal role under CERCLA 120(h)(3)(C) in the context of an actual Covenant Deferral Request made for property located in Indian country within tribal jurisdiction. The Agency's determination should be made in light of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding a particular Covenant Deferral Request. If the EPA Regional office receives a Covenant Deferral Request concerning a transfer of property that is located in Indian country with tribal jurisdiction, the EPA Regional office should contact EPA Headquarters, the American Indian Environmental Office and the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, for specific guidance.

In order for EPA to defer the covenant requirement, CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(C)(I)(I)-(IV) requires that EPA determine that the property is suitable for transfer based on a finding that:

1. the property is suitable for transfer for the use intended by the transferee, and the intended use is consistent with protection of human health and the environment;

2. the deed or other agreement proposed to govern the transfer between the United States and the transferee of the property contains the Response Action Assurances described in section IV of this guidance;

3. the federal agency requesting deferral has provided notice, by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the vicinity of the property, of the proposed transfer and of the opportunity for the public to submit, within a period of not less than 30 days after the date of the notice, written comments on the suitability of the property for transfer; and

4. the deferral and the transfer of the property will not substantially delay any necessary response action at the property.

These findings are intended to assure that there is a sound basis for the proposed transfer based on the finding that the particular reuse of the property identified by the transferee does not pose an unacceptable risk (4) to human health or the environment. As stated in Section 120(h)(3)(C)(iv), all statutory obligations required of a federal agency remain the same, regardless of whether the property is transferred subject to a covenant deferral.

III. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE

This guidance applies to all early transfers by deed under CERCLA Section 120(h) of contaminated real property owned by a federal agency and listed on the National Priorities List (NPL), regardless of the statutory authority underlying a cleanup, including transfers of property at DoD installations selected for closure or realignment.

This guidance does not apply to federal-to-federal transfers of property or to transfers of uncontaminated property. A federal agency that is sponsoring a public benefit conveyance may use this guidance as a model for obtaining useful information. Under a public benefit conveyance, a sponsoring federal agency acts as a conduit through which title will ultimately pass from the United States to a public benefit recipient. For further information regarding the relationship between a sponsoring federal agency and the Department of Defense (DoD) for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) property (a landholding federal agency), please see the Memorandum of Agreement signed by DoD and the federal agencies that sponsor public benefit transfers (dated April 21, 1997).

IV. GUIDANCE

EPA should generally not consider deferral of the covenant request for real property unless the landholding federal agency submits a Covenant Deferral Request (CDR) containing the information recommended by this guidance.

While the statute does not explicitly require a signed Interagency Agreement (IAG) to be in place as a prerequisite for deferring the covenant requirement, EPA believes that the existence of an IAG will significantly aid the Agency in making the covenant deferral decision.

A. Covenant Deferral Request

As discussed in Section II, EPA may defer the CERCLA Section 120(h)(3) covenant requirement if EPA determines that a property is suitable for transfer based on certain findings. To commence the process, the landholding federal agency should submit information of a sufficient quality and quantity to EPA to support its request for deferral and provide a basis for EPA to make its determination. This information should be submitted to EPA in the form of a Covenant Deferral Request (CDR). EPA should consider a CDR complete when it includes all of the following components.

1. Property Description

A legal description of the real property or sufficient information which clearly identifies the property for which the CERCLA Covenant is requested to be deferred.

2. Nature/Extent of Contamination

A description of the nature and areal extent of contamination (with supporting documentation) which affects the property to be transferred and which will not be remediated prior to transfer. There is a presumption that the Covenant Deferral Request should include the results from a completed Remedial Investigation (RI) for the parcel that will be transferred. However, the landholding federal agency should have an opportunity to demonstrate why such data and findings are not necessary before the land is transferred.

When determining what information is necessary, the EPA Region should take into consideration, at a minimum, the degree of uncertainty regarding the nature and extent of contamination; the future use of the property prior to completion of the response action; who is to perform future work; and any existing information or data on the parcel under consideration. Generally, the greater the uncertainty about any of these factors, the more information the EPA Region may require to make the determination. As noted below, the landholding Federal agency remains responsible for all necessary response actions including the remedial investigation and the cleanup remains subject to the requirements of Section 120.

3. Analysis of Intended Land Use During the Deferral Period

Contents of the Covenant Deferral Request:

A description of the intended land use of the property during the deferral period and an analysis of whether the intended use is reasonably expected to result in exposure to CERCLA hazardous substances at sites where response actions have not been completed. This analysis should be based on the environmental condition of the property and should consider the contaminant(s), exposure scenarios, and potential and actual migration pathways that may occur during the future use. Where a potential or actual unacceptable exposure to hazardous substances is identified, the analysis should identify what response actions should be taken to prevent such exposure. Treatment, engineering controls and use restrictions (see Section 6.d - Response Action Assurances), may be considered as a means of limiting unacceptable exposures to hazardous substances while allowing for property reuse. Any other response actions necessary to protect human health and the environment should be included in the deed (or other agreement governing the transfer) as described in Subsection 6 of this policy. The land use during the deferral period cannot be inconsistent with any necessary response actions.

4. Results From A Risk Assessment

Results from a CERCLA risk assessment, taking into consideration reasonably anticipated future land use assumptions. There is a presumption that the Covenant Deferral Request include the results from a completed risk assessment, as defined in the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and EPA guidance. However, the landholding federal agency should have an opportunity to demonstrate why a risk assessment does not have to be completed before the land is transferred.

When determining whether a completed risk assessment is needed before the early transfer, the EPA Region should take into consideration, at a minimum, the degree of uncertainty regarding the potential risks posed by the contamination; existing analyses; certainty about future use; and who is conducting the response. The greater the uncertainty about the risk from the contamination, the more information EPA may require. As noted below, the landholding Federal agency remains responsible for all necessary response actions, including the risk assessment.

In the absence of the completed risk assessment, at a minimum, EPA Regions should examine potential exposure(s) during the deferral period, taking into account any proposed restrictions to ensure the protectiveness of human health and the environment.

5. Response/Corrective Action and Operation and Maintenance Requirements

A description of any ongoing or planned response or corrective action, including a projected milestone date for the selection and completion of the action, and/or projected date for the demonstration that a remedial action is "operating properly and successfully." Also, it will be necessary to provide adequate information regarding ongoing or planned response actions and operation and maintenance of the response or corrective action.

6. Contents of Deed/Transfer Agreement

a. Notice

A copy of the notice to be included in the deed as required by CERCLA Section 120(h)(1)and(3) and in accordance with regulations set forth at 40 CFR Part 373.

b. Covenant

A copy of the covenant warranting that any additional remedial action found to be necessary after the date of transfer shall be conducted by the United States as required by CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii)(II).

c. Access

A copy of the clause which reserves to the United States access to the property in any case in which an investigation, response, or corrective action is found to be necessary after the date of transfer as required by CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A)(iii).

d. Response Action Assurances

A copy of the Response Action Assurances that must be included in the deed or other agreement proposed to govern the transfer as required under CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(C)(ii). As required by statute, these assurances shall:

i. provide for any necessary restrictions on the use of the property to ensure the protection of human health and the environment;

ii. provide that there will be restrictions on the use necessary to ensure that required remedial investigations, response action, and oversight activities will not be disrupted;

iii. provide that all necessary response action will be taken and identify the schedule(s) for investigation(s) and completion of all necessary response action(s) as approved by the appropriate regulatory agency; and

iv. provide that the landholding federal agency has or will obtain sufficient funding through either: (a) submission of a budget request (or budget requests in the event multi-year funding is needed) to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that adequately addresses schedule for investigation and completion of all necessary response action, subject to congressional authorizations and appropriations; or (b) sufficient current appropriations to accomplish investigation(s) and completion(s) of all necessary response action(s). In addition to (a) or (b), the landholding federal agency may also have an agreement with the transferee to fund and/or accomplish all or part of the remediation.

The Response Action Assurances should include a description of requirements to assure the protectiveness of the response action and shall specify the mechanisms for assuring that such measures remain effective. These measures should reflect discussions among the reuse entity, the community, the landholding federal agency and any appropriate federal, State, or local government.

7. Responsiveness Summary

The final CDR should include a response to comments document which contains the landholding federal agency's responses to the written comments received during the public comment period under Section 120 (h)(3)(C)(I)(III) and to the written comments received from the regulatory agencies on the draft CDR.

8. Transferee Response Action Assurances and Agreements

A transferee may agree to conduct response actions on the property. However, the landholding Federal agency remains responsible for ensuring that all necessary response actions including , as appropriate, investigations and requirements under an IAG are done.

When property is transferred prior to completion of the cleanup, the landholding federal agency should include in each deed provisions notifying the transferee of the requirement for, and status of, an Interagency Agreement or other enforceable environmental cleanup agreement or order, as appropriate.

The landholding federal agency should also notify the transferee that EPA and the State and their agents, employees and contractors, will have rights of access as necessary to implement response actions and oversight responsibilities at the facility.

Where the transferee has agreed to fund and conduct the cleanup or portions of the cleanup as a condition of the transfer, the landholding federal agency should provide to EPA documentation demonstrating that the transferee has or will become legally obligated to conduct the required response actions in accordance with the existing IAG. Should the transferee become unable or unwilling to complete the cleanup or order under its agreement with the landholding federal agency, EPA expects the landholding federal agency will complete the cleanup. Nothing in this guidance shall be interpreted to affect EPA's or the landholding federal agency's authority or responsibility under CERCLA or any other federal statute to enforce the terms and conditions of an existing IAG or to limit EPA's authority to impose requirements necessary to protect public health and the environment.

If the transferee is expected to perform any response action (e.g., excavation of contaminated soil in an area where facilities are to be constructed), then EPA should receive assurance from the landholding federal agency that the transferee has:

a. the technical capacity (in-house or through appropriate contract management) to perform anticipated investigations and response or corrective actions; and

b. the financial capacity to execute environmental cleanup activity requirements that are known or can reasonably be anticipated, based on current information available.

Financial capacity may be an especially sensitive area for a transferee and/or the landholding federal agency. While the assurance does not need to contain the actual documentation of the financial capacity, the EPA Region may request such information from the landholding federal agency if there are questions in this regard. (5) Any proprietary or confidential business information should be handled as required under Federal regulations.

If the landholding federal agency submits information supporting the technical and financial assurances, but the EPA Region disagrees with the adequacy of such assurances, and they cannot resolve their differences, there will be the opportunity to elevate the disagreement to the federal agency headquarters and EPA Headquarters. The EPA Region should contact the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office in OSWER and the federal agency should elevate the issue to its headquarters component when resolution cannot be reached at the Senior Manager level. EPA Headquarters and the headquarters of the landholding federal agency will resolve the disagreement in an expeditious fashion so as not to delay transfer.

The transferee should agree to conduct all necessary environmental response actions in accordance with CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). In the case where the transferee does not perform cleanup in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP or the terms of a cleanup agreement, then the United States may enter the property and perform any necessary response action.

B. Process for Requesting Covenant Deferral

Before preparing a CDR, the landholding federal agency should notify the Administrator of EPA or designee and the Governor of the State of the intent to request a CERCLA Covenant Deferral and invite participation in the development and review of the draft CDR. This notice should allow sufficient time for EPA, and State agencies, to participate in the development and review and comment on a draft CDR.

As required by Section 120(h)(3)(C)(I)(III), the landholding federal agency must provide notice, by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the vicinity of the property, of the proposed transfer. The notice should include:

1. The identity of the property proposed for transfer, the proposed transferee and the intended use of the property;

2. A statement that the property is listed on the National Priorities List and that the proposed transfer is pursuant to CERCLA 120(h)(3)(C) which allows the transfer of federal property before remedial action is completed when certain conditions are satisfied;

3. An assessment of whether the transfer is consistent with protection of human health and the environment will be made only after a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental condition of the property in consultation with the U.S. EPA and the appropriate State agencies;

4. A summary of the decision-making process, e.g., that the property will not be transferred until U.S. EPA determines, with the Governor's concurrence, that the transfer of the property for use as intended is consistent with protection of human health and the environment and that the federal agency has provided assurance that response actions will be taken;

5. The address and telephone number of the agency office which may be contacted for obtaining a copy of the draft Covenant Deferral Request, site- specific information and the address of the location of the administrative record for the response program; and

6. A statement that interested members of the public may comment on the suitability of the property (the draft Covenant Deferral Request) for transfer and must submit such comments to the agency before a date not less than 30 days from the date of the publication of the notice.

It is also recommended that the draft CDR be made available to any existing Restoration Advisory Boards (RAB), Site Specific Advisory Boards (SSAB), affected local governments, and/or other interested community-based groups. Specific efforts should be made to involve tribes surrounding the property that is to be transferred. As stated in the notice requirement, the public shall be provided with at least a 30 day period in which to submit comments on the suitability of the property for transfer. It may be appropriate under certain circumstances (i.e., large and/or complicated land transfers) to extend the public comment period beyond 30 days.

After the public comment period has expired, the landholding federal agency may then submit the final CDR to the appropriate EPA Regional office and State representative. Property cannot be transferred by deed until the CERCLA Covenant is explicitly deferred by EPA and the State. The request to defer the CERCLA Covenant should be made simultaneously to the EPA and the State. EPA and the State should work closely to assure careful evaluation of the request. EPA Regional offices are encouraged to take steps to streamline the coordination process to avoid unnecessary delay.

C. Completion of Response Actions After Transfer

When all response actions necessary to protect human health and the environment have been taken, e.g., when there has been a demonstration to EPA that the approved remedy is "operating properly and successfully (6) " pursuant to CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(B) (regardless of whether the landholding federal agency or the transferee has taken the action), the landholding federal agency shall execute and deliver to the transferee an appropriate document containing a warranty that all such response action has been taken. This warranty will satisfy the requirement of CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii)(I).

V. NOTICE

This guidance and internal procedures adopted for implementation are intended solely as policy for employees of the US EPA. Such guidance and procedures do not constitute rule making by the Agency and do not create legal obligations. The extent to which EPA applies this guidance will depend on the facts of each case.

1. A landholding federal agency is the federal agency that holds custody and accountability for the property on behalf of the United States . 41 CFR 101-47.103.7 Return to Document

2. CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii) sets forth the two components of the covenant that shall be contained in each deed. For purposes of this policy and the request for deferral, the term "CERCLA Covenant" refers only to the first component contained in Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii)(I). Return to Document

3. For non-NPL sites, the Governor of the State in which the facility is located may defer the CERCLA Covenant. Return to Document

4. See, 40 CFR 300.430(d)(4) and U.S. EPA 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM), Part A, Interim Final and Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington , D.C. EPA /540/1-89/002, NTIS PB90-155581/CCE and Publication 9285.7-01B NTIS PB92-963333. Return to Document

5. Financial capacity may be demonstrated through, but not limited to: reasonably anticipated cash flows, existence of appropriate insurance, posting of a construction/ indemnity bond, authority of the transferees to issue revenue bonds for such purpose, or assets, excluding the real property to be transferred. Obtaining a security interest in the transferee's assets may be used as a means of assuring project completion. Return to Document

6. See, "Guidance for Evaluation of Federal Agency Demonstrations That Remedial Actions Are Operating Properly and Successfully Under CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)," August 1996, NTIS PB97-143770; http://www.epa.gov/fedfac. Return to Document

What is Early Transfer Authority?
Early Transfer Authority (ETA) allows the federal
government to transfer property to non-federal
entities before the completion of environmental
cleanup as long as safeguards are in place to protect
human health and the environment. Congress
authorized ETA in the fiscal year 1997 Department of
Defense Authorization Act, amending Section 120(h)
(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The
Governor of the state in which the property is located
[and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator for a National Priorities List (NPL) site]
must concur that the property is suitable for early
transfer.
Why is ETA a valuable tool for
brownfields redevelopment?
ETA provides a mechanism to accelerate cleanup and
redevelopment of idle surplus federal property by
expediting title transfer of contaminated property.
Before Congress enacted ETA, CERCLA §120(h)(3)
required the federal government to complete all
necessary remedial action before transferring title
out of federal ownership. Federal funding for
environmental cleanup has often proved difficult to
obtain, and budget constraints have forced project
funding to be spread out over several years. In the
interim, without title to the property, potential new
property owners and developers faced significant
obstacles in securing redevelopment financing. Some
property conveyances took years to execute, and
many properties languished with protracted
remediation of contaminated areas and piecemeal
redevelopment of clean parcels.
Early transfer expedites title transfer of
contaminated property. Acquiring fee ownership
provides the transferee with control of the entire site
and with the necessary collateral to obtain
construction loans and long-term financing for
redevelopment. ETA also benefits local communities
by returning the property more quickly to the local
tax base than if the landholding agency retained title
until cleanup completion. ETA expedites local
planning and zoning control, and it facilitates
opportunities for new jobs and tax revenues.
ETA also allows for the privatization of remediation
responsibilities. Private developers often have
greater incentives and funding sources to complete
environmental cleanup more expeditiously than a
federal landholding agency. Combining remediation
and redevelopment reduces duplication of efforts,
takes advantages of cost-saving measures, and
enables the cleanup remedy to be designed with the
ultimate reuse in mind.
State oversight of the cleanup is often simpler when
a non-federal owner conducts the cleanup. Many
states already have established third-party voluntary
cleanup procedures that can be applied to early
transfers. Creation and enforcement of institutional
controls is also generally less complicated when a
single private entity is involved. Land use controls
and related responsibilities can be integrated into
the reuse plan and in the chain of title for the
property as part of the early transfer negotiations.

How does ETA work?
ETA allows for the deferral of the required CERCLA
deed covenant that requires "all remedial action
necessary to protect human health and the
environment" has been completed prior to property
transfer. GSA or the landholding agency may
recognize excess property as a candidate for early
transfer; however, ETA must be used in conjunction
with an existing conveyance authority (i.e., negotiated
or public sale or public benefit conveyance).
The federal landholding agency prepares a
Covenant Deferral Request (CDR) package to
formally request deferral of the CERCLA covenant
until completion of cleanup. The Governor (and
the EPA Administrator when the property is a NPL
site) must determine that the property is suitable
for early transfer based on a finding that:
• The intended reuse is consistent with the protection
of human health and the environment.
• The deferral of the covenant will not
substantially delay any necessary response
action on the property.
• The public was given notice and allowed at
least 30 days to review and comment on the
suitability of the property for early transfer.
The deed or other agreement proposed to govern
the transfer contains assurances that:
1) Any necessary use restrictions will ensure
the protection of human health and the
environment;
2) Any necessary use restrictions will ensure that
required cleanup actions will not be disrupted;
3) All necessary response actions will be taken
and identify the schedule for investigation
and completion of all necessary response
actions as approved by the appropriate
regulatory agency; and
4) That the federal agency responsible for the
property will submit a budget request to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that
adequately addresses schedules for investigation
and completion of all necessary response
action, subject to Congressional authorizations
and appropriations.
Is the Government still liable for the
cleanup?
Yes, although ETA allows the Federal Government
to shift remediation responsibility to the purchaser,
the Federal Government cannot transfer its legal
liability for the environmental contamination. If
the purchaser is unable to complete the remedial
action, the responsible federal agency retains the
responsibility for doing so. Financial assurances,
including performance bonds and environmental
insurance, can assure the federal landholding
agency, lenders, state regulatory agencies, and
local communities that the new property owner
and its cleanup contractor have a technically sound
remediation plan and the financial resources to
complete it.
What is the role of the public in
early transfer?
ETA requires that the public be given 30 days to
review and comment on the suitability of a property
for early transfer, in addition to other community
outreach efforts that are part of the disposal
process. After assembling the draft CDR package,
the landholding agency must publish a notice in
the local newspaper(s) and make the draft CDR
package available to interested stakeholders and
the public for comment. Once the Governor (and
EPA Administrator if it is a NPL site) concurs
with the covenant deferral request, the final
CDR is made publicly available.
What is GSA’s experience with ETA?
ETA involves balancing real estate factors with
environmental conditions and requires close
communication with a variety of stakeholders.
GSA’s expert team of realty specialists,
environmental professionals, and attorneys assist
landholding agencies through the ETA process. GSA
leads negotiations, performs real estate due
diligence, and conducts regulatory coordination.
Throughout the early transfer process, GSA fosters
stakeholder support and works to build consensus
for the desired outcome. GSA has successfully
facilitated early transfers on behalf of both
Department of Defense (DoD) and civilian agencies.
The map on the next page reflects GSA’s early
transfer experience.
Office of Real Property Disposal

Are federal facilities subject to RCRA?
Yes. Congress waived federal sovereign immunity
to the requirements of RCRA. This applies to both
RCRA programs administered by EPA and by
authorized states. The Federal Facilities
Compliance Act of 1992 strengthened this waiver
by allowing the imposition of federal, state and
local penalties on federal agencies for RCRA
violations. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 expanded
this waiver by allowing the imposition of federal,
state and local penalties for UST violations as well.
How does RCRA apply to the disposal
of excess and surplus federal real
property?
RCRA applies in four ways:
• First, RCRA applies to federal real property
disposals primarily through the "RCRA
Corrective Action Program," the formal name
for the RCRA program of the cleanup of
"hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities" where releases have
occurred.
• Second, RCRA applies to disposals in those
cases where the property has an operating
RCRA permit, the status of which the buyer
and seller must resolve during negotiations
(e.g., where, say, the buyer is interested in
continuing hazardous waste management
operations after the sale).
• Third, since RCRA governs the operation,
monitoring, and maintenance of solid waste
landfills at both operating and closed facilities,
regulators use the corrective action and
permitting process to ensure that they
maintain control over landfills that are
conveyed out of federal ownership.
• Fourth, in regard to USTs that are or were
in existence on the property, there is a
requirement placed on the past and current
owner to ensure such USTs are or were
properly managed on the property (e.g., in the
case of a tank no longer in operation, ensuring
that such tank was closed in accordance with
UST regulatory requirements).
In all four cases, the state is typically the
regulator, in its EPA-authorized role.
What does the RCRA Corrective Action
Program do?
EPA’s March 2000 Fact Sheet, History of RCRA
Corrective Action, states that: "The RCRA
Corrective Action Program evaluates releases of
hazardous wastes and hazardous constituents at
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities, and develops and implements remedial
measures to protect human health and the
environment."
What are the goals of the RCRA
Corrective Action Program?
EPA states that the goals of RCRA Corrective
Actions are to:
1. Protect human health and the environment;
2. Attain cleanup objectives for the
contamination media; and
3. Remediate the sources of releases.

What cleanup criteria does EPA use for
RCRA corrective action projects?
Selection of a specific cleanup remedy is to be
based on the following evaluation and balancing
criteria:
• Long-term reliability and effectiveness
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume
• Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost
• Community acceptance
• State acceptance
GSA realty specialists should be familiar with these
criteria because they can affect the terms and
conditions of excess and surplus real property
disposals, including state approvals of cleanup
plans and post-conveyance remedy protection
responsibilities. Consequently, RCRA Corrective
Action obligations can affect property disposal
negotiations and, ultimately, the fair market
value of surplus real property.
How do RCRA landfill regulations
affect the future use of surplus federal
property compared to CERCLA
land-use controls?
RCRA landfill operating permits are typically
limited to ten years and include an active
monitoring program. EPA and the state agencies
can require landfill operators to install new landfill
caps or leachate collection systems as a condition
of such permits or as a result of the RCRA
Corrective Action Program. These requirements
can be imposed on a federal landholding agency as
a condition to approve the transfer of an operating
permit (and property title) to a non-federal
recipient, or they can be imposed on the recipient
itself. Consequently, RCRA landfill obligations can
affect disposal negotiations and the fair market
value of surplus real property.
In contrast, CERCLA based land use controls (LUCs)
typically prohibit certain activities, such as penetrating
a landfill cap, but they do not require the
property owner to maintain an operating permit for
the LUC site. LUCs are subject to EPA’s Five-Year
Review guidance, but they generally do not require
the same level of monitoring as a site subject to a
RCRA Corrective Action or landfill permit.
What RCRA-related information should
landholding agencies provide when
they submit a Report of Excess (ROE)
to GSA?
Landholding agencies should be asked:
• If there are (or were) any RCRA permits issued
for the excess property for the treatment,
storage, or disposal of hazardous waste;
• If the excess property is the site of an ongoing
or past RCRA corrective action project or an
ongoing RCRA facility assessment, facility
investigation, or corrective measures study;
• If the site includes an operating or closed
landfill subject to a RCRA permit; and
• To provide information on the regulatory
status of any USTs that are or were on the
property.
Office of Real Property Disposal
Where can I find more information
about EPA’s RCRA Program?
There is additional information about EPA’s
RCRA Program at:
http://www.epa.gov/rcraonline

SURVEYS

IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO ;Shasta ;CAS 0022784
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011160
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011170
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011171
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011172
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011176
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011176
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011177
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011178
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011180
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011181
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011182
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011184
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 011193
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013479
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013481
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013482
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013488
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAR 0001460
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0012470
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013497
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0013351
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013504
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0014198
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013687
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0014199
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013996
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013500
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013686
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013688
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CACAAA 013489
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0014200
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0014201
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0014927
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0016934
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0016935
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0016956
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0017172
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0017173
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0022492
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0022783
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0031515
IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO TH;Shasta ;CAS 0031813

 

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 1§ 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 2

§ 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

 

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 3

§ 3. Trusts in Territories or District of Columbia illegal; combination a felony

(a) Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. (b) Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia, and any State or States or foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8

§ 8. Trusts in restraint of import trade illegal; penalty

Every combination, conspiracy, trust, agreement, or contract is declared to be contrary to public policy, illegal, and void when the same is made by or between two or more persons or corporations, either of whom, as agent or principal, is engaged in importing any article from any foreign country into the United States, and when such combination, conspiracy, trust, t is intended to operate in restraint of lawful trade, or free competition in lawful trade or commerce, or to increase the market price in any part of the United States of any article or articles imported or intended to be imported into the United States, or of any manufacture into which such imported article enters or is intended to enter. Every person who shall be engaged in the importation of goods or any commodity from any foreign country in violation of this section, or who shall combine or conspire with another to violate the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States such person shall be fined in a sum not less than $100 and not exceeding $5,000, and shall be further punished by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for a term not less than three months nor exceeding twelve months.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 9

§ 9. Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure

The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 8 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petitions setting forth the case and praying that such violations shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 10

§ 10. Bringing in additional parties

Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section 9 of this title may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 12

§ 12. Definitions; short title

(a) “Antitrust laws,” as used herein, includes the Act entitled “An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,” approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety; sections seventy-three to seventy-six, inclusive, of an Act entitled “An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,” of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; an Act entitled “An Act to amend sections seventy-three and seventy-six of the Act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled ‘An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,' ” approved February twelfth, nineteen hundred and thirteen; and also this Act. “Commerce,” as used herein, means trade or commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State, Territory, or foreign nation, or between any insular possessions or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States, or between any such possession or place and any State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia or any foreign nation, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States: Provided, That nothing in this Act contained shall apply to the Philippine Islands. The word “person” or “persons” wherever used in this Act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. (b) This Act may be cited as the “Clayton Act”.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 101 > § 7506

§ 7506. Department of Commerce programs

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 101 > § 7507

§ 7507. Department of Energy programs

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 101 > § 7508

§ 7508. Additional centers

(a) American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center The Program shall provide for the establishment, on a merit-reviewed and competitive basis, of an American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center which shall— (1) conduct, coordinate, collect, and disseminate studies on the societal, ethical, environmental, educational, legal, and workforce implications of nanotechnology; and (2) identify anticipated issues related to the responsible research, development, and application of nanotechnology, as well as provide recommendations for preventing or addressing such issues. (b) Center for nanomaterials manufacturing The Program shall provide for the establishment, on a merit reviewed and competitive basis, of a center to— (1) encourage, conduct, coordinate, commission, collect, and disseminate research on new manufacturing technologies for materials, devices, and systems with new combinations of characteristics, such as, but not limited to, strength, toughness, density, conductivity, flame resistance, and membrane separation characteristics; and (2) develop mechanisms to transfer such manufacturing technologies to United States industries. (c) Reports The Council, through the Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, shall submit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science— (1) within 6 months after December 3, 2003, a report identifying which agency shall be the lead agency and which other agencies, if any, will be responsible for establishing the Centers described in this section; and (2) within 18 months after December 3, 2003, a report describing how the Centers described in this section have been established.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 21

