IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INSTITUTE

  

dhs


SLAVERY AND arding freedom,

FREEMINERS UNIVERSITY
"THE CENTINEL"
CHRIST OF THE FREEMINERS

Cry Me a River

Spring Creek School of Agriculture and Environmental Science Watershed Moment: 

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued April 13, 2012 Decided August 21, 2012
No. 11-1302

"We find that the EPA’s action...is inconsistent with the principles of cooperative federalism"

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

attempting to force its own draconian policies, federal law requires EPA to work cooperatively.

“...we cannot conclude under these circumstances that the EPA made a reasoned decision.”

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army-Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; that is all we can expect-We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die." -- George Washington to his troops before the Battle of Long Island.

“We Have A Moral, Sacred Duty” -President Barack Obama

Peace Made Certain

The most important goal is to provide for a safe place to live!

Here is the high emprise

order of the thistle

"Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh"

Strategy for detecting and treating elevated lead

“We all have a stake in the quality of our water,” said EPA Regional Administrator Richard E. Greene. “Ensuring the sustainability of our nation's waters is not just an EPA challenge -- it is everyone's challenge.

John Francis Hutchens claims in court papers that he and the property’s owner are in a joint venture with plans to mine the waste from sludge treated by Environmental Protection Agency cleanup efforts, and he complains the government is blocking them.

"The agency has not rejected the proposal per se, but has required scientifically defensible test data that would confirm that any fertilizer product would not release contamination. That information has not been provided to date," - EPA

Recovered Materials Advisory Notices (RMANs). The RMANs recommend recycled-content ranges for CPG products based on current information on commercially available recycled-content products. RMAN levels are updated as marketplace conditions change.


EPA is required to designate products that are or can be made with recovered materials, and to recommend practices for buying these products.


The Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) program is part of EPA's continuing effort to promote the use of materials recovered from solid waste.


WasteWise

EPA's partnership to help organizations eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting their bottom line and the environment.


Environmentally Preferable Purchasing


EPA's program to encourage and assist federal agencies in purchasing environmentally preferable products and services.




1. Do the above restraints on the landowners’ right to the use of his property deprive the landowner of the full use of his land without the benefit of due process?



2. What safeguards, if any, does the CERCLA law provide against the erroneous filing of a lien? What exigent circumstances justify the absence of due process?



3. Does the right of the owner to sue for wrongful filing of a lien provide adequate redress for the deprivation of property?



The War on Drugs: Because Prohibition Worked So Well

Forty years ago, the United States locked up fewer than 200 of every 100,000 Americans. Then President Nixon declared war on drugs. Now we lock up more of our people than any other country -- more even than the authoritarian regimes in Russia and China.

A war on drugs -- on people, that is -- is unworthy of a country that claims to be free.

Unfortunately, this outrage probably won't be discussed in Tampa or Charlotte.

The media (including Fox News) run frightening stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs. Few of my colleagues stop to think that this is a consequence of the war, that decriminalization would end the violence. There are no wine "cartels" or beer "gangs." No one "smuggles" liquor. Liquor dealers are called "businesses," not gangs, and they "ship" products instead of "smuggling" them. They settle disputes with lawyers rather than guns.

Everything can be abused, but that doesn't mean government can stop it.

Government runs amok when it tries to protect us from ourselves.

Drug-related crime occurs because the drugs are available only through the artificially expensive black market. Drug users steal not because drugs drive them to steal. Our government says heroin and nicotine are similarly addictive, but no one robs convenience stores to get Marlboros. (That could change with confiscatory tobacco taxes.)

Are defenders of the drug war aware of the consequences? I don't think so.

John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, indicts the drug war for "destroying black America." McWhorter, by the way, is black.

McWhorter sees prohibition as the saboteur of black families. "Enduring prison time is seen as a badge of strength. It's regarded (with some justification) as an unjust punishment for selling people something they want. The ex-con is a hero rather than someone who went the wrong way."

He enumerates the positive results from ending prohibition. "No more gang wars over turf, no more kids shooting each other. ... Men get jobs, as they did in the old days, even in the worst ghettos, because they have to."

Would cheaper and freely available drugs bring their own catastrophe? "Our discomfort with the idea of heroin available at drugstores is similar to that of a Prohibitionist shuddering at the thought of bourbon at the corner store. We'll get over it."

The media tell us that some drugs are so powerful that one "hit" or "snort" will hook the user forever. But the government's own statistics disprove that. The National Institutes of Health found that 36 million Americans have tried crack. But only 12 percent have used it in the previous year, and fewer than 6 percent have used it in the previous month. If crack is so addictive, how did 88 percent of the users quit?

If drugs were legal, I suppose that at first more people would try them. But most would give them up. Eventually, drug use would diminish, as it has in Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs, and the Netherlands, which allows legal marijuana. More young men would find real jobs; police could focus on real crime.

When the public is this divided about an issue, it's best left to voluntary social pressure instead of legal enforcement. That's how most Americans decide whether to drink alcohol or go to church every week. Private voluntary social networks have their own ways of punishing bad behavior and send more nuanced messages about what's unacceptable. Government's one-size-fits-all rules don't improve on that.

"Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness," economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "why not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays ... ? The mischief done by bad ideologies is more pernicious ... than that done by narcotic drugs."

If we adults own our own bodies, we ought to get to control what we put in them. It's legitimate for government to protect me from reckless drivers and drunken airline pilots -- but not to protect me from myself.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "No They Can't: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at >johnstossel.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. --   Albert Einstein:


In our worship of certainty we must distinguish between the sound certainty and the sham, between what is gold and what is tinsel; and then, when certainty is attained, we must remember that it is not the only good; that we can buy it at too high a price; that there is danger in perpetual quiescence as well as in perpetual motion; and that a compromise must be found in a principle of growth. Justice Benjamin Cardozo

Tranquility Ensured Domestically


“You will study the wisdom of the past, for in a wilderness of conflicting counsels, a trail has there been blazed. You will study the life of mankind, for this is the life you must order, and, to order with wisdom, must know. You will study the precepts of justice, for these are the truths that through you shall come to their hour of triumph. Here is the high emprise, the fine endeavor, the splendid possibility of achievement, to which I summon you and bid you welcome.” ~ Cardozo
Magic words and incantations are as fatal to our science as they are to any other. …

We seek to find peace of mind in the word, the formula, the ritual. The hope is illusion.

Give me men to match
my mountains
"tapped out”
Federal Water Mandates Blow
(inadequate capacity in the pipes)

“We have taken no action on renewing the federal financial commitment to waste-water infrastructure this Congress.”

–Representative Timothy Bishop (D)
1st District of New York

"It's very hard to know if they even read the code of Virginia," Russ Baxter, Chesapeake Bay coordinator


"We're a long way from creating a program that is going to treat everybody fairly and actually does something for the bay," said Stoneman. Some states have tried, he said, "but I haven't seen anybody nationwide be able to do this at any high level and make it sustainable." Wilmer Stoneman III, an environmental specialist with the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation.


News From the Field
Nanoparticles Reboot Blood Flow in Brain

August 23, 2012

image of a soldier being carried on a stretcher Nanoparticles show promise in restoring blood flow to the brain when administered soon after a traumatic brain or other injury. Full Story

Source
Rice University

U.S. EPA Releases it's own San Francisco Bay Delta Action Plan

Forty years ago the Clean Water Act was made into a federal law.  Congress charged EPA with the goal of making the nation’s navigable waters “fish-able and swim-able.”  The agency claims it has made "great" progress toward that goal, but the facts, and actual results, such as its complete failure in restoring the "Great Delta Toilet-Bowl", tells another story.

miami

Kelp forestry?


Step Up to the Plate

Official Rules and Strategies of American Politics (Rev. 9.11.01)

Foreword

The game of American Politics is played by skilled politicians (called players), but controlled by an elite ruling class of oligarchs (called owners). The game is comparable in many ways to pro baseball, except there are only two competing teams (called Republicans and Democrats). Like pro baseball, 1) the players work for the owners, not for the people who finance the game, 2) the players are well paid (especially highly skilled players), but the big profits go to the owners, and, 3) like baseball, the big profits in American Politics come from the pockets of the masses of people observing the game (called fans).

Like pro baseball, the owners (not the fans) get to choose the players. But in the game of American Politics, the fans occasionally get to pretend they choose the players through a process called voting. In fact, they only get to vote for an extremely narrow field of players pre-approved by the owners.

Many fans enjoy this voting phase of the game as much as the day-to-day game because voting is always great entertainment and fanfare (sponsored by mainstream media). During the voting phase, television "news" overflows with hilarious, pompous pundits, flashy productions of candidate "debates", and slick, deceptive, endlessly-repeating, 30-second political ads--all completely substance free for our entertainment pleasure.

After voting, the fans go back to simply watching the game being played. But unlike the voting phase, where the fans only pretend to participate, in the day-to-day playing of the game, the fans are true participants. In fact, the fans are the main participants since they are ultimately the source of the owners' big profits.

1.0 Teams

There shall be (only) two competing teams designated Republicans and Democrats. The two teams shall work together to prevent the organization of any independent teams that might work for the benefit of the fans instead of the owners.

2.0 Ostensible Object of the Game

Using honest debate, the two teams shall compete to see which team can pass the most laws that benefit the most fans (the source of the game's big profits).

2.0.1 Actual Object of the Game

Using coercion, cunning deception, and blatant lies, the two teams shall compete to see which team can pass the most laws that benefit the most owners (by fooling the most fans).

3.0 Allegiance

Players must emphatically claim they work for the fans. Players can accuse other players of working for the owners, but must never admit that all players work for their owners. Any player actually attempting to work for the fans shall face a rigged primary challenge next election, and/or be severely penalized using various tactics outlined in Appendix III.

4.0 General Play

Players compete as team members and as individuals to see who can transfer the most dollars from the fans' pockets to the owners' pockets. Obviously some of the fans' dollars must be spent for their benefit (otherwise they'd revolt), but points are scored by the team that can regularly minimize this wasteful loss of owner profits.

5.0 Mischief Mechanisms

To prevent either team from passing laws that might benefit the fans, the well-established policies and procedures described in Appendix IV shall be used. These "mischief mechanisms" include such things as the filibuster, rigged standing committees (that can easily kill any "unfavorable" legislation without a floor vote), and other such mechanisms specifically designed to neutralize any rogue players who attempt legislation that might actually benefit the fans.

10.0 Game Strategies

Foreword

Since all players must claim they work for the fans while actually working for the owners, all game strategies must involve some form of deception. The game is essentially a contest to determine which of the two teams is best at lying to the fans.

Thus the basic game strategy underlying all other strategies is to recruit people highly skilled at lying as team members, and then to judiciously appoint the best-of-the-best liars to fill key team positions. For example, the Speaker of the House should probably be the very best liar on the team since (as head of the "people's chamber") that player must adamantly claim to represent the best interests of the fans (while blatantly doing just the opposite).

10.1 Never answer the actual question

If asked if you take money from big oil, drone on about how you support (or don't support) wind energy subsidies.

10.2 Always point out your shady actions are legal

Don't be tricked into discussing the morality of your actions, simply point out it's legal ("Yes, I hid millions in the Cayman Islands , but it's perfectly legal"). Of course, don't mention your team passed the law that made it legal.

10.4 Always be vague when expressing opinions

It behooves you to keep as many fans as possible so never alienate fans by taking a clear position on anything. Use your vast lying skills to walk the fine line exactly midway between all opposing views.

10.5 Appeal to emotion, not intellect

Make fans feel, not think. Facts aren't important. Tell them you're working with the big coal companies to develop a process where coal combustion releases only water vapor and the smell of lilacs. Fans love the smell of lilacs.

10.6 Always practice your lying skills

Remember, you're a player only because you're a good liar. Practice whenever you get the chance. If someone asks you what you had for dinner last night, lie--just for the practice. If you want to remain a player in American Politics, you must keep your lying skills in tip top shape.
“The Will of the People” Online Field Trip

Colonial Williamsburg is sponsoring a Gift to the Nation in this election year by offering complimentary access to “The Will of the People” electronic field trip September 1-30, 2012. The electronic field trip provides teachers with unique resources to engage students in the study of citizenship and our founding democratic principles. “The Will of the People” examines the presidential election of 1800, one of the most bitter in U.S. history. Thomas Jefferson explains how negative campaigning and partisan politics have been a part of our political system since the earliest days of the republic.

GODSPEED; Taking Action Now for the Future


see change
Improved Nutrition
A healthy, productive life requires adequate nutrition. However, two billion people in the world, including nearly 200 million children under 5 years, suffer from malnourishment and its permanent consequences on health, well being, and economic capacity and growth. malnourishment in the first 1,000 days of a child’s life can cause irreversible stunting and mental impairment. Poor communities in developing countries bear a disproportionate amount of this burden. Through Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative, the United States supports country-owned programs to address the root causes of malnourishment and improve the future potential of millions of people. This includes helping countries build the technical capacity to manage nutrition programs over the long term. As part of its commitment to Feed the Future, the U.S. also supports the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, which focuses on collaboration, results, harmonized multi-sector approaches, and the critical 1,000 days from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday. The 1,000 Days partnership supports SUN by increasing advocacy and programming within this window of opportunity. Read the Feed the Future nutrition fact sheet (pdf, 135kb) for more information.

Battered & fried; EPA Takes a Hit

Case involving smoke-belching emissions turning into soot, smog and acid rain.

(1) explain the effects of climate on natural and managed ecosystems; (2) develop the knowledge to help agriculture and forestry; (3) develop the knowledge to help mitigate emissions; and (4) support decisions at local levels with science.



RESURRECTION OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINERS

The Best Day Ever

breaking it down into three broad areas:

RETURN OF THE TRUE CRUSADER

...the bottom line is that title has been clouded not only by MERS but because the trusts purporting to foreclose do not own the properties by the terms of their own documents.  Legally, the latter defect may be even more fatal than filing in the name of MERS in establishing a break in the chain of title to securitized properties.

Like MERS itself, investors must deal with the consequences of an anonymity so remote that they broke from the chain of title. 

On August 15th, the Federal Housing Finance Agency threatened to take action against municipalities condemning federal property.  To establish its claim the FHFA would have to claim that the mortgages were federal property; but under the Bain ruling this would be difficult. 

Emparo: Prevenciónes de Emancipacion

our best shot at escaping debt peonage

Cabacera del Rio Buenaventura ex jure naturæ status quo ante bellum
Dam Tender
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) was established by the U.S. Congress when it passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law (PL) 95?124. [ [ At the time of its creation, Congress' stated purpose for NEHRP was "to reduce the risks of life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards reduction program. www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/nehrp.html ]


URGENT AND IMMEDIATE EXPEDITED RELIEF

as Mike and Chantell Sackett can attest, the status quo is already unacceptable.

The common law is the Will of Mankind issuing from the Life of the People

Sesquicentennial of the Spring Creek College of Law,

A joint celebration with Owl Creek Bridge University and

the Environmental College of American Lawyers.

May 1st, 1862 - 2012, Happiness; catch it if you can.

Be counted in the largest earthquake drill ever!

hold on!


groundswell of revolt

Turf war backdrop to mine killings


"high levels of fatalities, very poor living conditions for workers, community demands for employment opportunities and negative impacts of mining on commercial farming".

NUM General Secretary Frans Baleni repeated his union's accusation that militant unions like AMCU were using violence and intimidation as a tool of recruitment.

"There are trade unions desperate for power who mislead and use workers for cannon fodder," he said, speaking on Sunday on a national television show called "The Justice Factor".

Hands-on environmental learning?  (for only a handful.)bullet

not raw size but another dimension: Saving the Planet Gets Personal:

Organization that promote hands-on environmental education reintroducing the red-cockaded woodpecker

"Did you know that there is lead in 60 percent of women’s red lipstick?"

"The combined environmental impacts of a sustained population growth rate that brought the earth to 7 billion stand to undermine countless hours and billions of dollars that have been dedicated to environmental causes."

"The ability to make important decisions about having and raising a family is one of the most basic human rights for individuals. "

"To truly maintain healthy wildlife populations, recover endangered species, and restore impaired ecosystems, significant partnerships between private landowners and government agencies need to be fostered."

"I fulfill my passion for children and the environment by serving as Board Chair for the Captain Planet Foundation."

"All of our well-intentioned ecological problem-solving magical wands are useless." Laura Turner Seydel

CRS Community Self Assessment: Coming Soon

archaic mining: techniques & mercury exposure fear

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources, which oversees the mining division, has issued numerous notices to gold-seekers, including a sharply worded notice advising that individual miners cannot replicate the "Bering Sea Gold" experience because Discovery Channel is using exploration rights through a state auction.

Health officials will begin voluntary tests next week to see if traces of mercury are in miners' urine. (UA's PP)

The Ticker

Operation HomeFront, Wells Fargo to donate bank-owned properties to military families

American International Group Inc.Fitch has assigned a rating of 'BB+' to American International Group Inc.'s (AIG) $250 million issuance of 2.375 percent subordinated notes, due 2015. Fitch has also affirmed all other AIG ratings, including AIG's 'BBB' Issuer Default Rating (IDR)

Event Information

NameCommunity Unity Day
DescriptionCommunity Block Party on Emergency Preparedness, to foster Community Empowerment and Unity

open the mint
Facilitating Partnerships

The Critical Manufacturing Sector identified the following industries to serve as the core of the sector:

Primary Metal Manufacturing

  • Iron and Steel Mills and Ferro Alloy Manufacturing;
  • Alumina and Aluminum Production and Processing; and
  • Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and Processing
dhs
Division Director, Critical Infrastructure Protection & Defense
Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, is seeking a thought leader and innovator with a proven record in leading research/engineering collaborations with government, academia, and industry to join our team.  This division conducts research, development, demonstration and rapid deployment of technologies related to industrial control systems, electric grid, cyber security, and wireless communication.  The Division Director has responsibility for maximizing national impact, capability development, brand recognition, business volume, and the creation of vibrant programs.  divide et impera
 critical infrastructure partnerships.

The Sector-Specific Plans

The following Sector-Specific Plans are available for download:


small consolation, communities plagued by FED intrusion;

Crime and Corruption in Homeland Security

 

Over the past year, employees of the Department of Homeland Security have committed such crimes as smuggling weed and coke, robbing drug dealers, forging documents and possession of child porn. In 2011, 318 employees and contractors of the DHS were arrested, according to a new DHS inspector general summary of investigations.

 

“Border corruption may take the form of cash bribes, sexual favors, and other gratuities in return for allowing contraband or undocumented aliens through primary inspection lanes or even protecting and escorting border crossings; leaking sensitive law enforcement information to persons under investigation and selling law enforcement intelligence to smugglers; and providing needed documents such as immigration papers,” Charles Edwards said in front of Congress earlier in August. Edwards is the DHS acting inspector general.

2,527 DHS employees, co-conspirators convicted of crimes

Inspector general 'overwhelmed by growing number' of allegations against personnel


Homeland Security Prepares for Civil War



By (about the author)


Its Clear Our Military Is No Longer The Nation's Only Standing Army When It Comes To Killing Power 

Over the past 2 weeks, everyone from the mainstream media to bloggers and conspiracy theorists have questioned the government's mass purchasing of ammunition for federal agencies like the National Weather Service and even the Social Security Administration. Combined, both agencies ordered over 210,000 rounds. This ammunition is mostly made up of "hollow point" bullets, which are designed strictly for maximum damage to the human body and have been outlawed for use in warfare since 1969. 

On the surface, these purchases alone are scary enough and raise questions as to why these unlikely agencies need any amounts of ammo, especially bullets that have been outlawed. The National Weather Service claims they have 63 officers who "enforce the nation's ocean and fishing laws to ensure a level playing field for fishermen and to protect marine species like whales, dolphins and turtles." If you divide 46,000 rounds by the 63 agents they employ, that's 730 bullets per agent, or, in other words, 63 crack shots and a lot of dead fisherman.   

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has given no specific response to questions regarding their purchase of 174,00 rounds. They said their "agents' need them. But, keep this in mind:  the SSA only deals with US Citizens in America. The SSA has never been involved with anything outside of this country for any reason. And what do they need with armed agents?  All SSA offices employ private contracted security for their offices.

One Billion + Hollow Point Bullets

Digging deeper into the government's recent procurements for ammo, you learn just how aggressively they are buying up ridiculous amounts of ammo and riot related equipment. The feds have actually ordered over 1 billion rounds of ammo in 2012 alone. They received 750,000,000 in March and are awaiting another 450,000,000 arriving soon. All in conjunction with large-scale orders for riot gear, bulletproof checkpoint outposts with red and green stoplights, human shaped paper practice targets, and other crowd control and containment equipment. 

There is no conspiracy theory here.  The federal government is expecting either a catastrophic financial collapse that could provoke nationwide food riots and all out civil unrest, another civil war, or even Armageddon. All in the very near future. Some theorize that the mass purchase of ammunition is an attempt to hoard as much as possible from the American public whom the feds believe may be in preparation for civil war right now. 

The Warnings Are There 

Activist, radio talk show and journalist, Madison Ruppert, recently detailed on his "End The Lie Radio Show" how our Department of Homeland Security has an apparent obsession with buying up all the ammunition on earth. He noted that even if this ammo were purchased strictly for training purposes, as the Feds claim, we simply do not have the money in the federal budget to buy hundreds of millions of rounds of high dollar ammunition for domestic agents' target practice.
 
Another recent story by Ruppert entitled, "We Are Preparing For Massive Civil War...Says DHS Informant" outlines investigator Doug Haggman's interview with reportedly, high-level, reliable sources inside Homeland Security, who claim the agency is preparing for a massive civil war in America. The DHS source states that the federal government foresees and prepares for a massive civil revolt. "Every time you hear about troop movements, military equipment, the militarization of the police, and the buying of the ammunition in the US, all of this is orchestrated by the DHS who are reportedly preparing for a massive uprising."

Hagmann goes on to say that his sources tell him the concerns of the DHS stem from their belief in an impending collapse of the U.S. dollar as the the world's primary reserve currency, and their fear that a significant portion of the population is already armed and will rise up over the crash of our monetary system. Hagmann's sources confirmed the ongoing fear of a U.S. dollar collapse at the hands of the Chinese and possibly the Russians in retaliation for aggressive U.S. foreign policy initiatives against Chinese and Russian strategic allies like Iran and Syria.