§ 21. Enforcement provisions

(a) Commission, Board, or Secretary authorized to enforce compliance Authority to enforce compliance with sections 13 , 14 , 18 , and 19 of this title by the persons respectively subject thereto is vested in the Surface Transportation Board where applicable to common carriers subject to jurisdiction under subtitle IV of title 49 ; in the Federal Communications Commission where applicable to common carriers engaged in wire or radio communication or radio transmission of energy; in the Secretary of Transportation where applicable to air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49 ; in the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System where applicable to banks, banking associations, and trust companies; and in the Federal Trade Commission where applicable to all other character of commerce to be exercised as follows: (b) Issuance of complaints for violations; hearing; intervention; filing of testimony; report; cease and desist orders; reopening and alteration of reports or orders Whenever the Commission, Board, or Secretary vested with jurisdiction thereof shall have reason to believe that any person is violating or has violated any of the provisions of sections 13 , 14 , 18 , and 19 of this title, it shall issue and serve upon such person and the Attorney General a complaint stating its charges in that respect, and containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The person so complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause why an order should not be entered by the Commission, Board, or Secretary requiring such person to cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. The Attorney General shall have the right to intervene and appear in said proceeding and any person may make application, and upon good cause shown may be allowed by the Commission, Board, or Secretary, to intervene and appear in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the Commission, Board, or Secretary. If upon such hearing the Commission, Board, or Secretary, as the case may be, shall be of the opinion that any of the provisions of said sections have been or are being violated, it shall make a report in writing, in which it shall state its findings as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requiring such person to cease and desist from such violations, and divest itself of the stock, or other share capital, or assets, held or rid itself of the directors chosen contrary to the provisions of sections 18 and 19 of this title, if any there be, in the manner and within the time fixed by said order. Until the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, or, if a petition for review has been filed within such time then until the record in the proceeding has been filed in a court of appeals of the United States, as hereinafter provided, the Commission, Board, or Secretary may at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this section. After the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, the Commission, Board, or Secretary may at any time, after notice and opportunity for hearing, reopen and alter, modify, or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or order made or issued by it under this section, whenever in the opinion of the Commission, Board, or Secretary conditions of fact or of law have so changed as to require such action or if the public interest shall so require: Provided, however, That the said person may, within sixty days after service upon him or it of said report or order entered after such a reopening, obtain a review thereof in the appropriate court of appeals of the United States, in the manner provided in subsection (c) of this section. (c) Review of orders; jurisdiction; filing of petition and record of proceeding; conclusiveness of findings; additional evidence; modification of findings; finality of judgment and decree Any person required by such order of the commission, board, or Secretary to cease and desist from any such violation may obtain a review of such order in the court of appeals of the United States for any circuit within which such violation occurred or within which such person resides or carries on business, by filing in the court, within sixty days after the date of the service of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the commission, board, or Secretary be set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the commission, board, or Secretary, and thereupon the commission, board, or Secretary shall file in the court the record in the proceeding, as provided in section 2112 of title 28 . Upon such filing of the petition the court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined therein concurrently with the commission, board, or Secretary until the filing of the record, and shall have power to make and enter a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of the commission, board, or Secretary, and enforcing the same to the extent that such order is affirmed, and to issue such writs as are ancillary to its jurisdiction or are necessary in its judgment to prevent injury to the public or to competitors pendente lite. The findings of the commission, board, or Secretary as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. To the extent that the order of the commission, board, or Secretary is affirmed, the court shall issue its own order commanding obedience to the terms of such order of the commission, board, or Secretary. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the commission, board, or Secretary, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the commission, board, or Secretary, and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The commission, board, or Secretary may modify its findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and shall file such modified or new findings, which if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its original order, with the return of such additional evidence. The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari, as provided in section 1254 of title 28 . (d) Exclusive jurisdiction of Court of Appeals Upon the filing of the record with its jurisdiction of the court of appeals to affirm, enforce, modify, or set aside orders of the commission, board, or Secretary shall be exclusive. (e) Liability under antitrust laws No order of the commission, board, or Secretary or judgment of the court to enforce the same shall in anywise relieve or absolve any person from any liability under the antitrust laws. (f) Service of complaints, orders and other processes Complaints, orders, and other processes of the commission, board, or Secretary under this section may be serviced by anyone duly authorized by the commission, board, or Secretary, either (1) by delivering a copy thereof to the person to be served, or to a member of the partnership to be served, or to the president, secretary, or other executive officer or a director of the corporation to be served; or (2) by leaving a copy thereof at the residence or the principal office or place of business of such person; or (3) by mailing by registered or certified mail a copy thereof addressed to such person at his or its residence or principal office or place of business. The verified return by the person so serving said complaint, order, or other process setting forth the manner of said service shall be proof of the same, and the return post office receipt for said complaint, order, or other process mailed by registered or certified mail as aforesaid shall be proof of the service of the same. (g) Finality of orders generally Any order issued under subsection (b) of this section shall become final— (1) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time; but the commission, board, or Secretary may thereafter modify or set aside its order to the extent provided in the last sentence of subsection (b) of this section; or (2) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari, if the order of the commission, board, or Secretary has been affirmed, or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals, and no petition for certiorari has been duly filed; or (3) upon the denial of a petition for certiorari, if the order of the commission, board, or Secretary has been affirmed or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals; or (4) upon the expiration of thirty days from the date of issuance of the mandate of the Supreme Court, if such Court directs that the order of the commission, board, or Secretary be affirmed or the petition for review be dismissed. (h) Finality of orders modified by Supreme Court If the Supreme Court directs that the order of the commission, board, or Secretary be modified or set aside, the order of the commission, board, or Secretary rendered in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court shall become final upon the expiration of thirty days from the time it was rendered, unless within such thirty days either party has instituted proceedings to have such order corrected to accord with the mandate, in which event the order of the commission, board, or Secretary shall become final when so corrected. (i) Finality of orders modified by Court of Appeals If the order of the commission, board, or Secretary is modified or set aside by the court of appeals, and if (1) the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari has expired and no such petition has been duly filed, or (2) the petition for certiorari has been denied, or (3) the decision of the court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court then the order of the commission, board, or Secretary rendered in accordance with the mandate of the court of appeals shall become final on the expiration of thirty days from the time such order of the commission, board, or Secretary was rendered, unless within such thirty days either party has instituted proceedings to have such order corrected so that it will accord with the mandate, in which event the order of the commission, board, or Secretary shall become final when so corrected. (j) Finality of orders issued on rehearing ordered by Court of Appeals or Supreme Court If the Supreme Court orders a rehearing; or if the case is remanded by the court of appeals to the commission, board, or Secretary for a rehearing, and if (1) the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari has expired, and no such petition has been duly filed, or (2) the petition for certiorari has been denied, or (3) the decision of the court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, then the order of the commission, board, or Secretary rendered upon such rehearing shall become final in the same manner as though no prior order of the commission, board, or Secretary had been rendered. (k) “Mandate” defined As used in this section the term “mandate”, in case a mandate has been recalled prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of issuance thereof, means the final mandate. (l) Penalties Any person who violates any order issued by the commission, board, or Secretary under subsection (b) of this section after such order has become final, and while such order is in effect, shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation, which shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil action brought by the United States. Each separate violation of any such order shall be a separate offense, except that in the case of a violation through continuing failure or neglect to obey a final order of the commission, board, or Secretary each day of continuance of such failure or neglect shall be deemed a separate offense.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 37

§ 37. Immunity from antitrust laws

(a) Inapplicability of antitrust laws Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the antitrust laws, and any State law similar to any of the antitrust laws, shall not apply to charitable gift annuities or charitable remainder trusts. (b) Immunity Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, any person subjected to any legal proceeding for damages, injunction, penalties, or other relief of any kind under the antitrust laws, or any State law similar to any of the antitrust laws, on account of setting or agreeing to rates of return or other terms for, negotiating, issuing, participating in, implementing, or otherwise being involved in the planning, issuance, or payment of charitable gift annuities or charitable remainder trusts shall have immunity from suit under the antitrust laws, including the right not to bear the cost, burden, and risk of discovery and trial, for the conduct set forth in this subsection. (c) Treatment of certain annuities and trusts Any annuity treated as a charitable gift annuity, or any trust treated as a charitable remainder trust, either— (1) in any filing by the donor with the Internal Revenue Service; or (2) in any schedule, form, or written document provided by or on behalf of the donee to the donor; shall be conclusively presumed for the purposes of this section and section 37a of this title to be respectively a charitable gift annuity or a charitable remainder trust, unless there has been a final determination by the Internal Revenue Service that, for fraud or otherwise, the donor's annuity or trust did not qualify respectively as a charitable gift annuity or charitable remainder trust when created. (d) Limitation Subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply with respect to the enforcement of a State law similar to any of the antitrust laws, with respect to charitable gift annuities, or charitable remainder trusts, created after the State enacts a statute, not later than December 8, 1998, that expressly provides that subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply with respect to such charitable gift annuities and such charitable remainder trusts.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 15c Prev | Next

§ 15c. Actions by State attorneys general

How Current is This? (a) Parens patriae; monetary relief; damages; prejudgment interest (1) Any attorney general of a State may bring a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the defendant, to secure monetary relief as provided in this section for injury sustained by such natural persons to their property by reason of any violation of sections 1 to 7 of this title. The court shall exclude from the amount of monetary relief awarded in such action any amount of monetary relief (A) which duplicates amounts which have been awarded for the same injury, or (B) which is properly allocable to (i) natural persons who have excluded their claims pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section, and (ii) any business entity. (2) The court shall award the State as monetary relief threefold the total damage sustained as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. The court may award under this paragraph, pursuant to a motion by such State promptly made, simple interest on the total damage for the period beginning on the date of service of such State's pleading setting forth a claim under the antitrust laws and ending on the date of judgment, or for any shorter period therein, if the court finds that the award of such interest for such period is just in the circumstances. In determining whether an award of interest under this paragraph for any period is just in the circumstances, the court shall consider only— (A) whether such State or the opposing party, or either party's representative, made motions or asserted claims or defenses so lacking in merit as to show that such party or representative acted intentionally for delay or otherwise acted in bad faith; (B) whether, in the course of the action involved, such State or the opposing party, or either party's representative, violated any applicable rule, statute, or court order providing for sanctions for dilatory behavior or other wise providing for expeditious proceedings; and (C) whether such State or the opposing party, or either party's representative, engaged in conduct primarily for the purpose of delaying the litigation or increasing the cost thereof. (b) Notice; exclusion election; final judgment (1) In any action brought under subsection (a)(1) of this section, the State attorney general shall, at such times, in such manner, and with such content as the court may direct, cause notice thereof to be given by publication. If the court finds that notice given solely by publication would deny due process of law to any person or persons, the court may direct further notice to such person or persons according to the circumstances of the case. (2) Any person on whose behalf an action is brought under subsection (a)(1) of this section may elect to exclude from adjudication the portion of the State claim for monetary relief attributable to him by filing notice of such election with the court within such time as specified in the notice given pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection. (3) The final judgment in an action under subsection (a)(1) of this section shall be res judicata as to any claim under section 15 of this title by any person on behalf of whom such action was brought and who fails to give such notice within the period specified in the notice given pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection. (c) Dismissal or compromise of action An action under subsection (a)(1) of this section shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of any proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given in such manner as the court directs. (d) Attorneys' fees In any action under subsection (a) of this section— (1) the amount of the plaintiffs' attorney's fee, if any, shall be determined by the court; and (2) the court may, in its discretion, award a reasonable attorney's fee to a prevailing defendant upon a finding that the State attorney general has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.

Who is an “owner and operator” for purposes of CERCLA liability?

July 25, 2010

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) is a federal statute whose primary purpose is to remedy contamination caused by hazardous substances, by providing for identification of problem sites and applying rigorous cleanup standards.  (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).  CERCLA liability is joint and several, meaning that a responsible party may be held liable for the entire cost of a cleanup even where other parties were responsible for the majority of contamination.  CERCLA's liability provisions apply to four categories of persons who are potentially responsible for cleanup costs.  The four categories of persons who may be liable include:

1.      Current site owners and operators of the contaminated site (regardless of whether their activities contributed to the contamination);

2.      Those who owned or operated the contaminated site at the time of the disposal of hazardous substances; 

3.      Those “who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances…”; and

4.      Those who accepted hazardous substances for transportation to the contaminated site.  (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(1)-(4)) 

In State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Hearthside Residential Corporation (“Hearthside” opinion available here ), the Defendant real-estate developer  purchased undeveloped wetlands in Huntington Beach, California that it knew were contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”).  By 2002 the Defendant had entered into a consent order with the California State Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) to cleanup the wetlands property.  The DTSC also claimed that the PCB contamination had spilled into adjacent residential properties from the wetlands, but the Defendant refused to take any responsibility for the alleged contamination in the adjacent properties.

The wetlands property was cleaned up by the Defendant by December 1, 2005, and that month the Defendant sold the property to the California State Lands Commission.  The adjacent residential properties were cleaned up by the DTSC in 2002 and 2003, and in October 2006 the DTSC filed suit against the Defendant to recover the cost of cleaning up the adjacent residential properties.

The Defendant argued that it was not liable for the cleanup of the adjacent properties because it was not the owner of the offending wetlands at the time the DTSC's lawsuit was filed.  Rather, the Defendant argued that the State Lands Commission, which had bought the wetlands 10 months before the lawsuit was filed, was the responsible party under CERCLA.

An issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit addressed the question of whether current ‘owner and operator' status under CERCLA is determined at the time that cleanup costs are incurred or instead at the time that a lawsuit seeking reimbursement of cleanup costs is filed.  The Court held that for determining CERCLA liability a current owner/operator is determined at the time that cleanup costs are incurred, and not at the time a lawsuit is filed.

The Court noted that its ruling would deter property owners and operators from delaying in cleaning up a property.  If the Court had ruled that an owner/operator was determined at the time a cost recovery lawsuit is filed, then owners would delay cleaning up property until they had found a buyer for their property, as it is unlikely that a cost recovery lawsuit would be filed until after a clean-up was completed, and the costs of cleanup were fixed.  

The Court further noted that its ruling would encourage pre-litigation settlements, as a decision setting owner/operator liability at the time of filing a lawsuit would have required parties to wait until a lawsuit was filed to determine and allocate liability, thereby discouraging pre-litigation settlements.

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Hearthside not only provides additional clarity to the complicated CERCLA liability scheme, the Court's decision continues a long line of CERCLA cases that emphasize the need to interpret CERCLA in a manner that leads to expedited contamination remediation.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Limits to CERCLA'S Owner/Operator Liability

By James A. Vroman

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington has ruled that a party cannot be liable under CERCLA as an "owner/operator" for the remediation of impacted soil and water if the impacted soil and water is not located within the party's facility, and is entirely outside of the property limits of the party's facility, even though the contaminants that impacted the soil and groundwater may have originated at the party's facility and migrated off-site to impact down gradient locations. See , United States v. Washington State Dept. of Transportation , Case NO. 08-5722RJB.

The United States brought a CERCLA action against the Washington State Department of Transportation (the "DOT") contending that coal tar from the DOT's Tacoma Spur Property had migrated and contaminated the Thea Foss and Wheeler Osgood Waterways (the "Waterways").  The United States sough to impose CERCLA liability on the DOT as an owner/operator and compel the DOT to remediate the Waterways.  Although the DOT did not own or operate the Waterways, the Tacoma Spur Property and the Waterways were both located within the large Commencement Bay/Nearshore Tidelands Superfund Site.  The United States contended that the entire Superfund Site was one "facility" and, therefore, the DOT was an "owner" of the "facility," as that term is defined in CERCLA.

The Court disagreed with this contention.  It found that the Superfund Site was comprised of a number of different properties each with a different owner.  The different owners had no common purpose and did not conduct common activities on their properties.  Therefore, the Court could not accept the United States' argument that the entire Site was one facility.  Moreover, the Court concluded that the Waterways and the Tacoma Spur Property "are reasonably divided into multiple parts or functional units."  Accordingly, the Court found that they were separate "facilities" under CERCLA and the DOT was not the owner/operator of the Waterways facility and could not be liable under CERCLA for the remediation of the Waterways as an "owner/operator" Potentially Responsible Party ("PRP"), even if the coal tar impacting the Waterways had migrated from the Tacoma Spur Property. 

 

The Federal Court System, The “Exceptions Clause”, & The 14th Amendment


By: Publius Huldah

How Federal Judges Violate Our Constitution

1. Read Article III, US Constitution. Article III establishes the federal courts (the 3rd branch of the federal government). Section 2 enumerates the categories of cases which federal courts are allowed to hear. Section 2 also distributes the “judicial power” (the authority to hear cases) between the supreme Court and the lower federal courts.

Article I, Sec. 8, clause 9, authorizes Congress to create courts inferior to the supreme Court. Accordingly, Congress has set up some 94 federal district courts and 13 circuit courts of appeal (11 numbered circuits plus the DC Circuit & the Federal Circuit). This Chart shows the territorial jurisdiction of the 11 numbered circuit courts. Federal district courts are scattered throughout these united States. Click on your circuit to find the locations of the federal district courts in your State.

Most federal cases are tried in the district courts. The loser may appeal to the circuit court of appeal for that district. The supreme Court hears some appeals from the circuit courts of appeal.

2. But in TWO of the categories of cases enumerated in Art. III, Sec. 2, the Constitution grants “original” [i.e., “trial”] jurisdiction to the supreme Court: (1) All cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; and (2) Those in which a State is a Party. For these TWO categories of cases, the supreme Court acts as the trial court.

In all the other enumerated categories of cases, “…the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

What does the quoted phrase (the so-called “exceptions clause”) mean?

a) Alex Glashausser of Washburn University School of Law, says the phrase means that Congress may extend the supreme Court's “original” (trial) jurisdiction to include more cases than just (1) Those affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls, and (2) Those in which a State is a Party. Glashausser's view is COMPLETELY WRONG & UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Congress may not unilaterally amend the Constitution by expanding the supreme Court's “original” jurisdiction!

b) Some conservatives, such as David Barton of Wallbuilders, say the phrase means that Congress may withdraw from the federal courts authority to hear certain types of cases. That is also incorrect. It is true that the federal courts have been hearing cases which they are not authorized by Art. III, Sec. 2, to hear; but the remedy for that is impeachment & removal of the usurping judges. The “exceptions clause” does not permit Congress to diminish the enumerated powers of the federal courts!

c) Alexander Hamilton explains the original meaning of the phrase in Federalist No. 81. When we have sworn to support the Constitution, then we must defend it or we violate our Oaths. If we reject the original intent of the Constitution - the meaning it was understood to have when it was ratified - then we don't have a Constitution. All we have is a pack of judges, law professors & others running around spewing out their own personal evolving opinions as to what they think provisions in Our Constitution mean. But that is the rule of men - and they want to be “the men” making the rules.

3. Let us examine these views:

a) As to Professor Glashausser: The Constitution dictates the categories of cases for which the supreme Court has “original” (trial) jurisdiction, and the categories for which it has appellate jurisdiction! Hamilton explains this in Federalist No. 81:

“…Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal…” (at para 13) [boldface added, caps in original]
“…Let us resume the train of our observations. We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, ‘with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.' “(at para 15) [boldface added, caps in original]
Congress may not unilaterally amend the Constitution by adding categories of cases for which the supreme Court will have “original” jurisdiction! Someone, please! Send Professor Glashausser a copy of The Federalist Papers! He is teaching our future lawyers & judges!

b) As to David Barton: The Constitution lists the categories of cases which federal courts may hear. In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains each category of case. ANY RESTRICTIONS OR EXPANSIONS OF THAT LIST CAN ONLY BE DONE BY AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION! Look at the Eleventh Amendment (ratified 1795). It withdrew from federal courts the power to hear a certain category of case. So! Congress may NOT make a law diminishing the constitutionally granted powers of the federal courts.

Now, listen up: It is true that federal judges have long been hearing cases which they have no constitutional authority to hear. Such judicial usurpation is explained in a previous paper: What Are the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Courts? But the best remedy for federal judges hearing cases which they have no constitutional authority to hear is to impeach them & remove them from the bench (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

What are some cases which federal judges have been hearing which they have no constitutional authority to hear? For starters, they have no constitutional authority to hear cases seeking to overturn State laws criminalizing abortion & sodomy. Those cases do not fall within any of the categories enumerated at Art. III, Sec. 2. Judges on the supreme Court know they have no constitutional authority to hear such cases! So! This is what they did to get around Our Constitution:

Article III, Sec. 2 permits federal courts to hear [among other enumerated categories] “all Cases…arising under this Constitution…”. So! In order to claim authority to hear cases seeking to overturn State laws criminalizing abortion and sodomy, federal judges looked at the word, “liberty” in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, and found hiding under that word a constitutional right to kill babies and another constitutional right to engage in sodomy! They fabricated “constitutional rights” so that they could then overturn State laws criminalizing those practices. Once baby-killing & sodomy were elevated to the status of “constitutional rights”, they then could be said to “arise under this Constitution”. Do you see? And we have to stand up when these people walk into a room!

The federal courts also have no constitutional authority to hear cases involving prayer in public places throughout the States. The 1st Amendment restricts only the powers of CONGRESS. We The People may do whatever We like respecting prayer in public places, and the federal courts have no authority whatsoever to interfere. How the supreme Court usurped power to ban religious speech in Our Country is explained in The TRUTH about “Separation of Church and State”. Does the Supreme Court have constitutional authority to ban religion from the public square?

As stated above, the proper remedy for judicial usurpations is to impeach & remove federal judges who demonstrate such contempt for Our Constitution. Others might say that Congress could make a law, perhaps under the “necessary & proper” clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause), specifying that federal courts may NOT hear cases involving abortion, sodomy, prayer at high school football games, etc. But what would be the result? One possibility is that federal judges would see the list as a blank check to hear every case which was not listed. So Congress would need to keep amending the law to add new categories of off-limits cases. Or, perhaps the federal judges would do as they have done with Our Constitution: just ignore the list altogether.
4. So, then, what does the following phrase at Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, actually mean?

“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Hamilton tells us (in his usual exhaustive detail) in the last five paragraphs of Federalist No. 81. The quoted phrase merely addresses technical issues respecting the mode of doing appeals: Will the appeal be heard by a jury, or by judges? Will the appellate court be able to revisit matters of Fact, or will it be restricted to reviewing rulings on matters of Law? Will the mode of doing appeals be the same for cases involving the “common law” and the “civil law”, or will it be different for each? Congress will decide. That's it, Folks!

5. What should you learn from this paper?
a) When you hear people talking about The Constitution, don't believe a word they say. They are usually wrong. That includes the lawyers, judges & law professors who spout off on TV. (Remember, they were educated by people like Professor Glashausser!) So, you must look it up yourself in The Federalist Papers. Mary E. Webster makes it easy. She has “translated” The Federalist Papers into modern English. They are now easy to understand. YOU can learn the “original intent” of every clause in Our Constitution! Then YOU can educate everyone within your spheres of influence. (You will also amaze your friends and confuse & confound our enemies.)

b) We need to radically change the way we have been looking at the World. There really is an objective Reality out there: Some things are True, other things are False. Some things are Good, other things are Evil. We need to start paying attention to objective standards again. We need to embrace the Good, the Noble, and the Intelligent. We need to reject the Bad, the Low, and the Stupid. The Constitution has an objective meaning. That meaning is revealed in The Federalist Papers, The Declaration of Independence, Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention, and (for word meanings) an old American Dictionary. THAT is where we look to find the original intent of Our Constitution. We must NOT look to the federal judges. A pox on them and their precious & perverted precedents!

Friday, July 23, 2010

The Anti-Federalist Nightmare

During the debates over the US Constitution, those who wrote for the adoption of the Constitution produced a brilliant series of pamphlets extolling the virtues of the Constitution. These were known as the Federalist Papers.

Lesser known though were the writings by those opposed to the new Constitution. In these pamphlets the writers expressed their fears over shortcomings in how the Constitution was written. These were known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Today we are living in the nightmare scenario that the Anti-Federalists warned us about -- the concentration of power in the hands of a few and the subsequent bypassing or outright ignoring of the limits on power mandated in the Constitution.

Time is running our for the economy

Today most Americans are completely obsessed with the silliest of things. They wonder how Lindsay Lohan is going to fare in jail and they agonize over who LeBron James is going to play basketball for. But when it comes to the things that really matter, most Americans are completely clueless. For example, while most Americans would agree that we are experiencing difficult economic times right now, most of them would also argue that our economic system is in fundamentally good shape and that things will get back to "normal" at some point. Those of us who are trying to warn America of the impending economic nightmare are dismissed as "doom and gloomers" and "conspiracy theorists". But of course, as with so many things, the passage of time will tell who was right and who was wrong. Below there is a chart that I want all of you to burn into your memory. It is a chart of total U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP from 1870 until 2009. This chart clearly and succinctly communicates the horror of the debt bubble that we are currently dealing with. When this debt bubble pops, it is going to make the Great Depression look like a Sunday picnic.
As you can see from the chart below, the total of all debt (government, business and consumer) is now somewhere in the neighborhood of 360 percent of GDP. Never before has the United States faced a debt bubble of this magnitude....

Most of us were not alive during the Great Depression, but those who were remember how incredibly painful it was for America to deleverage and bring the economic system back into some type of balance.
So if our current debt bubble is far worse, what kind of economic horror is ahead for us?
The truth is that we are facing some circumstances that even the folks back during the Great Depression did not have to deal with....
1 - Back in the 1930s, tens of millions of Americans lived on farms or knew how to grow their own food. Today the vast majority of Americans are totally dependent on the system for even their most basic needs.
2 - A vast horde of Baby Boomers is expecting to retire, and the "Social Security trust fund" has nothing but 2.5 trillion dollars of government IOUs in it. According to an official U.S. government report , rapidly growing interest costs on the U.S. national debt together with spending on major entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare will absorb approximately 92 cents of every dollar of federal revenue by the year 2019. This is a financial tsunami the likes of which Americans back in the 1930s could never have even dreamed of.
3 - American workers never had to compete for jobs with workers on the other side of the world back in the 1930s. But today, millions upon millions of our jobs have been "outsourced" to China, India and a vast array of third world nations where desperate workers are more than happy to slave away for big global corporations for less than a dollar an hour. How in the world are American workers supposed to compete with that?
4 - Back in the 1930s, there was nothing like the gigantic derivatives bubble that hangs over us today. The total value of all derivatives worldwide is estimated to be somewhere between 600 trillion and 1.5 quadrillion dollars. The danger that we face from derivatives is so great that Warren Buffet has called them "financial weapons of mass destruction" . When this bubble pops there won't be enough money in the entire world to fix it.
5 - During the Great Depression, the United States economy was relatively self-contained. But today we truly do live in a global economy. Unfortunately that means that a severe economic crisis in one part of the world is going to affect us as well. Right now, the United States is far from alone in dealing with a massive debt crisis. Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Portugal and a number of other European nations are in real danger of actually defaulting on their debts . Japan (the third biggest economy in the world) is on the verge of complete and total economic collapse . So what happens to the U.S. economy when the dominoes start to fall?
The truth is that by almost any measure, we are in worse economic condition than we were right before the beginning of the Great Depression. We have been living way beyond our means and the debts we have been piling up are clearly not anywhere close to sustainable.
Did you think that we could just continue to run deficits equal to 10 percent of GDP forever?
Of course not.
The U.S. economy is being driven off a cliff, but America's "ruling class" has insisted all along that they know better than we do .
But the truth is that in the final analysis it is not us that they care about.
What they do actually care about is getting more money and more power for themselves and for other members of the ruling class. Today, 10,000 people make 30% of the total income in the United States each year.
That leaves 70% of the pie for the remaining 99.99% of us to divide up.
The reality is that however you want to slice it, the U.S. economic system is broken. However, considering the fact that America's ruling class has a stranglehold on both major political parties, we are not likely to see any fundamental changes any time soon.
That is very unfortunate, because time is running out on the U.S. economy.

July 23, 2010 – Federalist Paper No. 63 – Janine Turner

Howdy from Texas. I thank you for joining us today and I thank our friend, Professor Morrisey, for his wonderfully insightful essay.

Responsibility. Reasonable Responsibility. These were and are the qualities needed in the Senate. These were and are the qualities needed in the American public. We, the “genius of the people,” hold in our hands the direction of our country and we either fail, or do this well, depending on our level of responsibility.

Our representatives have responsibilities but so do we.

Educating ourselves on the Constitution and the engine of our government, seeking to understand the issues of the day and future, inspiring family, friends and children to be active patriots, being vocal and voting – these are the responsibilities of the people of a Republic.

I am encouraged because there appears to be an awakening and we, the citizens of America, are getting more involved in the affairs of our government – governing through our informed choices. This is rather vital as it is, “we the people,” who govern. The Congress is a reflection of our voice, our vote. We must take responsibility for it.

In America we are still are able to do just this – take responsibility for our government. We want to keep it that way.

Publius felt that it was important that the people's passions were kept in check by the cool meditations of the Senate – a check. This was also a check against tyranny.

“Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large. It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny.”

James Madison talks about the vulnerabilities that Senates had faced throughout history – the vulnerability of being taken over by the people's branch. One such example was from the British.

“The British history informs us that this hereditary assembly has not been able to defend itself against the continual encroachments of the House of Representatives; and that it no sooner lost the support of the monarch, than it was actually crushed by the weight of the popular branch.”

James Madison, ever ready with an historical reference or two, mentioned past Republican examples: Sparta, Rome and Cathage.

“As far as antiquity can instruct us on this subject, its examples support the reasoning which we have employed. In Sparta, the Ephori, the annual representatives of the people, were found an overmatch for the senate for life, continually gained on its authority and finally drew all power into their own hands. The Tribunes of Rome, who were the representatives of the people, prevailed, it is well known, in almost every contest with the senate for life, and in the end gained the most complete triumph over it. The fact is the more remarkable, as unanimity was required in every act of the Tribunes, even after their number was augmented to ten. It proves the irresistible force possessed by that branch of a free government, which has the people on its side. To these examples might be added that of Carthage, whose senate, according to the testimony of Polybius, instead of drawing all power into its vortex, had, at the commencement of the second Punic War, lost almost the whole of its original portion.”

All I want to know is – what happened in 1913? How was the 17 th Amendment allowed to happen?

James Madison seemed to believe that if an usurpation ever were to happen, it would be restored by the people.

“We are warranted in believing, that if such a revolution should ever happen from causes which the foresight of man cannot guard against, the House of Representatives, with the people on their side, will at all times be able to bring back the Constitution to its primitive form and principles.”

James Madison is referring to the Senate becoming an aristocratic or independent body. Yet, is not the usurpation of the Senate by the 17 th Amendment, (foregoing the states), not an equal violation of our founding father's intended balance of powers? Is it not reminiscent of James Madison's British, Sparta, Rome and Cathage examples?

Are we able to bring back the Constitution to its “primitive form and principles?”

Caution must be taken in regard to the new movement to do away with the Electoral College. There is a movement to do this through state legislatures. Only an informed and “responsible”  people can prevent this from happening.

We must pay heed and take action so our posterity does not say, “What Happened in 2012 or 2014? How was the removal of the Electoral College allowed to happen?”

God Bless, Janine Turner

§ 300.400 General.
(a) This subpart establishes methods and criteria
for determining the appropriate extent of response
authorized by CERCLA and CWA section 311(c):
(1) When there is a release of a hazardous substance
into the environment; or
(2) When there is a release into the environment
of any pollutant or contaminant that may present
an imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or welfare of the United States.
(b) Limitations on response. Unless the lead
agency determines that a release constitutes a public
health or environmental emergency and no
other person with the authority and capability to
respond will do so in a timely manner, a removal
or remedial action under section 104 of CERCLA
shall not be undertaken in response to a release:
(1) Of a naturally occurring substance in its
unaltered form, or altered solely through naturally
occurring processes or phenomena, from a location
where it is naturally found;

§ 300.400
(2) From products that are part of the structure
of, and result in exposure within, residential buildings
or business or community structures; or
(3) Into public or private drinking water supplies
due to deterioration of the system through ordinary
use.
(c) Fund-financed action. In determining the
need for and in planning or undertaking Fund-financed
action, the lead agency shall, to the extent
practicable:
(1) Engage in prompt response;
(2) Provide for state participation in response
actions, as described in subpart F of this part;
(3) Conserve Fund monies by encouraging private
party response;
(4) Be sensitive to local community concerns;
(5) Consider using treatment technologies;
(6) Involve the Regional Response Team (RRT)
in both removal and remedial response actions at
appropriate decision-making stages;
(7) Encourage the involvement and sharing of
technology by industry and other experts; and
(8) Encourage the involvement of organizations
to coordinate responsible party actions, foster site
response, and provide technical advice to the public,
federal and state governments, and industry.
(d) Entry and access. (1) For purposes of determining
the need for response, or choosing or taking
a response action, or otherwise enforcing the
provisions of CERCLA, EPA, or the appropriate
federal agency, and a state or political subdivision
operating pursuant to a contract or cooperative
agreement under CERCLA section 104(d)(1), has
the authority to enter any vessel, facility, establishment
or other place, property, or location described
in paragraph (d)(2) of this section and conduct,
complete, operate, and maintain any response
actions authorized by CERCLA or these regulations.
(2)(i) Under the authorities described in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section, EPA, or the appropriate
federal agency, and a state or political subdivision
operating pursuant to a contract or cooperative
agreement under CERCLA section
104(d)(1), may enter:
(A) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other
place or property where any hazardous substance
or pollutant or contaminant may be or has been
generated, stored, treated, disposed of, or transported
from;
(B) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other
place or property from which, or to which, a hazardous
substance or pollutant or contaminant has
been, or may have been, released or where such
release is or may be threatened;
(C) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other
place or property where entry is necessary to determine
the need for response or the appropriate
response or to effectuate a response action; or

(D) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other
place, property, or location adjacent to those vessels,
facilities, establishments, places, or properties
described in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of
this section.
(ii) Once a determination has been made that
there is a reasonable basis to believe that there has
been or may be a release, EPA, or the appropriate
federal agency, and a state or political subdivision
operating pursuant to a contract or cooperative
agreement under CERCLA section 104(d)(1), is
authorized to enter all vessels, facilities, establishments,
places, properties, or locations specified in
paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, at which the release
is believed to be, and all other vessels, facilities,
establishments, places, properties, or locations
identified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section that
are related to the response or are necessary to
enter in responding to that release.
(3) The lead agency may designate as its representative
solely for the purpose of access, among
others, one or more potentially responsible parties,
including representatives, employees, agents, and
contractors of such parties. EPA, or the appropriate
federal agency, may exercise the authority
contained in section 104(e) of CERCLA to obtain
access for its designated representative. A potentially
responsible party may only be designated as
a representative of the lead agency where that potentially
responsible party has agreed to conduct
response activities pursuant to an administrative
order or consent decree.
(4)(i) If consent is not granted under the authorities
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
or if consent is conditioned in any manner,
EPA, or the appropriate federal agency, may issue
an order pursuant to section 104(e)(5) of CERCLA
directing compliance with the request for access
made under § 300.400(d)(1). EPA or the appropriate
federal agency may ask the Attorney General
to commence a civil action to compel compliance
with either a request for access or an order
directing compliance.
(ii) EPA reserves the right to proceed, where
appropriate, under applicable authority other than
CERCLA section 104(e).
(iii) The administrative order may direct compliance
with a request to enter or inspect any vessel,
facility, establishment, place, property, or location
described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(iv) Each order shall contain:
(A) A determination by EPA, or the appropriate
federal agency, that it is reasonable to believe that
there may be or has been a release or threat of a
release of a hazardous substance or pollutant or
contaminant and a statement of the facts upon
which the determination is based;
(B) A description, in light of CERCLA response
authorities, of the purpose and estimated scope and

duration of the entry, including a description of
the specific anticipated activities to be conducted
pursuant to the order;
(C) A provision advising the person who failed
to consent that an officer or employee of the agency
that issued the order will be available to confer
with respondent prior to effective date of the
order; and
(D) A provision advising the person who failed
to consent that a court may impose a penalty of
up to $25,000 per day for unreasonable failure to
comply with the order.
(v) Orders shall be served upon the person or
responsible party who failed to consent prior to
their effective date. Force shall not be used to
compel compliance with an order.
(vi) Orders may not be issued for any criminal
investigations.
(e) Permit requirements. (1) No federal, state, or
local permits are required for on-site response actions
conducted pursuant to CERCLA sections
104, 106, 120, 121, or 122. The term on-site
means the areal extent of contamination and all
suitable areas in very close proximity to the contamination
necessary for implementation of the response
action.
(2) Permits, if required, shall be obtained for all
response activities conducted off-site.
(f) Health assessments. Health assessments shall
be performed by ATSDR at facilities on or proposed
to be listed on the NPL and may be performed
at other releases or facilities in response to
petitions made to ATSDR. Where available, these
health assessments may be used by the lead agency
to assist in determining whether response actions
should be taken and/or to identify the need
for additional studies to assist in the assessment of
potential human health effects associated with releases
or potential releases of hazardous substances.
(g) Identification of applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements. (1) The lead and support
agencies shall identify requirements applicable
to the release or remedial action contemplated
based upon an objective determination of whether
the requirement specifically addresses a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance found at a
CERCLA site.
(2) If, based upon paragraph (g)(1) of this section,
it is determined that a requirement is not applicable
to a specific release, the requirement may
still be relevant and appropriate to the circumstances
of the release. In evaluating relevance
and appropriateness, the factors in paragraphs
(g)(2)(i) through (viii) of this section shall be examined,
where pertinent, to determine whether a
requirement addresses problems or situations sufficiently
similar to the circumstances of the release

or remedial action contemplated, and whether the
requirement is well-suited to the site, and therefore
is both relevant and appropriate. The pertinence of
each of the following factors will depend, in part,
on whether a requirement addresses a chemical,
location, or action. The following comparisons
shall be made, where pertinent, to determine relevance
and appropriateness:
(i) The purpose of the requirement and the purpose
of the CERCLA action;
(ii) The medium regulated or affected by the requirement
and the medium contaminated or affected
at the CERCLA site;
(iii) The substances regulated by the requirement
and the substances found at the CERCLA
site;
(iv) The actions or activities regulated by the requirement
and the remedial action contemplated at
the CERCLA site;
(v) Any variances, waivers, or exemptions of
the requirement and their availability for the circumstances
at the CERCLA site;
(vi) The type of place regulated and the type of
place affected by the release or CERCLA action;
(vii) The type and size of structure or facility
regulated and the type and size of structure or facility
affected by the release or contemplated by
the CERCLA action;
(viii) Any consideration of use or potential use
of affected resources in the requirement and the
use or potential use of the affected resource at the
CERCLA site.
(3) In addition to applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements, the lead and support agencies
may, as appropriate, identify other advisories,
criteria, or guidance to be considered for a particular
release. The ‘‘to be considered’’ (TBC) category
consists of advisories, criteria, or guidance
that were developed by EPA, other federal agencies,
or states that may be useful in developing
CERCLA remedies.
(4) Only those state standards that are promulgated,
are identified by the state in a timely manner,
and are more stringent than federal requirements
may be applicable or relevant and appropriate.
For purposes of identification and notification
of promulgated state standards, the term promulgated
means that the standards are of general
applicability and are legally enforceable.
(5) The lead agency and support agency shall
identify their specific requirements that are applicable
or relevant and appropriate for a particular
site. These agencies shall notify each other, in a
timely manner as described in § 300.515(d), of the
requirements they have determined to be applicable
or relevant and appropriate. When identifying
a requirement as an ARAR, the lead agency and

statute or regulation from which the requirement is
derived.

(6) Notification of ARARs shall be according to
procedures and timeframes specified in § 300.515
(d)(2) and (h)(2).
(h) Oversight. The lead agency may provide
oversight for actions taken by potentially responsible
parties to ensure that a response is conducted
consistent with this part. The lead agency may
also monitor the actions of third parties
preauthorized under subpart H of this part. EPA
will provide oversight when the response is pursuant
to an EPA order or federal consent decree.
(i) Other. (1) This subpart does not establish
any preconditions to enforcement action by either
the federal or state governments to compel response
actions by potentially responsible parties.
(2) While much of this subpart is oriented toward
federally funded response actions, this subpart
may be used as guidance concerning methods
and criteria for response actions by other parties
under other funding mechanisms. Except as provided
in subpart H of this part, nothing in this part
is intended to limit the rights of any person to
seek recovery of response costs from responsible
parties pursuant to CERCLA section 107.
(3) Activities by the federal and state governments
in implementing this subpart are discretionary
governmental functions. This subpart does
not create in any private party a right to federal
response or enforcement action. This subpart does
not create any duty of the federal government to
take any response action at any particular time.
[55 FR 8839, Mar. 8, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 47447,
Sept. 15, 1994]

4400 acres of land in Shasta County

CONTACT INFORMATION
CONTACT NAME
EDWARD CARGILE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
ecargile@dtsc.ca.gov
ORGANIZATION NAME
DTSC - CLEANUP PROGRAM - SACRAMENTO OFFICE
ADDRESS
8800 CAL CENTER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA   95826
PHONE NUMBERS
PHONE - (916) 255-3703
SUPERVISOR NAME
RICHARD HUME
E-MAIL ADDRESS
rhume@dtsc.ca.gov
ORGANIZATION NAME
DTSC - CLEANUP PROGRAM - SACRAMENTO OFFICE
ADDRESS
8800 CAL CENTER DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA   95826
PHONE NUMBERS
PHONE - (916) 255-3690

 

Additional Documentation for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program - 2008/2009

Redding Acquisition Map
Parcel 1 APN Map
Parcel 2 APN Map

Agency: BLM - Redding Field Office

Application: Acquisition, Chappie-Shasta
6/2/2009
__________________________________________________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Version # ______ APP # 700104
1. Project-Specific Maps
Attachments: Redding Acquisition Map
2. Assessors Parcel Maps
Attachments: Parcel 1 APN Map
Parcel 2 APN Map
3. Optional Project-Specific Application Documents
Version #
__________________________________________________________________________
Page: 4 of 13

There is a long history of land acquisitions within the Chappie-Shasta OHV Area (Chappie-Shasta). The BLM has acquired approximately 14,600 acres
within the 60,000 acre project area over the last sixteen years. One of the management directives set forth in the 1983 Chappie-Shasta OHV Area
designation plan was continued acquisition of private parcels of land throughout the OHV area. The primary challenge within Chappie-Shasta continues to
be the mixed nature of private and public lands. The Redding BLM field office has continued moving forward with land acquisitions over the years and has
completed many successful land acquisitions through exchange and purchase. Much of the land acquired through purchases has been funded with
California State Parks OHV funds. The Redding BLM field office received acquisition funding for the 2006 grant cycle under grant #OR-1-NO-64 in the
amount of $295,000. These grant funds have already been used to purchase approximately 200 acres within Chappie-Shasta. During the 2004/2005 grant
cycle the Redding BLM was funded $149,000 in grant #OR-1-NO-64. Funds from this project have been completely expended in the acquisition of 245
acres within Chappie-Shasta.
This project requests funding for the acquisition of two privately owned parcels of land within the Chappie-Shasta OHV Area. Individual costs funded by this
project include BLM staff time, appraisal and escrow costs, hazmat review, and purchase cost of the properties. The table bellow lists and identifies the
individual parcels by APN number, total acres, and estimated value.
Acquisition Lands
Parcel & APN Number Acres Estimated Value
Parcel 1 065-570-016 37.29 $55,000
Parcel 2 065-570-002 13.9 $40,000
Totals 51.19 $95,000
Total Combined Acreage Total Cost Estimated Average Cost per Acre
51.19 $95,000 $1,860
Specific Description and Location
The two parcels of land proposed for acquisition in this project lie a short distance from the Copley Mountain OHV Staging Area in the southern portion of
Chappie-Shasta. This area has been the focus of recent OHV development in an effort to increase and improve access opportunities into the Chappie-
Shasta OHV Area. Recent development projects include construction of the Copley Mountain OHV staging area and the Coram Road (route #3)
construction and improvements. The lands in this area are of mixed ownership, including private, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, and Forest Service
managed lands. Many trails used in this area for OHV recreation cross both public and private property. The “checkerboard” land pattern in this area
makes it difficult to efficiently manage for public access, as well as carry out trail maintenance and development.
Version #

Acquisition Environmental Assessment
Acquisition Finding of No Significant Impact
Acquisition Decision Record
Signed Acquisition Decision Record
Acquisition Map

Project Cost Estimate for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program - 2008/2009

Agency: BLM - Redding Field Office

Application: Acquisition, Chappie-Shasta
6/2/2009
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The acquisition of the private parcels proposed in this project would allow for more effective and efficient trail maintenance and would improve access to the
entire area. In addition, these land acquisitions would provide potential for future trail development and expansion of the existing trail network, including the
creation of loop and connector trails.
Line Item Qty Rate UOM Grant Request Match Total
DIRECT EXPENSES
Program Expenses
1 Staff
Realty Specialist 200.000 36.000 HRS 0.00 7,200.00 7,200.00
Other-OHV Coordinator 40.000 36.000 HRS 0.00 1,440.00 1,440.00
Other-BLM State Realty Specialist 20.000 40.000 EA 0.00 800.00 800.00
Other-Recreation Lead 10.000 42.000 EA 0.00 420.00 420.00
Total for Staff 0.00 9,860.00 9,860.00
2 Contracts
Other-Appraisal 2.000 6000.000 EA 0.00 12,000.00 12,000.00
3 Materials / Supplies
4 Equipment Use Expenses
5 Equipment Purchases
6 Others
Other-Parcel 1 1.000 55000.000 EA 55,000.00 0.00 55,000.00
Other-Parcel 2 1.000 40000.000 EA 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00
Other-Title Fees 1.000 1000.000 EA 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
Total for Others 95,000.00 1,000.00 96,000.00
7 Administrative Costs
Administrative Costs-Administrative Cost 1.000 9500.000 EA 0.00 9,500.00 9,500.00
Version #
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 6 of 13

Project Cost Summary for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program - 2008/2009

Agency: BLM - Redding Field Office

Application: Acquisition, Chappie-Shasta
6/2/2009
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Line Item Grant Request Match Total Narrative
DIRECT EXPENSES
Program Expenses
1 Staff 0.00 9,860.00 9,860.00
2 Contracts 0.00 12,000.00 12,000.00
3 Materials / Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 Equipment Use Expenses 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 Equipment Purchases 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 Others 95,000.00 1,000.00 96,000.00
7 Administrative Costs 0.00 9,500.00 9,500.00
Total Program Expenses 95,000.00 32,360.00 127,360.00
TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES 95,000.00 32,360.00 127,360.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 95,000.00 32,360.00 127,360.00
Version #
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 8 of 13

Environmental Review Data Sheet (ERDS) for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program - 2008/2009

Agency: BLM - Redding Field Office

Application: Acquisition, Chappie-Shasta
6/2/2009
__________________________________________________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Version # ______ APP # 700104
ITEM 1 and ITEM 2
ITEM 1
a. ITEM 1 - Has a CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) been filed for the Project?
(Please select Yes or No)
Yes No
ITEM 2
b. ITEM 2 - Are the proposed activities a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378?
(Please select Yes or No)
Yes No
c. The Application is requesting funds solely for personnel and support to enforce OHV laws
and ensure public safety. These activities would not cause any physical impacts on the
environment and are thus not a “Project” under CEQA. (Please select Yes or No)
Yes No
d. Other. Explain why proposed activities would not cause any physical impacts on the environment and are thus not
a “Project” under CEQA. DO NOT complete ITEMS 3 – 9
ITEM 3 - Impact of this Project on Wetlands
The proposed action will have no impact on wetlands or navigable waters because there are none located on the proposed
parcel acquisitions. An environmental assessment has been prepared for this project, reviewed by the Redding Field
Office specialists, and it has been determined that sensitive species habitat in the project area will not be affected.
ITEM 4 - Cumulative Impacts of this Project
The proposed projects are acquisition of private property that are actions that would not take place over several years. No
major developments are planned for the proposed acquisitions aside from improving existing trails. Apart from OHV
recreation, there are no other major uses in the areas proposed for acquisition. Thus, any impacts associated with this
proposed action have been found to be cumulatively insignificant.
ITEM 5 - Soil Impacts
The project area has been analyzed with regard to steep slopes and highly erosive soils that would cause the proposed
action to have a significant effect on the environment. After consultation with staff specialists, it has been determined that
the proposed activities will not have a significant effect on the environment due to steep slopes or highly erosive soils.
ITEM 6 - Damage to Scenic Resources
The proposed actions are within the view shed of a one-mile portion of State Scenic Highway 151 located between Shasta
Lake City and Shasta Dam. Refer to the attached map. The proposed project is not within the view shed of any other State
Scenic Highways. The views of the project area from Highway 151 would be from over one mile away, making it difficult to
see the actual on the ground activities. All existing roads and trails were in place before the designation of Highway 151 as
a State Scenic Highway. Thus, this proposed project would not impact the view shed from State Scenic Highway 151.
ITEM 7 - Hazardous Materials
Is the proposed Project Area located on a site included on any list compiled pursuant to
Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code (hazardous materials)? (Please
select Yes or No)
Yes No
If YES, describe the location of the hazard relative to the Project site, the level of hazard and the measures to be
taken to minimize or avoid the hazards.
ITEM 8 - Potential for Adverse Impacts to Historical or Cultural Resources
Version #
__________________________________________________________________________
Page: 9 of 13

Environmental Review Data Sheet (ERDS) for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program - 2008/2009

Agency: BLM - Redding Field Office

Application: Acquisition, Chappie-Shasta
6/2/2009
__________________________________________________________________________
Would the proposed Project have potential for any substantial adverse impacts to
historical or cultural resources? (Please select Yes or No)
Yes No
If YES, describe the potential impacts and for any substantially adverse changes in the significance of historical or
cultural resources and measures to be taken to minimize or avoid the impacts.
ITEM 9 - Indirect Significant Impacts
This project would not cause any indirect significant impacts.
CEQA/NEPA Attachment
Attachments: Acquisition Environmental Assessment
Acquisition Finding of No Significant Impact
Acquisition Decision Record
Signed Acquisition Decision Record
Acquisition Map
Version #
__________________________________________________________________________
Page: 10 of 13

Evaluation Criteria for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program - 2008/2009

Agency: BLM - Redding Field Office

Application: Acquisition, Chappie-Shasta
6/2/2009
__________________________________________________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Version # ______ APP # 700104
1. Project Cost Estimate - Q 1. (Auto populates from Cost Estimate)
1. As calculated on the Project Cost Estimate, the percentage of the cost of the Project covered by the
Applicant is 0
(Check the one most appropriate) (Please select one from list)
76% or more (10 points)
51% - 75% (5 points)
26% - 50% (3 points)
25% (Match minimum) (No points)
2. Natural and Cultural Resources - Q 2a., 2b., & 2c.
2. Natural and Cultural Resources
a. Natural and Cultural Resources: Species 5
Enter the number of special-status species that are known to occur in the Project Area
Number of special-status species 0
(Check the one most appropriate) (Please select one from list)
No special-status species occur in Project Area (5 points)
One to five special-status species occur in Project area (3 points)
Six to ten special-status species in Project area (2 points)
More than ten special-status species occur in Project area (No points)
b. Habitat
b. Natural and Cultural Resources: Habitat 5
Potential Effects on special-status species habitat (Check the one most appropriate)
Special-status species habitat is known to occur in the Project Area (if YES, enter
number of species) (Please select Yes or No)
Yes No
Habitat for special-status species known to occur in Project Area (enter number of species)
Reference Document
(Check the one most appropriate) (Please select one from list)
No special-status species habitat is known to occur in the Project area (5 points)
Habitat for one to five special-status species is known to occur in Project area (3 points)
Habitat for six to ten special-status species is known to occur in Project area (2 points)
Habitat for more than ten special-status species is known to occur in Project area (No points)
c. Cultural Resources
c. Cultural Resources 4
(Check the one most appropriate) (Please select one from list)
Project would provide additional protection to cultural sites (5 points)
Project area has no known cultural sites (4 points)
Identified cultural sites in the Project area will not be affected (3 points)
Version #
__________________________________________________________________________
Page: 11 of 13

Evaluation Criteria for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program - 2008/2009

Agency: BLM - Redding Field Office

Application: Acquisition, Chappie-Shasta
6/2/2009
__________________________________________________________________________
Project impacts to cultural sites will be mitigated (No points)
Project has unavoidable detrimental impacts to cultural resources (No points, Project application will be
returned to Applicant without further consideration)
Reference Document
Redding BLM Field Office, Resource Management Plan, 1993
Interlakes Speical Recreation Management Area Plan, 1997
3. Benefit to OHV Recreation - Q 3.
3. Project will benefit the Applicant’s OHV recreation program by 14
(Check all that apply) Scoring: Maximum of 14 points (Please select applicable values)
Restore or maintain connectivity of trail system by acquiring linkage/in-holdings (10 points)
Providing additional OHV Opportunity (2 points)
Expanding the types of vehicles that can use the OHV Opportunity (2 points)
Protecting private property and land owners adjacent to the proposed acquisition from high levels of sound,
trespass, and property damage (2 points)
Resolving conflict related to OHV Recreation (2 points)
Explain each statement that was checked
The parcels proposed for acquisition within this project contain existing OHV trail opportunities, and once acquired
will provide immediate connectivity to existing OHV trails located on adjacent public lands. The routes currently
existing on these parcels are closed to OHV use due to being on private land. If these parcels are acquired these
routes will be open and available to the public and would provide linkage between existing OHV trails on public
land. Acquisition of these lands would also resolve an existing recreation conflict between motorized and nonmotorized
users on the Sacramento River Rail Trail. These properties would provide an alternative access road for
OHV users heading north from the Copley Mountain OHV Saging Area. Access is currently made via a one mile
"open" portion of the Sacramento River Rail Trial, which causes significant user conflict between motorized and
non-motorized recreationists.
4. Primary Funding Source - Q 4.
4. Primary funding source for future development and operation cost will be 5
(Check the one most appropriate) (Please select one from list)
Applicant’s operational budget (5 points)
Volunteer support and/or donations (3 points)
Other Grant funding (2 points)
OHV Trust Funds (No points)
If 'Operational budget' is checked, list reference document(s)
BLM Financial Business Management System (FBMS)
5. Motorized Access - Q 5.
5. The Project improves facilities that provide motorized access to the following nonmotorized recreation
opportunities 6
(Check all that apply) Scoring: 2 points each, up to a maximum of 6 points (Please select applicable values)
Camping Birding
Hiking Equestrian trails
Fishing Rock Climbing
Other (Specify)
Version #
__________________________________________________________________________
Page: 12 of 13

Evaluation Criteria for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program - 2008/2009

Agency: BLM - Redding Field Office

Application: Acquisition, Chappie-Shasta
6/2/2009
__________________________________________________________________________
6. Public Input - Q 6.
6. The Project was developed with public input employing the following 2
(Check all that apply) Scoring: 1 point each, up to a maximum of 2 points (Please select applicable values)
Meeting(s) with the general public to discuss Project (1 point)
Conference call(s) with interested parties (1 point)
Meeting(s) with stakeholders (1 point)
Explain each statement that was checked
The acquisitions within this project fall within the Shasta Management Area identified within the Redding Field
Office Resource Management Plan (RMP). During planning efforts for the RMP several public meetings were held
and the acquisition of lands within this project area was discussed. Redding BLM OHV staff routinely meets with
OHV advocacy groups, general public and private land owners to discuss planning efforts within this project area,
including any proposed acquisition projects.
Version #
__________________________________________________________________________
Page: 13 of 13


________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Detinue Sur Bailment should be granted immediately, and the EPA lien void & vacated.
“A patent to land, issued by the United States under authority of law, is the highest evidence of title, something upon which its holder can rely for peace and security in his possession. It is conclusive evidence of title against the United States and all the world. ..” 2 The American Law of Mining, § 1.29 at 357. Nichols v. Rysavy, (S.D. 1985) 610 F. Supp. 1245.
"Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States … and [Congress] [D]eclares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title." Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74 (1888).
The “general rule” at least is, “that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” [Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon , 260 U.S. 393, 415, 67 L. Ed. 322, 43 S. Ct. 158 (1922).]
The Court stated, “Takings jurisprudence balances the competing goals of compensating landowners on whom a significant burden of regulation falls and avoiding prohibitory costs to needed government regulation. Citing Dolan v. City of Tigard , 512 U.S. 374, 384 (1994), “TheTakings Clause assures that the government may not force 'some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.'"
In the history of the United States , no Land Patent has ever lost an appellate review in the courts. In Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Comm'n 466 US 198, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Land Patent would always win over any other form of title. In that case, the land in question was tidewater land and California 's claim was based on California 's constitutional right to all tidewater lands. The patent stood supreme even against California 's Constitution, to wit:
[The patent] “[P]assing whatever interest the United States has in the premises and thereby settling any question of sovereign ownership….” Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Baca (CA10 NM) 844 F2d 708; Whaley v. Wotring ( Fla App D1) 225 So 2d 177; Dugas v. Powell, 228 La 748, 84 So 2d 177. [quote at 28 Am. Jur. 2D, F. 2 § 49].
With the title passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land and over the title which it has conveyed. Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 533, 24 L. Ed. 848.
There is no license from the United States or the state of California to miners to enter upon private lands of individuals for the purpose or extracting the minerals in the soil. (Biddle Boggs v Merced Min. Co.) 14 Cal. 279.)

of a private proprietor, with the exception of exemption from state taxation, having no municipal sovereignty or right of eminent domain within the limits of the state-cannot, in derogation of the rights of the local sovereign to govern the relations of the citizens of the state, and to prescribe the rules of property, and its mode of disposition, and its tenure, enter upon, or authorize an entry upon, private property, for the purpose of extracting minerals. The United States , like any other proprietor, can only exercise their rights to the mineral in private property, in subordination to such rules and regulations as the local sovereign may prescribe. Until such rules and regulations are established, the landed proprietor may successfully resist, in the courts of the state, all attempts at invasion of his property, whether by the direct action of the United States or by virtue of any pretended license under their authority. (Biddle Boggs v Merced Min. Co,,) 14 Cal. 279.)
“A valid and subsisting location of mineral lands, made and kept in accordance with the provisions of the statutes of the United States , has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession of the lands located.”
U.S. Supreme Court, 1884
With the title passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land and over the title which it has conveyed. It would be as reasonable to hold that any private owner who has conveyed it to another can, of his own volition, recall, cancel or annul the instrument which he has made and delivered. If fraud, mistake, error, or wrong has been done, the courts of justice present the only remedy. These courts are as open to the United States to sue for the cancellation of the deed or reconveyance of the land as to individuals, and if the government is the party injured this is the proper course”.
Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 533, 24 L. Ed. 848.
That whenever the question in any court, state or federal, is whether a title to land which has once been the property of the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States; but that whenever, according to those laws, the title shall have passed, then that property, like all other property in the state, is subject to state legislation, so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States”.
Wilcox v. McConnell, 13 Pet. ( U.S. ) 498, 517, 10 L. Ed. 264.
“Title by patent from the United States to a tract of ground, theretofore public, prima facie carries ownership of all beneath the surface, and possession under such patent of the surface is presumptively possession of all beneath the surface.
Lawson v. United States Min. Co. 207 U.S. 1, 8, 28 Sup. Ct. 15, 17, 52, L. Ed. 65.
Grub-stake contracts will be enforced by the courts, but only as other contracts; that is to say, it is not enough for parties to assert that they have rights, in order to secure legal protection, but they must be able to prove in each case a clear and definite contract, and that by the terms and conditions of such contract, and compliance therewith on their part, rights have become vested.
Cisna v. Mallory (C.C.) 84 Fed. 851, 854.
The common-law rule is that the lessee of real property may work already opened mines, but cannot open new ones. But the lease may expressly, or by implication from express powers, give the right to take the minerals, the instrument is a genuine lease.

Oshoon v. Bayaud 123 N.Y. 298. 25 N.E. 376
On the other hand, if an attempt is made by the instrument to pass title to the minerals in place, there is really a sale of the mineral.
Plummer v. Hillside Coal & Iron Co. 104 Fed. 208, 43 C.C. A. 490
Whatever the form of the instrument of conveyance, and even though the parties speak of it in its terms as a lease, if its fair construction shows that the title to the minerals in place is to pass upon the delivery of the instrument, while the surface is retained, or vice versa, and, of course, for all time, if the fee is granted, except that the fee to the space occupied by the minerals seems to terminate when the mine is exhausted.
McConnell v. Pierce, 210 Ill. 627, 71 N.E. 622., Moore v. Indian Camp Coal Co.,493, 0 N.E. 6.
The relationship among joint venturers was eloquently described by United States Supreme Court Justice Cardozo in the seminal 1928 case of Meinhard v. Salmon - “joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty. Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm's length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. As to this there has developed a tradition that is unbending and inveterate. Uncompromising rigidity has been the attitude of courts of equity when petitioned to undermine the rule of undivided loyalty by the ‘disintegrating erosion' of particular exceptions. Only thus has the level of conduct for fiduciaries been kept at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd.”)
Artesian Mineral Development & Consolidated Sludge, Inc.& Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.
insitu remediation summary & history of copper cementation and bioleaching
Cementation of copper began with the discovery of silver at the Lost Confidence Mine by 1890 and before the beginning of copper mining at Iron Mountain and Mountain Copper Co. Ltd. around 1896. By 1908 the State Geologist reported that the operation was so extensive that a building was being constructed over and around it. In 1919 copper prices crashed and the mine closed, in 1920 fish kills were reported. In 1921 copper cementation resumed and was thereafter operated continuously until the EPA implemented their High Density Sludge treatment and driven Ted Arman from the business.. After WWII Iron Mountain mines produced sulfur and iron for fertilizers until 1963. Iron Mountain has 20,000,000 tonnes proven and 5,000,000 tonnes probable ore reserves. The naturally occurring archaea living in the Richmond mine are reported to be capable of producing the most acidic natural mine waters on the planet, pH -3.6. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. bioleaching naturally produces about 8 tons of metals per day. One of the earliest records of the practice of leaching is from the island of Cyprus. Galen, a naturalist and physician reported in AD 166 the operation of in situ leaching of copper. Surface water was allowed to percolate through the permeable rock, and was collected in amphorae. In the process of percolation through the rock, copper minerals dissolved so that the concentration of copper sulphate in solution was high. The solution was allowed to evaporate until copper sulphate crystallized. Pliny (23-79 AD) reported that a similar practice for the extraction of copper in the form of copper sulphate was widely practiced in Spain. The cementation of copper was also known to the Chinese, as documented by the Chinese king Lui-An (177-122 BC). The Chinese implemented the commercial production of copper from copper sulphate using a cementation process in the tenth century.

 

Senators Say EPA Dust Regulation Proposals Defy Common Sense
07/25/2010
NAFB News Service

  A group of Senators led by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson Friday calling on her to use common sense on future dust regulations and reminding her of the Administration's focus on rural America and the negative impact the regulations could have on Main Street. The Senators say the second draft recently released would establish the most stringent and unparalleled dust regulation in U.S. history if approved. Though they respect the efforts for a clean and healthy environment – the Senators say that shouldn't come at the expense of common sense.

The letter states the EPA's identified levels for particulate matter will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. The Senators point out dust is a naturally occurring event - whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall or driving a car down the gravel road. Producers could potentially be fined for not meeting the particulate matter standards while still practicing good management practices on their soils - according to the Senators. If the rule is published - they say economic development could slow down and significant costs to farmers and businesses could be imposed. Grassley says he is greatly concerned that this puts the U.S. one step closer to imposing more regulations on farmers.

Debunking the Constitutional Accountability Center

By: LC,

25 Jul 2010

Claim:

“Far from being ‘very afraid' of federal government, the Founders were quite concerned with protecting the United States from invading foreign armies and trusted the federal government to protect the citizenry against the evils of ‘factions,' as famously elaborated by James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10” (p. 4)

In other words, the CAC is, among other things, suggesting that in Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison suggested that the federal government would protect the citizenry from the evils of factions.

Counter-Claim:

First, in Federalist Paper No. 10, Madison explains what a faction is in the following way:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

According to the definition that Madison sets out, the federal government itself could be a faction. Therefore, it is nonsensical to suggest that the federal government was the go-to entity to protect citizens against the evils of factions since it could be the entity producing those very evils.

Second, the ways that Madison actually proposed to fight the evils of factions are the following:

Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time, must be prevented; or the majority, having such co-existent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.