"The one source that we have, I've known since 1979," says Hagmann. "He started out as a patrol officer and currently he is now working for a federal agency under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. He's in a position to know what policies are being initiated and what policies are being planned at this point."  And, "he's telling us right now that what you're seeing is just the tip of the iceberg." 

"We are preparing, we, meaning the government, we are preparing for a massive civil war in this country."
 
Then there is Trends Research Institutes' Founder Gerald Celente's forecast of last year where he believes and expects a collapse of the U.S. dollar and riots in America some time this year. Since Celente's "Civil War' prediction of last year, President Obama signed executive orders known as the National Defense Resources Preparedness, which are politically damaging actions taken by a sitting president.  Of course, he also signed the National Defense Authorization Act, abolishing habeas corpus and the Bill or Rights, and permitting indefinite detention without charge or trial of American citizens at home and abroad.  He further claims the power to murder American citizens without indictment, trial or conviction upon his finding that they support or substantially assist an enemy of the United States or one of its allies.  Let the firing squads begin. 

And most recently, additional requests made by the DHS for another procurement of 750 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition only fuels speculation of an upcoming tragic event expected on American soil. These major events, as shocking to the American people as they are, will be taking place during an election year.

Governments Strategy To Crush Any Tea Party Insurgency (Warfare)

How seriously does the government consider a Tea Party rebellion? Kevin Benson, a retired U.S. Army colonel, who now teaches modern warfare to soldiers at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, has co-written an article with Civil War expert, Jennifer Weber, detailing how to crush a Tea Party insurgency. That report, by itself, has ignited a firestorm among those increasingly concerned about what they feel is a distinct anti-civilian tone that has infected much of the military and Homeland Security personnel since 2009. 

Benson and Weber co-wrote the article for Small Wars Journal on a 2010 Army report entitled, "U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, The Army Operating Concept 2016 - 2028."

The report describes the Army's response to threats "at home and abroad" in the coming two decades, and, in doing so, made clear that a monumental cultural shift recently occurred in the thinking of those at the top levels of military command. This shift has some governmental watchdogs worried, particularly given that Benson is using the platform provided at Fort Leavenworth to indoctrinate soldiers in his vision of the nature of modern warfare in America.

Benson and Webber actually created a fictitious training scenario, including a military response, as a teaching tool for the future insurrection of tea party activists. As the scenario goes, the tea party stages a takeover of the town of Darlington, S.C.. They profess that the Declaration of Independence has been re-imposed, and the local government declared null and void.  According to the vision articulated by Benson, the enemy will be average citizens whose values resonate with those articulated by the tea party. 

The scenario admits to the public that the government fears that the Tea Party can alter or abolish an existing government and replace it with another. In the words of Benson's report, a takeover by the Tea Party will have an effect on the general population insomuch as it  "shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." 

Also, there is a 2008 report produced by the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Institute that warns the United States might experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises, which it termed "strategic shock." It goes on to say, "widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reprioritize itself to defend basic domestic order and human security." The report, authored by Retired Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, adds that the military may be needed to squash "purposeful domestic resistance." 

Even though Freir's warning does not directly cite the Tea Party as the cause of the mass civil unrest, the inference is there. With the publication of the reports by Frier, Benson and Weber, it is clear that DHS and the U.S. Army considers it a valid proposition to assume that a future civil war will be sparked not by extremist Islamists with dirty bombs or left wing insurrectionists, but by the tea party and the conservatives who participate in it.

Just three years ago the Department of Homeland Security generated the notorious Home Grown Terrorist Assessment Memorandum detailing the the vision the DHS held of the primary threats to U.S. domestic security in the near future. The memo was distributed to local law enforcement across the nation with details about the Tea Party being the object of the government's fears. The fears included combat hardened returning veterans to a nation without jobs for them, weapons and ammunition shortages that could be blamed upon the federal government, citizens who believe there is an effort to build an international government, extremist internet chatters who perceive a loss of U.S. manufacturing and construction jobs to overseas markets and blame governmental policies for that exodus and resultant home foreclosures, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, people who talk a lot about their constitutional rights, people with copies of the constitution or Bill or Rights, etc., are all suspected domestic terrorists according to the memo. 

Why Hollow Point Bullets?

After being bombarded with questions wanting to know why the feds are procuring stockpiles of ammo, their half-hearted excuses came down to needing this ammo for training and qualification purposes. That answer only raises more questions. Like, why does anyone need to practice or qualify with expensive "hollow point' rounds. Manufacturers make "practice' rounds that are considerably cheaper.

According to an article published by war decorated Army Major General Jerry Curry  (Ret), the feds explanation about the bullets fails to pass the smell test. "Hollow point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battle field in time of war." Hollow point bullets don't just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body's organs. Death often follows. "Notice that all of these purchases are for the deadly hollow nose bullets. These bullets are not being purchased and stored for squirrel or coyote hunting. 

"This is serious ammunition manufactured to be used for serious purposes."

He goes on to write that" "In the war in Iraq, our military forces expended approximately 70 million rounds per year. In March DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls." 

His final claim is food for thought "This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen."

General Curry raises 3 additional good points. 

1. We have enough military forces to maintain law and order in the U.S. even during times of civil unrest. We have local police, backed up by each state's National Guard, backed up by the Department of Defense. 

2. In addition to all these forces, why does DHS need its own private army? 

3. Why do the SSA, NOAA and other government agencies need to create their own civilian security forces armed with hollow nose bullets?

In Closing

This is not a "conspiracy theory" or guessing that our government is actively stockpiling enormous amounts of lethal ammunition, riot equipment and other related control devices designed solely for civil unrest. This purchase is a fact, and there is plenty of documentation from the feds themselves on how they are procuring these items. It is readily available on the Internet. It is also evident that within the last few years, several military strategists have produced in depth reports outlining the probability for a massive Civil War in America in the near future. 

The DHS and other federal agencies are aggressively acting on those reports and recommendations by launching their own preparedness plans in order to both conduct a pre-emptive strike first and or combat any uprising by civilians that may occur first.

These ammo purchases by the feds do not include any mention of "non-lethal" tactics such as rubber bullets, water hoses, bean bags (fired from a shotgun to knock a person down) or tear gas, etc., which are used instead of deadly force to control civil unrest. It appears on the surface that they are gearing up for all out warfare on the American public. It also appears that the entity behind this plan is the Department of Homeland Security, not the military or local city, county, state or federal law enforcement.
 
The below analogy will likely anger some of the people reading it. It is only being used to point out how agencies akin to Homeland Security can get out of hand and allow self-appointed power and authority to become grossly abused, thus losing sight of their intent and objective.

In our own fears from 911, our government created Homeland Security, an agency that has become so powerful and relentless in believing they are protecting America that they have evolved into nothing more than what the German Waffen -"SS' officers became over time. Out of control. The "SS' were first formed in 1934 only as a supplementary army alongside the main German army. But, in just a few years, they were able to appoint themselves into the core of Germany's terror apparatus and by about 1936 assumed control of the entire terror machine. 

End Of Story

Jack Swint-Publisher
West Virginia News
Twitter:  @WVNewsOnline
LinkedIn: Jack Swint
Endangered Species Act a federal land grab?

In an Aug. 17 Federal Register notice, EPA announced that it is seeking comments on a proposal jointly developed with USDA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (together,“the Services”) to enhance opportunities for stakeholder input during pesticide registration reviews and endangered species consultations.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires all federal agencies to consult with the Services prior to any federal action if there is any potential impact on a protected species. Pesticide registration is considered a federal action. Prior to 2004, EPA believed the extensive environmental risk assessments required in the registration process also would include impacts on endangered species. However, the judge, in a lawsuit initiated in 2002, ruled that EPA was in violation of the ESA for not consulting with the Services. The Food Quality Protection Act mandates EPA to review all registered pesticides every 15 years. EPA began that process in 2006 and has included ESA consultations in its reviews.

EPA and the Services have not worked effectively at all in the consultation process. One reason for this problem is the difference in legal authorities – EPA registers pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act, which is a data-dependent, risk-based process and must consider cost/benefit analyses in its decisions. The Services, acting under ESA, is more speculative and precautionary in its approach and has no cost/benefit directive. EPA has lambasted some of the earlier opinions issued by the NMFS, which used outdated pesticide labels, included cancelled uses and assumed 100 percent fields treated at maximum allowable rates.

Highlights of the proposal include:

· Emphasis on coordination across these federal agencies;

· Expanded role for USDA and the pesticide user community in providing current pesticide use information to inform and refine EPA’s ecological risk assessments;

· “Focus” meetings at the start of registration review for each pesticide active ingredient, to clarify current uses and label directions and consider the potential for early risk reduction;

· Formal ESA consultations later in the registration review process, allowing time to engage stakeholders in the development of more refined ecological risk assessments and more focused consultation packages including mitigation for listed species; and

· Outreach to potentially affected pesticide users to discuss the technical and economic feasibility of draft Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) intended to avoid jeopardy to threatened and/or endangered species.

Comments must be submitted by Oct. 16, 2012, to docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0442 at www.regulations.gov.

Western Governors Association Conference

States' leaders say Endangered Species Act 'nonsensical,' hurts business and farming

The Endangered Species Act is a “nonsensical” policy that hurts businesses, property owners and farmers to protect animals and plants that may not be at risk , a panel of Democratic and Republican governors from throughout the West said Wednesday.

The governors complained of having their hands tied by federal policy as animal populations described as thriving but listed as endangered ravage private ranches, state parks and golf courses. Wildlife advocates say species that have thrived under the law's protection might again be threatened if taken off the list.

“The frustration level is reaching the breaking point in many levels because of this act,” said Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert. “It's nonsensical.”

The Republican governor griped about swarms of endangered prairie dogs digging into golf courses. “They have become so domesticated, they are just a pain,” he said.

The discussion about overhauling the Endangered Species Act came on the second day of a two-day conference of the Western Governors Association. State executives from 19 states, plus the U.S. territories of Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands, were invited to attend.

Federal environmental officials acknowledged the law's challenges and slow-paced evolution, but largely aimed to rebut complaints and praise a conservation policy that seeks to protect nearly 2,000 species of birds, insects, fish, mammals, flowers and trees.

“Does the act always work perfectly? No,” said Eileen Sobeck, deputy assistant secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. “Do the successes under the act outnumber the problems? I think they do.”

With its plentiful plains and rich wildlife, endangered species protections remain a testy issue in the West.

Hunters and ranchers, a powerful constituency in the Mountain West, have called for delisting recovering populations of certain species such as gray wolves and grizzlies. They contend that the federal policy affects the value and sovereignty of their land and threatens livestock. Western governors insist states, not federal regulators, should have authority over native species that affect local habitats and create business hurdles.

“We are pretty good at managing our wildlife,” Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana said.

Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have been in negotiations with the federal Interior Department to remove gray wolves from the endangered species in recent weeks, but talks have since stalled.

The region's 1,700 wolves lost their endangered status in Montana and Idaho in 2009, but were returned to the endangered list this year after a lawsuit brought by environmentalists.

Schweitzer, a Democrat, said that the gray wolf population in the West has fully recovered and should not be on the list, but federal regulators have been reluctant to reconsider the endangered designation.

“The Endangered Species Act is the Hotel California,” he told The Associated Press. “You can check in, but you can never leave.”

Schweitzer said rural states do not have enough clout in Congress to successfully lobby for the delisting of wolves under the Endangered Species Act, and he blasted federal officials for making the process so bureaucratic.

Idaho Gov. C. L. “Butch” Otter said the law has pitted business owners against government enforcers. The Republican suggested the federal government instead encourage land owners to protect endangered species on private land through financial rewards.

“The Endangered Species Act is broken, it's bankrupt, it's a fraud now,” he said.



GAO: Green groups get millions of taxpayers dollars from 'citizen lawsuits'

WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - "Big Green" groups and their "Big Green" lawyers have raked in millions by virtue of the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts - but that wasn't the original intent of the laws.

Environmental groups being awarded taxpayer money as attorneys' fees has outraged Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), a committee member.

The senators had asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for a report that examined environmental litigation for fiscal years 1995 through 2010.

Among the findings in the report released in 2011 was that environmental groups profited more than any other plaintiff in litigation against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

"The GAO report uncovers, for the first time, the millions of taxpayer dollars that are going to attorneys' fees for environmental litigation against the Environmental Protection Agency," says an EPW statement about the report. "Yet, the report is limited because GAO, the government watchdog, was unable to obtain information from several federal agencies during the requested time period from 1995-2010."

The report includes litigation costs for all EPA environmental statutes except the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).


For example, the report's data table indicated that Earthjustice - the legal arm of the Sierra Club - received $4,655,425.60 or 32 percent of all attorneys' fees paid to EPA litigants.


When combined with the attorneys' fees the Sierra Club received outright ($966,687.34), the Sierra Club and its affiliates received $5,622,113 or about 39 percent of all the attorneys' fees awarded to EPA litigants.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) was also a big recipient, raking in $252,004.87. When adding the NRDC amount to the Sierra Club/Earthjustice gains, the three represent a whopping 41 percent of all the attorneys' fees awarded to EPA litigants.


The report also said that from fiscal year 2006-the first year for which EPA specifically tracked the payments by type of claim-through fiscal year 2010, 84 percent of all the payments the EPA made for attorney fees and other costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) went to claims filed by local and national environmental groups.


The EAJA authorizes the payment of attorney's fees to a prevailing party in an action against the United States absent a showing by the government that its position in the underlying litigation was substantially justified.

"In addition to attorneys' fees awarded, the GAO found that the Department of Justice (DOJ) spent at least $43 million in taxpayer dollars defending EPA in court from 1998 - 2010," the EPW committee noted. "Further, the report uncovered that most of the attorneys' fees paid to environmental organizations were paid under the Clean Air Act, followed next by the Clean Water Act."


Inhofe issued a statement after receiving the report.


"(This) GAO report is the tip of the iceberg as we work to get to the bottom of just how many taxpayer dollars are going to pay attorneys' fees in environmental suits," he said.


"It is outrageous that these agencies couldn't provide the requested information and it is even more concerning that we have yet to get the full story. Not surprisingly, we have learned from the data provided in the GAO report that several big green groups have benefited financially from citizen suit provisions, which was not the original intent of the law.

"We have also discovered a glaring lack of transparency on the part of EPA, DOJ, and the Department of Treasury as GAO was unable to obtain information for several years of litigation payments."

Vitter also issued a statement about the report, condemning the money trial lawyers were receiving suing the government.


"The GAO report shows that taxpayers have been on the hook for years while 'Big Green' trial lawyers have raked in millions of dollars suing the government," Vitter said. "Even worse, because of sloppy record keeping by the EPA and other agencies and a lack of cooperation by the Justice Department, we're not even sure how bad the problem really is."



According to EPW committee, the GAO discovered "a lack of transparency and accountability about environmental litigation expenses incurred in EPA litigation." Apparently, the EPA could provide data from recent years only, rather than the requested 15 years.


Some of the significant findings of the GAO were that there was "inconsistent formatting of key data elements," the report stated. This "produced significant problems" for the GAO's analysis and required significant manual review.


The GAO also noted that the Department of Justice "does not have a standard approach for maintaining key data on environmental litigation cases." The GAO also said that the EPA does not track its attorneys' time or costs.


The GAO indicated it could not calculate the total number of hours that Justice attorneys worked on environmental litigation.

The GAO said there were no plans to improve transparency and accountability.



The authorities have unanimously recommended this arrangement for those seeking to establish a good government.

From Charles –Louis de Secondat, the Baron de Montesquieu:

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.

From the Greek historian, Polybius:

Lycurgus…did not make his constitution simple and uniform, but united in it all the good and distinctive features of the best governments, so that none of the principles should grow unduly and be perverted into its allied evil, but that the force of being neutralized by the that of the others, neither of them should prevail and outbalance another, but that the constitution should remain for long in a state of equilibrium like a well-trimmed boat….

And finally, from the father of our own constitution, James Madison:

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent, is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted, hat the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.

Next, we turn to the heart chord, that is, the essential oil that is added to the head chord as the next step in creating the most pleasing government. That element is  federalism . Again, we turn to the leading lights of political science.

Once again, from Montesquieu:

This form of government is a convention by which several petty states agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to establish. It is a kind of assemblage of societies, that constitute a new one, capable of increasing by means of further associations, till they arrive at such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the whole body,

and:

A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruption. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniencies.

Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume agrees with the notion that a federal system would prevent the public interest from being attacked by factions united by “intrigue, prejudice or passion.” States, the smaller republics, would retain most power while granting to the central authority only those limited and specific powers necessary to protect the whole of society.

In the  Federalist Papers , Alexander Hamilton supports the American expression of this timeless principle:

The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State Governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a Federal Government.

And his Federalist Papers collaborator, James Madison, cogently crystallized the point this way:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

Finally, if the perfume is to be long-lasting and memorable, the base chord must be added to the blend. Without this final ingredient, the scent would quickly dissipate and linger on only in memory.

The foundational additive in the enduring fragrance of American liberty is  popular sovereignty . We, the people, are the ultimate and natural authority in our republic and it is only through our voluntary accession that government has any power whatsoever.

John Locke, whose powerful influence was felt by many of our own Founding Fathers and the documents they crafted to create our government, wrote in his  Two Treatises on Government :

Every Man being, as has been shewed,  naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any Earthly Power, but only his own Consent…. (emphasis in the original)

Again, from the illustrious Scot, David Hume:

When we consider how nearly equal all men are in their bodily force, and even in their mental powers and faculties, till cultivated by education, we must necessarily allow that nothing but their own consent could at first associate them together and subject them to any authority. The people, if we trace government to its first origin in the woods and deserts, are the source of all power and jurisdiction, and voluntarily, for the sake of peace and order, abandoned their native liberty and received laws from their equal and companion.

And, appropriately, the last word on the fundamental nature of the principle of popular sovereignty is from James Madison:

We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people;

and finally,

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived…

EXTORTION: 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. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2).

In Dalliba v. Riggs, 7 Ida. 779, 82 Pac. 107, it was laid down that while a court of equity can appoint a receiver to perfect and preserve mining property, it “ has no authority to place its receiver in charge of such property and operate the same, carrying on a general mining business, and while it turns out to be at a loss, as is likely to be the result in such cases, charge the same up as a preferred claim and lien against the property, to the prejudice and loss of the holders of prior recorded liens on the same property” (82 Pac. At pp. 108-109). In that case the receiver appeared to have carried on the mining operations without any order of court directing him to do so and with reckless extravagance, and in addition was shown not only not to have kept accurate accounts but also to have made in the account filed “many charges against the estate where no charge whatever should have been made and none in fact existed.” The court accordingly denied the receiver any allowance for his own time or services and any allowance for attorney's fees. - JUSTICE BRANNON



U.S. Treasury Hid $40 Billion in AIG Bailout Losses

October 27, 2010 in News

Download the October 26, 2010 SIGTARP Quarterly Report.

Treasury Hid A.I.G. Loss, Report Says (New York Times):

The United States Treasury concealed $40 billion in likely taxpayer losses on the bailout of the American International Group earlier this month, when it abandoned its usual method for valuing investments, according to a report by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

“In our view, this is a significant failure in their transparency,” said Neil M. Barofsky, the inspector general, in an interview on Monday.

In early October, the Treasury issued a report predicting that the taxpayers would ultimately lose just $5 billion on their investment in A.I.G., a remarkable outcome, since the insurance company was extended $182 billion in taxpayer money in the early months of its rescue. The prediction of a modest loss, widely reported as A.I.G., the Federal Reserve and the Treasury rushed to complete an exit plan, contrasted with an earlier prediction by the Treasury that the taxpayers would lose $45 billion.

“The American people have a right for full and complete disclosure about their investment in A.I.G.,” Mr. Barofsky said, “and the U.S. government has an obligation, when they’re describing potential losses, to give complete information.”

U.S. Treasury too rosy on bailout cost – TARP cop (Reuters):

The Obama administration’s latest estimate of taxpayer costs of the Wall Street bailout is too rosy and could ultimately damage public trust in government, the top bailout cop said on Monday.

In its quarterly report to Congress, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said the Treasury Department’s bailout cost estimate for American International Group (AIG.N) was an example of using misleading numbers to paint a positive pre-election account of the program.

The administration on Sept. 30 slashed its estimate of the overall cost of the U.S. financial bailout by more than half to less than $50 billion on the back of a new plan to sell the government’s stake in insurer AIG.

The SIGTARP report said the Treasury Department, in coming up with the fresh estimate, had changed its calculation method to estimate a $5 billion cost for AIG. That was a shift from an earlier projection of $45 billion that used a broader measure to calculate the cost.

See also the SIGTARP Quarterly Report from July 21, 2009:

By itself, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) is a huge program at $700 billion. As discussed in SIGTARP’s April Quarterly Report, the total financial exposure of TARP and TARP-related programs may reach approximately $3 trillion.  Although large in its own right, TARP is only a part of the combined efforts of the Federal Government to address the financial crisis. Approximately 50 initiatives or programs have been created by various Federal agencies since 2007 to provide potential support totaling more than $23.7 trillion. The Federal Reserve has been one of the lead agencies responding to the financial crisis — increasing its balance sheet to more than $2 trillion to implement a wide range of programs designed to stimulate liquidity in financial markets, as well as several institution-specific interventions. The Federal Reserve’s $2 trillion balance sheet (which grew from approximately $900 billion prior to the financial crisis to a peak of nearly $2.3 trillion in December 2008),322 however, does not reflect the true potential amount of support the Federal Reserve has provided to those programs, which is estimated to be at least $6.8 trillion. This is because many of the programs involve guarantees that, although not listed on the balance sheet, expose the Federal Reserve to significant losses if the assets they are backing deteriorate in value.



A "modest measure of relief“ from the "hopelessly indeterminate” scope of “waters of the United States”  - Justice Alito

The government has a “heavy burden of justification” - Justice Kennedy

in looking at the substance of the matter, they can see that it "is a clear, unmistakable infringement of rights secured by the fundamental law." Booth v. Illinois , 184 U.S. 425 , 429 .

"It is estimated that the destruction from a single wave of cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructures could exceed $700 billion — the equivalent of 50 major hurricanes hitting U.S. soil at once." — U.S. Cyber Consequence Unit”

An attack on a utility — either through a cyberattack or physical entry to the facility — will have serious ramifications to citizens, causing severe economic damages and life-threatening situations.