To guard against the same passion or interest in a majority at the same, the nation must have a large enough citizenry such that its members and its members' views become heterogeneous. To guard against a majority that does have a co-existent passion, the nation must have a large enough territory such that they will be spread out and unable to act in concert. These are the lessons from Madison and Federalist No. 10 on how to combat the evils of faction; the answer is clearly not to rely on the federal government, which could very well be a faction itself.

Boxer, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Protect Clean-Energy Initiatives  

Bill Would Resolve Issues Surrounding Property Assessed Clean Energy Program

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Mark Begich (D-AK) today introduced legislation that would protect clean-energy initiatives in California and across the country that are financed through the Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE, program.

Senator Boxer said, “The current uncertainty surrounding PACE programs is jeopardizing $110 million in federal investments for California communities, which is simply unacceptable. We must take action to protect these initiatives because they create jobs, save homeowners money on their energy bills and help our environment.”

Senator Merkley said, “Innovative financing programs like PACE are simultaneously supporting a growing clean energy sector, creating jobs and putting more money in the pockets of families and businesses – it's a job creation trifecta. Innovative energy financing has been a key driver in making Oregon a leader in the clean energy sector and it is crucial that we protect important programs like PACE which help our economy and create jobs.”

Senator Gillibrand said, “Communities in New York and around the country have taken important steps to improve energy efficiency and create good-paying jobs. This important legislation supports these efforts, eliminating some of the obstacles that have been put in place and enabling more communities to keep moving on energy efficiency and green job programs.”

Senator Begich said, “In many cases, the biggest barrier for homeowners and small businesses who want to make energy efficiency improvements is financing those projects. This bill removes a bureaucratic roadblock and allows local communities to assist homeowners and businesses if they want to. It's another tool in the box that would help Alaskans save on their energy bills.”

PACE financing is an innovative way to create jobs, reduce consumer energy bills and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly half of California's 58 counties, as well as individual cities, have developed PACE programs or plan to start one.

PACE programs allow homeowners and business owners to pay for energy-efficient property upgrades through a property tax assessment that is repaid over a number of years.

Earlier this month, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, effectively halted PACE programs nationwide by claiming that PACE assessments violate securities agreements by imposing a first lien, ahead of the lenders, on participating properties. The FHFA ordered Fannie and Freddie to take additional actions to limit the use of PACE programs in connection with their home mortgages. This action has prevented California communities from using $110 million in Economic Recovery Act grants intended for PACE programs.

This measure would require lenders to adopt new, sound underwriting standards that support PACE financing programs, rather than stymie them. It would treat PACE assessments the same as other property tax assessments and respect states' authority to secure such assessments with a first lien.

It is the companion legislation to a measure recently introduced by Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA) and more than 20 other members of Congress.

 

The New-York Journal, November 22, 1787

To the Citizens of the State of New York.
In my last number I endeavored to prove that the language of the article relative to the establishment of the executive of this new government was vague and inexplicit, that the great powers of the President, connected with his duration in office would lead to oppression and ruin. That he would be governed by favorites and flatterers, or that a dangerous council would be collected from the great officers of state, -- that the ten miles square [District of Columbia], if the remarks of one of the wisest men, drawn from the experience of mankind, may be credited, would be the asylum of the base, idle, avaricious and ambitious, and that the court would possess a language and manners different from yours; that a vice president is as unnecessary, as he is dangerous in his influence -- that the president cannot represent you because he is not of your own immediate choice, that if you adopt this government, you will incline to an arbitrary and odious aristocracy or monarchy the that the president possessed of the power, given him by this frame of government differs but very immaterially from the establishment of monarchy in Great Britain, and I warned you to beware of the fallacious resemblance that is held out to you by the advocates of this new system between it and your own state governments.

George Clinton , first Governor of New York and fourth Vice President under Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, was among those anti-federalists arguing for stricter restraints on the government than those proposed during the Constitutional Convention.  There is some dispute, but Clinton is generally regarded as the author using the pseudonym of “Cato” when writing to the New-York Journal outlining his case against sections of the proposed Constitution as written.

Obama's Remarks at the Signing Ceremony

Following is a text of President Obama's prepared remarks at the bill-signing on Wednesday to overhaul federal financial regulation, as released by the White House:

Good morning, everyone. We're gathered in the heart of our nation's capital, surrounded by memorials to leaders and citizens who served our nation in its earliest days, and in its days of greatest trial.

Today is such time for America. Over the past two years, we have faced the worst recession since the Great Depression. 8 million people lost their jobs. Tens of millions saw the value of their homes and retirement savings plummet. Countless businesses have been unable to get the loans they need and many have been forced to shut their doors. And although the economy is growing again, too many people are still feeling the pain of the downturn.

While a number of factors led to such a severe recession, the primary cause was a breakdown in our financial system. It was a crisis born of a failure of responsibility from certain corners of Wall Street to the halls of power in Washington. For years, our financial sector was governed by antiquated and poorly enforced rules that allowed some to game the system and take risks that endangered the entire economy.

Unscrupulous lenders locked consumers into complex loans with hidden costs. Firms like AIG placed massive, risky bets with borrowed money. And while the rules left abuse and excess unchecked, they left taxpayers on the hook if a big bank or financial institution ever failed.

Even before the crisis hit, I went to Wall Street and called for common-sense reforms to protect consumers and our economy as a whole. And soon after taking office, I proposed a set of reforms to empower consumers and investors, to bring the shadowy deals that caused this crisis into the light of day, and to put a stop to taxpayer bailouts once and for all. Today, those reforms will become the law of the land.

For the last year, Chairmen Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have worked day and night to bring about reform. I'm profoundly grateful to them. I also want to express my appreciation to Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi for their leadership. Passing this bill was no easy task. To get there, we had to overcome the furious lobbying of an array of powerful interest groups, and a partisan minority determined to block change. The Members here today, both on stage and in the audience, have done a great service in devoting so much time and expertise to this effort. I also want to thank the three Republican Senators who put partisanship aside, judged this bill on the merits, and voted for reform.

The fact is, the financial industry is central to our nation's ability to grow, prosper, compete, and innovate. There are a lot of banks that understand and fulfill this vital role, and a lot of bankers who want to do right by their customers. Well, this reform will help foster innovation, not hamper it. It is designed to make sure that everyone follows the same set of rules, so that firms compete on price and quality, not tricks and traps. It demands accountability and responsibility from everyone. It provides certainty to everybody from bankers to farmers to business owners. And unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you have nothing to fear from this reform.

Now, for all those Americans who are wondering what Wall Street Reform means for you, here's what you can expect. If you've ever applied for a credit card, a student loan, or a mortgage, you know the feeling of signing your name to pages of barely understandable fine print.

But what often happens as a result, is that many Americans are caught by hidden fees and penalties, or saddled with loans they can't afford. That's what happened to Robin Fox, hit with a massive rate increase on her credit card balance even though she paid her bills on time. That's what happened to Andrew Giordano, who discovered hundreds of dollars in overdraft fees on his bank statement – fees he had no idea he might face. Both are here today.

Well, with this law, unfair rate hikes, like the one that hit Robin, will end for good. And we'll ensure that people like Andrew aren't unwittingly caught by overdraft fees when they sign up for a checking account.

With this law, we'll crack down on abusive practices in the mortgage industry. We'll make sure that contracts are simpler – putting an end to many hidden penalties and fees in complex mortgages – so folks know what they're signing. With this law, students who take out college loans will be provided clear and concise information about their obligations.

And with this law, ordinary investors – like seniors and folks saving for retirement – will be able to receive more information about the costs and risks of mutual funds and other investment products, so that they can better make financial decisions that work for them.

All told, these reforms represent the strongest consumer financial protections in history. And these protections will be enforced by a new consumer watchdog with just one job: looking out for people – not big banks, not lenders, not investment houses – in the financial system.

Now, that's not just good for consumers; that's good for the economy. Because reform will put a stop to a lot of the bad loans that fueled a debt-based bubble. And it will mean all companies will have to seek customers by offering better products, instead of more deceptive ones.

Beyond the consumer protections I've outlined, reform will also rein in the abuse and excess that nearly brought down our financial system. It will finally bring transparency to the kinds of complex, risky transactions that helped trigger the financial crisis. And shareholders will also have a greater say on the pay of CEOs and other executives, so that they can reward success instead of failure.

Finally, because of this law, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes. There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts. Period. If a large financial institution should ever fail, this reform gives us the ability to wind it down without endangering the broader economy. And there will be new rules to make clear that no firm is somehow protected because it is "too big to fail," so that we don't have another AIG.

So this is what reform will mean. But it doesn't mean our work is over. For these new rules to be effective, regulators will have to be vigilant. We also may need to make adjustments along the way as our financial system adapts to these changes. And no law can force anybody to be responsible; it is still incumbent on those on Wall Street to heed the lessons of this crisis in how they conduct business.

The fact is, every American – from Main Street to Wall Street – has a stake in our financial system. Wall Street banks and firms invest the capital that makes it possible for start-ups to sell new products; they provide loans to businesses to expand and hire; they back mortgages for families purchasing a new home. That's why we all stand to gain from these reforms. We all win when investors around the world have confidence in our markets. We all win when shareholders have more power and information. We all win when consumers are protected against abuse. And we all win when folks are rewarded based on how well they perform, not how well they evade accountability.

In the end, our financial system only works – our markets are only free – when there are clear rules and basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excess, that ensure that it is more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system. And that is what these reforms are designed to achieve: no more, no less. Because that is how we will ensure that our economy works for consumers, that it works for investors, that it works for financial institutions – that it works for all of us.

This is the central lesson not only of this crisis but of our history. Ultimately, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. We rise or fall together as one nation. So these reforms will help lift our economy and lead all of us to a stronger, more prosperous future, and I am honored to sign them into law.

The Government Will Not Resolve AIG

Jul 22 2010, 11:58 AM ET |

Now that the President has signed financial reform, speculation has begun on when it will first use its biggest new tool: the non-bank resolution authority. If the ability to wind down big failing firms was available to the government back in 2008, at least a few big ones would likely have been resolved. One obvious choice would have been AIG. Today, the New York Times' Deal Professor Steven Davidoff wonders if it might now wind down AIG, since it can. This doesn't seem likely.

Before getting into how resolution would work, Davidoff notes, a systemically relevant firm can only be resolved if it's insolvent. In particular, here's what the Dodd-Frank bill says:

(iii) DETERMINATION.--On a strictly confidential basis, and without any prior public disclosure, the Court, after notice to the covered financial company and a hearing in which the covered financial company may oppose the petition, shall determine whether the determination of the Secretary that the covered financial company is in default or in danger of default and satisfies the definition of a financial company under section 201(a)(11) is arbitrary and capricious.

So in this case, AIG must be determined to be in default or in danger of default. Is it? Davidoff thinks it might be:

Recent reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Oversight Panel have stressed that it is very unclear what exactly A.I.G. is worth, and it may be the case that A.I.G.'s assets are less than what the company owes the United States government for billions of dollars in bailouts. But this is a moving figure and the stock market currently assigns A.I.G.'s equity billions of dollars in value, mitigating against these assessments.

Whether or not AIG is truly insolvent is a question that must be answered by more than just numbers. It's largely believed that the government doesn't really expect, and might not demand, it get back all of the money it used to bail out AIG. So is this debt real debt? It's hard to tell since it isn't your typical private sector-owned obligation. Because the private sector isn't on the hook for much of its debt, AIG's insolvency might not satisfy the spirit when resolution is necessary.

Davidoff also outlines three other strong arguments for why it's unlikely that the U.S. would want to resolve AIG, even if it could. They boil down to spooking the financial markets, possibly earning a worse return for taxpayers than if it was allowed to stay in business, and the political ramifications that the Obama administration will face for taking over a private firm. Taking this extreme action would be a huge deal.

For all of these reasons, it's pretty unlikely that the AIG will be wound down through the resolution authority, unless its assets experience significant further deterioration. But over the next few years, if the firm's insolvency becomes more obvious, then resolution might still be unlikely. As the firm declines in size, it becomes less systemically vital. Thus, a regular bankruptcy court may soon be able to simply wind it down the old-fashioned way. Of course, survival also remains a possibility.

Citigroup, JPMorgan Said to Have Sold AIG Protection to Goldman

(Source: Mail Tribune) By Paul Fattig, Mail Tribune, Medford, Ore.

July 25--The cost of the Blue Ledge project is more than the entire U.S. Forest Service's annual national budget for cleaning up abandoned mine sites, says project administrator Pete Jones.

However, the bulk of the $11.1 million is coming from federal stimulus funds with the rest -- $1.3 million -- being contributed by American Smelting and Refining Corp., which owned the smelter in Tacoma, Wash., where the estimated 11,150 tons of ore were shipped, he said.

The mine has been owned, leased or operated by at least 14 different parties over the years. It is currently owned by a trust based in Salem that is working closely with the agencies involved in the clean-up project, Jones said.

The mine went into production around 1900, followed by full production during World War I, a time when copper demand was high. There also was a resurgence of mining activity on the mountain in the 1920s, '30s and '40s.

For years, the tailings have been leaching toxic materials in violation of the Clean Water Act, severely impacting the aquatic biology of Joe Creek, Jones said.

Some three miles downstream from the mine is the remote community of Joe Bar, a historic hamlet of half a dozen homes near where Joe Creek flows into Elliott Creek.

The stream sediment and fish will be tested all the way downstream from the mine to Applegate Reservoir a half dozen miles distant to see how far the toxins have migrated, he said. An estimated 20,000 tons of the tailings have gone downstream, he noted.

Plans call for the contaminated tailings at the mine to be removed and placed in a 3.5-acre bowl being carved into level land on the lower end of the mine.

"We will be laying a clay liner down in there first," Jones said. "It has a very low permeability. The next layer will be crushed limestone. The limestone will react with any fluid that may pass through and neutralize the acids."

In addition, there will be a collection system installed which will include a tank to catch any waste that may escape, he added.

"We will be able to detect those fluids and monitor them for their toxicity and volume," he said.

Once the waste rock is in the bowl, another clay layer will be slathered on top to encapsulate the hazardous material. A 6-foot-thick layer of soil removed from the bowl will be placed on top of the clay.

"Then we will put two feet of topsoil on top of that," he said. "We want the grasses and shrubs to get back on it as quickly as possible."

The Forest Service is growing 15,000 plants for reclamation of the site, he said.

"Nature is the best defense against erosion," he said.

Long-term maintenance will include cutting small trees every decade or so to prevent tree root systems from weakening the seal, he said.

"We are working with the EPA now to see if this site qualifies to be on the Superfund list," he said, adding that determination likely will be made next spring. If it is selected as a Superfund site, the Environmental Protection Agency and the state of California would then be responsible for long-term maintenance and monitoring, he said.

How long will the repository be safe?

"For the foreseeable future," Jones said. "Clay is a natural product which has the ability to self-seal if it is punctured."

Forest Road 1060, which leads to the mine, has been closed temporarily because of safety concerns.

Reach reporter Paul Fattig at 541-776-4496 or e-mail him at pfattig@mailtribune.com.

-----

To see more of the Mail Tribune, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.mailtribune.com.

Copyright (c) 2010, Mail Tribune, Medford, Ore.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For more information about the content services offered by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services (MCT), visit www.mctinfoservices.com, e-mail services@mctinfoservices.com, or call 866-280-5210 (outside the United States, call +1 312-222-4544).

American International Group Inc.

S&P's ratings on American International Group Inc. (AIG; A-/Negative/A-1) and AIG's insurance subsidiaries (most of which are rated A+/Negative/--) are not affected by the company's announcement that Robert S. (Steve) Miller has succeeded Harvey Golub as chairman of AIG's board of directors.

Given Steve Miller's new position, S&P recently discussed with him the current challenges and operational risks associated with AIG's restructuring plan and exit plan from government control. It is the rating agency's understanding that he and the other board members will collaborate with the company's CEO to lead AIG through its restructuring plans. Although S&P continues to believe that the current plans' execution risks remain relatively high, primarily because of external market conditions, it does not see this chairmanship change adding to the existing challenges, and it expects a relatively smooth transition.

 

An A.I.G. Failure Would Have Cost Goldman Sachs, Documents Show

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

Published: July 23, 2010

Since the United States government stepped in to rescue the American International Group in the fall of 2008, Goldman Sachs has maintained that it would have faced few if any losses had the insurer failed. Though it was the insurer's biggest trading partner, Goldman contended that it had bought credit insurance from financial institutions that would have protected it, but it declined to identify the institutions.

A Congressional document released late Friday lists those institutions and shows that Goldman was exposed to losses in an A.I.G. default because some of the investment bank's trading partners, such as Citibank and Lehman Brothers , were financially unstable and might have been unable to make good on large claims from Goldman.

The document details every institution that had sold credit insurance on A.I.G. to Goldman as of Sept. 15, 2008, the day before the New York Fed arranged the insurer's rescue with an $85 billion backstop. The document, supplied by Goldman Sachs, was released by Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

Goldman had purchased credit protection on A.I.G. worth $402 million from Citigroup and $175 million from Lehman Brothers, the document shows. As of the date of the document, Lehman had already filed for bankruptcy protection.

“This illustrates that the Goldman version of reality is not entirely accurate,” said Christopher Whalen, managing director at Institutional Risk Analytics. “They did have exposure to A.I.G., and that is what drove their behavior in the bailout.”

Lucas van Praag, a Goldman spokesman, reiterated that the firm was fully protected from an A.I.G. default and noted that the protection it had purchased from financial institutions required that they post cash to Goldman to cover rising exposures. “Given that we were receiving and paying collateral on a daily basis, the risk to us of not being able to collect on our hedges had A.I.G. defaulted was de minimus,” Mr. van Praag said.

For decades, Goldman and A.I.G. had a long and fruitful relationship, with A.I.G. insuring billions in mortgage-related securities that Goldman Sachs underwrote. When the mortgage market started to deteriorate in 2007, however, the relationship went sour and Goldman began demanding cash from A.I.G. to cover the declining value of the securities it had insured. A dispute ensued, and Goldman began buying credit insurance on A.I.G. to protect against possible losses arising from its dealings with the company.

According to the document, Goldman held a total of $1.7 billion in insurance on A.I.G. from almost 90 institutions. Its exposure to A.I.G. at that time was $2.6 billion.

Goldman bought most of the insurance from large foreign and domestic banks, including Credit Suisse ($310 million), Morgan Stanley ($243 million) and JPMorgan Chase ($216 million). Goldman also bought $223 million in insurance on A.I.G. from a variety of funds overseen by Pimco, the money management firm.

JPMorgan and Credit Suisse declined to comment late Friday. A Pimco official could not be reached.

Critics of the A.I.G. rescue have characterized it as a “backdoor bailout” of financial institutions that had made mortgage bets guaranteed by the beleaguered insurer. Initially, the government refused to identify these institutions, causing consternation among some in Congress, including Mr. Grassley, who thought the taxpayers should know whom they had benefited.

The issue of the rescue's beneficiaries surfaced again last Wednesday in hearings sponsored by the Senate Finance Committee. Elizabeth Warren , the chairwoman of the Congressional panel that oversees the government's responses to the credit crisis , testified that Goldman Sachs had declined to supply her staff with information about the insurance it had bought to protect itself from an A.I.G. failure.

Because the Congressional panel cannot issue subpoenas, Mr. Grassley suggested that his committee request the information from Goldman, subpoenaing the firm if necessary. Goldman quickly submitted the materials.

“It's as if the New York Fed used A.I.G. as a front man to bail out big banks all over the world,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement. “It took nearly two years for the public to learn these details, and they only were revealed because Congress wouldn't take no for an answer. Taxpayers deserve to know what happened with their money.”

Should Congress block EPA efforts on global warming?

More Clean Water Act slight of hand

Author:   Reed Hopper

In a recent "Dear Colleague" letter , Representative Oberstar claims his new bill, "America's Commitment to Clean Water Act" (H.R.5088) , would "restore, but not expand, the geographic scope of the Clean Water Act" that existed prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos . As proof that he is telling the truth, he cites self-serving letters from the EPA and the Corps of Engineers  that support his assessment of the bill's impact. But Mr. Oberstar couldn't have found a more biased endorsement. These are the very agencies the Supreme Court castigated for their limitless and ever-changing interpretation of the Clean Water Act that exceeded the scope of their own regulations, the plain language of the Act, the clear intent of Congress, and likely even the outside boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. Asking the EPA and Corps if the Supreme Court was wrong in SWANCC and Rapanos is like asking a felon if the jury was wrong to convict him. After more than thirty years of overreaching, power-hungry bureaucrats are not going to admit they exceeded their authority.

As for Mr. Oberstar's claim that "if a discharge into waters of the United States was not subject to being regulated prior to the Supreme Court cases, it will not become regulated because of the passage of this bill," it is a half truth and gives no comfort against continued overreaching. What Mr. Oberstar fails to mention is that although the Clean Water Act prohibits unauthorized discharges into "navigable waters,"prior to SWANCC and Rapanos the EPA and Corps claimed jurisdiction over virtually all waters in the Nation. As Justice Scalia noted in Rapanos,

In the last three decades, the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have interpreted their jurisdiction over "the waters of the United States" to cover 270-to-300 million acres of swampy lands in the United States--including half of Alaska and an area the size of California in the lower 48 States. And that was just the beginning. The Corps has also asserted jurisdiction over virtually any parcel of land containing a channel or conduit--whether man-made or natural, broad or narrow, permanent or ephemeral--through which rainwater or drainage may occasionally or intermittently flow. On this view, the federally regulated "waters of the United States" include storm drains, roadside ditches, ripples of sand in the desert that may contain water once a year, and lands that are covered by floodwaters once every 100 years. Because they include the land containing storm sewers and desert washes, the statutory "waters of the United States" engulf entire cities and immense arid wastelands. In fact, the entire land area of the United States lies in some drainage basin, and an endless network of visible channels furrows the entire surface, containing water ephemerally wherever the rain falls. [According to the Corps and EPA] [a]ny plot of land containing such a channel may potentially be regulated as a "water of the United States."

Without saying so, this is what Mr. Oberstar's bill is designed to "restore"–a limitless exercise of federal power over all waters in the Nation. In fact, Mr. Oberstar's original bill, the euphemistically named "Clean Water Restoration Act," literally asserted jurisdiction over "all waters," both navigable and nonnavigable, including any impoundments of these waters. But today, Mr. Oberstar will tell you opponents of the bill read too much into it. He never intended to regulate all waters, just most of them. What Mr. Oberstar and the Corps and EPA fail no comprehend is that words have meaning. The Supreme Court, and for that matter the regulated public, must therefore be forgiven for concluding that when Congress limited federal authority in the Clean Water Act to "navigable waters" that term had to mean something. And it didn't mean all waters in the United States.

Now, having recognized that the controversial "Clean Water Restoration Act" was setting off alarm bells across the country because of its assertion of federal authority over "all waters," Mr. Oberstar has rewritten the bill in the form of "America's Commitment to Clean Water Act." This bill no longer uses the term "all waters." It is more subtle. But, the intent is the same–to regulate all waters in the Nation (and much of the land). H.R. 5088 would federalize all navigable waters and "all other waters including [but not limited to] intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which does or would affect interstate or foreign commerce" as well as all impoundments and tributaries of these waters, including all waters adjacent to these waters. It would also include those waters that are the subject of international treaties or that might affect federal lands. In other words, "all waters."

So broad is the bill's definition of covered waters that the only practical limit on federal authority is the regulators' own subjective judgment. Which is to say, no limit at all. If it were to pass, "America's Commitment to Clean Water Act" would give federal bureaucrats unprecedented power to control the use of virtually any wet spot in the Country, and much of the surrounding land. In its application, this would far exceed any constitutional power delegated to Congress.

Accordingly, TS's should only be conducted for individuals that are looking for a property to determine the right fit and are worthy of moving forward with a Phase I ESA. One would think that the commercial real estate community learned from the past and provided themselves, their clients and their companies with the best possible, defendable product available,such as a Phase I ESA. Instead, the commercial real estate community is worrying about saving a few dollars by using a simple, non-enforceable TS. This negligence could open a party to extensive remedial action and litigation costs, which could have been avoided by conducting a Phase I ESA.It is the real estate community's responsibility to provide clients with the appropriate advice and products that are not only accurate but will afford our clients with protection from potential future litigation and remediation costs. 

Imperial EPA, in the Traditional Sense of Imperial

Posted by: Carter Wood under Around the States , Regulations on July 23, 2010 @ 7:26 am

We often refer to the Environmental Protection Agency as the Imperial EPA because it treats the policymaking branch of government, Congress, as a minor bother while issuing dictate after dictate to the rest of the country. The agency is “imperial” in the sense of a central authority being arrogant, aggrandizing, and very, very expensive.

Now the EPA even wants to design its imperial outposts! The rubric is “ Greening America's Capitals .”

Greening America's Capitals is a project of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities between EPA, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to help state capitals develop an implementable vision of distinctive, environmentally friendly neighborhoods that incorporate innovative green building and green infrastructure strategies. This program will assist three to four communities per year, with the first projects beginning in the fall of 2010.EPA will fund a team of designers to visit each city to produce schematic designs and exciting illustrations intended to catalyze or complement a larger planning process for the pilot neighborhood. Additionally, these pilots could be the testing ground for citywide actions, such as changes to local codes and ordinances to better support sustainable growth and green building. The design team and EPA, HUD, and DOT staff will also assist the city staff in developing specific implementation strategies.

Is this something the federal government really needs to be doing? Theoretically, this program might serve the public good by distracting EPA personnel from other, more destructive regulating, but really …are there no limits to the EPA's reach? And spending? And imperial accrual of power?

Deadline for applications was July 9, with the awards to be announced in September.

EPA feels tug-of-war

EPA Puts Money into West Coast Ship Projects

John D. Boyd | Jul 22, 2010 8:55PM GMT

Climate bill dead

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Why the U.S. Need Not Fear a Sovereign Debt Crisis: Unlike Greece, It Is Actually Sovereign

Ellen Brown

Author, "Web of Debt"

Posted: July 23, 2010 10:45 AM

Last week, a Chinese rating agency downgraded U.S. debt from triple A and number one globally, to "double A with a negative outlook" and only 13th worldwide. The downgrade renewed fears that the sovereign debt crisis that began in Greece will soon reach America. That is the concern, but the U.S. is distinguished from Greece in that its debt is denominated in its own currency, over which it has sovereign control. The government can simply print the money it needs or borrow from a central bank that prints it. We should not let deficit hawks and short sellers dissuade the government from pursuing that obvious expedient.

We did not hear much about "sovereign debt" until early this year when Greece hit the skids. Investment adviser Martin Weiss wrote in a February 24 newsletter:

On October 8, Greece's benchmark 10-year bond was stable and rising. Then, suddenly and without warning, global investors dumped their Greek bonds with unprecedented fury, driving its market value into a death spiral.


Likewise, Portugal's 10-year government bond reached a peak on December 1, 2009, less than three months ago. It has also started to plunge virtually nonstop.

The reason: A new contagion of fear about sovereign debt! Indeed, both governments are so deep in debt, investors worry that default is not only possible -- it is now likely!

So said the media, but note that Greece and Portugal were doing remarkably well only three months earlier. Then, "suddenly and without warning," global investors furiously dumped their bonds. Why? Weiss and other commentators blamed a sudden "contagion of fear about sovereign debt." But as Bill Murphy, another prolific newsletter writer, reiterates, "Price action makes market commentary." The pundits look at what just happened in the market and then dream up some plausible theory to explain it. What President Franklin Roosevelt said of politics, however, may also be true of markets: "Nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

That the collapse of Greece's sovereign debt may actually have been planned was suggested in a Wall Street Journal article in February, in which Susan Pullian and co-authors reported:

Some heavyweight hedge funds have launched large bearish bets against the euro in moves that are reminiscent of the trading action at the height of the U.S. financial crisis.


The big bets are emerging amid gatherings such as an exclusive 'idea dinner' earlier this month that included hedge-fund titans SAC Capital Advisors LP and Soros Fund Management LLC.

[...]

There is nothing improper about hedge funds jumping on the same trade unless it is deemed by regulators to be collusion. Regulators haven't suggested that any trading has been improper.

Regulators hadn't suggested it yet; but on the same day that the story was published, the antitrust division of the U.S. Justice Department sent letters to a number of hedge funds attending the dinner, warning them not to destroy any trading records involving market bets on the euro.

Represented at the dinner was the hedge fund of George Soros, who was instrumental in collapsing the British pound in 1992 by heavy short-selling. Soros was quoted as warning that if the European Union did not fix its finances, "the euro may fall apart." Was it really a warning? Or was it the sort of rumor designed to make the euro fall apart? A concerted attack on the euro, beginning with its weakest link, the Greek bond, could bring down that currency just as short selling had brought down the pound.

These sorts of rumors have not been confined to the Greek bond and the euro. In The Financial Times , Niall Ferguson wrote an article titled "A Greek Crisis Is Coming to America," in which he warned:

It began in Athens. It is spreading to Lisbon and Madrid. But it would be a grave mistake to assume that the sovereign debt crisis that is unfolding will remain confined to the weaker eurozone economies.

America, he maintained, would suffer a sovereign debt crisis as well, and this would happen sooner than expected.

The International Monetary Fund recently published estimates of the fiscal adjustments developed economies would need to make to restore fiscal stability over the decade ahead. Worst were Japan and the UK (a fiscal tightening of 13 per cent of GDP). Then came Ireland, Spain and Greece (9 per cent). And in sixth place? Step forward America, which would need to tighten fiscal policy by 8.8 per cent of GDP to satisfy the IMF.

The catch is that the U.S. does not need to satisfy the IMF.

"Sovereign debt" Is an Oxymoron
America cannot actually suffer from a sovereign debt crisis. Why? Because it has no sovereign debt. As Wikipedia explains:

A sovereign bond is a bond issued by a national government. The term usually refers to bonds issued in foreign currencies, while bonds issued by national governments in the country's own currency are referred to as government bonds. The total amount owed to the holders of the sovereign bonds is called sovereign debt.

Damon Vrabel , of the Council on Renewal in Seattle, concludes:

The sovereign debt crisis... is a fabrication of the Ivy League, Wall Street and erudite periodicals like the Financial Times of London.. It seems ridiculous to point this out, but sovereign debt implies sovereignty. Right? Well, if countries are sovereign, then how could they be required to be in debt to private banking institutions? How could they be so easily attacked by the likes of George Soros, JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs? Why would they be subjugated to the whims of auctions and traders? A true sovereign is in debt to nobody...

Unlike Greece and other EU members, which are forbidden to issue their own currencies or borrow from their own central banks, the U.S. government can solve its debt crisis by the simple expedient of either printing the money it needs directly, or borrowing it from its own central bank which prints the money. The current term of art for this maneuver is "quantitative easing," and Ferguson says it is what has so far "stood between the US and larger bond yields" -- that, and China's massive purchases of U.S. Treasuries. Both are winding down now, he warns, renewing the hazard of a sovereign debt crisis.

"Explosions of public debt hurt economies..." Ferguson contends, "by raising fears of default and/or currency depreciation ahead of actual inflation, [pushing] up real interest rates."

Market jitters may be a hazard, but if the U.S. finds itself with government bonds and no buyers, it will no doubt resort to quantitative easing again, just as it has in the past -- not necessarily overtly, but by buying bonds through offshore entities, swapping government debt for agency debt, and other sleights of hand. The mechanics may vary, but so long as "Helicopter Ben" is at the helm, dollars are liable to appear as needed.

Hyperinflation: A Bogus Threat Today
Proposals to solve government budget crises by simply issuing the necessary funds, whether as currency or as bonds, invariably meet with dire warnings that the result will be hyperinflation. But before an economy can be threatened with hyperinflation, it has to pass through simple inflation; and today the world is struggling with deflation. The U.S. money supply has been shrinking at an unprecedented rate. In a May 26 article in The Financial Times titled "US Money Supply Plunges at 1930s Pace as Obama Eyes Fresh Stimulus," Ambrose Evans-Pritchard observed:

The stock of money fell from $14.2 trillion to $13.9 trillion in the three months to April, amounting to an annual rate of contraction of 9.6pc. The assets of institutional money market funds fell at a 37pc rate, the sharpest drop ever.

So long as workers are out of work and resources are sitting idle, as they are today, money can be added to the money supply without driving prices up. Price inflation results when "demand" (money) increases faster than "supply" (goods and services). If the new money is used to create new goods and services, prices will remain stable. That is where "quantitative easing" has gone astray today: the money has not been directed into creating goods, services and jobs but has been steered into the coffers of the banks, cleaning up their balance sheets and providing them with cheap credit that they have not deigned to pass on to the productive economy.

Our forefathers described the government they were creating as a "common wealth," ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for its people. Implied in that vision was an opportunity for employment for anyone wanting to work, as well as essential social services for the population. All of that can be provided by a government that claims sovereignty over its money supply.

A true sovereign need not indebt itself to private banks but can simply issue the money it needs. That is what the American colonists did, in the innovative paper money system that allowed them to flourish for a century before King George forbade them to issue their own scrip prompting the American Revolution. It is also what Abraham Lincoln did, foiling the Wall Street bankers who would have trapped the North in debt slavery through the exigencies of war. And it is what China itself did successfully for decades, before it succumbed to globalization. China got the idea from Abraham Lincoln through his admirer Sun Yat-sen; and Lincoln took his cue from the American colonists, our forebears. We need to reclaim our sovereign right as a nation to fund the common wealth they envisioned without begging from foreign creditors or entangling the government in debt.

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

EPA to tech companies: build products that break down

 

New $35M vet housing project breaks ground

Documents released by the Senate Finance Committee show Goldman Sachs had hedged against losses to A.I.G. and that the Fed was aware of it.

 

“Entirely a National Government”? The Anti-Federalist Perspective

Anti-Federalists understood that one cannot love an abstraction such as “the whole human race.” One loves particular flesh-and-blood members of that race. “My love must be discriminate / or fail to bear its weight,” in the words of a modern Anti-Federalist, the Kentucky poet-farmer Wendell Berry. He who loves the whole human race seldom has much time for individual members thereof.

*          *          *

The Anti's Anti, the man who is, without doubt, the least honored delegate to the Constitutional Convention, is Luther Martin of Maryland. Popular accounts of the Constitutional Convention designate Martin as the villain—think a circa-1973 hybrid of Dennis Hopper and Ernest Borgnine, endlessly talkative but fitfully coherent, an obstructionist, a naysayer. He is the town drunk, the class bore, the motormouth.

Yet he was also, as the historian M. E. Bradford has written, “The tireless champion of the sovereignty of the states . . . A cheerful pessimist . . . and a great original.”

“The federalistic principles found in the Constitution are largely a result of concessions to [Martin's] demands,” wrote historian Everett D. Obrecht. “Without his presence in the convention, the new national government would have been far more powerful.” Yet it was still too powerful for Luther Martin.

Martin understood quite clearly that the Constitution was a counterrevolution, recentralizing that which had been decentralized upon the assertion of American independence. “Men love power,” Hamilton told the convention. To Hamilton this was a simple statement of fact, not at all deplorable. The Anti-Federalists had their doubts about its accuracy—did not men love their families, their homeplaces, their liberties even more?—but in the event, they desired not to channel this powerlust toward profitable ends but rather to block those avenues down which power is pursued. If it is true that men love to wield power over other men and that a centralized state will attract such warped creatures, then rather than design a Rube Goldberg scheme by which the will to dominate is transmuted into gold for the commonweal, why not just not construct a centralized state? Remove the means of gratifying the temptation.

Luther Martin was “the bitterest states' rightser at the Convention,” wrote Christopher and James Lincoln Collier. “He was unyielding, beyond compromise on the point, and when he spoke on the issue it was always in the strongest of terms.” This is because he conned the game and he kenned the consequences. Not only the rights of the states but their very existence was at stake.

Lest the dire warnings of Martin and the Anti-Federalists be dismissed as so much alarmist hokum, consider that not every nationalizer spoke with politic caution. Delaware's George Read declared: “Too much attachment is betrayed to the State Governments. We must look beyond their continuance. A national Govt. must soon of necessity swallow all of them up. They will soon be reduced to the mere office of electing the national Senate.” Effused Read: We must “do . . . away States altogether.”

Or ponder the exchange between James Wilson, the archcentralist Scotsman, and Alexander Hamilton. Though they putatively represented Pennsylvania and New York, their ultimate loyalties could never be centered upon mere states of a confederacy. “With me, it is not a desirable object to annihilate the State governments,” Wilson said on June 19, “and here I differ from the honorable gentleman from New York. In all extensive empires, a subdivision of power is necessary.”

Hamilton objected, ever so mildly, to Wilson's verb. In his lengthy address of the day ultimo, “my meaning was, that a national government ought to be able to support itself without the aid or interference of the state governments,” explained Hamilton. The states, he added, “will be dangerous to the national government, and ought to be extinguished, new modified, or reduced to a smaller scale.”

Extinguish, yes; annihilate, no. The only difference is in the violence of the verb.

Time and again, Luther Martin stood alone, or nearly so, in attempting to infuse the new Constitution with something of the spirit of '76. He was a libertarian in a body of men convinced that America needed a more vigorous government; he spoke of decentralism to men with centripetal convictions. He might not be seconded; oft he was rebuffed, rebutted, reproached. But he kept on coming.

Thrice he proposed to bar the president from reelection. He advocated the appointment of judges by the Senate, not the executive. (James Madison conceded that concurrence of the second branch might guard against “any incautious or corrupt nomination by the Executive.” Martin got half of this loaf.) He called for senators to be paid by the states, not the national government, because “the Senate is to represent the States, [so] the members of it ought to be paid by the States.” He successfully proposed to affix “or on confession in open court” to the requirement that “No person be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act.” (He would revisit the grounds for treason much later.) Martin moved that the Electoral Collegians be chosen by state legislatures. His was the only stated objection to (and Maryland's the only vote against) per-capita voting by senators. He wished them to vote as a unit by states, in keeping with the gist of the Articles of Confederation. He successfully opposed a clause, proposed by Charles Pinckney and Gouverneur Morris, that would give the national government the power “to subdue a rebellion in any State” even if the legislature of the state had not requested intervention.

On August 21, 1787, he greeted the morning with a motion, seconded by his colleague James McHenry, requiring that direct taxation (which in any event “should not be used but in case of absolute necessity”) be paid by the states into the national treasury rather than be levied directly by the national government. It failed, 7–1, with only New Jersey voting aye. (Maryland was divided.)

On August 29, he seconded the motion of Charles Pinckney that acts “regulating the commerce of the U.S. with foreign powers, or among the several States,” required the approval of two-thirds of each house of Congress. Pinckney's motion, which would have effectively eliminated high tariffs and made the U.S. a kind of free-trade zone, failed, attracting only the votes of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Also on the 29th, Martin asserted, vainly, the position of the “limited States” against “the large States” on the matter of the disposition of western lands. The sudden embrace of state territorial integrity by the likes of Gouverneur Morris and James Wilson amused him: “He wished,” Madison transcribed Martin as saying, that “Mr. Wilson had thought a little sooner of the value of political bodies. In the beginning, when the rights of the small States were in question, they were phantoms, ideal beings. Now when the Great States were to be affected, political societies were of a sacred nature.”

Why should the people of the western lands not have the right to form their own states? And why must Maryland and New Jersey and Delaware “guarantee the Western claims of the large” states? This dispute was a carryover from the debate over the Articles. It felt stale.

*          *          *

Summer's end was in the air. It was a time for summing up. On August 31, George Mason said that he would “sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands,” and in the end, he did neither. “There is no declaration of rights,” he later said by way of explaining his refusal to sign the document. “There is no declaration of any kind for preserving the liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil cases, nor the danger of standing armies in time of peace.”

Mason's objections were sweeping and took in all three branches of the new government. The House of Representatives would provide “the shadow only” and not the substance of real representation. The Senate, with its powers of appointment and treaty-making and its elongated six-year terms, “will destroy any balance in government.” As for the federal judiciary, it is “so constructed and extended as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states.” In transferring the administration of justice to a remote capital, it renders “justice as unattainable” and enables “the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.”

The executive, without benefit of a constitutional council chosen by the states through the House of Representatives, will be “directed by minions and favorites.” His helpmeet, “that unnecessary officer, the Vice-President . . . for want of other employment, is made president of the Senate; thereby dangerously blending the executive and legislative powers.”

A very bad moon was on the rise. “This government,” predicted Mason, “will commence in a moderate aristocracy: it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.”

Never afraid to stand alone, Martin moved on August 31 that the approval of all thirteen states be required for ratification. He lost, nine states to one. He and Daniel Carroll, over Jenifer's dissent, cast the only state vote against final passage of the ratification clause. Nine states only would be necessary to junk the Articles and get this party started. Martin later explained that

It was my opinion, that to agree upon a ratification of the constitution by any less number than the whole thirteen states, is so directly repugnant to our present articles of confederation, and the mode therein prescribed for their alteration, and such a violation of the compact which the states, in the most solemn manner, have entered into with each other, that those who could advocate a contrary proposition, ought never to be confided in, and entrusted in public life.

Martin and Carroll also caused Maryland to cast the sole vote against ratification by convention, Martin contending that state legislatures were the proper arbitrators. Martin was no mobocrat. In his brief remarks on state conventions we can foresee the Federalist of 1800 in utero. He understood “the danger of commotions from a resort to the people,” for the people can be gulled, the people fall for lies, the people can rampage. Martin was an Anti-Federalist but he was not a populist. Nor, however, was he a preening aristocrat. Within the convention, he stood at antipodes from the likes of Hamilton or Charles Pinckney, who suggested property qualifications of $100,000 for president and $50,000 for senators, representatives, and federal judges. (Doctor Franklin piped up that some of the greatest rogues were the richest rogues, and Pinckney's plutocratic motion died.)

Martin left Philadelphia on September 4. He intended, he said, to return, but did not. Despite “two months close application under those august and enlightened masters of the science with which the Convention abounded,” Martin had been unable to discover “anything in the history of mankind . . . to warrant or countenance the motley mixture of a system proposed.” The Constitution was

neither wholly federal, nor wholly national—but a strange hotch-potch of both—just so much federal in appearance as to give its advocates . . . an opportunity of passing it as such upon the unsuspecting multitude, before they had time and opportunity to examine it, and yet so predominantly national as to put it in the power of its movers, whenever the machine shall be set agoing, to strike out every part that has the appearance of being federal, and to render it wholly and entirely a national government.

Though Luther Martin did not return to Philadelphia to give “my solemn negative” to the document, he did phone in a request, as it were: “that as long as the history of mankind shall record the appointment of the late Convention, and the system which has been proposed by them, it is my highest ambition that my name also be recorded as one who considered the system injurious to my country, and as such opposed it.”

U.S. Department of Commerce

 

New rules on universal jurisdiction

22 July 2010

The Government is proposing new rules about how courts in England and Wales deal with people accused of serious human rights violations.

There are a small number of offences over which the United Kingdom has 'universal jurisdiction'. That means that a suspect can be prosecuted regardless of where the crime was committed, or the nationality of the perpetrator or victim.

Offences covered include some of the most serious under international law, such as:

A person accused of committing these very serious crimes in another country can be brought to justice in UK courts.

At the moment anyone can apply to the courts for an arrest warrant. That is a right that the Government wants to protect. However, because the evidence necessary to issue an arrest warrant may be far less than would be needed for a prosecution, the system is open to possible abuse by people trying to obtain arrest warrants for grave crimes on the basis of flimsy evidence to make a political statement or to cause embarrassment.

In the past, attempts have been made to obtain warrants to arrest visiting foreign dignitaries such as Henry Kissinger, Chinese Trade Minister Bo Xilai and Tzipi Livni, former Foreign Minister and now leader of the Opposition in Israel.

Announcing plans to bring forward legislation, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke restated the Government's commitment to upholding international law and said:

'Our commitment to our international obligations and to ensuring that there is no impunity for those accused of crimes of universal jurisdiction is unwavering.

'It is important, however, that universal jurisdiction cases should be proceeded with in this country only on the basis of solid evidence that is likely to lead to a successful prosecution – otherwise there is a risk of damaging our ability to help in conflict resolution or to pursue a coherent foreign policy.

'The Government has concluded, after careful consideration, that it would be appropriate to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant can be issued to a private prosecutor in respect of an offence of universal jurisdiction.'

The Government will bring forward legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

Notes to editors

  1. The jurisdiction of the courts in England and Wales is basically territorial – with some exceptions they only try offences committed in England and Wales. However, war crimes under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, and a small number of other grave offences, are subject to universal jurisdiction. This enables prosecution to take place here even though the offence was committed outside the United Kingdom, and irrespective of nationality.

  2. A private prosecution can be brought in universal jurisdiction cases. It is open to any individual to initiate criminal proceedings by applying to a magistrate for a summons or an arrest warrant. The consent of the Attorney General or Crown Prosecution Service is not required.

  3. The evidence required for the issue of a summons or warrant is far less onerous than that required by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in determining whether a prosecution should go ahead. The court must simply be shown some information that an offence has been committed by the accused, and it does not need to decide that there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

  4. For more information contact the Ministry of Justice Press Office on 020 3334 3536.

The Deck is Still Stacked in the Government's Favor -- Is This A Good Thing?

Posted on July 22, 2010 by Seth Jaffe

Last week, in City of Pittsfield v. EPA , the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed denial of a petition by the City of Pittsfield seeking review of an NPDES permit issued by EPA. The case makes no new law and, by itself, is not particularly remarkable.  Cases on NPDES permit appeals have held for some time that a permittee appealing an NPDES permit must set forth in detail in its petition basically every conceivable claim or argument that they might want to assert. Pretty much no detail is too small. The City of Pittsfield failed to do this, instead relying on their prior comments on the draft permit. Not good enough, said the Court. 

For some reason, reading the decision brought to mind another recent appellate decision, General Electric v. Jackson , in which the D.C. Circuit laid to rest arguments that EPA's unilateral order authority under § 106 of CERCLA is unconstitutional.  As I noted in commenting on that decision, it too was unremarkable by itself and fully consistent with prior case law on the subject.

What do these two cases have in common? To me, they are evidence that, while the government can over-reach and does lose some cases, the deck remains stacked overwhelmingly in the government's favor. The power of the government as regulator is awesome to behold. Looking at the GE case first, does anyone really deny that EPA's § 106 order authority is extremely coercive? Looking at the Pittsfield case, doesn't it seem odd that a party appealing a permit has to identify with particularity every single nit that they might want to pick with the permit? Even after the Supreme Court's recent decisions tightening pleading standards, the pleading burden on a permit appellant remains much more substantial than on any other type of litigant.

Why should this be so? Why is it that the government doesn't lose when it's wrong, but only when it's crazy wrong? 

 

Superfund XVII: The Pathology of Environmental Policy

By James V. DeLong August 01, 1997

Executive Summary

Superfund was created in 1980 when Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Criticism of the resulting federal programs started soon thereafter and has continued ever since. Notwithstanding, Superfund has sailed on, in a remarkable demonstration of staying power. This persistence is a sobering commentary on the current state of environmental policy. Passage of a bad law can be understood — mistakes happen — but healthy institutions find their mistakes and correct them. A major signal of institutional distress is an inability to fix error, or even to admit it. By this standard, Superfund is a symptom of truly awesome pathology.

Superfund was conceived to address concerns about the sloppy disposal of hazardous wastes, particularly at abandoned sites. These concerns were valid, albeit overstated. If CERCLA had solely provided for emergency actions at abandoned waste sites, there would have been few problems or complaints. Instead, congress passed a law covering every plot of ground on which any contaminant had been spilled, however small the amount or minor the threat.

Most discussions of Superfund focus on the National Priorities List (NPL) assume that "the Superfund problem" will be dealt with once the NPL sites are cleaned up. This is not true. The NPL sites represent a small percentage of the total of contaminated sites, and not necessarily the most important ones. As long as the liability rules and cleanup standards remain unchanged the Superfund problem will exist, whatever happens to the current NPL sites.

Even when a site is cleaned up, the problems do not end. The continuing possibility of Superfund liability makes it a leper from the standpoint of investors. The post-remediation liability threat is so great that no one will touch a site even though it is declared clean. Congress made every individual Superfund site into a tarbaby, exposing anyone with any connection to it to liability for all cleanup costs. No "potentially responsible party" (PRP) can defend on the grounds that it acted legally and responsibly. This regime gives PRPs strong incentives to engage in costly litigation, delaying cleanups and wasting financial resources.

In theory, reforming Superfund has been high on the Congressional agenda for the past several sessions, but real reform has not happened. Neither Administrative reforms nor current legislative proposals address Superfund's central flaws. Under the leading Congressional proposal, S. 8 – The Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act of 1997 – a few of the squeakiest wheels would be greased, without addressing Superfund's central flaws. S. 8 contains one reform that is clearly important: The provision shielding any site cleaned up pursuant to a state plan from suit by the federal government or any private party. Most of the other reforms would accomplish little. Mere lip service is paid to liability reform risk assessments, and the provisions to delegate more authority to states are mostly a sham. Most unfortunately, passage of proposals currently on the table would probably foreclose serious reform for another decade.

The flaws in Superfund are so fundamental that it is simply not possible to achieve meaningful reform by tinkering with the present statute. True reform of Superfund requires three steps:

1) Repeal of the current statute and its approach to hazardous waste cleanup, including federal cleanup standards, taxes, and liability rules;

2) Replace CERCLA with – nothing. Contaminated real estate is not a federal problem. It is a state and local concern. States are already outperforming the federal government at hazardous waste cleanup, and would do more if they were able.

3) Establish transition rules to sweep up the debris of seventeen years and provide a measure of justice to people enmeshed in the program, with particular concern for those sites that are already in the Superfund pipeline. The primary aim should be to expedite the process and transfer sites to state jurisdiction or where possible, private hands, through .

Under exceptional circumstances, where a release threatens to contaminate ground or surface water and spread across state lines, the federal government may have an interest where state authorities are incapable of addressing the concern, but the primary obligation should rest on the states and the principles of common law should guide nation's approach to hazardous waste sites in the future. This is the only true road to Superfund reform. Seventeen years of nonsense is enough.

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

A.I.G.: The First Test of Financial Reform?

Do the sweeping financial regulations that just became law give the government another tool to deal with the American International Group ? If so, what if anything should the Treasury Department do with its new power?

More specifically, now that the government has obtained the authority to place systemically important financial companies into receivership, should the government use this procedure with A.I.G.? After all, former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. has said that if he had been able to use that process in fall 2008, he would have used it. If not then, why shouldn't the government act now?

The government appears to have this power with respect to A.I.G., although it would require some procedural hurdles and a determination that A.I.G. is technically insolvent.

First, A.I.G. would have to be put under the supervision of the Federal Reserve as a systemically important nonbank financial company. This can be done by a declaration of two-thirds of the members of the newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council upon their determination that A.I.G. could pose a threat the financial stability of the United States. Check. We have already found that to be true, to our regret.

A.I.G. would next have to be put into the resolution process. Because the largest subsidiary of A.I.G. is almost certainly an insurance company, the new financial regulations would require that two-thirds of the members of the Federal Reserve Board and the newly appointed director of the newly created Federal Insurance Office, in consultation with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation , agree to recommend this action to the Treasury secretary.

The Treasury secretary would then decide whether to put A.I.G. into receivership based on a seven-factor test that requires him to determine whether A.I.G. “is in default or in danger of default” on its obligations and “no viable private sector alternative is available.” Importantly, the definition of default here is quite wide and includes a situation in which “the assets of the financial company are, or are likely to be, less than its obligations to creditors and others” or A.I.G. has depleted all or substantially all of its capital.

Recent reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Oversight Panel have stressed that it is very unclear what exactly A.I.G. is worth, and it may be the case that A.I.G.'s assets are less than what the company owes the United States government for billions of dollars in bailouts. But this is a moving figure and the stock market currently assigns A.I.G.'s equity billions of dollars in value, mitigating against these assessments.

If A.I.G. were to be put into receivership, it would be unwound according to the process set forth in the bill. There is an expedited claims process and the government has the power to terminate all of A.I.G.'s derivatives contracts. (The holders would then be entitled to cash damages as creditors of the company.)

The assets of A.I.G. would first go to pay the United States government, then to wages up to $11,725 per employee and thereafter to pay senior and unsecured creditors, the senior executives and directors and finally A.I.G. shareholders.

If there is a shortfall of funds, the bill appears to provide authority for the government to recover any such shortfall through an assessment on the financial sector, although it is not entirely clear that this provision would apply to the government's prior financial assistance since it was provided before A.I.G.'s entry into receivership.

The advantages of the resolution process is that it sets a clear path for ending A.I.G.'s plight. The company would be liquidated in an orderly manner and the United States government repaid from A.I.G.'s assets or, if the bill is interpreted that way, the financial sector.

In addition, this type of resolution would penalize those creditors of A.I.G. that remain from the time before the bailout. In particular, it would ensure that the government is paid ahead of the $43.9 billion in A.I.G. private debt that was estimated to be outstanding by the Congressional Oversight Panel in its recent report on A.I.G. It would also stop the bleeding at A.I.G.

Only last week, three Ohio state pension funds reached a $725 million settlement with A.I.G. related to prior allegations of securities fraud. Only $175 million was actually paid in cash by A.I.G. (the rest will depend on an unlikely-to-occur stock offering), but this is money that comes out of the ability of A.I.G. to repay the government for its bailout.

The disadvantages of this resolution process are at least threefold.

First, there is a problem that Prof. Jeff Gordon at Columbia Law School has highlighted with the entire resolution process. Placing a company into the resolution process may itself scare the entire market and throw the financial system into panic. This may be addressed in part by only putting the main part of A.I.G. and its subsidiary AIG Financial Products (the division that wrote the derivatives that destroyed A.I.G.) into receivership, leaving the main insurance companies out of the process. But still, this would be an undeniable blow to market confidence.

Second, a resolution process may not provide the greatest return to the United States without a financial assessment. In other words, putting A.I.G. into the receivership process may diminish its value and require yet further government support. In particular, if A.I.G. is put into the resolution process, it may render worthless the billions of dollars in equity currently attributable to A.I.G.'s common stock (although that may be in part attributable to market expectations that the government would willingly take a haircut on its debt) and cut off A.I.G.'s healthier subsidiaries from any access to private-sector capital markets.

The third disadvantage lies in the political ramifications. Does the Obama administration really want the headache of taking full control of A.I.G. and the charges of socialism that would come with it?

In the end, I admit that this is a bit of a thought experiment and that the government is unlikely to (or should) take these steps, because the process of dealing with the company appears to be working on an acceptable, if not optimal, level. But plotting an A.I.G. receivership also reflects some of the problems and advantages of the new resolution process.

At a minimum, the government should likely acknowledge reality and designate A.I.G. as a systemically significant nonbank financial company under the new financial regulations. But even here, I acknowledge that such a designation may make the market increasingly leery of A.I.G. and foreclose its ability to effectively recover.

Still, as the process with A.I.G. unfolds, this designation and resolution option is one that government regulators should keep in mind if the company's financial situation significantly deteriorates. At least, it is an option that should be debated as to its merits and deficits. The government owes it to the taxpayers to keep all of its options open.

– Steven M. Davidoff

Wall Street Roundup: Bonus brouhaha. How AIG dodged the bullet

July 23, 2010 | 

NY Fed names Dahlgren head of bank supervision

By Kristina Cooke

NEW YORK | Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:46pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve Bank of New York named Sarah Dahlgren, its point person on its holdings in bailed-out insurer AIG, as the head of bank supervision, it said on Friday.

Goldman Sachs Said to Give AIG-Hedging List to Investigators

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. told U.S. investigators which counterparties it used to hedge the risk that American International Group Inc. would fail, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

The list was sought by panels reviewing the beneficiaries of New York-based AIG's $182.3 billion government bailout, said the people, who declined to be identified because the information is private. Goldman Sachs, which received $12.9 billion after the 2008 rescue tied to contracts with the insurer, has said it didn't need AIG to be rescued because it was hedged against the firm's failure.

“We want to know the identity of those parties, partly just to know where American taxpayer dollars went, but partly to assess Goldman's claim,” said Elizabeth Warren , chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, in a Senate hearing this week. “We cannot evaluate the credibility of their claim that they had nothing at stake one way or the other in the AIG bailout.”

Warren's panel and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, both of which are reviewing the use of taxpayer funds in financial bailouts, received the data from New York-based Goldman Sachs, the people said. Goldman Sachs had rebuffed a May request from the Congressional Oversight Panel for the names of counterparties, according to a document provided to lawmakers.

Goldman Sachs has provided data to Warren's panel and “to the extent that they have other questions, we are more than happy to provide them with the information,” Lucas van Praag , a Goldman Sachs spokesman, said yesterday in a statement. “We reached out to them” earlier this week, he said.

‘A Welcome Change'

Peter Jackson , a spokesman for the oversight panel, said that Goldman Sachs's “apparent willingness to cooperate fully is a welcome change from their previous unwillingness to disclose details of the taxpayer assistance they received.”

AIG's rescue was designed to prevent a wider financial collapse. Banks including Goldman Sachs bought $62.1 billion in insurance on mortgage-linked securities from AIG. To protect itself, Goldman Sachs bought credit-default swaps that would've paid out in the event of an AIG bankruptcy, Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar has said.

When asked in March 2009 which firms sold Goldman Sachs the protection, Viniar said it was “really all of the large financial institutions” in and outside the U.S.

Goldman Sachs had $10 billion of exposure to AIG when the insurer was rescued in September 2008, offset by $7.5 billion of collateral and swaps, Viniar said. The hedges were one reason that Goldman wouldn't accept anything less than full payment on the guarantees it purchased from AIG, he said.

Backdoor Bailout

The AIG rescue has been called a “backdoor bailout” of financial firms because banks were fully reimbursed on $62.1 billion in securities that had plunged in value.

Goldman Sachs provided the information to the Congressional Oversight Panel after the Senate Finance committee took up the cause this week, said a person with knowledge of the events. Lawmakers should use a subpoena to compel Goldman Sachs, if needed, Senator Charles Grassley said at a July 21 hearing.

“Why shouldn't the public know who these ultimate beneficiaries of taxpayers' support actually are?” Grassley said.

The Iowa Republican's office is “working with Goldman Sachs and the Congressional Oversight Panel to resolve the issue,” said Jill Kozeny , a spokeswoman Grassley, in an e-mail statement.

Congress created the oversight panel in 2008 to oversee Treasury Department activities in stabilizing the economy and the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

To contact the reporters on this story: Hugh Son in New York at hson1@bloomberg.net ; Jesse Westbrook in Washington at jwestbrook1@bloomberg.net .

Local Commissioners say 'scare' over mine hurting ag producers

The Yerington/Anaconda mine prompts divergent opinions from local residents, and that topic prompted quite a bit of discussion during the board comments portion of last Thursday's Lyon County Commissioner meeting.

Commissioner Don Tibbals initially brought up the subject, asking if he had read past meeting minutes correctly when they said that Hunewill is stepping down from a mine committee.

"There are a lot of problems coming along up there (at mine site), "and I want you to stay on it (mine representative)," Tibbals said.

Hunewill, who has been a representative on mine issues for much of her almost 12 years on the board, said she wasn't stepping down from any committee related to the mine, adding that she's been involved with the issue too long to quit.

Besides attending mine meetings as a representative of the county, Hunewill also serves as president of the Mason Valley Environmental Committee, which is a watchdog group that keeps an eye on the mine reclamation situation.

Later in the discussion, Hunewill said the EPA, which has the lead regulatory position at the Yerington/Anaconda mine, "at times don't like what I say," explaining that she'd received an e-mail from Mike Montgomery, an assistant director in the EPA's Region 9 Superfund office, regarding a comment she made at a prior meeting that the mine cleanup would be better off if the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection had kept the lead role.

Hunewill said she hopes another joint meeting with EPA mine officials, and involving the county commission and Yerington City Council, could be held soon to address current concerns and rumors, and she said she would ask interim county manager Jeff Page to set that meeting up.

Tibbals, who owns part of the mine area, including the Weed Heights townsite, said he recently heard someone with EPA was saying the entire mine site is contaminated. He said his response then was to ask why they drove their trucks all over the site, adding that they were spreading that contamination by driving around the mine and Mason Valley. He said if that's the case, they should leave the vehicles inside the fences at the mine site.

 

Tibbals said the stigma and scare from the mine cleanup is hurting the local area and economy, especially the agricultural economy. He noted, for one, he had quite a few vacancies with homes at Weed Heights, with five tenants moving the prior week.


Hunewill also cited the high number of foreclosures in Lyon County; while Tibbals said, "They're putting us out of business," continuing that local farmers have said the situation with the mine has hurt their product sales.

"They'll kill the entire Mason Valley if they don't quit it. It's not right," Tibbals said.

"We need to take a stand."

Tibbals also complained about a mine technical meeting that was taking place that day in Reno, saying it should be in Yerington, that it wasn't fair to local residents, and that no one was representing Mason Valley there.

He also complained about some of the recent work being done at the mine, such as demolishing the administration building, hauling away tires he said were going to Lake Powell and closing an electrical substation.

Commission Chairman Joe Mortensen questioned the mine's status with Superfund, if it was listed.

Hunewill said the site is officially a Superfund site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), since its Section 106 designation (the same as that given for the former Helms Pit that now is known as the Sparks Marina, Hunewill said) comes under CERCLA, giving the EPA regulatory authority.

However, she noted the mine isn't on the National Priorities Listing (NPL), which county and city officials have opposed, and thus isn't eligible for "Superfund" dollars used for long-term cleanups.

The EPA has proposed that the Arimetco portion of the mine be placed on the NPL, since with that mining company in bankruptcy court, there isn't a funding source now for the cleanup of the Arimetco-owned assets and property.