Good Vibrations

NEHRP Earthquake State Assistance

Department of Homeland Security

 
Synopsis
       


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 08/24/2012 . 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: DHS-12-MT-082-009-99
Opportunity Category: Discretionary
Posted Date: Aug 24, 2012
Creation Date: Aug 24, 2012
Original Closing Date for Applications: Sep 07, 2012   
Current Closing Date for Applications: Sep 07, 2012   
Archive Date: Oct 07, 2012
Funding Instrument Type: Cooperative Agreement
Category of Funding Activity: Disaster Prevention and Relief
Category Explanation:
Expected Number of Awards:
Estimated Total Program Funding:
Award Ceiling: $0
Award Floor: $0
CFDA Number(s): 97.082  --  Earthquake Consortium
Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: Yes

Eligible Applicants

Others (see text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility" for clarification)
 

Additional Information on Eligibility:

This funding opportunity is restricted to the following States and territories only: New York, Puerto Rico, Alabama, North Carolina, Mississippi, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, Arkansas, Missouri, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Alaska, Washington, and Oregon.

Agency Name

Region 9

Description

As authorized by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-124) and as required by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-360), it is the mission of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) "to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake risk reduction program." In support of this mission, P.L. 108-360 directed FEMA to operate a program of direct assistance to States to accomplish various eligible earthquake safety and mitigation activities. This resulted in the creation of the NEHRP Earthquake State Assistance Program to increase and enhance the effective implementation of earthquake risk reduction at the local level.

Link to Additional Information


If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:

Claudette Fernandez
NEHRP/Earthquake State Assistance Program Manager (Lead)
Building Science Branch, Risk Reduction Division
DHS/FEMA Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
Claudette.fernandez@fema.dhs.gov

In 1936 the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued U. S. Senate Document 264 stating "virtually all soils in the United States are mineral deficient."

"Did you know that most of us today are suffering from certain dangerous diet deficiencies which cannot be remedied until the depleted soils from which our foods come are brought back into proper mineral balance? 99% of the American people are deficient in these minerals, a marked deficiency in any one of the more important minerals actually results in disease. Lacking vitamins, the system can make some use of minerals, but lacking minerals, vitamins are useless."

delivering meaningful medicines

$26 million settlement against the multi-billion pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca for violating the state Unfair Trade Practices Act by willfully misleading consumers on the potentially serious side effects of the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel.

AstraZeneca charged with Unfair Trade Practices Act violations, did not admit any wrongdoing or violation, but agreed to pay the sum to resolve the state action, according to the order signed by Circuit Court Judge Roger Couch.

"You can trace every sickness, every disease, and every ailment to a mineral deficiency." - Dr. Linus Pauling, two-time Nobel Prize winner


"The lack of minerals is the root of all disease." Dr. Gary Price Todd


"In the absence of minerals, vitamins have no function. Lacking vitamins, the system can make use of the minerals, but lacking minerals vitamins are useless." - Dr. Charles Northern


“Soil is the basis of all human life and our only hope for a healthy world….All of life will be either healthy or unhealthy according to the fertility of the soil. Minerals in the soil control the metabolism of cells in plant, animal and man….Diseases are created chiefly by destroying the harmony reigning among mineral substances present in infinitesimal amounts in air, water and food, but most importantly in the soil.” Dr. Alexis Carrel, Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1912

"Our most optimistic expectations are no less than the realization of an old dream. What will fertilizing with rock dust accomplish? It will turn stones into bread...make barren regions (fruitful) (and) feed the hungry." -1894, Julius Hensel

"There is no doubt that malnutrition is the most important problem confronting mankind at the present time." Dr. Melchior Dikkers, Professor of Biochemistry and Organic Chemistry at Loyola University.

"A declining soil fertility, due to a lack of organic material, major elements, and trace minerals, is responsible for poor crops and in turn for pathological conditions in animals fed deficient foods from such soils, and that mankind is no exception.  N P K formulas, as legislated and enforced by State Departments of Agriculture, mean malnutrition, attack by insects, bacteria and fungi, weed takeover, crop loss in dry weather, and general loss of mental acuity in the population, leading to degenerative metabolic disease and early death." Dr. William A. Albrecht, Chairman of the Department of Soils at the University of Missouri

"mineral depletion from soils over the last 100 years equals "74%  Africa, 76%  Asia, 55%  Australia, 72%  Europe, 76%  South America, 85%  North America " Earth Summit Report, 1992

Hunger is not an abstract idea. It is a reality affecting the lives of millions of Americans every single day. And it hits our children particularly hard, with over 16 million kids in our country experiencing food insecurity each year. Internationally, nearly 1 billion people across the globe will go to bed hungry tonight and 200 million of them are children.  We can all play a role within our communities to ensure that no man, woman, or child faces hunger. Read more »

feds feed feds

2012 - Goal: 2,000,000 lb | Current All Agency Total: 0 lb | Petite Agencies - 0 lb | Small Agencies - 0 lb | Medium Agencies - 0 lb | Large Agencies - 0 lb | X-Large Agencies - 0 lb

Select this link to view your specific Agency Total during the 2012 Food Drive.

EPA is not a friend

Posted: Monday, August 27, 2012 11:46 am

HARRISBURG — With drought, high feed and input costs, and a yet-to-be-passed Farm Bill, agriculture producers seem to have little to be optimistic about. But U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns provided some encouraging words to local farmers and ranchers Tuesday. Johanns told local producers during a roundtable discussion that he would go to bat for them against the Environmental Protection Agency.

“I’m on your side,” Johanns said emphatically when asked about the EPA’s surveillance flight tactics targeting America’s livestock feeding facilities. “They are one of the most unfriendly agencies out there, and they need to be stopped.”

Johanns said the EPA was unnecessarily covert.

“We had no clue they were conducting those. They told no one,” he said. “I found out about their tactics from ranchers, cattle feeders, that they were flying the feedlots and then going back later threatening them with citations.”

In May, Johanns, as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and with other members of the Nebraska congressional delegation, sent a letter to the EPA seeking answers about its aerial surveillance of Nebraska feeding operations. Johanns followed up on June 12 with a proposed amendment to the Farm Bill banning the EPA’s use of aerial surveillance, saying it was past time for Congress to put an end to the agency’s use of the tactic.

“I needed 60 votes to stop it. I got 56, which I actually was pleased and surprised with,” he told the Harrisburg group. “I’ll try to get it in the bill this year to stop it.”

Johanns warned producers of another non-agriculture friendly presence that is gaining exposure across the nation. Rancher Robert Post asked for the senator’s advice and input about the Humane Society of the United States.

“Take them seriously. They are well organized and are bringing in a lot of Hollywood stars and raising a lot of money in the name of animal rights,” he said, citing his efforts against the HSUS related to the horse slaughter issue.

Johanns also explained that the HSUS operates under the guise of the local humane societies, which he calls a dishonest, deceitful tactic.

Many concerns were addressed during the hour-long roundtable discussion. Among those was the play crop insurance and disaster payments in the new Farm Bill. Producers said while the disaster programs currently in place, or proposed, are good conceptually, they do not deliver the price relief needed to keep farmers in business. Johanns’ Outreach Coordinator Sallie Atkins told producers she would work on developing better price supports and benefits during her weekly conference calls with the state Farm Service Agency representatives.

Producers also cited the need for less stringent dust-regulation, especially during these current drought conditions. Stricter dust regulation, they said, would be a huge detriment to the county’s infrastructure.

“All these EPA regulations on small producers and cattle feeders are stymieing growth,” said cattle feeder Gary Darnall.

Johanns agrees, citing the disconnect between the House and Senate representatives and production agriculture.

“They don’t get it,” he said of the House and Senate’s strong focus on the consumer side of benefits in the current Farm Bill versions. “They’re more interested in getting food stamps for people than protecting the farmers and ranchers.”

“Then what are you going to feed people with food stamps without production agriculture,” asked rancher Mike Klosterman.

"The United States is being melted down into a despotic empire dominated by "well-born" aristocrats controlled by the wealthy established families. The common working people are in danger of being supjugated to the will of an all-powerful authority remote and inaccessible to the people". Samuel Bryan

Emerson

"These lawyers, and men of learning and moneyed men, that...make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill...they will swallow up all us little folks like the great Leviathan; yes, just as the whale swallowed up Jonah!" Massachusetts delegate

“We the People are the Rightful Masters of both Congress & the Courts, not to Overthrow the Constitution, but Overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” ~Abraham Lincoln

high-level national dialogue

links between the country's environmental degradation and U.S. drug consumption

9 percent of the U.S. population appetite for illicit drugs costs $193 billion

"in preventable law enforcement expenses."

Undue Influence: The Power of Police and Prison Guards' Unions

By Andrew Stelzer, National Radio Project | Radio Report

Inspector General: US Wasted

Press Release 12-130
National Science Board Concerned About U.S. Innovation Capacity

Business R&D investment cut and shifted, public sector uncertainties

Cover of report Research & Development, Innovation, and the Science and Engineering Workforce.

The cover of the National Science Board's recently released companion report.
Credit and Larger Version

July 16, 2012

"Our nation's economic growth depends on our capacity to educate, innovate and build," says a new report released today by the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation. But between 2008 and 2009, in the midst of the most recent recession, American businesses cut funding for research and development by nearly five percent, or $12 billion. The science board said these cuts coupled with government budget constraints at all levels are reasons for concern.

Private venture capital investment in select science and technology industries declined from $43 billion in 2000 to less than $10 billion in 2010. Private equity investments in certain S&T industries plummeted from nearly $60 billion in 2007 to less than $10 billion in 2008, but it has rebounded somewhat since then, reaching about $15 billion in 2010. The decline in private-sector investment was accompanied by a shift away from investment in crucial early stage start-ups, a more risky investment.

Oklahoma gets 'one practical farmer'

The Council for Native American Farming and Ranching was set up to advise Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on how to eliminate barriers to Native American participation in USDA programs.

“This council has a real opportunity to simplify all people’s access to USDA programs,” said McPeak, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

He said the department’s relationship with Native American producers in Oklahoma is “better than it might be if they were on reservations.”

However, he said he had heard of farmers having trouble on tribal lands. For example, tribes running their own livestock, or people running livestock on tribal lands, had trouble accessing relief during past declarations of drought, he said.

Vilsack’s senior adviser on tribal affairs, Janie Hipp, said Native American farmers and ranchers face unique challenges in managing their property and obtaining credit.

“Farms and ranches on trust lands and restricted lands could face challenges to titles to their properties,” said Hipp, a member of the Chickasaw Nation from Idabel. “And access to credit is always an issue, since some of it is unique to Indian land. There have to be federal programs designed to hone in on access to credit.”

NFIP/CRS

UPDATE

August 2012

NFIP, CRS, and Natural Floodplain Functions

One of the most appreciated natural functions of both inland and coastal floodprone areas is their generation and maintenance of aquatic and terrestrial environments that nurture myriad species of plants and animals. Among those species are many that may face extinction, often because of loss of habitat. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 aims to protect such species by prohibiting anyone from “harming” or “taking” endangered species, and it extends similar protections to threatened species. Further, it requires all federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of those species.

FEMA does not directly implement the Endangered Species Act—that responsibility rests with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services). However, as a federal agency, FEMA is required under Section 7 of the Act to “insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize” threatened or endangered species or their habitat. This means that actions conducted by communities, individuals, or others pursuant to a FEMA program may not jeopardize those species or their habitat. Thus, National Flood Insurance Program communities need to avoid modifications to the floodplainsuch as fillthat could harm riparian or coastal habitats.

(sandbagged again. -ed.)

FEMA has established procedures by which applicants for Conditional Letters of Map Revision and Conditional Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR and CLOMR-F) document that the Endangered Species Act has been complied with before FEMA will undertake its review of the CLOMR application. In general, that documentation takes the form of an official letter or determination from one of the Services stating either that the proposed action is not expected to affect the species or habitat or that a permit to cause such an impact has been granted. FEMA’s Procedural Memorandum No. 64, “Compliance with the Endangered Species Act for Letters of Map Change,” dated August 2010, lists the Endangered Species Act compliance needed for actions based on floodplain fill in NFIP communities, provides answers to frequently asked questions, and gives links to sources of more information about the Endangered Species Act. See http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4312.

                                                                                                                                                                                   

Also in this Issue

CRS Coordinator Description............................. 2         CRS Users Groups................................... 4

Minus-rated Policy Data..................................... 2         FEMA Regional Office Updates................ 5 

New CGA Calculations....................................... 3         Training Opportunities............................... 6



Natural Functions

An analogous situation exists with regard to CRS communities, FEMA, and other federal environmental laws. For local activities that may have an adverse impact on certain species or their habitat, or on water quality, or historical or archaeological features, or wetlands and for which a community is requesting CRS credit, a community must ensure that it has complied with the applicable federal protective laws. The procedures for documenting this compliance will be clarified when the 2013 CRS Coordinator’s Manual takes effect. Materials accompanying the Coordinator’s Manual will list the federal environmental laws pertinent to the various CRS activities and provide other helpful information.

Watch the next issues of this newsletter for more details about the connections between the CRS and protection of habitat and other natural floodplain functions.

 

What is a CRS Coordinator, anyway?

Many times over the years, CRS program staff have been asked to supply a job description for a local CRS Coordinator.

The CRS does not have specific requirements for the position of community CRS Coordinator. Every community is different, and should develop a job description that reflects the particular qualifications, skills, knowledge, and duties that will best serve its floodplain management program. CRS communities have had successful Coordinators who have come from a range of backgrounds and who have been local employees, contractors, citizen volunteers, and others. Only a community can determine its own best fit.

However, the CRS has now compiled a one-page guideline that summarizes some suggested qualifications, duties, and other information. Communities are invited to draw from these recommendations as needed.

Access the document, “The Community CRS Coordinator,” at www.CRSresources.org/200.

 

 

Data on Minus-rated Policies Available

Want to see if your community has minus-rated properties? The minus-rated policy list gives information on buildings that are not eligible for the CRS discount because they are "minus rated," that is, their lowest floor is one foot or more below the base flood elevation.

If you are interested, e-mail NFIPCRS@iso.com for the list of minus-rated properties and please provide the community number with your request. Remember that all such insurance policy information is subject to the Privacy Act. Follow the same rules you use when handling repetitive loss information.


A New Way to Calculate a
Community Growth Adjustment

Since the beginning of the CRS, credit points awarded for activities under the 400 Series, Mapping and Regulations, have been adjusted to recognize the impact of loss prevention activities in growing communities. The rationale for this is that growing communities face greater pressure for future development in their floodplains, compared to communities with little or no development pressure. Because enhanced floodplain management results in more flood loss prevention in developing areas than in areas that are not growing, the credits are increased accordingly. The CRS applies a community growth adjustment (CGA) by multiplying the number of points for the activity by the local rate of growth.

In most cases, the CGA value calculated to adjust community scores is based on population data and estimates of population growth provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Although Census data are used most often, other sources provided by communities have been accepted and, in some cases, communities have opted to determine community-specific growth rates if it is determined to be to their benefit, rather than use Census Bureau rates.

Under the 2013 Coordinator’s Manual, the CRS will take a new approach to calculating CGA values. A community’s growth will be determined by calculating the county’s growth in housing units, using estimates and projections over a 10-year period extending from five years before to five years after the verification visit. A community will no longer have the option of applying a growth rate that differs from its county’s growth rate.

Advantages to the New Approach

This new approach brings several benefits.

       Since census data are not available until a year after the data are collected, CGA values determined under the current method are always at least one year out of date when the credit is adjusted. The new approach will more accurately reflect the current conditions of ongoing development. Further, the community’s credit for managing new development will be based on current and expected growth rather than on what happened 10 years ago. 

       Using housing units, rather than population, as a measure of growth is thought to be a better indicator of development pressure in the floodplain. In times of economic strength, construction activity rises in anticipation of growth, even when the population is not increasing. During economic downturns, less construction activity may result, even though there is population growth.

       Because estimates and projections can be obtained each year, CGA values for each community will be updated annually, rather than on the current five-year schedule. The new CGA values, however, will only be applied once the new Coordinator’s Manual becomes effective and only when the community is verified at its cycle visit. 

       Use of county growth rates, rather than community growth rates, is likely to reduce the variability in CGA values over time, because the rates are based on larger populations. 

For more information on calculating growth rates, email nfipcrs@iso.com.  


CRS Users Groups

Debbie Cahoon, cfm
Users Groups Liaison    

Hi! As the summer temperatures increase, so too do the number of CRS users groups forming around the country. Since my last column, two new groups have begun the process of creation—one in Georgia and one in Washington state—for a total of 17 groups. Users groups have proven to be an important “support group” for communities as they face the challenges and prepare for the changes to be incorporated in the next CRS Coordinator’s Manual, due sometime in 2013. Earlier this year, FEMA and ISO offered plenty of opportunities to take advantage of the webinars that broke down the changes and showed how the new manual would differ from the current one.

       26 webinars were held between February 9th and May 3rd;

       7 webinars were hosted by FEMA/ISO; and

       19 webinars were hosted by 12 of the users groups.

After the webinars, I emailed all the users groups to get their feedback on the webinars, find out how things were going for them in general, and hear whether they thought their communities were going to encounter any unusual problems in adjusting to the upcoming changes.

All in all, the webinars were a success, but they also uncovered some anxieties the communities had about how the changes were going to affect their CRS ratings. The feedback I received included worries about losing a class; wondering how other users groups were dealing with the proposed changes; speculation over the time frame for the new manual to be released; and concern about what all the changes will mean for recertifications and cycle visits.

Some of the feedback went deeper and revealed more specific concerns, such as the Coordinator’s Manual seems to be favoring communities with sophisticated GISs; worries on how the Uniform Minimum Credit will change; and the additional work it will take to develop a successful Program for Public Information (PPI).

From what I’ve seen and heard, the PPI is the next “big thing” for CRS and for the users groups. It makes sense when you think about it—more public information means a better informed citizenry, safer communities, and better floodplain management. The trick is to find what outlet works best for your community and tailor your messages to fit your situation and your citizens. The challenge lies in planning how to get those messages out when your community is on a fixed budget. A few of the users groups have decided to approach the PPI in a regional sense, using the user group itself as the core of the PPI committee. Those groups are in the fledgling stage as far as deciding on how the PPI committee will work, but I hope to report on their progress in my next column. There will be much more news in the coming months, so please stay tuned.  

Until next time!


Keep an Eye on the CRS Website

As noted in the last issue, the final draft of the CRS Coordinator’s Manual has been posted on the temporary “Manual update” website (www.CRS2012.org) so that communities can refer to it as they anticipate future activities. This final draft is being used in the Office of Management and Budget approval process. It is expected to become effective in 2013 (and therefore is being referred to as the “2013 Coordinator’s Manual,”) but the exact date has not yet been determined.

Over the coming year, www.CRS2012.org will be replaced by a more comprehensive website with the publications and materials of the CRS, information about credited activities, and other information useful to CRS communities. Until then, resources referenced in the Manual will be posted on www.CRS2012.org as they become available.

 

 

 

 

FEMA Regional Office CRS Coordinators

Although a community’s first point of contact on the CRS is usually the ISO/CRS Specialist for the area, an additional source of assistance is the FEMA Regional CRS Coordinator. There is one coordinator in each FEMA Regional Office. A Regional Office directory can be found at http://www.fema.gov/contact-us.

Last month, Cynthia McKenzie of Region 9 retired and Gregor Blackburn became the Region’s new CRS Coordinator. Here is a current list of the Regional Office CRS Coordinators.

Region 1 – Chris Markesich—(617) 832-4712, Christopher.Markesich@dhs.gov

Region 2 – Rich Einhorn—(212) 680-8503, Richard.Einhorn@dhs.gov

Region 3 – Mari Radford—(215) 931-2880,  Mari.Radford@dhs.gov

Region 4 – Janice Mitchell—(770) 220-5441, Janice.Mitchell@dhs.gov

Region 5 – John Devine—(312) 408-5567, John.Devine@dhs.gov

Region 6 - Linda Delamare, cfm—(940) 898-5279, Linda.Delamare@dhs.gov

Region 7 – Georgia Wright—(816) 283-7539, Georgia.Wright@dhs.gov

Region 8 – Barbara Fitzpatrick—(303) 235-4715, Barb.Fitzpatrick@dhs.gov

Region 9 – Gregor Blackburn, cfm—(510) 627-7186, Gregor.Blackburn@dhs.gov

Region 10 – John Graves, cfm —(425) 487-4737, John.Graves@dhs.gov

Statement of Purpose

The NFIP/CRS Update is a publication of the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System. It provides local officials and others interested in the CRS with news they can use.

The NFIP/CRS Update is produced in alternate months. It is distributed electronically, at no cost, to local and state officials, consultants, and others who want to be on the mailing list. Communities are encouraged to copy and/or circulate the Update and to reprint its articles in their own local, state, or regional newsletters. No special permission is needed.

To become a subscriber or to suggest a topic that you would like addressed, contact

                                                            NFIP/CRS Update

                                                            P.O. Box 501016

                                                            Indianapolis, IN 46250-1016

                               (317) 848-2898   fax: (201) 748-1936   NFIPCRS@iso.com 


Training Opportunities

Bring the CRS to a Theater near You

The CRS is anticipating the conduct of several field-deployed CRS courses during calendar year 2013. Any state, CRS users group, or organization that would like to host a course in its area should get in touch with the FEMA Regional CRS Coordinator (see page 4).

More Help for CRS Communities

Don’t forget that the CRS offers workshops and webinars to help communities with their elevation certificate and other requirements. If you are interested in hosting a webinar on the FEMA Elevation Certificate or any other activity, contact your ISO/CRS Specialist.

Workshops and Training on the CRS

       The Community Rating System (E278)

This is the all-purpose training course for the CRS. It is taught at both the Emergency Management Institute (see below) and at sites throughout the country at the request of interested communities or states. Note that this course now uses the 2013 CRS Coordinator’s Manual (in draft form), which will become effective in 2013.

Prerequisite: To enroll in the CRS course, you must be a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM), or have com­pleted the National Flood Insurance Program course listed below (E273), or be a full-time floodplain manager with more than three years of experience specifically related to floodplain management.