The EPA can use CERCLA authority to conduct investigations and removal actions and compel work by potentially responsible parties.

Hunewill noted the Superfund designation, and some negative publicity about the mine, has hurt local farmers, in particular onion producers.

Group Says State Fails To Protect Water

Thursday, 07/22/10 7:34am

The Next US Climate Strategy: Celebrate the EPA

Alex Steffen , 23 Jul 10

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Grassley Tries to Address EPA Overreach on Agriculture
07/22/2010
NAFB News Service

  Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley says he wants the EPA to stop treating agriculture like second-class citizens. Grassley is joining Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns to cosponsor legislation that would expedite a decision by the EPA to exempt milk containers from regulations initially intended for oil spills. He says it's just another example of EPA overreach – especially when it comes to ag. Grassley notes dairy farmers are already struggling and adding burdensome, unnecessary regulations would put many of them in a precarious position – or even put them out of business. What's more- he says forcing farmers to make unnecessary modifications to their operations could easily increase prices for consumers at the grocery store.

According to Grassley – it defies common sense that the EPA would even consider treating milk like oil. But despite indications in January 2009 that the EPA would exempt milk storage from Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure regulations – they have yet to make a final rule. The legislation Grassley is co-sponsoring would require the EPA to finalize the proposed rule to exempt milk containers within 30 days and would delay EPA fines or other compliance penalties against milk containers until EPA makes a decision on the proposed exemption.

Grassley is also leading an effort to keep the EPA from placing further economic pressure on rural America if the agency would choose to impose more stringent regulations on dust. The Iowa Senator is concerned a draft policy assessment on particulate matter – in which the EPA staff concluded the administrator could either retain the current standards on particulate matter or make them more stringent – puts the EPA one step closer to imposing more unnecessary regulations on farmers.

I'm just glad not to be a pest control operator

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Mining Association Sues EPA, Corps of Engineers Over Coal Permits
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The National Mining Association says the federal agencies are obstructing the permitting process.

 

The National Mining Association Tuesday announced it is suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for allegedly obstructing the coal mine permitting process in Central Appalachia.

The NMA filed the suit in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, according to a news release from the association.

In the suit, the association claims the two agencies circumvented public notice and commenting requirements in the coal mine permitting process.

"NMA members' efforts to navigate this unlawful process and obtain reasonable and predictable permit terms have been unsuccessful, leaving us no choice but to challenge the EPA and Corps policy in court," association President and CEO Hal Quinn said in the news release. "Detailed agency guidance is not a valid substitute for lawful rule making based on public notice and comment. The agencies' continued abuse of the law to impose arbitrary standards on mining operations, state agencies and other federal regulatory bodies threatens the entire region with further economic misery and stagnant employment."

The association alleges in the suit that the EPA and the Corps violated the federal Administrative Procedures Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, according to the news release. The agencies disregarded, "explicit requirements for public comment and formal rule making procedures."

The suit further alleges that the EPA usurped powers granted to state and other federal agencies and has used arbitrary and capricious benchmarks for assessing water quality.

As a result, the agencies have placed a "de facto moratorium" on coal mining that is harming NMA member companies, the news release states.

According to the NMA, nearly 18,000 jobs and more than 80 small businesses have been jeopardized as a result of the agencies' actions.

"The Corps is allowing EPA to impose unilateral control over coal mine permits throughout Appalachia, imposing a moratorium on jobs, energy production and the economic future of communities in the region," Quinn said in a news release. "The faulty science at the heart of this policy serves no environmental good. These actions must be held to the same standard required of all substantive rules."

Copyright 2010 West Virginia Media. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Coal companies sue EPA over mine permit delays

Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:

* Mining companies file suit against EPA

* Charge agency is obstructing mine permits

* EPA says action consistent with law

NEW YORK, July 20 (Reuters) - The National Mining Association, which represents most major U.S. coal mining companies, on Tuesday filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency, saying it was unlawfully obstructing permits for coal mining operations in Central Appalachia.

EPA's delaying of mountaintop mining permits has jeopardized thousands of jobs and supply of a fuel vital to meeting national electric power needs, said the lawsuit, filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

The NMA suit against EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contends they have circumvented requirements for public notice and comment on federal statutes and ignored calls for "peer-reviewed science" as part of "a deliberate policy to substitute agency 'guidance' for formal rulemaking."

A spokeswoman said EPA is reviewing the suit, and added: "EPA's mining guidance is fully consistent with the law and the best available science and will help ensure that Americans living in coal country don't have to choose between a healthy environment for their families and the jobs they need to support them."

Since the Obama administration came into office, the EPA has put almost 200 permits in Appalachia for surface, or mountaintop, mining on hold for "enhanced review." That sparked complaints from mining companies that it was aimed at banning the technique, in which mines are dug directly into the side of mountains and debris is discarded in springs and rivers.

"EPA has usurped authorities clearly granted to the states and other federal agencies and has used technical benchmarks for assessing water quality that are both arbitrary and capricious," the NMA suit said.

"Detailed agency guidance is not a valid substitute for lawful rulemaking based on public notice and comment," NMA president and chief executive Hal Quinn said in a statement.

"The agencies' continued abuse of the law to impose arbitrary standards on mining operations, state agencies and other federal regulatory bodies threatens the entire region with further economic misery and stagnant employment."

The NMA said EPA's action resulted in a de facto moratorium on coal mining "that is irreparably harming NMA's member companies, the welfare of coal communities and the economy."

It said a May 21 report by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Minority staff stated nearly 18,000 new and existing jobs and more than 80 small businesses are jeopardized by the policy EPA and the Corps have applied to the 190 permits still awaiting action in mid-May. (Reporting by Steve James; Editing by Gary Hill)

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Tenth Circuit gets ministerial exemption right, appellate procedure wrong

A decision from the Tenth Circuit last week , dealing with the ministerial exemption to employment discrimination laws, got the jurisdictionality question exactly right, holding that it determines "whether the First Amendment bars [that plaintiff's] claims," which is a merits question and not a question of judicial subject matter jurisdiction. (H/T: Christopher Lund , from a debate on the Law and Religion listserv). Unfortunately, it and the parties seem to have botched an issue of appellate procedure (although with no harm or effect on the outcome).

Sued by a former employee of violating Title VII, the ADEA, and the Equal Pay Act, the Diocese raised the ministerial exemption on a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court converted that to a 12(b)(6), then to a motion for summary judgment when it considered submitted affidavits beyond the pleadings. The district court granted summary judgment on the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction on state claims. When the plaintiff appealed the summary judgment ruling, the Diocese filed a cross-appeal, insisting that the district court erred by converting the motion from a jurisdictional one to a merits one.

Relying on prior circuit precedent and a decision from the Third Circuit, the court held that the ministerial exemption from Title VII, like the broader "Church Autonomy Doctrine," serves as a "barrier to the success of the plaintiff's claims," but does not affect the court's adjudicative authority. The court likened the ministerial exemption to executive qualified immunity from constitutional claims, which similarly defeats claims on the merits without depriving the court of jurisdiction to hear and resolve the case. The court's decision and explanation are spot-on.

The discussion on the listserv (which Chris has forwarded to me) has turned to whether the ministerial exemption (and church autonomy generally) should be characterized as "jurisdictional." My argument is that it is jurisdictional, but not in the sense that many people use the term. The exemption, properly understood, does not limit the jurisdiction of the courts to adjudicate (to hear and resolve the case). Instead, it limits the jurisdiction (the authority) of Congress to legislate--what we can call prescriptive or legislative jurisdiction/authority. The ministerial exemption is a First Amendment doctrine and any attempt by Congress to legislate in derogation of the exemption would be unconstitutional and any such law would be invalid. That is, the First Amendment has imposed a limit on Congress' prescriptive authority to create legal rules that regulate or prohibit certain employment by the Church as to certain employees. Thus, the plaintiff's attempt to sue the Diocese under federal law fails because there is no valid enforceable legal rule to be enforced, because the First Amendment limits the scope of existent federal law. That failure is on the merits; federal law does not prohibit the conduct of which the Church is accused by this ministerial employee. But this does not affect the court's authority to hear and resolve a case that, although unsuccessful, plainly arises under federal law (in the sense of asserting a right existing because of federal law). This conflation of adjudicative and prescriptive jurisdiction is at the heart of the current circuit split over the ministerial exemption. And it is at the heart of much jurisdiction/merits confusion.

On the other hand, the Tenth Circuit seems to have made a mistake of appellate procedure. The court allowed the Diocese to cross-appeal to argue that the ministerial exemption is properly understood as a limit on the district court's adjudicative jurisdiction and that the 12(b)(1) should have been granted. But I am not sure that a cross-appeal was proper or necessary here. The general rule is that a party only can appeal a judgment or order if it is "aggrieved" by a judgment that is adverse to its interests. Winning on grounds different than the ones urged in the district court does not provide the basis for a cross-appeal. A prevailing party can argue any grounds that appear in the record in support of the favorable judgment, without a cross-appeal.

Moreover, no cross-appeal is required (or permitted) when a district court has resolved the case in the defendant's favor on the merits but the defendant wants to urge a jurisdictional dismissal. Because subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, the prevailing party can argue that as a different basis for affirming the judgment. That clearly is the case here--the district court rejected the claims on the merits, while the Diocese wanted to prevail on jurisdictional grounds. No cross-appeal should have been necessary. This case is somewhat unusual because the same argument--ministerial exemption--is being used both to convert the lower-court judgment and to defend it. But that should not make a difference. The point is that the Diocese was arguing to an appellate court that the trial court reached the merits in a case in which it (according to the Diocese) lacked subject matter jurisdiction. No cross-appeal should be required.

Interesting, a cross-appeal is required in the converse situation--where the district court dismisses a case without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds and the prevailing defendant wants to convert that dismissal to one on the merits, which would be with prejudice and would have res judicata effect. Such an argument is deemed to change or modify the nature of the judgment, which requires cross-appeal. Of course, had the Diocese prevailed on its cross-claim here, it would have converted a judgment having res judicata effect into one not having res judicata effect. As the case stood, the district court's ruling precludes the plaintiff from refiling her federal claims. Had the dismissal of the federal claims been on jurisdictional grounds, on the other hand, the plaintiff could have refiled those claims in state court. In other words, the Diocese's argument, while allowed on cross-appeal, actually would have put it in a less-advantageous position in this case.

The with-prejudice/without-prejudice line is an overlooked aspect of jurisdiction/merits confusion. By trying to characterize lots of issues under federal statutes as jurisdictional, defendants actually set themselves up for having to relitigate these claims in state court (where there is concurrent jurisdiction). Here, because the court treated the ministerial exemption as a merits issue, the Diocese does not have to worry about any of the plaintiff's federal claims again. You would think that is a benefit the Diocese would not have wanted to give away.

CONTACT:

Stacy Kika

Kika.stacy@epa.gov

202-564-0906

202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 21, 2010

GAO: Feds Starting To Plan Eventual AIG Exit Strategy 

Published 8/4/2010  Subscribe to Property & Casualty

NU Online News Service, Aug. 4, 11:28 a.m. EDT

The government may sell its stake in American International Group Inc. through a public stock offering sometime after 2013, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

GAO officials talk about the future of AIG, New York (NYSE:AIG), and other large recipients of federal financial assistance in a report on federal financial assistance to private-sector companies prepared for congressional committees.

The government has provided $134 billion in indirect and direct assistance to AIG, with the majority made through government investments in AIG stock, officials said.

“When AIG will be able to pay the government completely back for its assistance is currently unknown because the federal government's exposure to AIG is increasingly tied to the future health of AIG, its restructuring efforts and its ongoing performance as more debt is exchanged for equity,” Gene Dodaro, the acting comptroller general of the United States, wrote in a letter describing the GAO's findings.

Officials in the U.S. Treasury Department and at the Federal Reserve Board told GAO staffers that AIG must repay a Federal Reserve Bank of New York credit facility  before the government's AIG trust can dispose of its AIG stock, Mr. Dodaro said.

AIG is supposed to repay the credit facility by Sept. 13, 2013.

Treasury officials and AIG trust trustees plan to coordinate their divestment efforts, Mr. Dodaro said.

The trustees of the AIG trust said they will begin working on an exit strategy when AIG has repaid the New York Fed, according to Mr. Dodaro.

At the Treasury Department, the "team that manages the AIG investment has been running scenarios of possible exit strategies but has not decided which strategy to employ,” he said.

The AIG trust could convert its AIG Series C Preferred Stock into common stock and dispose of the common stock through a public offering or a private sale, Mr. Dodaro said.

The Treasury Department could dispose of its shares by having AIG redeem the shares; converting the shares into common stock and selling the stock through a public offering; or selling the shares to an institutional buyer or buyers through a private sale.

 

EPA Seeks Small Business Input on Proposed Stormwater Rule

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting small businesses and municipalities to nominate representatives to provide input on a proposed stormwater rule. The rule would strengthen the national stormwater program under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and focus on stormwater discharges from developed sites, such as subdivisions, roadways, industrial facilities, and commercial buildings or shopping centers.

Selected participants would provide input to a Small Business Advocacy Review panel, which will consist of officials from EPA, the U.S. Small Business Administration and the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA is establishing this panel because the rule could have a significant economic impact on small entities. The representatives will provide input on how EPA can minimize the potential burden on small entities of the proposed regulation. Nominations must be received by August 4, 2010.

More information about participating in the panel: http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/stormwater.htm

More information about the rulemaking: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/rulemaking

R251

Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS 

City's lawsuit blasts EPA river cleanup plan

Associated Press - July 21, 2010 12:24 PM ET

POST FALLS, Idaho (AP) - The northern Idaho city of Post Falls and the Hayden Area Regional Sewer Board are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal court over a plan to clean pollution in the Spokane River.

In the lawsuit, the city and sewer board say the EPA violated the Clean Water Act in May by approving the interstate cleanup plan, which was developed by the Washington Department of Ecology. The city and sewer board contend the plan transfers a disproportionate burden of cleaning Washington's water onto Idaho citizens.

The Coeur d'Alene Press reports both the EPA and Post Falls officials declined to comment on the lawsuit. Coeur d'Alene city attorney Mike Gridley says his city also plans to sue the EPA, and the lawsuit will likely be consolidated with the one brought by Post Falls.

Information from: Coeur d'Alene Press, http://www.cdapress.com

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

COMMISSIONS OF ESSENTIAL PRODUCTS ADMINISTRATION (EPA) (TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 53 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part 2 —Financial Crime-Free Communities Support Program

§ 5355 . Authorization of appropriations, Title 15. Chapter 1 - § 1 . Trusts, etc. TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 9 § 9. Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure. The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 8 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petitions setting forth the case and praying that such violations shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.

ex officio de palatine per curiam.

As our school partnerships develop, we are keen to seek ways of extending our support to some of the many grass-roots community organisations providing invaluable support to local residents. esse quam videri

State Water Board to Take Action on 1,700 Severely Polluted Waterways
New List Reveals Few Californians Enjoy "Fishable, Swimmable, Drinkable" Waterways

Developer Held Liable for Residential Cleanup Costs

By ELIZABETH BANICKI 

     (CN) - A real estate developer that bought a contaminated tract of wetlands in Huntington Beach, Calif., is responsible for the cleanup costs of neighboring residential areas, the 9th Circuit ruled, even though it sold the land before getting billed by the state.
      California's Department of Toxic Substances Control had sued Hearthside Residential Corp., seeking reimbursement for the costs of cleaning up residential property near Hearthside's land, both of which were contaminated with the toxic substance polychlorinated biphenyls.
      Hearthside bought its Fieldstone property knowing that it was contaminated. The state regulatory agency told Hearthstone that if it was going to clean up its own land, it also had to clean up the contaminated areas surrounding it, since its land was the source of contamination.
      Hearthside refused, choosing instead to clean its own land and sell it before the department could react. The state agency hired another company to clean up the neighboring lands and billed Hearthside for it.
      U.S. District Judge Valerie Fairbank found Hearthside responsible because it owned the land when the department sought reimbursement, even though Hearthstone later sold the property.
      A three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit agreed, ruling that the land's "owner and operator" when cleanup costs are incurred is liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
      "If Hearthside's argument were adopted as law, then an owner could sell a recently cleaned piece of property to an innocent buyer one day before the statute of limitations runs, with the result that the new owner would bear full cleanup liability," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the Pasadena-based panel.
      The ruling marks the first time the court has decided when owner status under CERCLA is determined. 

The Progressive Movement: Is it the nexus of eugenicist, racist, xenophobic, fascist, and elitist traits?

Check Out The Funny Hats AIG's Fire Wardens Have To Wear

AIG lives in one of the oldest buildings in New York, a building they very much hope to keep around for many more years to come for many reasons, but mainly because AIG is an insurer .

If the world's biggest, most troubled insurer burned down it would actually be a cruel twist of ironicly fitting fate, but it would be terrible.

Luckily, AIG is well guarded against a fire because they not only have a fantastic sprinkler system and regular fire drills but they also have Fire Wardens.

AIG's fire wardens are in charge of knowing AIG's Fire Safety Emergency Action Plan (FS/EAP) and because they have such an important job, they get hats. No vests, but they get these dorky, red hats that just happen to be the perfect size to place numbers inside for gambling purposes.

It's good to know AIG takes fire safety so seriously. Imagine if they had to buy a new building AND to repay TARP AND to come to the government for help after they just got in trouble with Feinberg for paying their execs too much. Hats to the rescue!

 

Groups urge hearings on Oberstar water bill

Submitted by Journal Staff on July 21, 2010 - 10:25am.

Concerned groups say multiple interests affected

NWCA Staff Report

Groups that have been battling to defeat U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar's federal water bill since 2007 are calling for hearings and open meetings on what is being considered by many to be the largest federal power grab in the nation's history.

The bill (H.R. 5088) is being referred to as the America's Commitment to Clean Water Act, introduced by Oberstar to replace his previous version, the Clean Water Restoration Act. Oberstar chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which has sole jurisdiction of the bill.

The ranking minorities of the House Committees on Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Small Business recently signed a joint letter to the committee chairs asking for hearings and other public input opportunities on the bill. Last year, according to a news release from the National Water and Conservation Alliance, Oberstar made a public commitment to Alaska Rep. Don Young for hearings on a new bill, but an Oberstar aide recently was quoted as saying there would be no hearings.

Former International Falls resident Don Parmeter, St. Paul, and Kathy McDonald of Vancouver, Wash., are co-chairs of the National Water and Conservation Alliance, established last year to develop and promote local and regional alternatives to the federal proposal.

The bill, if approved, would overturn two U.S. Supreme Court decisions (SWANCC, 2001, and Rapanos, 2006) by replacing the word 'navigable' with 'waters of the U.S.' in the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

According to the NWCA, waters of the U.S., as prescribed in Oberstar's new bill, would include:

• All waters that are currently used, were used in the past or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide

• All interstate and international waters, including interstate and international wetlands

• All other waters, including intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds

• All impoundments and tributaries of these waters

The definition would also include uses that affect these waters, generally considered 'non-point' sources such as land use and atmospheric deposition.

Parmeter said state and local solutions to water quality and other environmental problems are better, faster and cheaper, and have proven effective in Oberstar's own district, as well as in other parts of the country. "This top down, command and control mentality from Washington is killing this country and alienating people from every walk of life," said Parmeter. McDonald said "If we're going to build better communities, it needs to be done from the bottom up, not from the top down. She added, "Mr. Oberstar's bill will remove flexibility and take power away from local people and state and local elected officials."

Parmeter, a former pollution control engineer who lived in Oberstar's congressional district for 30 years, said there is virtually no support in the district for the legislation.

"This kind of expansive federal legislation has traditionally been aggressively opposed in the 8th District of Minnesota by citizens of all political persuasions," said Parmeter. Moreover, according to Parmeter, the legislation flies in the face of a 1995 state water rights statute that was authored by prominent democrats in Oberstar's district, including the former speaker of the House, former chairman of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, and three former candidates for governor.

"This is not what any rational person would call constitutional, representative government at work," said Parmeter.

Chuck Cushman, founder and executive director of the American Land Rights Association, said his organization has sent out several million e-mails over the last few years, and plans to step up the pace in the coming months to help prevent passage of the bill.

"This bill potentially affects all water and land in the country, and we have to pull out all stops to kill it," said Cushman. "It's the biggest threat to property rights that I have seen in my 35 year career, and it's being forced on an unsuspecting American public under the guise of clean water."

In addition to formal public hearings, including field hearings, the groups will urge members of Congress, especially members of the Committees on Transportation, Agriculture, Natural Resources and Small Business, to hold town hall meetings, listening sessions or congressional forums on the issue in their districts.

"The August recess will be a good time for members of Congress to do this, and a good opportunity for average citizens to hold their members accountable on this issue," said Cushman.

 

Fiscal Year 2011 Climate Program Office

The synopsis for this grant opportunity is detailed below, following this paragraph. This synopsis contains all of the updates to this document that have been posted as of 07/20/2010 . If updates have been made to the opportunity synopsis, update information is provided below the synopsis.

If you would like to receive notifications of changes to the grant opportunity click send me change notification emails . The only thing you need to provide for this service is your email address. No other information is requested.

Any inconsistency between the original printed document and the disk or electronic document shall be resolved by giving precedence to the printed document.

Document Type: Grants Notice
Funding Opportunity Number: NOAA-OAR-CPO-2011-2002561
Opportunity Category: Discretionary
Posted Date: Jul 20, 2010
Creation Date: Jul 20, 2010
Original Closing Date for Applications: Sep 10, 2010   
Current Closing Date for Applications: Sep 10, 2010   
Archive Date: Oct 10, 2010
Funding Instrument Type: Cooperative Agreement
Grant
Category of Funding Activity: Environment
Natural Resources
Science and Technology and other Research and Development
Category Explanation:
Expected Number of Awards:
Estimated Total Program Funding: $21,000,000
Award Ceiling:
Award Floor:
CFDA Number(s): 11.431  --  Climate and Atmospheric Research
Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: No

Eligible Applicants

Others (see text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility" for clarification)

Additional Information on Eligibility:

Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, commercial organizations, international organizations, and state, local and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies or institutions are not eligible to receive assistance under this notice.

Agency Name

Department of Commerce

Description

Changing climate confronts society with significant economic, health, safety, and national security challenges. NOAA has important responsibilities in conducting observations, research, prediction, and information management for the purpose of understanding and responding to climate and global change. The NOAA Climate Program Office (CPO) manages the competitive research programs in which NOAA funds high-priority climate science to advance understanding of Earth's climate system and its atmospheric, oceanic, land, and snow and ice components. This science contributes to knowledge about how climate variability and change affect our health, economy, and well-being. The CPO supports research that is conducted in regions across the United States, at national and international scales, and globally. The CPO also provides strategic guidance and oversight for the agency's climate science and services programs. In this connection, the CPO is helping lead the development of a proposed NOAA Climate Service; details about the proposed Service can be found at (http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html). The CPO is in the process of restructuring its grants programs that will go into effect with this announcement of opportunity. The grants activities are now organized within four Programs: Climate Observations and Monitoring, Earth System Science, Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections, and Climate and Societal Interactions. In addition, the CPO announces an opportunity in FY 2011 that cuts across these four Programs to deal with Improving NOAA's Climate Services for the Coastal Zone. In FY 2011, approximately $21 million will be available for new awards pending budget appropriations. It is anticipated that most awards will be at a funding level between $50,000 and $300,000 per year, with some exceptions for larger awards ($600K-$700K). Investigators are highly encouraged to visit the CPO Web site (http://www.climate.noaa.gov) for general program information prior to submitting applications.

Link to Full Announcement

CLICK ON FULL OPPORTUNITY BUTTON LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE.

If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:

Steve Drescher
Policy Advisor
For application download issues.

Synopsis Modification History

There are currently no modifications for this opportunity.

Grant Deadline

Special to the Daily News Updated: 08/06/2010 08:21:07 AM PDT
var requestedWidth = 0; if(requestedWidth > 0){ document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.width = requestedWidth + "px"; document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.margin = "0px 0px 10px 10px"; } The Shasta Regional Community Foundation announces new funding cycles for the Tehama County Grantmaking Program of The McConnell Fund at the Community Foundation.

These grants support programs and organizations in Tehama County for building and equipment related projects. Funding will be considered in two categories: projects under $10,000 and projects from $10,001 to $50,000. All grant requests must be postmarked by or received at the Community Foundation's Redding office (1335 Arboretum Drive, Suite B, Redding, CA 96003) by 5 p.m. on Sept. 15.

The Community Foundation, through The McConnell Fund, has awarded over $370,000 to nonprofit organizations in Tehama County. These grants have been used for projects in arts, culture, human service, youth development, health, environment and more.

Funding guidelines for each program can be found at www.shastarcf.org www.shastarcf.org .

For more information, or if you would like to talk about a project idea, please contact Beth Freeman with Shasta Regional Community Foundation at 244--1219.

THE DAILY

Tuesday, August 3, 2010 01:55 PM Article View: Single Page | Multiple Pages Superfund site cleaned, but development plan has stagnated

Do The Federal Whistleblower Laws Afford Workers Enough Protection?
Author: George Murphy | Words: 491 | Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010

The federal whistleblower laws are here to protect employees from repercussions when they "blow the whistle" on their employer. This occurs in instances where their employer may have broken the law, violated employees' rights, or neglected their safety. In the light of recent events, many people are now wondering if our existing laws provide whistleblowers enough protection. Several new proposals have arisen that attempt to better protect United Sates' whistleblowers in industry specific situations.

First, lets look briefly at the history of United Sates Federal Whistleblower protection laws. The Lloyd-La Follette Act of 1912 guaranteed federal employees the right to provide information to Congress, and was the first US law passed to specifically protect whistleblowers. Many years later, several environmental laws were passed that included whistleblower protection, they were: the Clean Water Act (1972), Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), Solid Waste Disposal Act (1976), Toxic Substances Control Act (1976), Energy Reorganization Act (1978), the Superfund Law (1980), and the Clean Air Act (1990). Several more employee-centric protection acts soon followed, including: the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (1982), the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (2002), AIR 21 (2002). The big chief of whistleblower laws was passed in 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which afforded protection to corporate whistleblowers.

The above may seem like both an extensive and compressive list, but many feel that the protections afforded by these laws are simply not adequate. In the aftermath of BP's oil leak catastrophe, many public figures are asking for explicit protections for offshore oil workers. Charles Melancon, a Louisiana Representative, is one such man leading the charge. Rep. Melancon feels that the Gulf Coast region "might not be going through this traumatic episode'' if the offshore drilling workers knew they would be protected federally.

Consulting with a Louisiana Jones Act Attorney, he explained that while the Jones Act affords some protection to seaman, many workers feel that they will be blackballed by the industry if they bring suit against their employer. A Maritime Attorney summarized the workers' concerns a different way, saying that these workers are afraid of the consequences of seeking damages when they are injured on the job, imagine the kind of consequences they fear from blowing the whistle.

The tragic passing of eleven valiant employees on board the Deepwater Horizon begs the question: is it now time to demand federal whistleblower protection for offshore workers? "We need to hold these companies accountable,'' Melancon said in a public statement. While many Gulf Coast residents hope that BP is held accountable through lawsuits brought on by Louisiana Jones Act Attorneys on behalf of the victims of this awful tragedy, almost everyone agrees that this event should have been prevented in the first place.

Perhaps the BP disaster, and the resulting public fallout will finally bring the sweeping change that the public now feels is necessary to protect us from the corporations that have such a drastic impact on our lives. Only time will tell.

A.I.G. Nears a Sale of Consumer Lending Unit

August 6, 2010, 12:18 pm

The American International Group is nearing the potential sale of its consumer lending unit as the insurer seeks to completely repay its government bailout, the firm's chief executive told DealBook on Friday.

A.I.G. is in the process of accepting bids on the unit, American General Finance, and hopes to announce a sale this month, the chief executive, Robert H. Benmosche, said in a telephone interview.

The firm said in its earnings report on Friday that it was seeking “a potential sale of all or a majority of its $2.4 billion investment” in the business.

Selling off American General Finance is the latest rejiggering of A.I.G.'s business mix as it tries to pay back its multibillion-dollar government bailout. A.I.G. has already agreed to sell off two big foreign insurance units, the American Life Insurance Company and Nan Shan, and it is planning an initial public offering of a third, American International Assurance.

American General Finance, a unit based in Evansville, Ind., specializes in what Mr. Benmosche called high-yield lending — or, as he concedes others might call it, subprime lending.

What it needs to succeed, he says, is a backer with a strong, stable deposit base. A.I.G. was able to emulate that when it still carried a triple-A credit rating, he said, but after the financial crisis the business has become a burden.

“It's now a potential drag on an investment-grade rating,” he said.

The unit posted an $11 million operating loss for the second quarter, a significant drop from the $202 million loss it posted for the same time last year. A.I.G. said the improvement arose from declines in loan-loss provisions as its lending business improved.

Breaking news - See News Viewer for the latest

August 5, 2010

EPA's Move On CO 2 Reaps 24 Lawsuits

Climate Change: Plaintiffs challenge agency's plan, based on ‘endangerment' decision

Jeff Johnson

Some 24 states, environmental groups, trade associations, and conservative organizations sued the Environmental Protection Agency this week, challenging its plan to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The lawsuits would block or modify EPA's attempt to reduce emissions from large industrial greenhouse gas sources. The agency's regulation is based on its “endangerment” finding that greenhouse gases, including CO 2 , endanger public health and should therefore be regulated. Suits came from those on both sides of the issue: groups that back EPA's approach but want to make it broader, and industry groups and states that oppose EPA's use of the Clean Air Act to cut CO 2 emissions.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA could regulate CO 2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As a result, EPA said last December that it would do so and began the regulatory process for controlling CO 2 and five other greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles, electric utilities, chemical companies, and other sources ( C&EN, Dec. 14, 2009, page 7 ).

Since then, EPA has moved ahead with final regulations for motor vehicles and is just now developing regulations for industrial sources. The deadline for filing litigation to block the agency was Aug. 2.

The agency, however, remains adamant in its push to move ahead. When recently challenged by petitions from 10 states, trade associations, and conservative organizations that opposed EPA on scientific grounds, agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson denied the petitions, saying, “The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the U.S. and around the world.” She chided the petitioners, urging them to join “the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation.”

The importance of EPA's proposed regulation grows as Congress appears unable to muster support for legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Just last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) withdrew a weak energy bill from Senate consideration. The bill included a few energy provisions, but it primarily proposed to remove a cap on offshore oil spill liability, which Republicans and a smattering of Democrats opposed. Earlier, Reid also dropped efforts to introduce a cap-and-trade bill, saying it lacked sufficient support ( C&EN, Aug. 2, page 12 ).

Chemical & Engineering News ISSN 0009-2347 Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society

 

 

Bill Summary & Status
111th Congress (2009 - 2010)
H.R.3534
All Congressional Actions

Item 3 of 5

PREVIOUS | NEXT
PREVIOUS:BILL STATUS | NEXT:BILL STATUS
NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP |

Back to BSS  Back to Bill Summary and Status

Print Subscribe Share/Save


H.R.3534
Title: Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009
Sponsor: Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] (introduced 9/8/2009)      Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.1574
Latest Major Action: 8/4/2010 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 510.
House Reports: 111-575 Part 1, 111-575 Part 2

ALL ACTIONS:

9/8/2009:

Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

9/16/2009:

Committee Hearings Held.

9/17/2009:

Committee Hearings Held.

6/30/2010:

Committee Hearings Held.

7/14/2010:

Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

7/15/2010:

Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

7/15/2010:

Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 21.

7/28/2010 11:09am:

Reported (Amended) by the Committee on 111-575, Part I.

7/28/2010:

Referred sequentially to the House Committee on Agriculture for a period ending not later than July 28, 2010 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(a), rule X.

7/28/2010 11:27am:

Committee on Agriculture discharged.

7/28/2010 11:27am:

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 332.

7/30/2010 12:41am:

Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1574 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3534 and H.R. 5851 . General debate for H.R. 3534 shall be one hour and forty minutes. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. And, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in Part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in Part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. The rule also makes in order

7/30/2010 1:10pm:

POINT OF ORDER - Mr. Hastings (WA) stated that the bill and committee report violated the provisions of clause 9(a) rule XXI and was not in order for consideration. The Chair sustained the point of order.

7/30/2010 1:11pm:

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FILED - The Chair announced a supplemental report to H.R. 3534 has been filed pursuant to the authority granted by clause 3(a)(2) of rule 13. The supplemental report contains a statement regarding congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits in satisfaction of clause 9 or rule 21.

7/30/2010 1:12pm:

Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1574 . (consideration: CR H6498-6552 , H6555-6561 )

7/30/2010 1:12pm:

Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3534 and H.R. 5851 . General debate for H.R. 3534 shall be one hour. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. And, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in Part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in Part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. The rule also makes in order H.R. 5851 . General debate for H.R. 5851 shall be limited to one hour and the bill is closed to amendments, with the exception of the amendment printed in part C of the report which is considered adopted.

7/30/2010 1:13pm:

House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 1574 and Rule XVIII.

7/30/2010 1:13pm:

The Speaker designated the Honorable Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. to act as Chairman of the Committee.

7/30/2010 1:13pm:

GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 3534 .

7/30/2010 2:03pm:

Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Natural Resources, H. Rept. 111-575 , Part II.

7/30/2010 2:04pm:

The Committee of the Whole rose informally and subsequently resumed its sitting.

7/30/2010 2:47pm:

DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1574 , the Committee on the Whole proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the Rahall amendment No. 1.

7/30/2010 3:08pm:

POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Rahall amendment No. 1, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Hastings (WA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.

7/30/2010 3:09pm:

DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1574 , the Committee on the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Castle amendment No. 2.

7/30/2010 3:13pm:

DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1574 , the Committee on the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Kind amendment No. 3.

7/30/2010 3:22pm:

POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Kind amendment No. 3, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Kind demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.

7/30/2010 3:23pm:

DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1574 , the Committee on the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Shea-Porter amendment No. 4.

7/30/2010 3:31pm:

DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1574 , the Committee on the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Teague amendment No. 5.

7/30/2010 3:40pm:

POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Teague amendment No. 5, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Cummings demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.

7/30/2010 3:40pm:

DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1574 , the Committee on the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Oberstar amendment No. 6.

7/30/2010 3:53pm:

POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Oberstar amendment No. 6, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Hastings (WA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.

7/30/2010 3:54pm:

DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1574 , the Committee on the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Connolly (VA) amendment No. 7.

7/30/2010 4:00pm:

DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1574 , the Committee on the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Melancon amendment No. 8.

7/30/2010 4:14pm:

POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Melancon amendment No. 8, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Hastings (WA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.

7/30/2010 4:16pm:

DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1574 , the Committee on the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Melancon amendment No. 9.

7/30/2010 4:26pm:

Mr. Rahall moved that the Committee now rise.

7/30/2010 4:27pm:

On motion that the Committee now rise Agreed to by voice vote.

7/30/2010 4:27pm:

Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 3534 as unfinished business.

7/30/2010 5:11pm:

Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6555-6561 )

7/30/2010 5:12pm:

The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.

7/30/2010 5:12pm:

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question on adoption of amendments which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.

7/30/2010 5:45pm:

The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 3534 .

7/30/2010 5:45pm:

The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H6558 )

7/30/2010 5:45pm:

The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union . (text: CR H6511-6536 )

7/30/2010 5:47pm:

Mr. Cassidy moved to recommit with instructions to Natural Resources. (consideration: CR H6558-6559 )

7/30/2010 5:47pm:

DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Cassidy motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment inserting a new section 231 which provides a new termination of moratoria on offshore drilling.

7/30/2010 5:59pm:

The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H6559 )

7/30/2010 6:16pm:

On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 166 - 239, 1 Present ( Roll no. 512 ). (consideration: CR H6559-6560 )

7/30/2010 6:23pm:

On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 209 - 193, 1 Present ( Roll no. 513 ).

7/30/2010 6:23pm:

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

7/30/2010 6:23pm:

The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 3534 .

8/3/2010:

Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.

8/4/2010:

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 510.

 

H.RES.1574
Title: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3534 ) to provide greater efficiencies, transparency, returns, and accountability in the administration of Federal mineral and energy resources by consolidating administration of various Federal energy minerals management and leasing programs into one entity to be known as the Office of Federal Energy and Minerals Leasing of the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5851) to provide whistleblower protections to certain workers in the offshore oil and gas industry.
Sponsor: Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] (introduced 7/29/2010)      Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.3534 H.R.5851
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2010 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 220 - 194 (Roll no. 500).
House Reports: 111-582

 

4400 acres of land in Shasta County

Detinue Sur Bailment should be granted immediately, and the EPA lien void & vacated..
“A patent to land, issued by the United States under authority of law, is the highest evidence of title, something upon which its holder can rely for peace and security in his possession. It is conclusive evidence of title against the United States and all the world. ..” 2 The American Law of Mining, § 1.29 at 357. Nichols v. Rysavy, (S.D. 1985) 610 F. Supp. 1245.
"Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States … and [Congress] [D]eclares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title." Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74 (1888).
The “general rule” at least is, “that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” [Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon , 260 U.S. 393, 415, 67 L. Ed. 322, 43 S. Ct. 158 (1922).]
The Court stated, “Takings jurisprudence balances the competing goals of compensating landowners on whom a significant burden of regulation falls and avoiding prohibitory costs to needed government regulation. Citing Dolan v. City of Tigard , 512 U.S. 374, 384 (1994), “TheTakings Clause assures that the government may not force 'some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.'"
In the history of the United States , no Land Patent has ever lost an appellate review in the courts. In Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Comm'n 466 US 198, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Land Patent would always win over any other form of title. In that case, the land in question was tidewater land and California 's claim was based on California 's constitutional right to all tidewater lands. The patent stood supreme even against California 's Constitution, to wit:
[The patent] “[P]assing whatever interest the United States has in the premises and thereby settling any question of sovereign ownership….” Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Baca (CA10 NM) 844 F2d 708; Whaley v. Wotring ( Fla App D1) 225 So 2d 177; Dugas v. Powell, 228 La 748, 84 So 2d 177. [quote at 28 Am. Jur. 2D, F. 2 § 49].
With the title passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land and over the title which it has conveyed. Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 533, 24 L. Ed. 848.
There is no license from the United States or the state of California to miners to enter upon private lands of individuals for the purpose or extracting the minerals in the soil. (Biddle Boggs v Merced Min. Co.) 14 Cal. 279.)

of a private proprietor, with the exception of exemption from state taxation, having no municipal sovereignty or right of eminent domain within the limits of the state-cannot, in derogation of the rights of the local sovereign to govern the relations of the citizens of the state, and to prescribe the rules of property, and its mode of disposition, and its tenure, enter upon, or authorize an entry upon, private property, for the purpose of extracting minerals. The United States , like any other proprietor, can only exercise their rights to the mineral in private property, in subordination to such rules and regulations as the local sovereign may prescribe. Until such rules and regulations are established, the landed proprietor may successfully resist, in the courts of the state, all attempts at invasion of his property, whether by the direct action of the United States or by virtue of any pretended license under their authority. (Biddle Boggs v Merced Min. Co,,) 14 Cal. 279.)
“A valid and subsisting location of mineral lands, made and kept in accordance with the provisions of the statutes of the United States , has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession of the lands located.”
U.S. Supreme Court, 1884
With the title passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land and over the title which it has conveyed. It would be as reasonable to hold that any private owner who has conveyed it to another can, of his own volition, recall, cancel or annul the instrument which he has made and delivered. If fraud, mistake, error, or wrong has been done, the courts of justice present the only remedy. These courts are as open to the United States to sue for the cancellation of the deed or reconveyance of the land as to individuals, and if the government is the party injured this is the proper course”.
Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 533, 24 L. Ed. 848.
That whenever the question in any court, state or federal, is whether a title to land which has once been the property of the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States; but that whenever, according to those laws, the title shall have passed, then that property, like all other property in the state, is subject to state legislation, so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States”.
Wilcox v. McConnell, 13 Pet. ( U.S. ) 498, 517, 10 L. Ed. 264.
“Title by patent from the United States to a tract of ground, theretofore public, prima facie carries ownership of all beneath the surface, and possession under such patent of the surface is presumptively possession of all beneath the surface.
Lawson v. United States Min. Co. 207 U.S. 1, 8, 28 Sup. Ct. 15, 17, 52, L. Ed. 65.
Grub-stake contracts will be enforced by the courts, but only as other contracts; that is to say, it is not enough for parties to assert that they have rights, in order to secure legal protection, but they must be able to prove in each case a clear and definite contract, and that by the terms and conditions of such contract, and compliance therewith on their part, rights have become vested.
Cisna v. Mallory (C.C.) 84 Fed. 851, 854.
The common-law rule is that the lessee of real property may work already opened mines, but cannot open new ones. But the lease may expressly, or by implication from express powers, give the right to take the minerals, the instrument is a genuine lease.

Oshoon v. Bayaud 123 N.Y. 298. 25 N.E. 376
On the other hand, if an attempt is made by the instrument to pass title to the minerals in place, there is really a sale of the mineral.
Plummer v. Hillside Coal & Iron Co. 104 Fed. 208, 43 C.C. A. 490
Whatever the form of the instrument of conveyance, and even though the parties speak of it in its terms as a lease, if its fair construction shows that the title to the minerals in place is to pass upon the delivery of the instrument, while the surface is retained, or vice versa, and, of course, for all time, if the fee is granted, except that the fee to the space occupied by the minerals seems to terminate when the mine is exhausted.
McConnell v. Pierce, 210 Ill. 627, 71 N.E. 622., Moore v. Indian Camp Coal Co.,493, 0 N.E. 6.
The relationship among joint venturers was eloquently described by United States Supreme Court Justice Cardozo in the seminal 1928 case of Meinhard v. Salmon - “joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty. Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm's length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. As to this there has developed a tradition that is unbending and inveterate. Uncompromising rigidity has been the attitude of courts of equity when petitioned to undermine the rule of undivided loyalty by the ‘disintegrating erosion' of particular exceptions. Only thus has the level of conduct for fiduciaries been kept at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd.”)
Artesian Mineral Development & Consolidated Sludge, Inc.& Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.
insitu remediation summary & history of copper cementation and bioleaching
Cementation of copper began with the discovery of silver at the Lost Confidence Mine by 1890 and before the beginning of copper mining at Iron Mountain and Mountain Copper Co. Ltd. around 1896. By 1908 the State Geologist reported that the operation was so extensive that a building was being constructed over and around it. In 1919 copper prices crashed and the mine closed, in 1920 fish kills were reported. In 1921 copper cementation resumed and was thereafter operated continuously until the EPA implemented their High Density Sludge treatment and driven Ted Arman from the business.. After WWII Iron Mountain mines produced sulfur and iron for fertilizers until 1963. Iron Mountain has 20,000,000 tonnes proven and 5,000,000 tonnes probable ore reserves. The naturally occurring archaea living in the Richmond mine are reported to be capable of producing the most acidic natural mine waters on the planet, pH -3.6. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. bioleaching naturally produces about 8 tons of metals per day. One of the earliest records of the practice of leaching is from the island of Cyprus. Galen, a naturalist and physician reported in AD 166 the operation of in situ leaching of copper. Surface water was allowed to percolate through the permeable rock, and was collected in amphorae. In the process of percolation through the rock, copper minerals dissolved so that the concentration of copper sulphate in solution was high. The solution was allowed to evaporate until copper sulphate crystallized. Pliny (23-79 AD) reported that a similar practice for the extraction of copper in the form of copper sulphate was widely practiced in Spain. The cementation of copper was also known to the Chinese, as documented by the Chinese king Lui-An (177-122 BC). The Chinese implemented the commercial production of copper from copper sulphate using a cementation process in the tenth century.

 

“The Two United States and the Law”

July 20, 2010 by Capt. Karl

By Howard Freeman

Our forefathers, weary of the oppressive measures that King George III's government forced upon them, in common declared their independence from England in 1776. They were not expected to be successful in that resistance. The moneyed people had backed England for two major reasons. First, our forefathers wanted a rigid, written Constitution “set in concrete.” They were familiar with the so-called Constitution of England which consisted largely of customs, precedents, traditions, and understandings, often vague and always flexible. They wanted the principle of English common law, that an act done by any official person or law-making body beyond his or its legal competence was simply void. Second, the thirteen little colonies desired to base their union on substance (gold and silver) — real money. They well knew how the despotic governments of Europe were mortgaged to the hilt — lock, stock, and barrel, the land, the people, everything — to certain wealthy men who controlled the banks, the currency, and all credit, who lent credit but did not loan gold and silver!

The United States of America was made up of a union of fifty sovereign States; a three-branch (legislative, executive, and judicial) Republic known as The United States of America, or as termed in this article, the Continental United States. Its Citizens lived in one of the fifty Union States, and its laws were based on the Constitution, which is based on Common Law.

Less than one hundred years after we became a Union of States, a loophole was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league with the international bankers. They realized that a separate Nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This “United States” is a Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited rule over its citizenry, the residents of the District of Columbia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a citizen by way of the 14th Amendment.

Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both Nations. One “United States,” the Republic of fifty States, has the “stars and stripes” as its flag, but without any fringe on it. The Federal United States' flag is the stars and stripes with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations of the States of the Continental United States are: Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, etc. (without any periods).

Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the Continental United States provides for legal cases (1) at Law, (2) in Equity, and (3) in Admiralty:

(1) Law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Law allows you to do anything you want to, as long as you don't infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone
else. Law does not compel performance. Today's so-called laws (ordinances, statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are often erroneously perceived as law, but just because something is called a “law” does not necessarily make it a law. [There is a difference between "legal" and "lawful." Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be lawful.]

(2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in a particular situation. The term “equity” denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You have no rights other than what is specified in your contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.

(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty, a civil contract with a criminal penalty.

By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal, equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the international bankers) who now owned everything — the Congress, the Executive, the courts, all the States and their legislatures and executives, all the land, and all the people. Everything was mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone from being sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.

The remainder of this article explains how this happened, where we are today, and what remedy we have to protect ourselves from this system.

Our Present Commercial System of “Law” and the REMEDY Provided for Our Protection

The present commercial system of “law” has replaced the old and familiar Common Law upon which our nation was founded. The following is the legal thread which brought us from sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) to discharge our debts with limited liability instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.

The change in our system of law from public law to private commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins case of 1938, after which case, in the same year, the procedures of Law were officially blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law — or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are based upon what is termed public policy.

Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the Negotiable Instrument's Law, which is a branch of the international Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was made uniform throughout the fifty States through the cunning of the Congress of the United States (which “United States” has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, as distinguished from the “United States,” which is the Union of the fifty States).

In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes) which the Congress gave to the fifty States of the Union for education, highways, health, and other purposes, Congress bound all the States of the Union into a commercial agreement with the Federal United States (as distinguished from the Continental United States). The fifty States accepted the “benefits” offered by the Federal United States as the consideration of a commercial agreement between the Federal United States and each of the corporate States. The corporate States were then obligated to obey the Congress of the Federal United States and also to assume their portion of the equitable
debts of the Federal United States to the international banking houses, for the credit loaned. The credit which each State received, in the form of federal grants, was predicated upon equitable paper.

This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and is what has altered our court system from one under the Common Law to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal, system of commercial law. Those persons brought before this court are held to the letter of every statute of government on the federal, state, county, or municipal levels unless they have exercised the REMEDY provided for them within that system of Commercial Law whereby, when forced to use a so-called “benefit” offered, or available, to them, from government, they may reserve their former right, under the Common Law guarantee of same, not to be bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

This is exactly how the corporate entities of state, county, and municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to distinguish it from the Continental United States, whose origin was in the Union of the Sovereign States.

The same national Congress rules the Continental United States pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority, while it enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it legislates for the Federal United States.

With the above information, we may ask: “How did we, the free Preamble citizenry of the Sovereign States, lose our guaranteed unalienable rights and be forced into acceptance of the equitable debt obligations of the Federal United States, and also become subject to that entity of government, and divorced from our Sovereign States in the Republic, which we call here the Continental United States?” We do not reside, work, or have income from any territory subject to the direct jurisdiction of the Federal United States. These are questions that have troubled sincere, patriotic Americans for many years. Our lack of knowledge concerning the cunning of the legal profession is the cause of that divorce, but a knowledge of the truth concerning the legal thread, which caught us in its net, will restore our former status as a free Preamble citizen of the Republic.

The answer follows:

Our national Congress works for two nations foreign to each other, and by legal cunning both are called The United States. One is the Union of Sovereign States, under the Constitution, termed in this article the Continental United States. The other is a Legislative Democracy which has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here termed the Federal United States. Very few people, when they see some “law” passed by Congress, ask themselves, “Which nation was Congress working for when it passed this or that so-called law?” Or, few ask, “Does this particular law apply to the Continental citizenry of the Republic, or does this particular law apply only to residents of the District of Columbia and other named enclaves, or territories, of the Democracy called the Federal United States?”

Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for “cunning” political leadership to seek more power and authority over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the medium of “legalese.” Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide a medium of exchange for the citizenry of the Republic, in harmony with its Constitutional mandate. Instead, it created an abundance of commercial credit money for the Legislative Democracy, where it was not bound by Constitutional limitations. Then, after having created an emergency situation, and a tremendous depression in the Republic, Congress used its emergency authority to remove the remaining substance (gold and silver) from the medium of exchange belonging to the Republic, and made the negotiable instrument paper of the Legislative Democracy (Federal United States) a legal tender for Continental United States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts.

At the same time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the two nations the “benefit” of limited liability in the discharge of all debts by telling the citizenry that the gold and silver coins of the Republic were out of date and cumbersome. The citizens were told that gold and silver (substance) was no longer needed to pay their debts, that
they were now “privileged” to discharge debt with this more “convenient” currency, issued by the Federal United States. Consequently, everyone was forced to “go modern,” and to turn in their gold as a patriotic gesture. The entire news media complex went along with the scam and declared it to be a forward step for our democracy, no longer referring to America as a Republic.

From that time on, it was a falling light for the Republic of 1776, and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal Democracy, which overcame the depression, which was caused by a created shortage of real money. There was created an abundance of debt paper money, so-called, in the form of interest-bearing negotiable instrument paper called Federal Reserve Notes, and other forms of paperwork credit instruments.

Since all contracts since Roosevelt's time have the colorable consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine consideration of silver and gold coin, all contracts are colorable contracts, and not genuine contracts. [According to Black's Law Dictionary (1990), colorable means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth."]

Consequently, a new colorable jurisdiction, called a statutory jurisdiction, had to be created to enforce the contracts. Soon the term colorable contract was changed to the term commercial agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory jurisdiction, which is legislative, rather than judicial, in nature. This jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements upon implied CONSENT, rather than full knowledge, as it is with the enforcement of contracts under the Common Law.

All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so- called “statutes” of legislative bodies being enforced in these Legislative Tribunals are not “statutes” passed by the legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as “commercial obligations” to the Federal United States for anyone in the Federal United States or in the Continental United States who has used the equitable currency of the Federal United States and who has accepted the “benefit,” or “privilege,” of discharging his debts with the limited liability “benefit” offered to him by the Federal United States – EXCEPT – those who availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of law, which remedy is today found in Book 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code at Section 207.

When used in conjunction with one's signature, a stamp stating “Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207? is sufficient to indicate to the magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals (called “courts”) that the signer of the document has reserved his Common Law right. He is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, as would be the case in any Common Law contract.

Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement, must now be construed in harmony with the old Common Law of America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does not apply to the individual who is wise enough and informed enough to exercise the remedy provided in this new system of law. He retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the Republic, while those about him “curse the darkness” of Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed to free themselves from a slave status under the Federal United States, even while inhabiting territory foreign to its territorial venue.

ADDENDUM

U.C.C. 1-207; Sufficiency of reservation.

Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is sufficient, such as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” “under reservation,” or “with reservation of all our rights.”

The Code states an “explicit” reservation must be made. “Explicit” undoubtedly is used in place of “express” to
indicate that the reservation must not only be “express” but it must also be “clear” that such a reservation was intended.

The term “explicit” as used in U.C.C. 1-207 means “that which is so clearly stated or distinctively set forth that there is no doubt as to its meaning.” … U.C.C. 1-207:7  Effect of reservation of rights.

The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses and prevents the loss of such right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel ….

U.C.C. 1-207:9 Failure to make reservation.

When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its assertion at a later date

U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law.

The Code is “Complementary” to the common law which remains in force except where displaced by the Code ….

A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law. … “The Code cannot be read to preclude a common law action.”

EXAMPLE

Your Honor, my use of “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207? above my signature on this document indicates that I have exercised the “Remedy” provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1 at Section 308, whereby I may reserve my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, or agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And, that reservation serves notice upon all administrative agencies of government — national, state and local — that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the “compelled” benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreement.

Fire Safety Training for Contractors

2010 Training Schedule

Fire Safety Refresher Training for Contractors

Important Note: Effective February 9, 2010 CAL FIRE has changed their policy on fire refresher training.  CAL FIRE will ONLY recognize fire refresher training that has been put on by CAL FIRE, the Forest Service or an accredited Community College.  The private training providers that had planned to provide the training have been removed from the list of approved training providers. If you booked a class from one of the private providers you will need to contact that private training provider to cancel; the contact information is provided below.
For information on CAL FIRE classes contact your local CAL FIRE unit or contact one of the Community Colleges listed below.  Additional colleges are in the process of being signed up.

Training Provider Area Contact Information Comments

College of the Redwoods

Humbolt Mendocino 707-269-4000
http://www.redwoods.edu
Classes start in January 2010
Call for class schedules

Lassen College

Susanville
Northeastern California
530-251-8829
dtrussell@lassencollege.edu
http://www.lassencollege.edu/
Call or check website for class schedules
Available for classes statewide

Shasta College

Redding 530-242-2207
http://www.shastacollege.ed
acota@shastacollege.edu

Call or check website for class schedules

College of the Siskiyous

Siskiyou County
Far Northern California

530-938-5578
dutcher@siskiyous.edu
www.siskiyous.edu/cte/fire

Call or check website for class schedules

Allan Hancock College

Santa Maria

310-614-0690
Stephanie Kennedy
skennedy@hancockcollege.edu
http://www.hancockcollege.edu/Default.asp?Page=328

Call or check website for class schedules

Porterville College

Porterville
Kernville
559-791-2271
Diane Thompson
dithomp@portervillecollege.edu
www.portervillecollege.edu/fire_tech
Call or check website for class schedules

Plumas National Forest

Oroville 530-394-8237
David Wall
March 11, 2010
Limited Attendance
Call for Reservation
Victor Valley College Victorville

760-245-4271 x2741
feebase@vvc.edu
www.vvcforme.com

Call or check website for class schedules

Synopsis
The purpose of the Grants program is to provide for well managed OHV Recreation by providing financial assistance to eligible agencies and organizations that develop, maintain, operate, expand, support, or contribute to well managed, high-quality, OHV Recreation areas, roads, and trails, and to responsibly maintain the wildlife, soils, and habitat of Project Areas in a manner that will sustain long-term OHV Recreation in accordance with the legislative provisions and intent of the Act commencing at PRC Section 5090.01.
Timeline
RFP Publication Date: 1/2/2010
Preliminary Submission Date / Time: Final Submission Date / Time:
Approval Date: Available Funding Amount: 27,100,000.00

 

American Chemical Society Webinar focuses on federal aid for sustainable manufacturing

July 22nd, 2010

News media and others interested in the chemical sciences are invited to join the next in a series of American Chemical Society (ACS) Webinars™, focusing on federal resources that support sustainable manufacturing.

Scheduled for Thursday, July 29, from 2 - 3 p.m. EDT, the free ACS Webinar™ will feature Morgan Barr, with the the U.S. Department of Commerce's Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative, speaking on Department of Commerce Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative - Government Resources that Support Sustainable Manufacturing.
ACS Webinars™ connect you with subject experts and global thought leaders in chemical sciences, management and business to address current topics of interest to scientific and engineering professionals. Each webinar includes a short presentation followed by a Q & A session.

News media and scientists can tune into the conference without charge, but must register in advance.

Barr's topics will include:

Barr is an international economist at the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration. She has been working on the Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative for three years, leading the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) sustainable metrics toolkit project. Barr also has been as working on the Sustainable Business Clearinghouse, the regional tour program, and leading a project to develop a training module for manufacturers on the basics of sustainable manufacturing practices. She has a Master of Arts in International Affairs and an M.B.A. from The George Washington University in Washington, DC.

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Editorial: Out of sight

var collab_title = 'Editorial: Out of sight';
Published: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 at 1:32 p.m.

At first blush, the EPA's newly announced plan for "cleaning-up" Gainesville's only Superfund hazardous waste sight seems like a classic example of "out of sight, out of mind."

var enableForum = "false"; #forumnumcom h6 {width:250px;float:left;margin:18px 10px 0 0;padding:10px 0 15px;border-bottom:none;border-top:9px solid #888}

Instead of digging up the contaminated soil at the old Cabot-Koppers site and hauling it away, the EPA proposes that the soil be permanently contained in a roughly 32-acre concrete structure extending 65 feet into the ground and topped by an impermeable roof.

The EPA wants to turn Gainesville's only Superfund hazardous waste site into a permanent hazardous waste storage facility.

The chief virtue of this plan seems to be that it will save the responsible company, Beazer East, millions of dollars. The chief drawback is, well, Gainesville is stuck with tons of contaminated soil forever.

"They're leaving behind in Gainesville a long-term maintenance issue," Chris Bird, the county's environmental protection chief, told The Sun.

Frankly, we're not surprised. For more than a quarter of a century, the EPA's attitude toward the Koppers site has seemed, at best, to be one of benign neglect. After all these years, Gainesville residents deserve better from the nation's environmental "watchdog."

That's the message city and county officials, and residents and taxpayers, need to send loud and clear when the EPA holds its public hearing on Aug. 5 at 6 p.m. at Stephen Foster Elementary.

"For the community, we'd like to see them haul this stuff out of town," Bird said.

Out of sight, out of mind isn't good enough.

 

EPA Study: Rivers Shouldn't Smell Like Shit

July 14, 2010 | ISSUE 46•28

WASHINGTON—A study released Monday by the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that rivers should never smell like shit, noting that when naturally occurring waterways do reek of fecal matter there is "more than likely something wrong with them." "Starting from the base definition that a river is a free-flowing body of fresh water, we concluded that a shit-smelling river basically runs contradictory to that," EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. "It doesn't matter if a river stinks of human shit, animal shit, or sewage shit, 99.9 percent of the time a river should not make individuals cover their nose and mouth because of an overwhelming shit smell." The study also concluded that rivers probably shouldn't have abandoned tires in them.

Hazard mitigation plan being formulated

Churchill County and the city of Fallon have launched a planning effort to prepare a Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, and officials need public input.

Shortly, a questionnaire will be distributed to the public asking for input on local disaster mitigation and recovery needs.

The resulting plan will assess and prioritize the risks posed by natural and manmade hazards and identify ways to reduce those risks. This plan is required by the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and is a prerequisite to acquiring federal funding for mitigation or recovery from disasters.

In recent years a swarm of earthquakes rattled the western portion of the state near Churchill County, the recent levee breach occurred in Fernley and every year major wild land fires rage near Reno and throughout the state.

These emergency events demonstrate that Churchill County can experience disasters. The risks from such hazards will continue to increase as the county's population continues to grow making a mitigation plan necessary and important.

The county and city plan on submitting a draft plan to local governing boards in the spring of 2011 for their approval. The final plan will be sent to Federal Emergency Management Agency for final approval.

For additional information, to volunteer or to make comments, please contact Churchill County Emergency Manager Ron Juliff at 423-4188 or at ccem@phonewave.net .


AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

NMA sues to stop Obama Administration's ‘mountaintop mining' war

The Obama Administration's so-called ‘mountaintop mining' war is using the U.S. Clean Water Act as an illegal weapon to stop the expansion of U.S. coal mining, the NMA contends.

Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted:  Wednesday , 21 Jul 2010

RENO, NV  - 

The National Mining Association Tuesday fired back at the Obama Administration's Appalachian coal war, filing litigation accusing federal agencies of violating their own public notification and rulemaking procedures to stop the issuance of Clean Water Permits for coal mining in many U.S. coal mining regions.

More than a year ago, the Obama Administration announced an Interagency Action Plan that used the auspices of the Clean Water Act to immediately bring to a halt permit reviews of mountaintop mining based on environmental concerns stemming from the impacts of mining on streams and watersheds.

That ruling impacted more than 200 coal mining permit and permit expansion applications that were pending when the "temporary" moratorium was declared.

The NMA lawsuit, filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, argues the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "have circumvented clear requirements for public notice and comment of a host of federal statutes and ignored calls for peer-reviewed science as part of a deliberate policy to substitute agency guidance for formal rulemaking."

The NMA lawsuit says the EPA and the Corps violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act by "disregarding explicit requirements for public comment and formal rulemaking procedures. Moreover, EPA has usurped authorities clearly granted to the state and other federal agencies and has used technical benchmarks for assessing water quality that are both arbitrary and capricious.'

Ironically, the actions of the Obama Administration to impose a de facto moratorium on new or expanded coal mining in this country have forced the NMA to utilize a number of similar complaints made by environmental NGOs when they sue federal agencies seeking to overturn mining permits.

In a statement, NMA CEO Hal Quinn accused the Corps of allowing EPA "to impose unilateral control over coal mine permits throughout Appalachia, imposing a moratorium on jobs, energy production and the economic future of communities in the region."

"Detailed agency guidance is not a valid substitute for lawful rulemaking based on public notice and comment," he noted. "The agencies' continued abuse of the law to impose arbitrary standards on mining operations, state agencies and other federal regulatory bodies threatens the entire region with further economic misery and stagnant employment."

Last December mining attorney Robert McCluskey warned that such a war on Appalachia coal could eventually alter the definitions and regulation of mine waste for both coal and hardrock mining.