Kansas City, Kansas (FEMA Region VII) .................................. September 24–28, 2012
Contact Melissa Mitchell at (913) 573-8664 or
melmitchell@wycokck.org

Jefferson Parish, Louisiana (FEMA Region VI) .............................. October 15–18, 2012
Contact Charlene Jones at (605) 736-6950 or
cjones@jeffparish.net

Lincoln, Nebraska (FEMA Region VII) ........................ October 29—November 1, 2012
Contact Bill Jones at (402) 471-3932 or
bill.jones@nebraska.gov

Emergency Management Institute (Emmitsburg, Maryland) ................... April 1–4, 2013

.....                                                                                            ................ May 13–16, 2013

.....                                                                                           .... July 29—August 2, 2013

..... Contact your state emergency management training office, EMI at (800) 238-3358 or (301) 447-1035, or see http://www.training.fema.gov/EMICourses/EMICourse.asp.

Note that the CRS course (E278) scheduled to be field-deployed in Del City, Oklahoma, this summer has been cancelled, as have the EMI-based August and September classes.

                                                            


Other Courses at the Emergency Management Institute

Besides the basic CRS course, FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute (EMI) offers training on many related topics, including floodplain management, mitigation, and construction. These are oriented to local building, zoning, planning, and engineering officials. Tuition is free for state and local government officials and travel stipends are available. Call the training office of your state emergency manage­ment agency, see http://www.training.fema.gov/EMICourses/EMICourse.asp, or call EMI at 1-800-238-3358 or (301) 447-1035.

       HAZUS-MH for Flood (E172)   .......................................................... December 3–6, 2012
                                                       ............................................................... May 13–16, 2013

       HAZUS-MH for Floodplain Managers (E176)   .................................. March 18–21, 2013

 

       Advanced Floodplain Management Concepts (E194)   ..................... August 26–29, 2013

       Managing Floodplain Development through the NFIP (E273) ........ November 5–8, 2012
                                                                                                         ........... March 11–14 2013
                                                                                                       .... April 29—May 2, 2013
                                                                                                        ............. June 24–27, 2013
                                                                                                       ..... September 9–12, 2013

E273 is also field deployed periodically. Contact your State NFIP Coordinator for more informa­tion. Find your State Coordinator at http://www.floods.org/index.asp?menuID=274.

       Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Buildings (E279)   ............................ May 6–9, 2013

       Advanced Floodplain Management Concepts II (E282)   .................. March 25–28, 2013

       Advanced Floodplain Management Concepts III (E284)   ....................... July 8–11, 2013

       Residential Coastal Construction (E386)   .............................................. August 5–8, 2013

CRS communities can receive CRS credit points after their staff members complete certain training sessions. Under Section 431.n, Staffing (STF) of the CRS Coordinator’s Manual, five points are provided for each member of a community’s floodplain permit staff who graduates from courses E194, E273, E278, E282, E284, or E386 (up to 25 points). Graduating from E279 is worth five points under Activity 360−Flood Protection Assistance.

Bookmark and Share


September is National Preparedness Month. Pledge to Prepare by joining the National Preparedness Coalition now! Empower yourself and help coordinate preparedness activities for your family, neighbors and co-workers and those with whom you may study or worship.  Pledge To Prepare


Directory of FEMA Earthquake Partners


Through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service is addressing emergency issues

Feed the Future: Together We Can

This week, USDA was honored to join forces with USAID and Islamic Relief USA to host the department’s 4th annual Iftar celebration. The event welcomed over 170 guests, including representatives from humanitarian organizations, faith-based groups and federal employees.  This year’s Iftar called attention to the importance of reducing food insecurity abroad with the theme “Feed the Future: Together We Can.” Iftar is an evening gathering held each year during Ramadan.  A time of spiritual cleansing in the Islamic faith, Ramadan is when Muslims fast, abstaining from food and water from sunrise until sunset. Iftar is the meal at which Muslims break their fast each night. For many Muslims, fasting is an act of empathy towards those around the world who go hungry not by choice, but instead by circumstance.

...there's no instance where we have recorded levels of heavy metal above the drinking water standard. EPA's first Iron Mountain Mine superfund project manager Tom Mix - 1985;

plowshares

This "encroachment is especially troubling because it destroys local control of the means of self-government, one of the central values of our polity." City of Rome, (Powell, J., dissenting). More than 40 years after its enactment, this intrusion has become increasingly difficult to justify.

Return of the True Crusader

complete development

Riding with the Opiate Epidemic's First Responders

“high priority joint border issues"

Enhancing local emergency environmental response and joint preparedness

To make their criminal enterprises work, the drug cartels of Mexico need to move billions of dollars across borders. That’s how they finance the purchase of drugs, planes, weapons and safe houses, Senator Gonzalez says.“They are multinational businesses, after all,” says Gonzalez, as he slowly loads his revolver at his desk in his Mexico City office. “And they cannot work without a bank.”

The 40 richest people on the planet added $7.2 billion to their collective net worth this week as Warren Buffett and Amancio Ortega dueled for the title of world’s third-richest person. 

Undocumented migrations across the U.S. Mexico border leave more than 500 tons of trash and 100 vehicles at just one wildlife refuge.

“We’re treading water. It was a pretty flat market this week,” Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Harris Private Bank in Chicago, which oversees about $60 billion of assets, said in a phone interview. “Draghi kept his mouth closed and most of the other leaders are in their bathing suits some place.” Long-term research reveals causes and consequences of environmental change;

Corzine Gets Served Outside Capitol Hill Hearing

Jon Corzine, former CEO of MF Global, takes th...

Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife

Former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine was exiting the room during a recess in Thursday’s House Financial Services Committee, when a man attempted to serve him with papers on behalf of one of the firm’s former clients.

CNBC cameras captured a man walking up to Corzine as he exited the hearing room and attempting to serve him with a lawsuit. Corzine told the process server to see his lawyer and kept walking as someone in his party bent over to pick up the documents, which had been put on the ground in the former New Jersey senator and governor’s wake. The network’s Kayla Tausche said the suit is on behalf of a customer who had a $95 million MF Global account, filed in the Southern District of New York.

Earlier during Thursday’s hearing, Corzine reiterated that he never authorized the misuse of customer money, never intended to do so and never said anything that could have been misconstrued to those ends.

The testimony comes after CME Group Executive Chairman Terrence Duffy said in a Senate Agriculture Commitee hearing Tuesday that an MF Global employee told CME auditors that Corzine knew about a loan to the brokerage firm’s European subsidiary that came from commingled customer funds. (See “CME Chief Suggests Corzine Knew About Missing Money.”)

In Thursday’s hearing, Corzine said he could not specifically respond to such allegations without understanding their source. Later, once the hearing resumed following the recess, Corzine took umbrage at the conventional wisdom that he was trying to build MF Global into a smaller version of his former company, Goldman Sachs Group. (See “Weekend Reading: The Goldman Saga.”)

bottom feeders

"Environmental Justice Showcases a Broad Network"

"the diseases they trigger don’t stop at the national boundaries"

"It’s unfortunate we had to go to such extremes to fight back against this troubling trend of overreach and reckless political activism by the Obama Administration that shows no regard..." Texas Governor Rick Perry

Without meaningful participation from communities and local stakeholders, over 14 million people and one of the busiest cross-border trade regions in the world are prevented from establishing realistic and concrete goals, supporting the implementation of projects, considering new fundamental strategies, and encouraging the achievement of more ambitious environmental and public health goals. Just the same as Iron Mountain Mine's Superfund site.

EPA's entrenched bureaucratic institutionalized incompetence, neglect, & failure causing unacceptable adverse effects including:

1. Community-based capacity as stakeholders to develop projects for asthma and other effects of toxic contaminants exposures.

2. Community-based health strategy for detecting and treating elevated lead levels in our blood.

3. Community-based local Environmental Justice Problem Solving and access to Environmental Justice grants and awards.

4. Community-based local stakeholders tools to improve environmental and public health outcomes.

5. Community-based redevelopment of neighborhoods to improve human health, storm-water management and urban agriculture. 

6. Community-based organization implementing a comprehensive project to look at the cumulative effects of multiple environmental impacts.

7. Community-based leaders to prioritize neighborhood concerns.and risk factors, fix poor housing conditions and homelessness exposures.

8. Community-based tools to achieve Children's Environmental Health and Environmental Justice from children's exposure to contaminants.

9. Community-based local agency to focus efforts on heavily affected priority areas of the communities environmental problems and concerns.

10. Community-based local effort providing ‘treatment at the tap' mitigation, assessing home health and testing of drinking water sources.

The defining aspect of ecological Big Data is not raw size but another dimension: complexity.

The Wishing Well

"U.S. EPA will be retiring in large numbers." "We need new energy, new perspectives." "It's time for the next generation to lead."

EPA Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery Suzanne Rudzinski

Environmental Protection Agency intends to leave the defunct Pure Earth;

EPA remains committed

Penobscots nation sues state out of jurisdiction over river



BANGOR, Maine (AP) - The Penobscot Indian Nation is suing the state of Maine over who has jurisdiction over the Penobscot River.

The tribe went to federal court Wednesday to seek an injunction to keep intact its authority over the river on which the tribe has fished for hundreds of years.

The tribe points to an advisory opinion in 1988 from then-Attorney General James Tierney that gave tribal members the right to "sustenance fishing" for salmon.

But since then, Penobscot River salmon has been declared as endangered by the federal government. And Attorney General William Schneider issued an advisory opinion this month saying the tribe has authority over its land but not over the river, which he says is subject to state and federal law.

(Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)


Minnesota works on voluntary water quality program

Posted: Friday, August 24, 2012

A new Minnesota-federal partnership to improve water quality by speeding up voluntary on-farm conservation programs was the focus of a Farmfest discussion earlier this month.

Minnesota Agriculture Commissioner Dave Frederickson emphasized that the program will be “purely voluntary” as a task force of 15 members works on developing its details. Leading the task force are Minnesota farmers, including large and small producers and an organic farmer.

Recommendations for the program are expected in a few more months.

Fredrickson emphasized that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Lisa Jackson told him the EPA is not interested in developing its own water quality standards for the state and will “back away” while the Minnesota program is developing and as pressure builds to do something about “alleged problems.”

Frederickson hopes the program, which will recommend “best management practices” for farms, will be good for 10 years and provide “certainty” to water quality recommendations and regulations.

Border 2020

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, to "whistle dixie" is "(to engage)] in unrealistically rosy fantasizing"

National Science Board Teleconference - CLOSED

Audit & Oversight Committee Teleconference - CLOSED

Committee on Strategy and Budget Teleconference - CLOSED

'Colombia should hold referendum on drug legalization'


Colombia news - Alejandro Ordoñez

Colombia should hold a referendum on whether it should legalize drug use, the country's Inspector General said Friday.

Inspector General Alejandro Ordoñez, a conservative catholic and vociferous opponent of lenient drug legislation, debated drug policy with former president and prominent Liberal Party member Cesar Gaviria at a forum in the capital Bogota.

During the debate, Gaviria, a staunch supporter of legalization, called the criminalization of drugs a "failure" and stressed leniency towards the consumption of marihuana in certain parts of Europe and the United States has led to positive results.

"The war on drugs has failed and more than half of U.S. citizens support the legalization of marihuana," the former president said. According to a Gallup poll from October 2011, 50% of Americans support the legalization of marihuana against 46% who favor prohibition.

Ordoñez responded that the alleged failure of the war on drugs was a "myth" and called on a referendum to decide whether to legalize or fight the use of illicit substances.

"If you want to change the prohibitionist policy we should turn to the constituent, hold a referendum, because these reforms must be made facing the people," Ordoñez responded.

The inspector general voiced his support for a recent bill ratified by President Juan Manuel Santos that determines drug use a public health issue, rather than a security issue, but rejected a proposal made by Bogota mayor Gustavo Petro to construct drug consumption centers where drug addicts would be allowed to use drugs without police intervention.

According to Ordoñez, Petro's proposal would not lead to a reduction in crime, as suggested by the Bogota mayor, "but once satisfied [drug addicts] will look for ways to get more drugs."

Colombia has changed its legislation towards drug consumption since Santos' administration took office in August 2010; Following a court order, Congress decriminalized the carrying of small amounts of drugs for personal use and by determining drug use as a mental health issue, paved the way for drug addicts to be granted medical insurance to beat their habit.

The president has on several occasions called on the international community to discuss the merits the international war on drugs.

U.S. Agribusinesses Encouraged to ‘Explore Exporting’

WARLOCKS

National Reconnaissance Office launches witch-hunt against whistleblowers

Published: 15 August, 2012, 01:11

Screenshot from website nro.gov

Screenshot from website nro.gov

Allegations that the National Reconnaissance Office financially mishandled contracts caused such an outrage at the agency that its deputy director reportedly launched a witch-hunt on whistleblowers within the NRO.

Air Force Maj. Gen. Susan Mashiko, the deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office, has made what is being described as “an illegal threat of retaliation against the whistleblowers,” McClatchy Newspapers reports. These allegations come following a report from McClatchy that a “series of allegations of malfeasant actions” associated with contracts coming out of the NRO office have prompted the agency’s higher-ups to launch an investigation.

"You're talking about a lot of money at this agency and a culture within the intelligence community that isn't really comfortable with the idea of transparency," former Inspector General Eric Feldman tells the outlet. "Generally speaking, people in that agency are ethical but there is a certain dependency on contractors and closeness with contractors that can create an awkward environment."

McClatchy reveals that Gen. Mashiko has allegedly attempted to reprimand whistleblowers linked to the NRO for coming forth about allegations of illegal activity within the agency, prompting even her own superiors to launch an investigation into attempts to silence the staffers.

According to documents obtained by McClatchy, current NRO Inspector General Lanie D'Alessandro has opened an official probe into Gen. Mashiko following claims that her tenure with the federal agency has been marred by a “history of intimidation,” according to other staffers.

“This is bureaucracy run amok. These practices violate the rights of Americans, and it’s not even for a good reason,” former NRO officer Mark Phillips told McClatchy during their initial investigation.

The documents suggest that the deputy director did not address concerns made over inappropriate conduct within the agency, instead aggressively seeking a way to silence the whistleblowers that went to the press.

"Now, rather than pledging to address the underlying issues, General Mashiko has responded with threats of reprisal against those who revealed the information to the IG," the inspector general writes in one memo obtained by McClatchy. "It is this threat of reprisal, by one of the most senior leaders in the NRO, that constitutes the violation of law.”

One source within the NRO speaking of the latest revelation says even though IG D'Alessandro has agreed to open up a probe, "people are going to be reluctant to talk with NRO's inspector general now.”

"Four directors went to the IG," Mashiko allegedly told a senior officer, according to a report authorized by the inspector general and made available to McClatchy. "I would like to find them and fire them."

Phillips told McClatchy reporters during their first report that he was reprimanded after asking the agency’s attorney to investigate malpractice tied to the polygraph screenings of prospective employees of the NRO, a federal spy agency staffed by members of the US Air Force and the CIA.


founding barbecuers

"Research – The Key to the Future of Agriculture"

Event
BSAC Fall 2012 IAB Meeting

September 19, 2012 8:00 AM  to 
September 21, 2012 5:00 PM
University of California, Berkeley; CA

Dear BSAC Special Colleagues,
Join us as our guests (no registration fee) for the BSAC  Fall 2012 IAB and Research Reviews September 19th-21st

Description: This is a bi-annual meeting of the industry advisory board and center members to assess ongoing research and set priorities for new research directions.  Visitors interested in membership are welcome if they are willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement.


BSAC IAB is RETURNING TO CAMPUS:
All events will be ON CAMPUS, in Engineering  Facilities  on the North Side of Campus. The Awards Banquet will be a Short Walk to the Historic (Mens) FACULTY CLUB.

OPEN SESSIONS WEDNESDAY 19th  September

  • Joint MEMS Industry Group Workshop   (Wednesday  MORNING September 19th)
  • BSAC Faculty Research Presentations (Plenary Session) Wednesday AFTERNOON September 19th
  • Industry-BSAC Mixer Wednesday EVENING Immediately Following the Afternoon  Session


CLOSED SESSIONS THURSDAY 20th September
  • Student Plenary Talks and Faculty-led Poster Sessions ALL DAY Thursday September 20th
  • DARPA MiNaSIP Research Review for Program Participants DURING LUNCH Thursday September 20th
  • An entertaining evening awards banquet Thursday EVENING September 20th

 

CLOSED SESSION FRIDAY Morning 21st September  (members, BSAC, and NSF only)

  • Industrial Advisory Board meeting Friday MORNING September 21st.

 

INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS, by Arrangement

  • Member Organizations with Faculty and Researchers

Please take this opportunity to renew your contacts with BSAC faculty, researchers, and fellow industry members while reviewing the latest work of your center and invited speakers. We promise to make it worth your time.


Detailed agenda and link to registration is online at

Meeting Type
Partnership Meeting

Contacts
John Huggins, jhuggins@eecs.berkeley.edu

NSF Related Organizations
Industrial Innovation and Partnerships
08/27/2012 12:57 PM EDT

Back to School is an exciting time for both students and parents as they prepare for a new school year and new challenges both in and out of the classroom. It also serves as a great time to remind students about the importance of staying safe and making healthy lifestyle choices.

The Century Council’s Ask Listen Learn: Kids and Alcohol Don’t Mix program provides youth, ages 9-14, and their parents with information about the dangers of underage drinking and the importance of living a healthy lifestyle.

In a recent survey conducted for The Century Council, it was noted that parents are the leading influence in their kid’s decision not to drink. The survey demonstrates the importance of parents and educators starting conversations with youth early and often about the risks and consequences surrounding underage drinking.

The Ask, Listen, Learn program provides materials for parents and instructors on how to start and continue the conversation with young people. The program also offers youth the opportunity to play fun kids’ games, download printable activities, and read about Superstars like Olympian Steven Lopez, Soccer Hall of Famer Julie Foudy, and swimming champion Rebecca Soni.

According to the 2011 Monitoring the Future Study, nearly one third of 8th graders report they have tried alcohol once in their lifetime and 15 percent report they have been drunk. In a separate study, a majority (65 percent) of today’s youth who have consumed alcohol in the past year report family and friends as the leading source from which they get alcohol.

Make no mistake, tweens know what’s going on and they’re more than just a little curious about it. So before they’re presented with the opportunity, it’s critical to give them the information they need to make the right decision. Help support them by teaching them how to say “Yes” to a healthy lifestyle and “No” to underage drinking. Make sure that either as a parent, teacher, or caregiver, you get involved.

You can order free, single copies, of the Ask, Listen, Learn brochures for parents, educators and kids. If you’re interested in distributing the brochures at school or community events, you can also order these free publications in bulk quantities.



Water Pollution Goals
Prove Elusive

by Robert McClure and Bonnie Stewart

Tackling Agriculture,
The Biggest Polluter

by Robert McClure

law review
Carcinogen chromium-6
Is Rampant in California Water
     OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) - One-third of the drinking water sampled in California is contaminated with carcinogenic hexavalent chromium, environmental groups claim in a lawsuit against the state's Department of Public Health.
     The National Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group say the Legislature ordered the Department of Public Health to establish drinking water standards for the toxic chemical by January 2004, but it still has not done so.
Water sources near large cities such as Los Angeles, San Jose, and Riverside had the highest levels of contamination, according to the complaint.
     The Environmental Protection Agency has not established federal contamination levels for hexavalent chromium.
"More than a decade after the Legislature ordered the Department to act, and more than eight years after the statutory deadline for action passed, the Department has not even proposed a hexavalent chromium drinking water standard. The Department presently estimates on its website that it will not publish a final drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium for at least another two to three years."

Nanotechnology Improves the Corrosion Resistance of Galvanized Steel

Published on July 19, 2012 at 8:35 PM

NEI Corporation introduced today a nanotechnology-enabled, two-layer coating that significantly improves the corrosion resistance of zinc-plated and hot-dip galvanized (HDG) steel.

The NEI coating is a drop-in replacement for trivalent chromium. The coating process consists of first applying NANOMYTE PT-100, a self-healing conversion coating, followed by NANOMYTE TC-5001.

The latter is a barrier coating, designed to work synergistically with PT-100. Both PT-100 and TC-5001 are liquid coating formulations that are amenable to dip coating, brushing, and spray coating.

The new NANOMYTE coating technology is designed to protect zinc-plated and galvanized steel surfaces from rusting under severe environmental and operating conditions.

In salt-fog exposure experiments (ASTM B117), NANOMYTE-coated, zinc-plated steel panels showed no white rust after 840 hours; no red rust was observed even after 1200 hours. In contrast, non-coated, zinc-plated panels exhibited white rust in 24 hours and red rust after 168 hours in the salt-fog chamber. Salt-spray testing can be used in conjunction with field testing and online life predictors for coatings on HDG, as prescribed by the American Galvanizers Association (AGA).

The new technology is part of NEI's efforts to develop corrosion resistant coating systems, including pretreatments, primers and topcoats that protect steel, aluminum and magnesium from corrosion. The coatings are economical, easy to use, and provide excellent corrosion resistance compared to state-of-the art offerings. "Our thin, double coat solution for zinc-plated and HDG steel represents a significant advancement in the state-of-the-art that could eliminate the need for using thicker primers and topcoats," said Dr. Fred Allen, President of the Anticorrosion Coatings Division at NEI Corporation. "The market focused activities of NEI are a key to serving the needs of customers who require high-performance anticorrosion coatings. Our goal is to engage customers as partners in developing new corrosion-resistant coating products."

About NEI Corporation

Founded in 1997, NEI Corporation develops, manufactures, and distributes nanoscale materials for a broad range of industrial customers around the world. NEI's products include advanced protective coatings, high performance battery electrode materials, and specialty nanoscale materials for diverse applications. NEI has created a strong foundation in the emerging field of nanotechnology that has enabled the company to become a leader in selected markets. The company headquarters is based in Somerset, NJ.


UCLA Researchers Create Low-Cost Polymer Solar Cells by Solution Processing

Published on July 21, 2012 at 8:16 AM

By Gary Thomas

Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) have created a new type of transparent polymer solar cells (PSC) that are capable of generating electricity. These cells can be fixed onto windows. The novel technology allows people within the buildings to see outside as they are visibly transparent.


Underground Pipe for Pipeline Construction

Published on August 18, 2012 at 5:26 AM

By Nick Gilbert

Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering at the University of Arizona and QuakeWrap president, Mo Ehsani, has developed a new underground pipe using aerospace materials to build a virtually endless length of pipeline.