State and federal governments are engaged in a significant fight to determine who makes and implements Clean Water Section 404 standards regulating Appalachian coal operations and the waste material they deposit or discharge into U.S. waters.

Historically, the Corps regulated coal mining waste discharge under Section 404.

McCluskey has suggested that the term "mountaintop mining" no longer applies to mining mountaintop for coal. Rather, any mine that requires valley fill in Central Appalachia is now considered to be mountaintop mining.

In a presentation to the Northwest Mining Association in December, McCluskey noted that every one of those valleys in Appalachia has water in it, which then puts that valley and its watershed under the jurisdiction of the CWA 404 regulations.

McCluskey and a number of miners argue that mining waste treatment systems or ponds should not be considered by federal agencies as waters of the United States.

The NMA lawsuit filed Tuesday names EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the EPA, Secretary of the Army John McHugh, Lt. Gen. Robert Van Antwerp, Commanding General of the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as defendants.

The civil suit "challenges a series of EPA and Corps actions that have unlawfully obstructed Clean Water Act permitting processes for coal mining."

The three-agency MOU regarding mountaintop mining "substantially and illegally amend the statutory and regulatory permitting processes for coal mining that form the backbone of coal companies' expectation in planning to extract coal for our nation's power supply, particularly for those companies that require valley fills for their coal mining operations," said the NMA.

"By dramatically altering timelines and imposing new requirements in complete disregard of existing federal law and procedure, EPA and the Corps have launched a moving target in coal mining permitting that is substantially and irreparably harming NMA's coal mining members," the lawsuit claimed.

The NMA accuses the EPA of radically altering the delegation of regulatory authority over coal mining to rob the Corps and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, as well as states, of their respective statutory roles as permitting authorities and the regulators of the environmental impacts of coal mining.

"Taken together, these actions also amount to a de facto moratorium on permitting for coal mining, particularly in Central Appalachia," the mining association argues.

The NMA asked the federal court for an order vacating the Environmental Concerns Process and the Detailed Guidance from the three agencies regarding permitting of Appalachian coal mining.

The trade association also asks the Corps to reinstate and adhere to the Section 404 permit review process already codified into law "and order EPA to permit, and not exceed, the role Congress crafted for it in the Section 404 permitting process."

The Grinches Who Stole Summer

Posted on Jul 21, 2010

By Robert Scheer

It was a branding moment. With their lock-step vote against extending unemployment benefits, the Republicans are indelibly marked as not only heartless but also frivolous in their much-professed concern over the soaring national debt. Thanks to the defection of the two relatively enlightened Republican senators from Maine and the quick replacement of the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, unemployment checks that had been stalled for millions of American families since early June will soon resume. But for Republicans, it has been a defining issue that will haunt the party. 

There is plenty to criticize in the Democrats' handling of this economic crisis, mostly cribbed from the GOP playbook, but once again the Republicans seem determined to prove that when it comes to social compassion, they are the worst. How can they defend having supported Republican President George W. Bush giving $180 billion to AIG but draw the line when a Democratic president seeks to spend one-fifth of that amount helping millions of victims of the crisis that AIG was so instrumental in causing? 

While holding unemployment checks hostage to demands for compensating budget cuts, Republican leaders claimed to support the extension of benefits. They rejected the argument of some on the harder ideological right that the average payment of $309 per week is the lucrative prize that keeps the unemployed from going back to work. They also conceded the obvious, that money given to the unemployed will stimulate the economy at a high multiplier effect because it is money that will be spent rather than hoarded. 

Clearly the unemployed are far more likely to spend the money they receive than would the recipients of tax cuts for the rich that the GOP leadership so blithely recommends. And as House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., was able to crow, while the Republicans demand a cut in spending to cover the costs of unemployment insurance, they make no such demand for their tax-cut proposal: “Our Republican colleagues say, `No, you have got to pay for that, but you don't have to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America' which is about 20 times as much as the unemployment insurance.”

Their excuse for separating 2.5 million families from the checks needed to keep food on the table and cover the rent is that the GOP leadership wanted to send a message, in the words of the third-ranking Republican, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, that the “federal debt has grown to an alarming level, where it is threatening the future of our children and grandchildren.” 

 

ed against the serious drivers of the debt, including a $700 billion military budget and a financial bailout that has cost trillions in taxpayer debt without a murmur of opposition from the GOP leadership, stonewalling on this particular issue is absurd. It would have shocked even Richard Nixon, who as president advocated a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans, and not just those who have been thrown out of work through no fault of their own.

Few, even in the GOP leadership, would deny that the 8 million who lost their jobs due to the banking debacle were the innocent victims of reckless banking policies. “There is no debate in the Senate about whether we should pass a bill—everyone agrees that we should,” stated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “What we do not support—and we make no apologies for—is borrowing tens of billions of dollars to pass this bill at a time when the national debt is spinning completely out of control.”

Why no apologies for drawing the line at the expense of the victims but not when it came to bailing out the victimizers? Clearly the unemployed are the victims of forces far beyond their own control, beginning with a housing market wrecked by the Ponzi scheme of securitized mortgage debt made legal through financial deregulation that virtually all Republicans, and too many Democrats, long supported. Why is it acceptable for our government through the Federal Reserve to have bought up $1.2 trillion of those toxic debt obligations in a handout to the bankers who devised and sold them but balk at committing a tiny fraction of that spending to helping those thrown out of work?

That is the nub of it, and once again folks with a social conscience are left with a failed two-party system in which the Democrats, with much responsibility for this banking mess, must at worst be judged the lesser evil.

Bayer Schering Pharma in research pact with China's largest military hospital

20 July 2010

Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Germany, has reached a research collaboration agreement with the largest military hospital in China, The People's Liberation Army General Hospital 301, located in Beijing, to set up women's healthcare facilities.

Under the terms of the agreement, 301 Hospital will receive research funding and its scientists will be able to work at Bayer Schering Pharma's research facilities in Berlin, Germany. Bayer Schering Pharma scientists from the recently established Bayer Schering Pharma Global Drug Discovery's China innovation centre in Beijing will participate in and coordinate the research projects.

The joint research programs will initially be focused on, but not limited to, gynecological diseases. Their first project will focus on the establishment and analysis of disease models and disease understanding.

''Working together with the experts from The People's Liberation Army General Hospital will help us to bring new therapies faster to patients suffering from gynecological diseases, like endometriosis and uterine fibroids," said Prof. Andreas Busch, member of the board of management at Bayer Schering Pharma and head of global drug discovery.

301 Hospital is one of the biggest general hospitals in China and has a reputation for gynecology and obstetrics research and treatment of patients suffering from related diseases.

Prof. Guoquan Ren, head of medical management division, said,''Endometriosis and uterine fibroids are severe diseases that significantly compromise the health and quality of life of women. Joining forces will allow us to take advantage of each other's strengths which will for sure drive the research and innovation in these fields.''

Founded in 1953, 301 Hospital, with a complete range of clinical disciplines, provides one of the most comprehensive hospital facilities among military hospitals throughout China. It employs over 3,600 professionals across 12 medical specialty centres, 14 medical research centres and eight major laboratories, engaging in various key medical disciplines such as otolaryngology, orthopedics, gynecology, and gerontology, among others.

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

FEDERALIST. No. 81

The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority
From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

LET US now return to the partition of the judiciary authority between different courts, and their relations to each other, "The judicial power of the United States is" (by the plan of the convention) "to be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish." 1

That there ought to be one court of supreme and final jurisdiction, is a proposition which is not likely to be contested. The reasons for it have been assigned in another place, and are too obvious to need repetition. The only question that seems to have been raised concerning it, is, whether it ought to be a distinct body or a branch of the legislature. The same contradiction is observable in regard to this matter which has been remarked in several other cases. The very men who object to the Senate as a court of impeachments, on the ground of an improper intermixture of powers, advocate, by implication at least, the propriety of vesting the ultimate decision of all causes, in the whole or in a part of the legislative body.

The arguments, or rather suggestions, upon which this charge is founded, are to this effect: "The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. In Britain, the judical power, in the last resort, resides in the House of Lords, which is a branch of the legislature; and this part of the British government has been imitated in the State constitutions in general. The Parliament of Great Britain, and the legislatures of the several States, can at any time rectify, by law, the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts. But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless." This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.

In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of the convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution; and as far as it is true, is equally applicable to most, if not to all the State governments. There can be no objection, therefore, on this account, to the federal judicature which will not lie against the local judicatures in general, and which will not serve to condemn every constitution that attempts to set bounds to legislative discretion.

But perhaps the force of the objection may be thought to consist in the particular organization of the Supreme Court; in its being composed of a distinct body of magistrates, instead of being one of the branches of the legislature, as in the government of Great Britain and that of the State. To insist upon this point, the authors of the objection must renounce the meaning they have labored to annex to the celebrated maxim, requiring a separation of the departments of power. It shall, nevertheless, be conceded to them, agreeably to the interpretation given to that maxim in the course of these papers, that it is not violated by vesting the ultimate power of judging in a PART of the legislative body. But though this be not an absolute violation of that excellent rule, yet it verges so nearly upon it, as on this account alone to be less eligible than the mode preferred by the convention. From a body which had even a partial agency in passing bad laws, we could rarely expect a disposition to temper and moderate them in the application. The same spirit which had operated in making them, would be too apt in interpreting them; still less could it be expected that men who had infringed the Constitution in the character of legislators, would be disposed to repair the breach in the character of judges. Nor is this all. Every reason which recommends the tenure of good behavior for judicial offices, militates against placing the judiciary power, in the last resort, in a body composed of men chosen for a limited period. There is an absurdity in referring the determination of causes, in the first instance, to judges of permanent standing; in the last, to those of a temporary and mutable constitution. And there is a still greater absurdity in subjecting the decisions of men, selected for their knowledge of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study, to the revision and control of men who, for want of the same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that knowledge. The members of the legislature will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges; and as, on this account, there will be great reason to apprehend all the ill consequences of defective information, so, on account of the natural propensity of such bodies to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice. The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity.

These considerations teach us to applaud the wisdom of those States who have committed the judicial power, in the last resort, not to a part of the legislature, but to distinct and independent bodies of men. Contrary to the supposition of those who have represented the plan of the convention, in this respect, as novel and unprecedented, it is but a copy of the constitutions of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; and the preference which has been given to those models is highly to be commended.

It is not true, in the second place, that the Parliament of Great Britain, or the legislatures of the particular States, can rectify the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts, in any other sense than might be done by a future legislature of the United States. The theory, neither of the British, nor the State constitutions, authorizes the revisal of a judicial sentence by a legislative act. Nor is there any thing in the proposed Constitution, more than in either of them, by which it is forbidden. In the former, as well as in the latter, the impropriety of the thing, on the general principles of law and reason, is the sole obstacle. A legislature, without exceeding its province, cannot reverse a determination once made in a particular case; though it may prescribe a new rule for future cases. This is the principle, and it applies in all its consequences, exactly in the same manner and extent, to the State governments, as to the national government now under consideration. Not the least difference can be pointed out in any view of the subject.

It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments.

Having now examined, and, I trust, removed the objections to the distinct and independent organization of the Supreme Court, I proceed to consider the propriety of the power of constituting inferior courts, 2 and the relations which will subsist between these and the former.

The power of constituting inferior courts is evidently calculated to obviate the necessity of having recourse to the Supreme Court in every case of federal cognizance. It is intended to enable the national government to institute or AUTHORUZE, in each State or district of the United States, a tribunal competent to the determination of matters of national jurisdiction within its limits.

But why, it is asked, might not the same purpose have been accomplished by the instrumentality of the State courts? This admits of different answers. Though the fitness and competency of those courts should be allowed in the utmost latitude, yet the substance of the power in question may still be regarded as a necessary part of the plan, if it were only to empower the national legislature to commit to them the cognizance of causes arising out of the national Constitution. To confer the power of determining such causes upon the existing courts of the several States, would perhaps be as much "to constitute tribunals," as to create new courts with the like power. But ought not a more direct and explicit provision to have been made in favor of the State courts? There are, in my opinion, substantial reasons against such a provision: the most discerning cannot foresee how far the prevalency of a local spirit may be found to disqualify the local tribunals for the jurisdiction of national causes; whilst every man may discover, that courts constituted like those of some of the States would be improper channels of the judicial authority of the Union. State judges, holding their offices during pleasure, or from year to year, will be too little independent to be relied upon for an inflexible execution of the national laws. And if there was a necessity for confiding the original cognizance of causes arising under those laws to them there would be a correspondent necessity for leaving the door of appeal as wide as possible. In proportion to the grounds of confidence in, or distrust of, the subordinate tribunals, ought to be the facility or difficulty of appeals. And well satisfied as I am of the propriety of the appellate jurisdiction, in the several classes of causes to which it is extended by the plan of the convention. I should consider every thing calculated to give, in practice, an UNRESTRAINED COURSE to appeals, as a source of public and private inconvenience.

I am not sure, but that it will be found highly expedient and useful, to divide the United States into four or five or half a dozen districts; and to institute a federal court in each district, in lieu of one in every State. The judges of these courts, with the aid of the State judges, may hold circuits for the trial of causes in the several parts of the respective districts. Justice through them may be administered with ease and despatch; and appeals may be safely circumscribed within a narrow compass. This plan appears to me at present the most eligible of any that could be adopted; and in order to it, it is necessary that the power of constituting inferior courts should exist in the full extent in which it is to be found in the proposed Constitution.

These reasons seem sufficient to satisfy a candid mind, that the want of such a power would have been a great defect in the plan. Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party." Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal. Though it may rather be a digression from the immediate subject of this paper, I shall take occasion to mention here a supposition which has excited some alarm upon very mistaken grounds. It has been suggested that an assignment of the public securities of one State to the citizens of another, would enable them to prosecute that State in the federal courts for the amount of those securities; a suggestion which the following considerations prove to be without foundation.

It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States, and the danger intimated must be merely ideal. The circumstances which are necessary to produce an alienation of State sovereignty were discussed in considering the article of taxation, and need not be repeated here. A recurrence to the principles there established will satisfy us, that there is no color to pretend that the State governments would, by the adoption of that plan, be divested of the privilege of paying their own debts in their own way, free from every constraint but that which flows from the obligations of good faith. The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against States for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced? It is evident, it could not be done without waging war against the contracting State; and to ascribe to the federal courts, by mere implication, and in destruction of a pre-existing right of the State governments, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarrantable.

Let us resume the train of our observations. We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, "with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make."

The propriety of this appellate jurisdiction has been scarcely called in question in regard to matters of law; but the clamors have been loud against it as applied to matters of fact. Some well-intentioned men in this State, deriving their notions from the language and forms which obtain in our courts, have been induced to consider it as an implied supersedure of the trial by jury, in favor of the civil-law mode of trial, which prevails in our courts of admiralty, probate, and chancery. A technical sense has been affixed to the term "appellate," which, in our law parlance, is commonly used in reference to appeals in the course of the civil law. But if I am not misinformed, the same meaning would not be given to it in any part of New England. There an appeal from one jury to another, is familiar both in language and practice, and is even a matter of course, until there have been two verdicts on one side. The word "appellate," therefore, will not be understood in the same sense in New England as in New York, which shows the impropriety of a technical interpretation derived from the jurisprudence of any particular State. The expression, taken in the abstract, denotes nothing more than the power of one tribunal to review the proceedings of another, either as to the law or fact, or both. The mode of doing it may depend on ancient custom or legislative provision (in a new government it must depend on the latter), and may be with or without the aid of a jury, as may be judged advisable. If, therefore, the re-examination of a fact once determined by a jury, should in any case be admitted under the proposed Constitution, it may be so regulated as to be done by a second jury, either by remanding the cause to the court below for a second trial of the fact, or by directing an issue immediately out of the Supreme Court.

But it does not follow that the re-examination of a fact once ascertained by a jury, will be permitted in the Supreme Court. Why may not it be said, with the strictest propriety, when a writ of error is brought from an inferior to a superior court of law in this State, that the latter has jurisdiction of the fact as well as the law? It is true it cannot institute a new inquiry concerning the fact, but it takes cognizance of it as it appears upon the record, and pronounces the law arising upon it. 3 This is jurisdiction of both fact and law; nor is it even possible to separate them. Though the common-law courts of this State ascertain disputed facts by a jury, yet they unquestionably have jurisdiction of both fact and law; and accordingly when the former is agreed in the pleadings, they have no recourse to a jury, but proceed at once to judgment. I contend, therefore, on this ground, that the expressions, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," do not necessarily imply a re-examination in the Supreme Court of facts decided by juries in the inferior courts.

The following train of ideas may well be imagined to have influenced the convention, in relation to this particular provision. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (it may have been argued) will extend to causes determinable in different modes, some in the course of the COMMON LAW, others in the course of the CIVIL LAW. In the former, the revision of the law only will be, generally speaking, the proper province of the Supreme Court; in the latter, the re-examination of the fact is agreeable to usage, and in some cases, of which prize causes are an example, might be essential to the preservation of the public peace. It is therefore necessary that the appellate jurisdiction should, in certain cases, extend in the broadest sense to matters of fact. It will not answer to make an express exception of cases which shall have been originally tried by a jury, because in the courts of some of the States ALL CAUSES are tried in this mode 4 ; and such an exception would preclude the revision of matters of fact, as well where it might be proper, as where it might be improper. To avoid all inconveniencies, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.

This view of the matter, at any rate, puts it out of all doubt that the supposed ABOLITION of the trial by jury, by the operation of this provision, is fallacious and untrue. The legislature of the United States would certainly have full power to provide, that in appeals to the Supreme Court there should be no re-examination of facts where they had been tried in the original causes by juries. This would certainly be an authorized exception; but if, for the reason already intimated, it should be thought too extensive, it might be qualified with a limitation to such causes only as are determinable at common law in that mode of trial.

The amount of the observations hitherto made on the authority of the judicial department is this: that it has been carefully restricted to those causes which are manifestly proper for the cognizance of the national judicature; that in the partition of this authority a very small portion of original jurisdiction has been preserved to the Supreme Court, and the rest consigned to the subordinate tribunals; that the Supreme Court will possess an appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, in all the cases referred to them, both subject to any EXCEPTIONS and REGULATIONS which may be thought advisable; that this appellate jurisdiction does, in no case, ABOLISH the trial by jury; and that an ordinary degree of prudence and integrity in the national councils will insure us solid advantages from the establishment of the proposed judiciary, without exposing us to any of the inconveniences which have been predicted from that source.

PUBLIUS.


1 . Article 3, sec. I.
2 . This power has been absurdly represented as intended to abolish all the county courts in the several States, which are commonly called inferior courts. But the expressions of the Constitution are, to constitute "tribunals INFERIOR TO THE SUPREME COURT"; and the evident design of the provision is to enable the institution of local courts, subordinate to the Supreme, either in States or larger districts. It is ridiculous to imagine that county courts were in contemplation.
3 . This word is composed of JUS and DICTIO, juris dictio or a speaking and pronouncing of the law.
4 . I hold that the States will have concurrent jurisdiction with the subordinate federal judicatories, in many cases of federal cognizance, as will be explained in my next paper.

 

4400 acres of land in Shasta County

Detinue Sur Bailment should be granted immediately, and the EPA lien void & vacated..
“A patent to land, issued by the United States under authority of law, is the highest evidence of title, something upon which its holder can rely for peace and security in his possession. It is conclusive evidence of title against the United States and all the world. ..” 2 The American Law of Mining, § 1.29 at 357. Nichols v. Rysavy, (S.D. 1985) 610 F. Supp. 1245.
"Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States … and [Congress] [D]eclares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title." Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74 (1888).
The “general rule” at least is, “that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” [Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon , 260 U.S. 393, 415, 67 L. Ed. 322, 43 S. Ct. 158 (1922).]
The Court stated, “Takings jurisprudence balances the competing goals of compensating landowners on whom a significant burden of regulation falls and avoiding prohibitory costs to needed government regulation. Citing Dolan v. City of Tigard , 512 U.S. 374, 384 (1994), “TheTakings Clause assures that the government may not force 'some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.'"
In the history of the United States , no Land Patent has ever lost an appellate review in the courts. In Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Comm'n 466 US 198, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Land Patent would always win over any other form of title. In that case, the land in question was tidewater land and California 's claim was based on California 's constitutional right to all tidewater lands. The patent stood supreme even against California 's Constitution, to wit:
[The patent] “[P]assing whatever interest the United States has in the premises and thereby settling any question of sovereign ownership….” Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Baca (CA10 NM) 844 F2d 708; Whaley v. Wotring ( Fla App D1) 225 So 2d 177; Dugas v. Powell, 228 La 748, 84 So 2d 177. [quote at 28 Am. Jur. 2D, F. 2 § 49].
With the title passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land and over the title which it has conveyed. Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 533, 24 L. Ed. 848.
There is no license from the United States or the state of California to miners to enter upon private lands of individuals for the purpose or extracting the minerals in the soil. (Biddle Boggs v Merced Min. Co.) 14 Cal. 279.)

of a private proprietor, with the exception of exemption from state taxation, having no municipal sovereignty or right of eminent domain within the limits of the state-cannot, in derogation of the rights of the local sovereign to govern the relations of the citizens of the state, and to prescribe the rules of property, and its mode of disposition, and its tenure, enter upon, or authorize an entry upon, private property, for the purpose of extracting minerals. The United States , like any other proprietor, can only exercise their rights to the mineral in private property, in subordination to such rules and regulations as the local sovereign may prescribe. Until such rules and regulations are established, the landed proprietor may successfully resist, in the courts of the state, all attempts at invasion of his property, whether by the direct action of the United States or by virtue of any pretended license under their authority. (Biddle Boggs v Merced Min. Co,,) 14 Cal. 279.)
“A valid and subsisting location of mineral lands, made and kept in accordance with the provisions of the statutes of the United States , has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession of the lands located.”
U.S. Supreme Court, 1884
With the title passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land and over the title which it has conveyed. It would be as reasonable to hold that any private owner who has conveyed it to another can, of his own volition, recall, cancel or annul the instrument which he has made and delivered. If fraud, mistake, error, or wrong has been done, the courts of justice present the only remedy. These courts are as open to the United States to sue for the cancellation of the deed or reconveyance of the land as to individuals, and if the government is the party injured this is the proper course”.
Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 533, 24 L. Ed. 848.
That whenever the question in any court, state or federal, is whether a title to land which has once been the property of the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States; but that whenever, according to those laws, the title shall have passed, then that property, like all other property in the state, is subject to state legislation, so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States”.
Wilcox v. McConnell, 13 Pet. ( U.S. ) 498, 517, 10 L. Ed. 264.
“Title by patent from the United States to a tract of ground, theretofore public, prima facie carries ownership of all beneath the surface, and possession under such patent of the surface is presumptively possession of all beneath the surface.
Lawson v. United States Min. Co. 207 U.S. 1, 8, 28 Sup. Ct. 15, 17, 52, L. Ed. 65.
Grub-stake contracts will be enforced by the courts, but only as other contracts; that is to say, it is not enough for parties to assert that they have rights, in order to secure legal protection, but they must be able to prove in each case a clear and definite contract, and that by the terms and conditions of such contract, and compliance therewith on their part, rights have become vested.
Cisna v. Mallory (C.C.) 84 Fed. 851, 854.
The common-law rule is that the lessee of real property may work already opened mines, but cannot open new ones. But the lease may expressly, or by implication from express powers, give the right to take the minerals, the instrument is a genuine lease.

Oshoon v. Bayaud 123 N.Y. 298. 25 N.E. 376
On the other hand, if an attempt is made by the instrument to pass title to the minerals in place, there is really a sale of the mineral.
Plummer v. Hillside Coal & Iron Co. 104 Fed. 208, 43 C.C. A. 490
Whatever the form of the instrument of conveyance, and even though the parties speak of it in its terms as a lease, if its fair construction shows that the title to the minerals in place is to pass upon the delivery of the instrument, while the surface is retained, or vice versa, and, of course, for all time, if the fee is granted, except that the fee to the space occupied by the minerals seems to terminate when the mine is exhausted.
McConnell v. Pierce, 210 Ill. 627, 71 N.E. 622., Moore v. Indian Camp Coal Co.,493, 0 N.E. 6.
The relationship among joint venturers was eloquently described by United States Supreme Court Justice Cardozo in the seminal 1928 case of Meinhard v. Salmon - “joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty. Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm's length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. As to this there has developed a tradition that is unbending and inveterate. Uncompromising rigidity has been the attitude of courts of equity when petitioned to undermine the rule of undivided loyalty by the ‘disintegrating erosion' of particular exceptions. Only thus has the level of conduct for fiduciaries been kept at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd.”)
Artesian Mineral Development & Consolidated Sludge, Inc.& Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.
insitu remediation summary & history of copper cementation and bioleaching
Cementation of copper began with the discovery of silver at the Lost Confidence Mine by 1890 and before the beginning of copper mining at Iron Mountain and Mountain Copper Co. Ltd. around 1896. By 1908 the State Geologist reported that the operation was so extensive that a building was being constructed over and around it. In 1919 copper prices crashed and the mine closed, in 1920 fish kills were reported. In 1921 copper cementation resumed and was thereafter operated continuously until the EPA implemented their High Density Sludge treatment and driven Ted Arman from the business.. After WWII Iron Mountain mines produced sulfur and iron for fertilizers until 1963. Iron Mountain has 20,000,000 tonnes proven and 5,000,000 tonnes probable ore reserves. The naturally occurring archaea living in the Richmond mine are reported to be capable of producing the most acidic natural mine waters on the planet, pH -3.6. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. bioleaching naturally produces about 8 tons of metals per day. One of the earliest records of the practice of leaching is from the island of Cyprus. Galen, a naturalist and physician reported in AD 166 the operation of in situ leaching of copper. Surface water was allowed to percolate through the permeable rock, and was collected in amphorae. In the process of percolation through the rock, copper minerals dissolved so that the concentration of copper sulphate in solution was high. The solution was allowed to evaporate until copper sulphate crystallized. Pliny (23-79 AD) reported that a similar practice for the extraction of copper in the form of copper sulphate was widely practiced in Spain. The cementation of copper was also known to the Chinese, as documented by the Chinese king Lui-An (177-122 BC). The Chinese implemented the commercial production of copper from copper sulphate using a cementation process in the tenth century.

Originating out of the Latin word "ius" and "dicere" meaning "law" and "to speak" respectively, jurisdiction is the area of operation of a legal entity. Such jurisdiction could be legal, notional, abstract, or concrete with clearly defined geographical boundaries. In essence jurisdiction refers to the capabilities, powers, and responsibilities to administer justice within the particular sphere of operation entrusted.

Substances of jurisdiction are derived from public international law, constitutional law, and above all; conflict of laws. One of the common features of modern governance is delimiting the authoritative domains of executive, legislative, and judiciary; the three pillars of democratic set up.

Ordinarily however the term jurisdiction is most widely applied in the judicial spheres. It denotes both authoritative and geographical extent of power and control of the respective court. Three basic principles of jurisdiction guiding the judiciary are persona; territorial; and subject matters.

Personal jurisdiction refers to the authority and control over persons regardless of their respective locations. Territorial jurisdiction refers to the area or the space within which the orders passed are binding and conclusive. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to such subjects that are involved in a judicial proceeding. For instance; subject matters within the federal list shall be dealt with by the Federal Court or Supreme Court. On the other hand those included in state lists shall be adjudicated by the State Courts.

In the similar veins the jurisdiction of the court is classified as exclusive and concurrent. Exclusive jurisdiction refers to unabated and unshared control over some territory, subject or personnel. Concurrent or shared jurisdiction refers to the fact one or more courts have equal powers on the subject, territory, or personnel concerned. In case of the courts having concurrent jurisdiction, parties may engage in forum shopping. They tend to bring the case to the particular court which they feel would adjudicate in their favor.

Generally speaking; jurisdiction can be territorial, provincial, national, or international. For instance; United Nations Organization has the International Court that deals with matters relating to International jurisdiction such as the maritime boundaries or the continental shelf. In addition the international forums also deal with specific issues that relate to two or more countries like the treaties, customs, and conventions.

Yet there is a major difference between other forms of jurisdiction such as territorial, provincial or national with the international jurisdiction. In case of international jurisdiction obedience by contestant parties is purely voluntary while in all other cases it is mandatory.

Using law.jrank.org the popular site search engine could turn out to be the one point solution for the people that are trying to find out more about jurisdiction . Whether it is territorial, national, or international jurisdiction, the search engine can lead the viewers to a site that offers authenticated updated information on such legal issues .

AG-GEL ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS RESTORES SOIL MINERALS

Veto likely on bills blocking EPA regs

President Barack Obama would veto legislation suspending the EPA's plans to write new climate change rules, a White House official said on Friday.

Coal-state Democrats, led by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W. Va), Reps. Rick Boucher (Va.) and Nick Rahall (W. Va), are trying to limit the federal government's ability to control greenhouse gases from power plants.

The coal-state proposals, which would block the Environmental Protection Agency's authority for two years, would undercut what is widely seen as Obama's alternative climate policy, now that Congress has punted on cap-and-trade legislation for the year. The Obama aide said the proposals won't win the president's signature if they managed to pass on Capitol Hill. Rockefeller's bill is expected to reach the Senate floor at some point this year.

In a press release on Friday, Rockefeller said he was “continuing to push hard” for his legislation to suspend the EPA regulations “so that Congress, not federal regulators, can set national energy policy.” The West Virginia Democrat also came out this summer against efforts to pass cap-and-trade legislation that would place mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.

EPA already has promulgated climate rules for motor vehicles, the result of closed-door negotiations with the auto industry, environmentalists and California officials. Next up are rules due early next year dealing with coal-fired power plants. A number of other petitions from states and environmentalists are on EPA's doorstep that press for climate-focused limits on petroleum refiners and other major industrial sources.

State and industry-driven lawsuits are also in the works to block the EPA effort, starting with a challenge in a federal appeals court to the agency's underlying “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and are pollutants that endanger human health. That EPA finding triggered the requirements to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

On Thursday, White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner stopped short of pledging a veto of the Rockefeller bill and its House companion. But she insisted that the EPA would have running room thanks to the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling that affirmed the agency's authority to write the climate rules.

“We will continue to use all the tools available to us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” she told POLITICO. “The president believes in the science. He believes we have a Supreme Court decision and we will continue to move forward.”

Prospects of any bill stripping EPA of its authority are uncertain in the current political climate, but a GOP takeover of either chamber in 2011 makes the threat much more real.

Rockefeller's bill has seven Democratic cosponsors and a promise of floor time at some point this year from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) Coupled with Republican support, the Rockefeller bill has a slight chance of reaching 60 votes. The Senate voted last month 47-53 to reject Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) bid to reject the EPA's endangerment finding.

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is unlikely to allow a floor debate on legislation blocking the EPA rules. Even so, a House Appropriations subcommittee narrowly defeated an amendment on Thursday that would have stopped the EPA climate rules on stationary industrial sources for two years. Two Democrats joined five Republicans in the 7-7 vote that came during debate on the