The People’s Garden exhibit at the 2012 Smithsonian Folklife Festival in the Reinventing Agriculture area of Campus and Community. The People’s Garden exhibit at the 2012 Smithsonian Folklife Festival in the Reinventing Agriculture area of Campus and Community.

The People’s Garden exhibit at the 2012 Smithsonian Folklife Festival in the Reinventing Agriculture area of Campus and Community.

Wednesday was opening day of the 2012 Smithsonian Folklife Festival on the National Mall.  The Festival features three great themes.  One of the themes entitled “Campus and Community” is a program that commemorates the 150th Anniversary of the founding of Land grant universities and the USDA.


2012 Ag Outlook Forum: U.S. Agriculture, the Weather and Climate Change

Environment | June 2012

Parks for Sale

As local governments trade away public parkland, the safeguards put in place by the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect that land are full of holes.

What’s Ahead for Global Food Security?

Woman farmers in Kenya, a country where food security is projected to improve over the next decade Photo: World Food Programme

Woman farmers in Kenya, a country where food security is projected to improve over the next decade Photo: World Food Programme

The Economic Research Service (ERS) has, since the late 1970s, reported annually on food security in a number of developing countries. A key indicator is the number of food-insecure people (those who each consume less than a nutritional target of 2,100 calories per day). In the latest report, we estimate food security in 76 countries, in four regions. Read more »


A Science Agenda for Food Security

Consumers in low-income countries on average spend half their income on food, leaving little or no money to spend on other goods and services. As the world population grows, agricultural science will play an important role in helping us combat hunger and malnutrition around the globe. (photo courtesy of the World Food Program/Rein Skullerud)

Consumers in low-income countries on average spend half their income on food, leaving little or no money to spend on other goods and services. As the world population grows, agricultural science will play an important role in helping us combat hunger and malnutrition around the globe. (photo courtesy of the World Food Program/Rein Skullerud)

A reassessment is sorely in order. After all, how long can you base new regulations on old science?  A new definition of "judicial records"

The subject of wetlands protection has offered the federal government a pretext for an unprecedented assault upon private property. Congressman Don Young (R-AK) has cogently summarized the issue:

"There are those in this country who in the name of environmental protection would seek to destroy the right to use your own land. At best these extremists tend to believe that our traditional notions of private property are old-fashioned throwbacks to our capitalist past that have outlived their usefulness. At worst they believe that all resources are to be shared by the masses and that they should be "managed" by the government for the benefit of all. If anyone can understand the practical difference between the central government managing the land for the collective benefit of the masses as Karl Marx suggests -- or for the collective benefit of the "environment" -- please explain it to me. I see no real difference."

Certain cross-sector community collaborative solutions to connect, convene and catalyze the best resources from institutions working together on community problems and identify and highlight solutions that work through extensive research, listening and outreach efforts.

  • Effective elements of community cross-sector collaborations that can be applied to this and other national priorities
  • Promising solutions to address challenges facing youth who are neither in school nor in the workplace

CARDOZO, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


294 U.S. 511

Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


No. 604 Argued: February 11, 12, 1935 --- Decided: March 4, 1935 [*]

State Department oversight of climate change spending abroad is a mess, watchdog reports

Inadequate oversight, lax bookkeeping, sloppy paperwork, haphazard performance agreements and missing financial documentation have plagued U.S. State Department spending of tens of millions of dollars to combat climate change, according to a report by State’s internal financial watchdog — and the problem could be much, much bigger than that.
The audit report, issued last month by the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), casts an unflattering spotlight on a relatively obscure branch of the State Department that supervises climate change spending, and depicts it as over-extended in its responsibilities, unstaffed in critical monitoring posts, and more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness.
The State Department branch is known as the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs and its Office of Global Change, or OES/EGC, which have become the nerve center of the Obama administration’s international climate change policy, and the epicenter of its foreign climate change spending, which continues to balloon despite serious economic problems at home. 
The OIG report points to a host of lapses in the way OES/EGC has supervised climate change spending, based on what the OIG observed in a sampling of climate change projects between 2006 and 2010, when the overall spending tab amounted to some $214 million.
The OIG sampling involved $34 million of the total.
Click here for a list of sampled programs.
The picture painted by the OIG report is vigorously disputed by the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Kerri Ann Jones, even as she accepted most of the OIG’s recommendations in her 10-page reply to the audit. Jones took over her post in August 2009, toward the very end of the period examined by the Inspector General’s office.
Since then, however, the situation may have gotten worse.
For one thing, the Obama administration’s spending on international climate change projects accelerated between 2010, when the OIG report ended its scrutiny, and mid-2012, when the report appeared — and continues today.
That spending spree has been based on its commitments at a variety of United Nations-sponsored climate change meetings, including the failed Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009, and subsequent sessions in Mexico, South Africa and, most recently, the Rio + 20 U.N. summit conference on “sustainable development” in Brazil.
Through that process, the world’s developed countries have committed to spend some $30 billion annually on climate change projects in the developing world, with the U.S. a major contributor. (The first board meeting of a so-called Green Climate Fund that hopes to handle most of that money takes place starting on August 23.)
According  to a State Department website, the U.S. has contributed some $5.1 billion in climate change funding to developing countries in 2010 and 2011 alone, with additional money still pouring forth in 2012.
Among the lapses highlighted by the OIG in its sampling:
  • OIG looked at  seven of 19 program grants totaling $34 million, and discovered they contained no specific plans for monitoring the results. As the report demurely noted, “Without comprehensive monitoring of grants, the department may not always have reasonable assurance that federal funds were spent in accordance with the grant award; that the grant recipient performed program activities as dictated in the grant award; and that the program’s indicators, goals and objectives were achieved.”
  • So-called grant oversight officers whose responsibilities included developing the monitoring plans, also failed to provide written reviews of compliance with State Department reporting standards, along with a variety of other financial procedures. In some cases, there apparently weren’t enough oversight officers to go around; when three left their jobs, OIG found evidence that only one was replaced.
  • Oversight officers apparently didn’t do a lot of overseeing. The OIG discovered that actual visits to climate change sites were rare, and when they occurred, not much effort went into examining the actual paperwork involved. In one series of Indian cases examined by OIG, the officers’ reports “typically summarized meetings held with grantee officials where only the statuses of the programs were discussed.”
  • Requirements that grant recipients submit quarterly financial statements were apparently ignored, even though procedures called for cutoffs if the statements were not provided. The report cites an unnamed recipient in Hyderabad, India, who got two separate grants totaling $1.1 million: funding continued to be doled out throughout the project, even though the reporting requirements were completely ignored. And in other cases, even when quarterly reports were received, they were often flawed.
  • The same cavalier attitude toward reporting apparently applied even when projects ended. As the report discreetly puts it, overseers “did not always obtain the final reports needed to ensure that final deliverables were achieved, funds were reconciled, and proper closeout of the project was completed.”
  • One reason for this, apparently, is that reporting requirements for detailed results toward specific indicators — along with general goals and objectives — were not included in any of the seven grants examined by OIG. One of the missing indicators in a number of cases was the actual amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere by the project.
Click here for the complete report.
The lack of a written demand for specific, reported results in the case of State Department grants became even more dramatic when the Inspector General’s Office examined another important financing tool, known as a “climate change inter-agency acquisition agreement” — essentially, the employment of another branch of the U.S. government to carry out commitments State has negotiated in areas ranging from defense to health to legal education.
The acquisition agreements are common for the State Department, where non-diplomatic expertise can be in short supply. During the period examined by the OIG, State spent three times as much -- $115 million — on the agreements, versus $34 million on grants.  
If anything, the OIG report says, the quality and quantity of financial and other reporting in the State Department’s hands for such agreements, was even worse than for outright grants.
Among other things: 
  • In five acquisition agreements examined by the auditors, none contained  the required performance and financial reports “necessary for effective program monitoring in a timely manner.”
  • In four of the five cases, there was “no evidence” that the Bureau of Oceans had designated an oversight officer, as required. Indeed, OIG found evidence that the Bureau had conducted only one site visit -- in 2008 -- among all the sampled programs that used inter-agency exchange agreements, in this case involving a project carried out by USAID on the bureau’s behalf.
  • In that one case, the report says, the visit “did not include a review of receipts or other documentation for expenditures to substantiate financial progress or a review of documentation that supported performance reports submitted to OES/EGC and that served as evidence that activities had occurred.”
  • The only expenditures OIG could verify in all five inter-agency cases it examined were for travel costs. As the report starkly put it: “OIG was not provided any supporting documentation that could be substantiated for the majority of the recipients’ expenditures.” The report added that there was only “limited evidence” that Bureau of Oceans officials “had requested or reviewed supporting documentation to substantiate assertions made in the reports.”
  • In one specific case where OIG itself demanded the evidence from the contractor of the project, the only available documentation was the demands for payment from five sub-contractors. “OIG received no documentation to verify the expenses claimed or ensure that only authorized expenditures were charged to the project,” the report declares.
  • But while other U.S. government agencies may have been blurry about their supervision of the money they paid out on State’s behalf to other climate change contractors, they were highly specific — and highly expensive — when it came to the fees they charged for that role.
Starting in 2008, the OIG report notes, USAID, the U.S. government’s most active international helping agency, began charging a “General and Administrative Support Overhead Rate” of 23.7 percent for funds it administered under inter-agency agreements, including those in the climate change domain.
Thus, on two Indian grants totaling $10.5 million and administered by USAID over two years, the overhead fee was about $2 million. “Thus,” the report notes, “only approximately $8.5 million of the total was budgeted toward the execution of the [climate change] program.”
On examining the problem more closely, however, OIG discovered that the documentation wasn’t there because the Bureau of Oceans didn’t ask for it. The Bureau’s agreements with other agencies to carry out its work “did not include language that required recipients to maintain supporting documentation for financial expenditures and all pertinent achievements for purposes of substantiation.”
Or, as Assistant Secretary Jones put it in her letter reviewing the OIG report, when it comes to dealing with other Federal agencies, her Bureau provides only “guidance” on the details of performance reporting, while the agencies “are not required to perform project related accounting and are not subject to overhead auditing procedures.”
Click here for Jones' letter.
Overall, a State Department spokesman assured Fox News, in response to questions, the Bureau of Oceans is taking the OIG report and all its recommendations “seriously,” and is “working closely with the [State] Department in the development and implementation of new policies and procedures.”
The catch, however, is that in her letter, Jones promised to change many things more specifically — but only after officials located deeper in the State Department’s labyrinthine bureaucracy come up with “standardized policies for inter-agency agreements.”
And that could involve a much bigger problem. In discussing the lack of documentation with State Department officials early this year, OIG discovered that there are apparently no rules demanding that every part of the State Department handle and account for such inter-agency spending in the same way. And that includes “procedures for reviewing and approving agreements to ensure compliance with Federal and [State] Department requirements.”
The catch, therefore, is that OIG’s discovery about the Bureau of Oceans’ quirky and sometimes non-existent standards could be true across the entire State Department when it comes to inter-agency spending.
Or, as the inspector general’s report delicately put it, the accounting problems with climate change may “signify a Department-wide shortcoming, as inter-agency agreements may not be efficiently and effectively administered and managed in the areas of policy application, review and approval, and overall program management.”  
That could mean discrepancies could involve much bigger bucks than have been examined so far, and well beyond the area of climate change.
According to OIG,  in fiscal 2010 and 2011 alone, the State Department transferred some $4.6 billion to other U.S. agencies to perform work on its behalf, ranging from USAID ($968 million) to Defense (1.358 billion) to Justice ($558 million).
Click here for an overall list of State Department inter-agency spending. 
And while a working group within the State Department’s Office of the Procurement Executive ponders the issue prior to providing “guidance” for changes in the rules, the current procedures — or lack of them — for spending the money, at least when it comes to climate change, will remain in place.
Click for more stories by George Russell

There is a one-third probability to get a global perfect storm next year.

Nouriel Roubini on Threats to the Global Economy

charms


08/15/2012 02:01 PM EDT
going for the gold

 DNA holds the genetic code for all sorts of biological molecules and traits. But University of Illinois researchers have found that DNA's code can similarly shape metallic structures. The team found that DNA segments can direct the shape of gold nanoparticles--tiny gold crystals that have many applications in medicine, electronics and catalysis. Each of the four DNA bases codes for a different gold particle shape: Rough round particles, stars, flat round discs and hexagons. 

“DNA-encoded nanoparticle synthesis can provide us a facile but novel way to produce nanoparticles with predictable shape and properties,” Lu said. “Such a discovery has potential impacts in bio-nanotechnology and applications in our everyday lives such as catalysis, sensing, imaging and medicine.”

Gold nanoparticles have wide applications in both biology and materials science thanks to their unique physicochemical properties. Properties of a gold nanoparticle are largely determined by its shape and size, so it is critical to be able to tailor the properties of a nanoparticle for a specific application.

Full story at http://news.illinois.edu/news/12/0808nanoparticles_YiLu.html


Iron Mountain Mines Institute: Catalysts for Change

nano-gold

Iron Mountain Mines Institute has current stockpiles of mine waste precipitates with over 500,000 tons of calcium sulfate & iron oxides containing aluminum, zinc, copper, silver, cobalt, titanium, & GOLD.

 

 We produce catalysts.

For further information contact: John Hutchens, AMD&CSI, 925-878-9167



GOING FOR THE GOLD

When your banker opens up his vaults to show you he's got what he says he does, he's admitting a crisis of confidence and fearing a crisis of legitimacy.

gold in vault
What's in your vault?

Save the Post Office:

Letter Carriers Consider Bringing Back Banking Services

Sunday, 12 August 2012 00:00 By Ellen Brown, Truthout | News Analysis

Homes outside the front door of the post office in Prim, Arkansas, on Dec. 30, 2011. The small post office in Prim is one of the many that the Postal Service has planned reduced hours at instead of a shutdown. (Photo: Steve Hebert / The New York Times)Homes outside the front door of the post office in Prim, Arkansas, on December 30, 2011. The small post office in Prim is one of the many that the Postal Service has planned reduced hours at instead of a shutdown. (Photo: Steve Hebert / The New York Times)On July 27, 2012, the National Association of Letter Carriers adopted a resolution at their national convention in Minneapolis to investigate the establishment of a postal banking system. The resolution noted that expanding postal services and developing new sources of revenue are important components of any effort to save the public post office and preserve living-wage jobs; that many countries have a long and successful history of postal banking, including Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the United States itself; and that postal banks could serve the nine million people who don't have a bank account and the 21 million who use usurious check cashers, giving low-income people access to a safe banking system. "A USPS [United States Postal Service] bank would offer a 'public option' for banking," concluded the resolution, "providing basic checking and savings - and no complex financial wheeling and dealing."
What is bankrupting the USPS is not that it is inefficient. It has been self-funded throughout its history. But in 2006, Congress required it to prefund postal retiree health benefits for 75 years into the future, an onerous burden no other public or private company is required to carry. The USPS has evidently been targeted by a plutocratic Congress bent on destroying the most powerful unions and privatizing all public services, including education. Britain's 150-year-old postal service is on the privatization chopping block for the same reason, and its postal workers have also vowed to fight. Adding banking services is an internationally tested and proven way to maintain post office solvency and profitability.
Serving an Underserved Market Without Going Broke
Many countries operate postal savings systems through their post offices, providing depositors without access to banks a safe, convenient way to save. Great Britain first offered this arrangement in 1861. It was wildly popular, attracting over 600,000 accounts and £8.2 million in deposits in its first five years. By 1927, there were twelve million accounts - one in four Britons -with £283 million on deposit.
Other postal banks followed. They were popular because they serviced a huge untapped market - the unbanked and underbanked. According to a Discussion Paper of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs:
The essential characteristic distinguishing postal financial services from the private banking sector is the obligation and capacity of the postal system to serve the entire spectrum of the national population, unlike conventional private banks which allocate their institutional resources to service the sectors of the population they deem most profitable. 
Serving the unbanked and underbanked may sound like a losing proposition, but numerous precedents show that postal savings banks serving low-income and rural populations can be quite profitable. (See below.) In many countries, according to the UN paper, banking revenues are actually crucial to maintaining the profitability of their postal network. Letter delivery generates losses and often requires cross-subsidies from the post's other activities in order to maintain its network. One effective solution has been to create or expand the role of postal financial services.
One reason public postal banks are profitable is that their costs are low: the infrastructure is already built and available, advertising costs are minimal and government-owned banks do not award their management extravagant bonuses or commissions that drain profits away. Rather, profits return to the government and the people.
Profits also return to the government in another way: money that comes out from under mattresses and gets deposited in savings accounts can be used to purchase government bonds. In Japan, for example, Japan Post Bank is the holder of fully one-fifth of the national debt. The government has its own captive government lender, servicing the debt at low interest rates without risking the vagaries of the international bond market. Fully 95 percent of Japan's national debt is held domestically in one way or another. That helps explain how Japan can have the worst debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio of any major country and still maintain its standing as the world's largest creditor. If you owe the money to yourself, it's not really a debt.
Some Examples of Successful Public Postal Banks
Kiwibank
New Zealand's profitable postal bank had a return on equity of 11.7 percent in the second half of 2011, with net profits almost trebling. It is the only New Zealand bank able to compete with the big four Australian banks that dominate the New Zealand financial sector.
In fact, Kiwibank was set up for that purpose. When the New Zealand postal banks were instituted in 2002, it was not to save the post office, but to save New Zealand families and small businesses from big-bank predators. By 2001, Australian mega-banks controlled some 80 percent of New Zealand's retail banking. Profits went abroad and were maximized by closing less profitable branches, especially in rural areas. The result was to place hardships on many New Zealand families and small businesses.
The New Zealand government decided to launch a state-owned bank that would compete with the Aussie banks. To keep costs low while still providing services in communities throughout New Zealand, the planning team opened bank branches in post offices, establishing Kiwibank as a subsidiary of the government-owned New Zealand Post.
Suddenly, New Zealanders had a choice in banking. In an early version of the "move your money" campaign, 500,000 customers transferred their deposits to public postal banks in Kiwibank's first five years - this in a country of only four million people. Kiwibank consistently earns the nation's highest customer satisfaction ratings, forcing the Australia-owned banks to improve their service in order to compete.
China's State-Owned Postal Savings Bureau
With the assistance of the People's Bank of China (the central bank), China's Postal Savings Bureau was re-established in 1986 after a 34-year lapse. As in New Zealand, savings deposits flooded in, showing an extraordinary growth rate of over 50 percent annually in the first half of the 1990s and over 24 percent annually in the second half. By 1998, postal savings accounted for 47 percent of China Post's operating revenues; and 80 percent of China's post offices provided postal savings services. The Postal Savings Bureau has served as a vital link in mobilizing income and profits from the private sector, providing credit that is available to finance local development. In 2007, the Postal Savings Bank of China was set up from the Postal Savings Bureau and established as a state-owned limited company, which continues to provide postal banking services.
Japan Post Bank 
By 2007, Japan Post was the largest holder of personal savings in the world, boasting combined assets for its savings bank and insurance arms of more than ¥380 trillion (US$3.2 trillion). It was also the largest employer in Japan. As in China, Japan Post recaptures and mobilizes income from the private sector, funding the government at low interest rates and protecting the nation's sovereign debt from raids by foreign speculators.
Switzerland's Swiss Post
Postal financial services are by far the most profitable activity of Swiss Post, which suffers heavy losses from its parcel delivery and only marginal profits from letter delivery operations.
India's Post Office Savings Bank (POSB) 
POSB is India's largest banking institution and its oldest, having been established in the latter half of the 19th century following the success of the postal savings bank system in England. Operated by the government of India, it provides small savings banking and financial services. The Department of Posts is now seeking to expand these services by obtaining a license for the creation of a full-fledged bank that would offer full lending and investing services.
Russia's PochtaBank
Russia, too, is seeking to expand its post office services. The head of the highly successful state-owned Sberbank has stepped down to take on the task of revitalizing the Russian post office and create a post office bank. PochtaBank will operate in the Russian Post's 40,000 local post offices. The post office will function as a banking institution and compete on equal footing not only with private banks, but with Sberbank itself.
Brazil's ECT
Brazil instituted a postal banking system in 2002 on a public/private model with the national postal service (ECT), forming a partnership with the largest private bank in the country (Bradesco) to provide financial services at post offices. The current partnership is with Bank of Brazil. ECT (also known as Correios) is one of the largest state-owned companies in Latin America, with an international service network reaching more than 220 countries worldwide.
The US Postal Savings System
The now-defunct US Postal Savings System was also quite successful in its day. It was set up in 1911 to get money out of hiding, attract the savings of immigrants accustomed to saving at post offices in their native countries, provide safe depositories for people who had lost confidence in private banks and furnish depositories that had longer hours and were more convenient for working people than what private banks provided. The minimum deposit was $1 and the maximum was $2,500. The postal system paid two percent interest on deposits annually. It issued US Postal Savings Bonds in various denominations that paid annual interest, as well as Postal Savings Certificates and domestic money orders. Savings in the system spurted to $1.2 billion during the 1930s and jumped again during World War II, peaking in 1947 at almost $3.4 billion.
The US Postal Savings System was shut down in 1967, not because it was inefficient, but because it became unnecessary after the profitability of catering to the unbanked and underbanked became apparent to the private financial sector. Private banks then captured the market, raising their interest rates and offering the same governmental guarantees that the Postal Savings System had.
Time to Revive the US Postal Savings System? 
Today, the market of the unbanked and underbanked has grown again, including about one in four US households, according to a 2009 FDIC survey. Without access to conventional financial services, people turn to an alternative banking market of bill pay, prepaid debit cards and check cashing services, as well as payday loans. The unbanked pay excessive fees for basic financial services, are susceptible to high-cost predatory lenders  and have trouble buying a home and other assets because they have little or no credit history. On average, a payday borrower pays back $800 for a $300 loan, with $500 purely going toward interest. Low-income adults in the US spend over five billion dollars paying off fees and debt associated with predatory loans every year. People with access to banks are better able to resist these services and break the cycle of poverty.
Another underserviced market is the rural population. In May, a move to shutter 3,700 low-revenue post offices was halted only by months of dissent from rural states and their lawmakers, who said the cost cutting would hurt their communities. Banking services are also more limited for farmers following the 2008 financial crisis. With shrinking resources for obtaining credit, family farmers and ranchers are finding it increasingly difficult to stay in their homes.
Postal banking could be a win-win in these circumstances, providing jobs and income for the post office along with safe and inexpensive banking services for underserviced populations. Countries such as Russia and India are exploring full-fledged lending services through their post offices; but if lending to the underbanked seems too risky, a US postal bank could follow the lead of Japan Post and use the credit generated from its deposits to buy safe and liquid government bonds. That could still make the bank a win-win-win, providing income for the post office, safe and inexpensive depository and checking services for the underbanked and a reliable source of public funding for the government.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

The common law is the Will of Mankind issuing from the Life of the People

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice, and, more, should uplift his arm" … — Thomas Jefferson letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820
hands
haec manus inimica tyrannus
"particular expertise in the legal issues at hand"


STONER TOASTED
"These are our state partners," said Nancy Stoner, the nation’s top water-quality administrator,
"We have been talking about the challenges ahead for us" (the Clean Water Act turns 40 Oct. 9.)


Water's fate: fouled, pushed far from its natural origins, squandered and exploited.
management needs strategies that hold solutions,

Water sustainability flows through human-nature interactions

unleashed fury
"Solutions come from looking at issues from multiple points of view at the same time. That’s the way to avoid the unintended consequences that plague water and a way to prevent a water crisis from becoming a water catastrophe." Jianguo “Jack” Liu, director of Michigan State University’s Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability,

Contact: Jianguo “Jack” Liu, Fisheries and Wildlife, Office: (517) 432-5025, jliu@panda.msu.edu; Layne Cameron, Media Communications, Office: (517) 353-8819, Cell: (765) 748-4827, Layne.Cameron@cabs.msu.edu; Sue Nichols, Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Office: (517) 432-0206, nichols@msu.edu


E.P.A.’s reluctance to dive into river

Superfund program was sold to Congress on the basis of cleanup technology that didn’t exist then, and doesn’t exist today.

EPA wades in

The EPA has said that existing federal and state water quality programs are not adequate, acknowledging their failure and the State and Regional Water Board's failure to implement the Act's provisions.

The EPA says its plan prioritizes seven actions to be pursued in partnership with the State Water Resources Control Board, the Regional Water Boards for the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

They are:

• By 2013, propose a standard to curb selenium discharges from cities, farms, and oil refineries;

• By 2013, achieve organophosphate pesticide water quality goals in Sacramento County urban streams;

• By 2014, set new estuarine habitat standards, including salinity, to improve conditions for aquatic life;

• By 2017 establish a monitoring and assessment program for water quality in the Delta;

• Ensure that EPA’s pesticide regulation program more fully considers the effects that pesticides have on aquatic life;

• Restore and rebuild wetlands and floodplains to sequester drinking water contaminants, methylmercury, and greenhouse gases and make the Delta more resilient to floods, earthquakes, and climate change;

• Support the development and implementation of the Bay

“The issues they've identified as needing improvement are welcome but are only a subset of issues that urgently need improvement,” says Bill Jennings, chairman and executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. “And I'm curious as to what they mean by advocating support for the BDCP, which after all, is essentially a peripheral diversion project masquerading as a habitat conservation plan.”

The Bay Delta is the hub of California’s water distribution system, providing drinking water to 25 million people, sustaining irrigation for 4 million acres of farmland, and supporting 750 different species of plants, fish, and wildlife.
The Bay has been degraded over time by many factors, including the destruction of rivers and wetlands and the diversion of freshwater flows by federal and state water projects;


Superfund Stirs Troubled Waters

Forcing somebody else to pay for large stretches of urban waterways passed over for decades because they were technically complex, big,  costly, and difficult.

After years of study and pilot projects that met with varying degrees of success — and failure — the E.P.A. is finally tackling some of the most heavily polluted waterways. Many are in the New York-New Jersey area, which, since the beginning of Superfund, has had the greatest number of polluted sites.

Under pressure from community groups and environmental organizations, the E.P.A. has added to the list the heavily polluted Gowanus Canal, in Brooklyn, and Newtown Creek, on the Brooklyn-Queens border.

Across the country, large cleanups are expected to begin soon in Oregon and Washington State, and remediation continues on the Housatonic River in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Environmental officials say they have learned through trial and error that it can be far more effective to take an entire river system into account, rather than proceeding piecemeal.

Innovative technology now could speed the entire project.

Used by millions to dump sewage and wastes for more than two centuries, identifying somebody else to pay is a legal nightmare.

“Detoxification of sediment may be beyond our capacity now,” he said, “but someday it won’t be.”


Is the Water Safe? There's an App for That

Riverkeepers announce and celebrate a new app that helps residents immediately learn where it's safe to swim,
jointly celebrate the release of Swim Guide, the app that displays bacteria monitoring data.

jgi

Technology Development Program (TDP)

  • Provides JGI users with early access to nascent technologies and in close collaboration with onsite scientists to address questions of DOE mission relevance.
  • High-impact projects exploring the very limits of current technology.

California Neighborhood Comes Together in Urban Forestry Project

A Kids Zone added fun with face painting and other activities during planting at the Urban Tilth Edible Forest in Richmond, Calif. Other highlights were the community barbeque and a “make your own soda” used to teach children how much sugar goes into their favorite beverage.

A Kids Zone added fun with face painting and other activities during planting at the Urban Tilth Edible Forest in Richmond, Calif. Other highlights were the community barbeque and a “make your own soda” used to teach children how much sugar goes into their favorite beverage.

This year, more than 80 volunteers worked together to plant 20 trees, 117 native and edible understory plants, and more than 600 butterfly garden plants as part of the Cesar Chavez Community Garden Day celebration at the Edible Forest garden on the Richmond Greenway, a 2.8-mile trail in Contra Costa County, Calif. Read more »

Welcome to NEON

The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) is a continental-scale observatory designed to gather and provide 30 years of ecological data on the impacts of climate change, land use change and invasive species on natural resources and biodiversity. NEON is a project of the National Science Foundation, with many other U.S. agencies and NGOs cooperating.

All NEON data and information products will be freely available via the Web. NEON’s open-access approach to its data and information products will enable scientists, educators, planners, decision makers and the public to map, understand and predict the effects of human activities on ecology and effectively address critical ecological questions and issues.

The Airborne Observation Team just completed its first test flights with a fully-integrated set of instruments.

Geo

NEON: A Community-Driven Resource

The NEON concept was born in the ecological community and the design honed by thousands of dedicated people participating in workshops and reviews.  Read more about the community working to bring NEON to fruition.

LTER Network

  • The Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network is a collaborative effort involving more than 1800 scientists and students investigating ecological processes over long temporal and broad spatial scales
  • The Network promotes synthesis and comparative research across sites and ecosystems and among other related national and international research programs
  • The National Science Foundation established the LTER program in 1980 to support research on long-term ecological phenomena in the United States
  • The 26 LTER Sites represent diverse ecosystems and research emphases
  • The LTER Network Office coordinates communication, network publications, and research-planning activities
NEON broke ground on its first two sites this week, marking the official start of observatory construction.

Tis the Jolly CZEN

CZEN Home

The Critical Zone Exploration Network (CZEN) is a community of people and a network of field sites investigating processes within the Critical Zone, defined as the Earth’s outer layer from vegetation canopy to the soil and groundwater that sustains human life. CZEN members are a diverse group of researchers and educators who study the physical, chemical and biological processes shaping and transforming Earth’s Critical Zone. This research spans a wide range of disciplines including geosciences, hydrology, microbiology, ecology, soil science, and engineering. CZEN encourages all researchers working in the Critical Zone to join the effort by registering on this site and contributing content. CZEN’s primary goal is to create a network of observatories for investigating Critical Zone processes such as weathering and soil formation. Through this network, researchers can access and integrate data in a way that allows isolation of environmental variables and comparison of environmental effects across gradients of time, lithology, human disturbance, biological activity and topography.


[W]e conclude that an agency may not insulate itself from correction merely because it has not been corrected soon enough, for a longstanding error is still an error. the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision by the (EPA)

"EPA exceeded its authority.... and its grounds for doing so were insufficient, capricious and arbitrary."
23-page opinion by Circuit Judge E. Grady Jolly


EPA slaps landlords

EPA fines landlords $40,000 for failing to provide "EPA-Approved" pamphlets to tenants

But remember, they're doing it for the children:

“Thinking of renting or selling a home or apartment?” asks the Environmental Protection Agency. “Make sure you disclose its lead-based paint history. Mr. Wolfe Landau did not and it cost him a $20,000 fine.”

Landau is one of the many landlords and realtors fined by the EPA for failing to provide an “EPA-approved” pamphlet to tenants seeking to rent or buy a house built before 1978... for the EPA, the non-compliance business is booming.

Juan Hernandez of Bridgeport, Conn., faces seven “Level 1” violations for failing to provide seven tenants with a copy of the “Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home” pamphlet... The EPA filed a complaint against Hernandez on March 27, detailing notifying him that the agency plans to collect $49,980 from him, which works out to $7,140 for each pamphlet he failed to distribute...

...Hernandez’s total fine for other disclosure violations, such as supplying the property’s lead history and a “Lead Warning Statement,” reached $127,150, payable to the "Treasurer of the United States of America."
EPA 'Guidance' Slapped Down

Community Devolvement Coordinator's - Environmental Justice Stakeholder's

Monologue - Dialogue - Epilogue Session

(EPA can't ignore public feedback on our Superfund site forever)

"You are a nest of vipers and thieves, and by the grace of the almighty God, I will ROOT you out!"

- President Andrew Jackson

“[i]n response to concerns about the limited degree of public involvement in the selection of CERCLA remedies.” 2 JAMES T. O’REILLY, INTERVENTION IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, SUPERFUND & BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP § 22:16 (2009–10).

(The non-profit irrigation canal owner tax exemption may apply to employees engaged in insect, rodent, and weed pest control)


NSF 10-040
Dear Colleague Letter: Climate, Energy, and Sustainability

Directorate for Biological Sciences, Directorate for Computer & Information Science and Engineering, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Directorate for Engineering, Directorate for Geosciences, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, Office of Cyberinfrastructure, Office of Integrative Activities, Office of International Science and Engineering, Office of Polar Programs

March 2010

In FY 2010, NSF is expanding its support for climate research by issuing five new cross-directorate solicitations:

These solicitations are intended to support innovative research and education that will advance our capability and capacity to understand and predict changes to Earth’s natural and human-dominated systems, to assess the vulnerability and resilience of these systems to change, and to foster workforce development and scientific literacy in these areas. These advances will strengthen the scientific knowledge base for policy decisions at regional and national levels.

Building on recommendations in the August 2009 National Science Board Report, Building a Sustainable Energy Future and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, NSF has requested funds in FY 2011 to further expand research support in this area through new and existing programs focused on Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES). SEES is proposed to address challenges in climate and energy research and education using a systemic approach to understanding, predicting, and reacting to change in the linked natural, social, and built environment through:

  • short and long term observations enabled by a new generation of experimental and observational networks;
  • data analysis, modeling, simulation and intelligent decision-making facilitated by advanced computation;
  • research at the energy-environment-society nexus;
  • innovative strategies for energy production, distribution and use;
  • study of societal factors such as vulnerability and resilience, and sensitivity to regional change; and
  • building of research and education partnerships, both nationally and internationally.

The portfolio of SEES will also help develop the workforce required for future economic, energy and environmental sustainability.

Information on NSF's climate research activities as well as plans for SEES is available at http://www.nsf.gov/sees.


Coastal SEES (Coastal SEES)
Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability


Program Solicitation
NSF 12-594

NSF Logo

National Science Foundation

Directorate for Geosciences

Directorate for Biological Sciences

Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences

Directorate for Engineering

Office of Polar Programs

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

January 17, 2013

NSF anticipates an annual call for proposals by this program

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Program Title:

Coastal SEES (Coastal SEES)

Synopsis of Program:

A sustainable world is one in which human needs are met equitably and without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Meeting this formidable challenge requires a substantial increase in our understanding of the integrated system of society, the natural world, and the alterations humans bring to Earth. NSF's Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) activities aim to address this need through support for interdisciplinary research and education.

Hydropower bills energize environmental debate over dams

Hydropower dams would get a boost, while their skeptics would get punished, under a controversial new bill backed by Western conservatives in Congress.

Published: Aug. 10, 2012 at 11:30 a.m. PDTUpdated: Aug. 10, 2012 at 11:55 a.m. PDT
0 comments

Hydropower dams would get a boost, while their skeptics would get punished, under a controversial new bill backed by Western conservatives in Congress.

In a bit of tit for tat, the legislation introduced this month would strip federal funding from environmental groups that have challenged hydropower facilities in court over the past decade. The bill further would block federal money from being used to study or undertake dam removals, save for the rare occasion when Congress has authorized the action.

“This bill would . . . help eliminate government roadblocks and frivolous litigation that stifle development,” Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said in a statement when he introduced it.

The chairman of the House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee, Hastings has convened a panel hearing for next Wednesday in Pasco, Wash., that will be stacked with hydropower supporters, providing a hint of legislative momentum.

But with little time left in a Congress now mostly focused on campaign season, and with the 17-page Hastings bill poisonous to prominent environmental groups, the legislation appears fated for now to serve primarily as debate provocation.

“This is incredibly extreme,” said Jim Bradley, the senior director of government relations for American Rivers. “I haven’t seen anything quite like this. It’s a little bit shocking for a member of Congress to create this kind of blacklist.”

American Rivers, the National Wildlife Federation and Trout Unlimited are among the organizations that could be cut off from federal grant funding under the bill; each has been party to a suit potentially challenging hydropower generation, and each has received federal money.

“We’re very concerned about it,” said Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited’s vice president for government affairs.

It’s all a reminder that hydropower, however fresh it sounds, can generate political heat as well as occasional cooperation.

In June, for instance, a sharply divided House passed a bill by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., that would permit California’s Merced Irrigation District to raise the spillways on the district’s New Exchequer Dam. That would increase power production and water storage, but it also would temporarily inundate part of a protected Wild and Scenic River. The Obama administration opposes the Denham bill, which faces an uncertain future in the Senate.

Hydropower rhetoric, too, can get heavy. At a hydropower hearing last year, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Water and Power Subcommittee, denounced American Rivers, which advocates for protecting river habitat nationwide, as an “extremist organization.”

Last year, on a closely divided vote, McClintock won House approval for an amendment blocking the removal of what he called “four perfectly good hydroelectric dams” in the Klamath River Basin of Oregon and Northern California. Congress later dropped the amendment; but, as with the new Hasting bill, a point had been made about an important part of the nation’s energy mix.

In a more collaborative vein, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., won unanimous House support in July for a bipartisan bill that streamlines licensing for small hydropower projects. The legislation would exempt from federal licensing requirements the nation’s 1,100-plus hydro projects that aren’t operated by the federal government and that generate less than 10 megawatts of electricity; the current exemption is limited to projects that generate less than 5 megawatts.

“Notwithstanding all of (the) benefits, the regulatory approval process for hydropower development, especially for smaller projects, can be unnecessarily slow, costly and cumbersome,” Rodgers said during House debate.

Her bill awaits Senate action.

Hydropower accounts for about 8 percent of all electrical production nationwide. California has more hydropower facilities than any other state, while Washington state leads in overall power production. Lawsuits periodically have challenged these dam operations, directly or indirectly, and supporters of Hastings’ bill say the litigation slows energy development and increases consumer costs.

Groups that file lawsuits that “if successful would result in” a reduction in hydropower generation would be covered by the federal grant cutoff, under the new bill. Attorneys for such groups likewise would be cut off. Spencer Pederson, a spokesman for the House Natural Resources Committee, said the panel didn’t have a list of which organizations might be affected.

“It is a policy statement about the importance of hydropower and how taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to destroy that resource,” Pederson said of the bill.

Court and federal grant records show that American Rivers would be affected because the group has litigated and it’s received federal funding, including a $1 million National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grant last year. The 110,000-member Trout Unlimited likewise has sued and has received federal grants, including a $350,000 habitat conservation grant last year, federal records show, while the significantly larger National Wildlife Federation has sued and received a variety of habitat conservation grants last year.

Subject:
 Find Affordable Housing for Seniors
 From:
To:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has a number of resources to help seniors find affordable rentals. They offer a low-rent apartment search that shows low-rent apartments for senior citizens and people with disabilities, as well as for families and individuals. For low-rent apartments, the government gives funds directly to the apartment owners. There is an income limit to qualify.

You can also look for multifamily units by state that rent to seniors and people with disabilities. HUD does not provide details like eligibility, waiting list information, or types of accessible features for these properties, but the list can help you identify potential rentals in your area.

There's also the public housing program and public housing choice vouchers, commonly called Section 8. Public housing comes in all sizes and types and is managed by local housing agencies that are funded by the federal government. Public housing choice vouchers allow you to find a private rental and the government pays the landlord directly to subsidize the rent. Both programs are limited to low-income families and individuals.

If you have questions or need help finding a rental, talk to a HUD-approved housing counselor.


USDA-Funded North Valley Health Center in Minnesota Expected to Improve Rural Quality of Life

Minnesota Rural Development State Director Landkamer, fourth from the right, breaking ground on the new North Valley Health Center in Warren, Minn.

Ground was broken on the new 43,000 square-foot North Valley Health Center on July 26. It will be located next to the Good Samaritan Nursing Home and will feature a larger physical therapy department, full handicap accessibility and covered entrances, among other enhancements.Community members came together to build the first hospital in Warren, Minn., all the way back in 1905. Today, the community is coming together once again to build a new innovative healthcare facility that will continue the tradition of strong rural healthcare in the community of 1,500. Read more »

Health Centers
near Iron Mountain Rd, Redding, CA 96001

Results 1 - 7 of total 7.   Page 1 of 1
1

SHASTA COMMUNITY DENTAL CLINIC
  (~ 5.13 miles away)
1400 Market St Ste 8103, Redding, CA 96001-1050
Phone number  530-246-5894
Directions  Get directions to this site    from this site
2

SHASTA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER
  (~ 5.48 miles away)
1035 Placer St, Redding, CA 96001-1125
Phone number  530-246-5710
Directions  Get directions to this site    from this site
3

PCN Clinic (Primary Care Neuro-psychiatry and Specialty Care Clinic)
  (~ 5.48 miles away)
980 Placer St, Redding, CA 96001-1126
Phone number  530-246-5710
Directions  Get directions to this site    from this site
4

SHASTA LAKE CITY FAMILY HLTH CTR
  (~ 6.31 miles away)
4215 Front St, Shasta Lake, CA 96019-9430
Phone number  530-246-9168
Directions  Get directions to this site    from this site
5

ANDERSON FAMILY HEALTH CENTER
  (~ 15.44 miles away)
2801 Silver St, Anderson, CA 96007-4239
Phone number  530-378-0486
Directions  Get directions to this site    from this site
6

HILL COUNTRY COMMUNITY CLINIC
  (~ 29.95 miles away)
29632 Highway 299 E, Round Mountain, CA
Phone number  530-337-6243
Directions  Get directions to this site    from this site
7

SHINGLETOWN MEDICAL CENTER
  (~ 32.14 miles away)
31292 Alpine Meadows Rd, Shingletown, CA 96088-9462
Phone number  530-474-3390
Directions  Get directions to this site    from this site


West Nile Virus Found in Shasta County Mosquito Sample

POSTED: Aug 10 2012 07:02:42 PM PDT  UPDATED: 7:11 PM Aug 10 2012
A mosquito sample collected by the Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control district tested positive for for West Nile virus.

Event Activity to Engage The Public

PEGGY Selden - ROCKBRIDGE CERT RESIDENT VOLUNTEER

In the animal kingdom there are creatures who "prepare" demonstrated by the hard working bee, industrious ant, and acron packing squirrel.  At events in 2011 using the BEEE READY BE HIVE (Plastic cone shape like a Bee Hive)  we inticed folks to reach into the hive and grab a honey pot an "recieve a grab-n-go item on the spot" signage>(Go into the hive and select a pot..you might get lucky on the spot..A lucky choice and you can brag...you'll receive something for your Grab-n-Go Bag). 

A Guessing Game for the number of acrons in a "squirrel's nest" (A Jar filled with acorns and a nest of shredded grey paper on top) signage>(This little creature prepares ahead..Guess How Many acorns he has in his bed..His gathering is steady...Be right and receive A gift to Help Get You Ready)

The stickers from the ANTS MOVIE were used all over my grandson's mesh bag where the contents of his Bug-Out-Bag were inventoried for all to read.  The see through Mesh Bag Helped point out contents too!

Counting or inventory of giveaways helped us record the number of folks we spoke to.  Registering for "homemade" packages of hygiene items, tools or first aid kits also allowed us to capture names and address to invite the public to BASIC CERT CLASSES.

A homemade manual version of the FEMA READY KIDS website interactive "match game" allowed us to keep the kids busy while the parents filled out a survey.

Personal Preparedness Kits on display were used as talking points where many did not know that Emergency Water came in Mylar Bags with a longshelf life and ability to stay in the family car safely.




Avoid Eating Oysters from Farm Backed by Dianne Feinstein

The California Department of Health is warning consumers not to eat oysters from Drakes Bay Oyster Company, because they may contain bacteria that causes serious illness. Drakes Bay Oyster Company is the same business that's been locked in a nasty dispute with the National Park Service over its oyster farm at Point Reyes National Seashore. As the Express has reported, US Senator Dianne Feinstein is a strong backer of the oyster farm and wants the federal government to extend its lease at Drakes Estero in Point Reyes — a move that would be unprecedented because Drakes Estero has been designated by Congress to become the first marine wilderness on the West Coast.

Drakes Bay Oyster Company
In a statement this afternoon, California health officials said at least three people have been sickened by eating oysters from Drakes Bay Oyster Company. The oysters contained the bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus. "Symptoms of Vibrio parahaemolyticus infection include vomiting, abdominal cramps, watery diarrhea, headache, fever, and chills," the statement said. "Most infected people recover without treatment in a few days. Severe illness and death from Vibrio parahaemolyticus infection is rare, but can occur with chronic liver disease, cancer, or other conditions that weaken the immune system."

Drakes Bay Oyster Company, the largest supplier of oysters in California, has already initiated a voluntary recall of shucked and inside-shell raw oysters. "The shucked oysters are packaged under the Drakes Bay Oyster Farm label and sold in 9 ounce, 1-pint, 1-quart and half-gallon jars, or tubs," the health department stated. "The affected shucked products are labeled with lot numbers 363 through 421. The lot number can be found on the top label of each jar or tub. The in-shell raw oysters are sold individually or in bags ranging in size from 1 dozen to 10 dozen. In-shell raw oyster tags are marked with harvest dates ranging from July 17, 2012, through August 8, 2012."

A complete list of the suspect oysters from Drakes Bay is on the state health department's website. Health officials also are recommending that consumers experiencing any ill effects after consuming the oysters should consult their health care providers. People that observe the oysters being offered for sale are encouraged to call the California Department of Public Health at (800) 495-3232.

The health department bulletin and the recall could deliver a debilitating blow to Drakes Bay Oyster Company, which has been under fire from environmentalists for repeatedly violating state environmental laws at its Point Reyes oyster farm. At the same time, Drakes Bay, with Feinstein's help, is attempting to convince US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to set aside precedent, block creation of the marine wilderness, and extend its lease for another ten years before it expires this November.

Energy Projects in 2011 that have failed

By The Associated Press

The Associated Press

The 2011 Department of Commerce magazine, entitled "Energy Opportunities are ON," predicted a renewables renaissance in Idaho. Things haven't worked out as well as many of the companies featured had hoped. Here's a partial list of projects that have faltered.

— Solar declines: In the 2011 magazine, the Department of Commerce announced Hoku Corp. was putting the "final touches" on its $400 million polysilicon manufacturing plant in Pocatello to supply the solar panel industry. The plant hasn't been completed and its employees have been laid off. Meanwhile, Hawaiian-based, Chinese-owned Hoku fights for its survival.

And Transform Solar, the joint venture between Idaho-based Micron Technologies Inc. and Australia's Origin Energy, were just preparing to hire hundreds at the time it was lauded by Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter in the 2011 publication. Earlier this year, the company announced it was shutting down, laying off its workers and closing the Nampa factory's doors.

— Turbine trouble: The agency publication predicted that Utah-based Pavilion Energy Resources would be building a new wind turbine manufacturing facility in Idaho to mass produce low-wind turbines, to fulfill an initial $100 million turbine order. Last month, the company's leader, Rick Wood, said from his offices in Salt Lake City, "If Idaho doesn't get its act together, there's a real chance we're not going to go ahead."

— Geothermal fizzle: The Department of Commerce touted Idaho's 855 megawatts of marketable, reasonably priced geothermal power as putting the state in third place behind California and Nevada. Though one utility-scale project has been built — U.S. Geothermal revamped a former U.S. Department of Energy demonstration site in Malta and began commercial production in 2008 — others haven't materialized. Consequently, plans by the Idaho's Office of Energy Resources to fund itself through expected royalties from geothermal projects have been thwarted, forcing the agency to seek money elsewhere to help it survive.

— Biomass bust: Yellowstone Power, a company developing a $28.5 million biomass facility at a proposed sawmill in Emmett Idaho, won a 15-year electricity purchase agreement from Idaho Power that got attention in the magazine. Last week, Montana-based Yellowstone agreed to pay Idaho Power $200,000 in a non-performance damage settlement because the project failed and it couldn't deliver promised electricity.

—Wind departs: Notably, one of the Idaho Department of Commerce's biggest marketing coups of 2008, a turbine-manufacturing factory of California-based Nordic Windpower lured to a vacant military building in Pocatello, wasn't featured in that magazine. The reason? Nordic decided Idaho was too far from its customers in the Midwest so it moved to Kansas.

Copyright The Associated Press

Dear Colleague Letter - Rapid Response Research Grants on Research about the Potential Threat of Debris Fields from the March 2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami on the West Coast of North America

DATE: August 9, 2012

In the aftermath of the March 2011 earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan, fields of debris are now washing up on the western shores of the United States. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Japanese authorities say that approximately five million tons of wreckage flowed into the Pacific Ocean following the earthquake and tsunami. While a majority of it likely sank, experts estimate that between one to two million tons was left floating and is heading toward North America. The debris fields are expected to reach and potentially threaten the west coast of North America from the spring of 2012 through late 2014.

When unforeseen circumstances offer unique opportunities to advance basic knowledge, NSF has in place the Rapid Response Research (RAPID) funding mechanism. As noted in the GPG, this mechanism is used to support activities having a severe urgency with regard to availability of, or access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events. In the past RAPID funding supported fundamental research activities related to acute events such as the New Zealand earthquake in February 2011, the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in March 2011, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.

The NSF Directorates for Biological Sciences (BIO), Geosciences (GEO), Engineering (ENG), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), and Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE) and the Office of Cyberinfrastructure (OCI) are accepting proposals to conduct research on the potential threat to the North American west coast from debris fields associated with the March 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami. Proposals must conform to the guidelines for preparation of Rapid Response Research (RAPID) proposals as specified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) available at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.

Sincerely,

Alan Blatecky
Director, Office of Cyberinfrastructure

Margaret A. Cavanaugh
Acting Assistant Director for Geosciences

Farnam Jahanian
Assistant Director for Computer & Information Science & Engineering

Thomas W. Peterson
Assistant Director for Engineering

H. Edward Seidel
Assistant Director for Mathematical and Physical Sciences

John C. Wingfield
Assistant Director for Biological Sciences

root dwellers

“There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” - Henry David Thoreau

Improving the security and resilience of our nation's drinking water and waste-water infrastructures is vital to ensure the provision of clean and safe water to all in the United States. Significant actions are underway to assess and reduce consequences, threats, and vulnerabilities to potential terrorist attacks; to plan for and practice response to natural disasters, emergencies, and incidents; and to develop new security technologies to detect and monitor contaminants and prevent security breaches. Learn more about water security.


I. INTRODUCTION

Critical Zone Observatory

The critical zone - the veneer of Earth that extends from the top of the vegetation to the base of weathered bedrock - is so-named because it is where fresh water flows, soils are formed from rocks, and terrestrial life flourishes. This critical zone provides most of the ecosystem services on which societies depend. Its intrinsic resilience, natural evolution, and fate in the face of human land use and climate change need to be understood and predicted to inform strategies for sustaining a wide range of human activities. Unprecedented pressures are being placed on the critical zone, and understanding the interrelated processes, system dynamics, sensitivities, and thresholds in this zone is of vital importance for informing human decisions.

Through the Critical Zone Observatories (CZO) solicitation, NSF 12-575, NSF will create a network of observatories that will be fully coordinated in terms of observations, data management, modeling, and educational and outreach activities. Key to this networked approach is a CZO National Office (CZO-NO). The CZO-NO will facilitate coordination of research and educational programs of the CZO network and provide a centralized entity that represents the CZO network with the scientific community and the public.

This solicitation requests proposals for the creation of the CZO-NO. The Principal Investigator (PI) will serve as Director of the CZO-NO and will work closely alongside all CZO PIs and co-PIs to achieve the following goals:

  • Facilitate communication among CZOs;
  • Negotiate and implement common protocols for sensing, analyzing, and reporting of common measurements amongst CZOs;
  • Promote dissemination of information and resources both among the CZOs and to additional stakeholder communities beyond the reach of individual CZOs;
  • Identify common CZO concerns and needs;
  • Identify opportunities to leverage resources or develop synergistic activities;
  • Plan the development of and implement agendas for annual CZO PI meetings in coordination with the CZO site hosting the meeting;
  • Coordinate implementation of data publication.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

NSF invites the submission of proposals for the Critical Zone Observatory National Office (CZO-NO). The CZO-NO will have two main functions: to coordinate activities of the network of CZOs, and to disseminate information to a number of audiences. The CZO-NO is expected to work with the CZO community and to share CZO discoveries, data, and research opportunities with the broad scientific community.

Responsibilities of the CZO-NO in coordinating the network of CZOs will include, but are not limited to:

  • Organizing and participating in regular, monthly teleconferences for the CZO PIs and co-PIs;
  • Supporting the CZO network's committees and working groups;
  • Coordinate the planning and logistics of two face-to-face meetings of CZO PIs per year. One meeting will take place at a professional meeting (e.g. AGU) and the second will be a CZO site visit;
  • Assisting with the coordination and planning of common measurements, protocols and data management for the network of CZOs.

Responsibilities of this office in representing the CZO network include, but are not limited to:

  • Being the singular point of communication with the larger science community on behalf of the CZO network;
  • Promoting the CZO program and developing a high-profile public identity that emphasizes its interdisciplinary nature and focus on creation of knowledge for a sustainable Earth;
  • Creating a strong education and outreach program in which CZO data and discoveries reach a broad spectrum of local, regional, national, and international audiences, including scientists, educators, students, landowners, policymakers, and the general public. Outreach activities should be coordinated among CZO sites and with the broader scientific community;
  • Serving as the liaison of the CZO program to other CZ-related groups or organizations (e.g., CSDMS, CUAHSI, CZEN, DOSECC, LTER, NEON, UNAVCO, etc.);
  • Representing the CZOs at research and educational conferences, and public outreach events;
  • Developing and distributing CZO outreach materials through the use of traditional and new media;
  • Assisting in the organization of workshops, short courses, and sessions at national and international meetings;
  • Organizing and managing a CZO booth at professional meetings and conferences;
  • Developing a quarterly CZO newsletter and an annual integrated CZO science report, and maintaining an archive of these items;
  • Maintaining and updating content of the CZO Website (criticalzone.org);
  • Developing and managing a CZO speaker series.

Critical Zone Observatories National Office Structure

NSF anticipates that successful operations and management of the CZO-NO will require a senior-level scientist (the proposal PI) on a part-time appointment who will serve as the CZO-NO Director and manage the activities of the office; a full-time office manager at the postdoctoral level or equivalent that would assist the PI with scientific issues; an Education & Outreach (E&O) Coordinator; and additional full-time support staff who will perform other functions of the office, including maintaining Web content, providing logistical and other support for workshops and meetings, supporting the CZO advisory structure, and administrative functions. The CZO-NO may hire appropriate staff, students, and postdoctoral associates to assist in scientific, education and outreach activities.

Links and related documents

Additional documents that are useful descriptors of community planning related to the CZO's may be accessed through www.nsf.gov/geo/ear/programs/czo_moreinfo.jsp

welcome!

Fire Danger precautions are in effect, more information... 

The East Bay Regional Park District spans Alameda and Contra Costa counties east of San Francisco with 112,000+ acres in 65 parks including over 1,200 miles of trails for hiking, biking, horseback riding and nature study. The Park District offers lakes, shorelines, campgrounds, visitor centers, interpretive and recreation programs, picnic areas, indoor/outdoor rental facilities, golf courses and much more. Our award-winning Trails Challenge Program is a popular self-guided hiking, biking, and walking program with thousands of participants each year. Our volunteer programs offer opportunities in public safety, interpretation, environmental protection and habitat and species preservation. We hope you will enjoy your visit to our East Bay Regional Parks. 

SATURDAY, AUGUST 11: VINYL RECORD DAY

Profile America — Saturday, August 11th.  Listening to a favorite song can bring back fond memories.  That's the idea behind Vinyl Record Day — which will be celebrated tomorrow, as it is each year on the 12th, the anniversary of Thomas Edison's invention of the phonograph.  Vinyl records — both 33 1/3 and 45 RPM — brought Americans their favorite music for more than half a century.  Now, an increasing number of portable electronic devices allow us to listen to our favorites anywhere.  Even with these advances, physical recordings still account for a majority of recordings sold.  And premium quality vinyl LPs are making a modest comeback, especially in the audiophile community.  You can find more facts about America from the U.S. Census Bureau, online at www.census.gov.

Sanders, EPA chief tour Vermont National Guard solar installation


Sanders and EPA Chief Inspect Vermont National Guard Solar Power Project

SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vt., Aug. 23 – Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson today joined U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on a tour of a Vermont National Guard solar power installation that is a model for military bases around the country.

Brig. Gen. Thomas Drew, the Guard’s new adjutant general, escorted the EPA administrator and Sanders (I-Vt.) on a tour of one of the largest solar projects at any National Guard base in the United States.

“This solar installation project is a great example of what can happen at military facilities, where we can foster healthier environments for the people on our bases, and drive innovation that is critical to our economic and environmental future,” said Jackson. “Some of our most interesting and innovative environmental ideas are taking hold on bases and through EPA’s work with the military. The EPA is proud of our active collaboration with the various branches, and our efforts to protect health and the environment in the places where our soldiers and their families live and work.”

Sanders welcomed the EPA chief to Vermont and echoed her statement. “At a time when the U.S. Defense Department is the largest consumer of energy in the world, the Vermont National Guard is a model for what other military institutions can be doing,” the senator said.

Sanders applauded Jackson’s leadership at the EPA, crediting her and the Obama administration with improving fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and for strong enforcement of clean air regulations to combat global warming. “Perhaps not as well known,’ the senator added, “is that EPA has been working with the military to help make our bases more sustainable when it comes to energy and water use.”

As Chairman of the Senate Green Jobs Subcommittee, Sanders held a hearing with leaders from the Army, Navy, and Air Force and EPA to discuss that partnership. He cited the Vermont National Guard as a leader.

The project was estimated to save hundreds of thousands annually on the Guard’s energy bills and provide 40 percent of the electricity needs at the base. In fact, the project has outperformed expectations. In the last three months, the solar project has generated 681 megawatt hours of electricity, over 11 percent more than expected. During the same three-month period, the Guard saved more than $82,000 on electric bills.

“Our National Guard is a model for the military and for businesses, as well, that want to invest in energy efficiency and sustainable energy to save money and cut greenhouse gas emissions,” Sanders said.

Completed in 2011, the project was built with $8.5 million in grants secured by Sanders.

Contact: Michael Briggs (202) 224-5141


GAIN Index

PR Newswire

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Global Adaptation Institute (GAIN) will host an international Open Consultation process before release of the 2012 GAIN Index in October. This consultation reflects GAIN's commitment to updating the index each year to incorporate new or revised data and advice on methodological, design and communications improvements.

The GAIN Index (index.gain.org) is a navigation tool to help guide investments in adaptation and assess a country's vulnerability and readiness to adapt to global challenges such as population growth, urbanization and climate change.

"Since release of the GAIN Index one year ago, we have presented it in six continents and to dozens of business leaders, think tanks, government agencies and academic institutions, said GAIN Founding CEO Dr. Juan Jose Daboub. "The response has been overwhelmingly positive and along the way GAIN has gladly accepted suggestions to enhance the power of the index."

Such improvements under consideration include incorporating indicators for ecosystem services and urbanization. Ecosystem services are the multitude of ecological processes that humans rely upon to support their lives and livelihoods, providing food and clean water, natural disaster protection, climate regulation and nutrient cycling. Understanding urban trends and conditions is key to effective adaptation as many of the challenges humanity faces from population growth and climate change will take place in cities.

"The Institute highly values the viewpoints and concerns of all stakeholders," said Dr. Bruno Sanchez-Andrade Nuno GAIN Directors of Science & Technology. "We will consider every suggestion received and constructive ideas will be incorporated into the GAIN Index."

The open consultation process will begin August 25, 2012. Please visit gain.org in the coming weeks for information on submitting comments or contact Dr. Sanchez at brunosan@gain.org.

The Global Adaptation Institute (GAIN) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)3 organization guided by a vision of building resilience to climate change and other global forces as a key component to sustainable development.

Please visit us at: gain.org

SOURCE Global Adaptation Institute

EPA Combined Sewers Guidance, Reviews Mixed 

Nearly two decades ago, the EPA introduced a policy for controlling municipal sewer overflows from pipes that carry both stormwater and sewage.

Last summer, for instance, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District signed a record $US 4.7 billion Clean Water Act settlement to reduce the amount of raw sewage and polluted surface runoff entering local waterways.

In June, the agency released the final version of the strategy, which seeks to give communities more flexibility in meeting water-quality goals. The voluntary process also encourages use of “green” infrastructure, or natural water-absorbing systems such as wetlands and grass roofs that could cut compliance costs in the long run.

The water-quality requirements of the Clean Water Act are still paramount, but the integrated framework allows a city choose the sequence in which it will take on projects.

“There are many jurisdictions that do not have the capability even to get to the negotiating table, because of the level of research and analysis that is necessary to evaluate an integrated plan." said George Hawkins, the general manager of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, who was a witness at the House hearing last week.

Nancy Stoner, the EPA’s top water official, told the House subcommittee that the new guidance is not as rigid as is commonly assumed.

“Certainly needs are great,” she said. “But we think we have the flexibility now, under the framework, to address [cost concerns] as best as we can, in partnership with state and local communities using the resources available.”

Seattle will be the first U.S. city to find out how the new policy works in practice.

In May, Seattle officials announced a proposed agreement with federal and state regulators that will allow sewage and stormwater projects to be managed in tandem. The city, which expects to spend $US 500 million on capital infrastructure to implement the agreement, will submit a draft integrated plan by the end of 2014.

Since 1968, Seattle has spent $US 524 million (measured in 2009 dollars) to control overflows from combined sewers. This has reduced the annual polluted discharge by 75 billion liters (20 billion gallons), yet the city is still not in compliance. Nancy Ahern, a deputy director at Seattle Public Utilities, told Circle of Blue that the utility is trying to find the highest-priority stormwater projects to swap places in the timetable with combined sewer projects.

Saturday, 11 August 2012 06:00
Seattle will be the first city to test the new “integrated” framework.

“It may turn out that more cost-effective solutions are developed over time. Those less important requirements may be easier to meet down the road.”

–Ben Grumbles,
Clean Water America Alliance

Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc. cuahsi banner logo




 CUAHSI enables the university water science community to advance understanding of the central role of water to life, Earth, and society. CUAHSI focuses on water from bedrock to atmosphere, from summit to sea and from the geologic past, through the present and into the future. 

EPA has used the good neighbor provision to impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind States without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text. Whatever its merits as a policy matter, EPA’s Rule violates the statute. EPA’s Transport Rule violates federal law. Therefore, the Rule must be vacated.

It is not our job to set environmental policy.
Our limited but important role is to independently ensure that
the agency stays within the boundaries Congress has set.
EPA did not do so here.

we conclude that EPA has transgressed statutory boundaries.

We conclude that EPA’s interpretation on the FIPs issue is
contrary to the text and context of the statute (a Chevron step 1
violation), in the alternative is absurd (a Chevron step 1 violation),
and again in the alternative is unreasonable (thus failing Chevron
step 2 if we get to step 2).

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT


gate-keeper

PETE 3P2P Train-the-Trainer
The Community College Citizen Preparedness Program is offering to tribal members and other interested parties this training that includes an overview of local, state, and federal program, 15 national planning scenarios, NIMS, FEMA's IS-22 course and other related topics.

This is a loss for all of us, but especially for those living downwind...John Walke, at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Bayer Beats Out ExxonMobil for Most Toxic Corporate Air Polluter Title

Sunday, April 04, 2010
Bayer Material Science, Baytown

The worst air polluter in the United States isn’t an oil or chemical company, but a longtime name best associated with aspirin: Bayer. According to the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the Bayer Group, headquartered in Germany, was ranked No. 1 in its Toxic 100 Air Polluters in the United States.

 
The Toxic 100 Air Polluters rankings are based on the amounts and toxicity of chemicals released by companies, along with such factors as wind patterns and the number of people exposed.
 
Having long ago moved beyond making pain relievers, Bayer today produces diverse pharmaceuticals, medical devices, agricultural products, chemicals and more, while being “committed to the principles of sustainable development and to its role as a socially and ethically responsible corporate citizen,” according to the Bayer Group’s website.
 
Most of Bayer’s pollution problems stem from one plant: Bayer Material Science in Baytown, Texas, east of Houston. This plant specializes in the production of plastics and polymers, including products used in the automotive and construction industries.
 
On March 30, the Bayer CropScience division agreed to pay a $143,000 fine for violations related to an explosion in September 2008 that killed two workers at its plant in Institute, West Virginia. The explosion occurred during the production of a component used in the insecticide thiodicarb.
 
Following Bayer on the list are ExxonMobil, Sunoco, DuPont, Arcelor Mittal, Steel Dynamics, Archer Daniels Midland, Ford Motors, Eastman Kodak and Koch Industries.
-David Wallechinsky


EPA is the first mover in regulating ambient air pollution

...the good neighbor obligation is not a clear numerical target – far from it – until EPA defines the target...
an upwind State’s good neighbor obligation for that pollutant is nebulous and
unknown. The statutory standard is “amounts” of pollution which will “contribute
significantly to nonattainment” or “interfere with maintenance” of the new NAAQS in a
downwind State. There is no way for an upwind State to know its obligation without knowing
levels of air pollution in downwind States and then apportioning its responsibility for
each downwind State’s nonattainment.
Therefore, the upwind State’s obligation remains impossible for the upwind State to
determine until EPA defines it. Without further definition by EPA, a prohibition on “amounts
 which will . . . contribute significantly” is like a road sign that tells drivers to drive “carefully.”
The regulated entities – here, the upwind States – need more precise guidance to know how to conform their
conduct to the law. A SIP logically cannot be deemed to lack a “required submission” or deemed to be deficient for failure
to meet the good neighbor obligation before EPA quantifies the good neighbor obligation.
Statutory text “cannot be construed in a vacuum.

The Supreme Court has explained that “judicial review provisions are jurisdictional in nature and must be
construed with strict fidelity to their terms. This is all the more true of statutory provisions specifying the
timing of review, for those time limits are, as we have often stated, mandatory and jurisdictional, and are not
subject to equitable tolling.”

Phew! I beg your pardon.

Natural Resources Defense Council

Compensation % of Expenses Paid to Title
$381,279 0.38% Frances Beinecke President
Other Salaries of Note
$252,806 0.25% Peter Lehner Executive Director
$158,600 0.16% John H Adams Trustee
NRDC affirms the integral place of human beings in the environment.

Income Statement     (FYE 06/2011)

REVENUE  
Total Contributions $90,868,193
   Program Service Revenue $4,390,776
Total Primary Revenue $95,258,969
   Other Revenue $1,798,995
TOTAL REVENUE $97,057,964
   
EXPENSES  
   Program Expenses $76,931,508
   Administrative Expenses $6,408,309
   Fundraising Expenses $14,791,893
TOTAL FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES $98,131,710
   
Payments to Affiliates $0
Excess (or Deficit) for the year $-1,073,746
   
Net Assets $197,413,060
Charity Navigator

Clean Water Act's anti-pollution goals prove elusive as polluters are exempt

By Robert McClure and Jason Alcorn, InvestigateWest
with Bonnie Stewart, EarthFix

Beside Seattle’s notoriously polluted Duwamish River, an excavator scoops up small pieces of waste metal and slings them onto a rusty mountain at Seattle Iron & Metals Corp. A pile of flattened cars and trucks squats nearby amid vast sheets of scrap metal.

Katie Campbell/EarthFix

For at least four years, Seattle Iron & Metals has dumped more pollutants into Seattle's polluted Duwamish River than allowed under the Clean Water Act, government records show.

For at least the last four years, this auto-shredder and metal recycler has dumped more pollutants into the river than allowed under the federal Clean Water Act, government records show. The levels have ranged higher than 250 times above what’s known to harm salmon that migrate through the river.

The company, which declined to comment for this story, has reported its violations to the government, as required by law. But instead of punishing the metal recycler, the Washington Department of Ecology encouraged the company to reduce its pollution levels. The agency also searched for a legal way to make Seattle Iron & Metals’ pollution limits more lenient, and says it plans to relax them soon.

The Seattle Iron & Metals story is emblematic of widespread failures in the nation’s efforts to end the toxic pollution that modern life has unleashed on America’s rivers, lakes and bays. The Clean Water Act, passed by a large bipartisan majority of Congress 40 years ago, was intended to eliminate water pollution by 1985. Congress declared: “It is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited.”

Yet in the Pacific Northwest, as across the nation, the Clean Water Act has fallen far short of its goals. A majority of Northwest waterways fail to meet federally approved water-quality standards. An investigation by EarthFix and InvestigateWest reveals:

  • Whole categories of polluters are effectively exempt from penalties when they dump pollutants illegally. This affects thousands of facilities.
  • Violations of the Clean Water Act in the Northwest occur routinely, yet citations and financial penalties are relatively rare.
  • Government bodies are among the most prolific violators, especially those that manage aging sewage-treatment plants and stormwater pipes that dump polluted rainwater runoff directly into waterways.

Read more, and see an interactive map of Clean Water Act penalties in the Pacific Northwest.



ClimateWire -- Fri., August 10, 2012 -- Read the full edition

1. WATER: Researchers probe 'yuck factor' in attempts to extend water supplies

If one were to suggest that wastewater could be used as an efficient source of fresh water, a likely rejoinder would be serious doubt and, at the very least, a pinched face and a declaration along the lines of "Ew, that's gross." Call it "the yuck factor."


News From the Field
Seeking That Caffeine Buzz for More Than a Thousand Years

August 6, 2012

image of three beakers As early as 1050 A.D., inhabi­tants of North Amer­ica, specif­i­cally east of St. Louis, Mo. were seek­ing out, brew­ing and rit­u­ally drink­ing copi­ous quan­ti­ties of a sub­stance anthro­pol­o­gists are call­ing Black Drink. Researchers say local inhab­i­tants parched holly leaves and small twigs, placed them in a large pot with water, boiled and agi­tated the liq­uid into a froth before drink­ing it. Full Story

Source
University of New Mexico

(Starbucks in their dream-catchers. -ed.)

Lookout Mountain woman claims physician husband poisoned her coffee
6:35pm, August 7th, 2012

Superfund open house at St. Louis City Hall Wednesday
  • By LINDA GITTLEMAN
  • Posted: 08/25/12 03:26 pm

  • Everyone is invited to an open house at St. Louis city hall on Wednesday evening for a review of one of the Velsicol Superfund sites.
  • Every five years, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to check up on the sites that have been cleaned and review those sites scheduled for cleanup.
  • Basically, said Tom Alcamo, EPA’s project manager for the St. Louis sites, it’s an informal recap of what’s happened so far and what’s on the agenda.
  • On the immediate agenda, of course, is the clean up of the Velsicol Chemical plant site and the nearby contaminated residential yards with orange fences.
  • Clean up of the residential properties is expected this year, with more likely next year.
  • Clean up of the plant site is expected to begin in 2014, if funding is approved.
  • But at the Wednesday meeting, the Pine River/dam sediment clean up that was completed a few years ago will also be reviewed.
  • And there’s more.
    A third spot – the river downstream from the dam – will be discussed.
  • Several years ago, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality conducted a study of the river downstream from the dam – all the way to the connection with the Chippewa River – and presented its findings to the EPA.
  • The EPA, Alcamo said, concluded that enough contamination exists to warrant more studies, expected to begin this fall.

  • Profile Picture

    Consumer Reports National School Safety Coalition


  • AIG to pay $100 million claims settlement

    Insurance giant AIG will pay nearly $79 million to the Los Angeles Unified School District to settle a lawsuit over its failure to pay claims on properties with environmental and pollution hazards, The Times has learned.

    Although AIG admitted no wrongdoing, the $78.8-million settlement, combined with earlier payments under the policy, approach the full value of $100 million in coverage purchased in 1999.

    Gen Re Settlement Ruling Reversed by U.S. Appeals Court

    General Reinsurance Corp.’s $72 million settlement of investor claims that it participated in a fraudulent transaction with American International Group Inc. (AIG) was revived by a federal appeals court.

    The court today reversed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts, who had denied a request to certify a class in the case to allow the 2009 settlement to go forward. The U.S. appeals court in New York sent the case back to Batts to consider the fairness of the settlement.

    AIG investors sued in 2004, alleging the companies were involved in a scheme that allowed New York-based AIG to improperly inflate its loss reserves. Gen Re is a unit of Warren Buffett’s Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A)

    The investors, led by three Ohio public pension funds, claimed that in late 2000 and early 2001 AIG and Gen Re engaged in a sham transaction that let AIG inflate its revenues and loss reserves.

    The case is In Re American International Group Inc. Securities Litigation, 10-4401, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Manhattan).

    To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Van Voris in New York at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew Dunn at adunn8@bloomberg.net

    .
    'Stakeholders' includes grassroots communities
    1. There must be peril or the appearance of peril to a third party, caused by the defendant.
    2. That peril or appearance of peril must be imminent
    3. A reasonable person would recognize the peril or appearance of peril and the plaintiff must also have actually recognized it.
    4. The plaintiff must have exercised reasonable care in effecting the rescue.

    grassroots politics of electric coops



    Beltway Confidential


    USDA spends $2M, gets one intern, program fails

    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials spent $2 million on an internship program that had one intern, as it failed to use properly $63 million in federal funding provided for USDA to protect itself from hackers.

    The USDA inspector general discovered that the Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO) “funded an intern program for a total of $2 million which, while funded as a security enhancement project, only resulted in one intern being hired full-time for ASOC [Agriculture Security Operations Center],” according to a new report.

    “While the intern program may be a beneficial step in the long-run, it did little to further the more pressing objective of improving USDA’s IT security,” the inspector general said. The $2 million included $686,000 for “development and implementation of a networking website” in FY 2010 and 2011 and another $192, 500 in housing costs for the intern.
    The USDA’s broader failure to manage 16 projects designed to protect the department from regular IT security threats. Before 2009, when it requested a $44 million increase to its $18 million security budget, the USDA depended on external organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security to alert it to such threats.

    The USDA “made some progress,” according to the report, but not the effort was plagued by errors. “Specifically, we found that some of OCIO’s projects did not meet the purposes outlined in the Congressional request for funding or were not targeted to improve the most critical IT security risks,” the inspector general explained. “Additionally, some of these projects were not completely implemented, and were not sufficiently coordinated. This occurred because OCIO did not adequately plan projects and determine how it would utilize both internal and external resources.”

    The result of that bureaucratic mismanagement? “[T]he Department’s information systems are still at risk, even after expending $63.4 million of funding increases received in FY 2010 and 2011,” the report found.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture is coordinating much of the country as communities are struggling with lack of rain and high temperatures
    The Army Corps of Engineers is working to ensure that the drought doesn't impede navigation of the nation's rivers, and the Department of the Transportation is working with state governments to provide emergency waivers of federal truck weight regulations and hours of service requirements to drought-stricken communities.
    because when there’s a disaster like this, "everybody needs to pull together."

    After more than a decade of inaction, the Administration reconvened the Environmental Justice Interagency Working Group and engaged more than 100 environmental justice leaders at a White House forum.  Federal agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding formally committing to environmental justice, and released strategies for integrating environmental justice into federal decision-making and programs in areas such as transportation, labor, health services, housing and others.

    The historic Partnership for Sustainable Communities is to break down traditional silos among the Federal agencies for housing, transportation, and environmental protection.

    To help ensure transparency, public engagement and accountability in Federal decisions about actions that may affect the quality of the environment, the Administration says it is modernizing and reinvigorating the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

    Confidentially, There's no word on when NEPA will be "modernized and reinvigorated".

    Supporting an outdoor economy that includes approximately 90 million homeless and $ trillions in fraud, extortion, piracy; & economic anemia.

    Subject:
     Updated Directory of FEMA Earthquake Partners
     From:
    "FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)" <fema@service.govdelivery.com>
    To:

    The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is pleased to announce the release of the updated Directory of FEMA Earthquake Partners, August 2012.

    Developing and strengthening partnerships for building safer communities underlies all of the initiatives and activities carried out by FEMA in support of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The Directory of FEMA Earthquake Partners supports those partnerships by providing contact information for more than 300 organizations and individuals involved in earthquake mitigation. The Directory includes the following groups:

    • NEHRP Agencies
    • Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction
    • FEMA Regional and Headquarters Earthquake Program Managers
    • State Earthquake Program Managers
    • Regional Earthquake Consortia
    • Seismic Safety Commissions, Committees, and Councils
    • Universities and Academic Research Centers
    • Non-Governmental Partners

    Not all of the organizations listed under Non-Governmental Partners have a mission based on earthquake mitigation. Some organizations are included because their constituents, such as homeowners, school children, and property insurers, will benefit from or have a significant interest in earthquake mitigation. The Directory also lists the in-house resources of FEMA's partners, such as journals, magazines, or newsletters, through which FEMA and other organizations can promote their earthquake publications and resources, best practices, and news of important events and activities.

    The Directory is a "living" document and is updated on a regular basis. If you believe your organization should be included in the Directory, or if you have an update to an organization or individual already listed, please email Francoise Arsenault at farsenault@briconsultingroup.com.

    To view or download the Directory, please visit the FEMA Library, Directory of FEMA Earthquake Partners.

    To view or download other NEHRP publications and products or to sign up for updates on earthquake risk mitigation publications, news, and events, visit Earthquake Publications.

    6 Steps to Handle IT Security Incidents

    New Guide from the National Institute of Standards and Technology
    •  Symantec's CISO on Security Leadership


    Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC)


    Program Solicitation
    NSF 12-596

    Replaces Document(s):
    NSF 12-503

    NSF Logo

    National Science Foundation

    Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering
         Division of Computer and Network Systems
         Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
         Division of Information & Intelligent Systems

    Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
         Division of Social and Economic Sciences

    Directorate for Mathematical & Physical Sciences
         Division of Mathematical Sciences

    Office of Cyberinfrastructure

    Directorate for Education & Human Resources
         Division of Undergraduate Education

    Directorate for Engineering
         Division of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems



    "We are really trying to get the science about what makes this watershed tick right,"

    "As an Alaska Native person, I have no desire to disappear," said Anna Mae Ferguson of Togiak. "Subsistence is more than economics. In addition to supplying food and other necessities, it provides people with productive labor, personal self esteem and strong family relationships, and a cultural foundation that cannot be replaced or duplicated by any other management."

    SOVEREIGN BEINGS

    Do we really want more government?

    Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow explains importance of being self-governing individuals

    With what is arguably the most important election to occur in most of our lifetimes on the horizon, please forgive me if it seems I am going back and plowing up the same ground, but recently I talked about “yellow lines”  and what that means in our everyday lives. I received many emails regarding a particular word I used in that commentary, sovereignty.

    Although the Founding Fathers never used that word per se, the entire concept of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is based on the notion of human sovereignty. When the founders said man is “… endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” it was evident that they were alluding to the idea that human beings are authorized by a Creator to make, and be responsible for, their own decisions.

    It is critical that we understand the concept on which the founders based their positions in the Declaration and the Constitution. Just as we refer to the United States as a “sovereign” nation, we must understand that, using the same rationale, every person is a “sovereign” being.

    The founders saw God, the Creator, as the ultimate Sovereign and mankind “made in His image and His likeness” as beings who operated in a state of individual “sovereignty” (independent, autonomous, self-governing, self-determining, nonaligned, free). They were to be held accountable for their actions, individually and collectively.

    The right of individuals to cast a free, unencumbered vote is predicated upon the concept of man as a free moral and, therefore, responsible agent – a definition that is applicable only to and by those who ascribe to creationism. Evolutionists, of course, hold that man is subservient to his animalistic urges, is merely a slave to his nature, and must, therefore, impute the power to control his behavior to someone “smarter” than himself (i.e., the government).

    A sovereign, which man is, has the right to be responsible for and enjoy the benefits of, or suffer the consequences of, his freely made decisions. Since the assumption was that all the voting individuals would be persons who were aware of the issues and willing to accept the consequences (individually and collectively) of their actions, their votes, and subsequently their government, would reflect “the will of the people.”

    It was their considered opinion that an enlightened populace – thus free (unbiased) press and free speech – would send individuals to the seat of government who would represent their positions and enact legislation that reflected the will of an involved, informed, participative majority: a representative republic. While there would be different levels of achievement and skills among them, overall, the entire population would benefit (or suffer) as a result of their corporate decisions.

    Some years after I finished junior college, I got a chance to ride the Autobahn, the world-famous no-speed-limit highway in Germany. While a passenger, I was really eager to get behind the wheel, open up the Mercedes we were riding in and drive that concrete ribbon myself. I felt qualified, because after the Air Force I had gone to college on the GI Bill but supported my family by working nights and weekends as a test driver for a major tire company. I also drew extra pay for high-speed tire testing (for police pursuit) and racked up a lot of miles on the Texas track at well over 100 miles per hour.

    I wanted to taste the freedom of “zoom-zoom” again. You see, you can drive as fast as you want on the Audubon. There are three lanes; the left lane is unlimited, and if your car doesn’t top 110-120 miles per hour, you have no business in that lane; the middle lane is for those driving up to a hundred miles per hour; the right lane is the “slow lane” for people only doing around 65 to 85 miles per hour. Point being, the Autobahn is available to accommodate everyone from the slow driver to the speed demon. If one wants to admire the beautiful countryside and picturesque villages, take the back roads. Everyone has options and all will benefit, or suffer, depending on the individual’s adherence to, or refusal to abide by, established customs or laws. Imagine the ensuing chaos of 45 miles per hour vehicles in the 120 miles per hour lane, or a 120 miles per hour driver in the 75 miles per hour lane, or an 85 to 100 miles per hour vehicle tearing down country roads and through sleepy villages.

    So what has that to do with us? The truth is, the Creator has designed all of us to be self-governing individuals with the freedom and responsibility to make our own choices and determine our own destinies. I am convinced that this is one of the primary reasons America, despite some missteps and relatively few serious social problems, has been such a wondrous and successful experiment in human behavior. I am persuaded the framers of the Constitution had a divine understanding of the biblical concept of the sovereignty of humans – our God-given right to be free and self-directed.

    Unfortunately, in recent decades we have seen a chipping away at the idea of individual responsibility and the adherence to a national moral code. As a result, the quality of American life and the scope of American greatness is rapidly declining. We now have “entitlements” to healthy, able-bodied citizens, protection extended to social predators, pornographers, abortion mills, same-sex marriages and other licentious behavior. Latitude is now granted, not to liberty but to license.

    What’s next? Polygamy? After all, shouldn’t government (taxpayers) be responsible for a man’s 12-24 kids by 10-12 wives if he can’t feed them himself? Bestiality? Why not? Why shouldn’t sex with animals be a constitutionally protected right? (Didn’t I read somewhere that women have left millions of dollars to pets? True love?)

    The good news/bad news is, in our constitutionally mandated republic, “We the People” are responsible for our own destinies. Isn’t that the essence of liberty? Isn’t that the way it should be for a free people? Isn’t that why America is (thus far) arguably the greatest country in existence today? Why are people lined up (in some cases for years) to get in, but few are lined up to get out?

    I think there is a clear-cut underlying reason, perhaps best stated by the second president of the United States, John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    The alternative to self government is more government.


    Sunset for Sunstein

    President Obama released a brief statement on the departure of Sunstein, thanking him for “his friendship and for his years of exceptional service.”

    The White House statement did not provide any reason for Sunstein’s departure.

    Get Aaron Klein’s “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed” at WND’s Superstore

    Politico, which first reported Sunstein was leaving the White House, did not cite any reason for his departure either. The news outlet reported Sunstein will return later this month to his previous post at Harvard Law School.

    During his academic career, Sunstein has espoused controversial views on regulating the media and the Internet.

    WND first reported in 2008 Sunstein’s proposal that the government ban “conspiracy theorizing,” including by sending agents to infiltrate websites and chat rooms. Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban, is that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

    WND reported that in his 2009 book, “On Rumors,” he argued websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors.”



    “Keep the ball rolling.”
    ball

    Freeminers to the Rescue!

    FEMA.gov Communities

    National Preparedness Coalition

    Here is a summary of the recent activity in the group.

    Calendar event Family Emergency Preparedness Night
    Terri Mehling - Jefferson County West Virginia Homeland Security and Emergenc... (Aug 10th 2012 8:47 am)
    Jefferson County Homeland Security & Emergency Management will be holding a workshop on how your family can become prepared for an emergency. Do you know what a disaster kit or family disaster plan is? If not, you will after attending this extremely informative workshop. The location is yet to be determined. For more information, contact (304) 728-3329.


    Calendar event Jefferson County Homeland Security & Emergency Management at the County Fair
    Terri Mehling - Jefferson County West Virginia Homeland Security and Emergenc... (Aug 10th 2012 8:43 am)
    We will again this year be out at the Jefferson County, WV County Fair in Building 2. Come and talk to us about disaster preparedness and the different activities of our office. Community Emergency Response Team volunteers will also assist us and can tell you about their experience and training. The fair is Aug. 19 thru Aug. 25 Hope to see you there! If you have any questions, you can contact our office at (304) 728-3329


    Calendar event Serve DC's Commander Ready Kickoff
    Darwin Ray - Serve DC - The Mayor's Office on Volunteerism (Aug 10th 2012 8:42 am)
    On Friday, September 14th, Serve DC joins local emergency-management and first-responder agencies, students, teachers and parents to kick off the 2012-13 season of Commander Ready, Serve DC's specialized program designed to educate and engage youth ages 5-13 in emergency preparedness. Please note this is a closed event. For more information, please contact Alexandra King


    Calendar event Planning for Access and Functional Needs Populations in Emergencies
    Darwin Ray - Serve DC - The Mayor's Office on Volunteerism (Aug 10th 2012 8:31 am)
    Join Serve DC for its Second Annual National Preparedness Month Forum: Planning for Access & Functional Needs Populations in Emergencies. This free event convenes local and national access-and-functional-needs experts, advocates, and emergency-management professionals to discuss how to ensure the needs of all District residents--regardless of access or ability--are understood and accommodated for in times of crisis. Discussion topics include: Overview of access and functional needs populations; Access and functional needs considerations in planning and preparedness; Fostering partnerships and collaboration between emergency-management professionals and community-based and advocacy organizations focused on access and functional needs populations; and Encouraging participation of access and functional needs populations in emergency preparedness and planning. Registration is free and breakfast and lunch will be provided. Contact Jason Williamson for additional information.


    Calendar event 9/11: September 11th National Day of Service & Remembrance
    Darwin Ray - Serve DC - The Mayor's Office on Volunteerism (Aug 10th 2012 8:08 am)
    Are you ready? September marks the 9th annual National Preparedness Month (NPM) and, as the designated Citizen Corps coordinator for the District of Columbia, Serve DC is proud to announce the following NPM event: 9/11: September 11th National Day of Service & RemembranceOn Tuesday, September 11th, Serve DC and HandsOn Greater DC Cares will commemorate the September 11th National Day of Service and Remembrance and National Preparedness Month with an afternoon of service dedicated to supporting veterans and first responders. The event features hands-on service projects, emergency preparedness demonstrations and trainings and a volunteer recruitment fair. For more information, please contact Carly Skidmore at carly.skidmore@dc.gov.


    Calendar event ---> FREE BASIC PISTOL COURSE <---
    Scott Grubbs (Aug 10th 2012 8:04 am)
    But don't delay, there is a limited number of seats and registration is required... Be safe, - Scott


    Database 2012 Coalition Members
    Steven Swiech (Aug 10th 2012 7:59 am)


    Calendar event Crawford County COA S.A.F.E. Series: Emergency Preparedness
    Gary Rapelje (Aug 10th 2012 7:42 am)
    Presentation on emergency preparedness for families, older adults and pets. This discussion will include putting together a disaster kit(s), making a plan, staying informed and lastly being involved. The kit or kits will be used to live on for up to 72 hours when more organized aide can arrive. The plan will cover what to do in different types of emergency situations. Being informed is staying current on what is happening in your area. For being involved I will just briefly list some volunteer organizations that train people to help in emergencies or disasters.


    Calendar event Proclamation - National Preparedness Month
    Don Rawson - City of Escondido (Aug 9th 2012 6:41 pm)
    Mayor Sam Abed of The City of Escondido will issue an official proclamation declaring September 2012 as National Preparedness Month. The Mayor will encourage all citizens to take preparedness measures before, during, and after a major emergency.


    Calendar event FTB Emergency Preparedness Campaign
    Uschi Turner - California Franchise Tax Board (Aug 9th 2012 6:32 pm)
    Articles on our internal net every week on a variety of emergency preparedness topics, posters will be displayed at each entrance the entire month, and preparedness brochures will be available at each entrance all month.


    Calendar event CERT teams join in community dril.
    jim Mallory (Aug 9th 2012 5:19 pm)
    Several Richmond, CA CERT teams have organized a exercise to test their Incicdnt. Command, communications and patient triage and transport capabiliyies


    Calendar event Community READY & Safety Fair
    robert strojek - community covenant church (Aug 9th 2012 4:53 pm)
    BE READY with displays of preparenes items


    Calendar event Disaster Fair - City of Auburn, WA
    Public Education Garrand (Aug 9th 2012 3:14 pm)
    This event is an exciting afternoon of adventure and education for the whole family featuring disaster preparedness information, ideas, and supplies.


    Calendar event Youth Preparedness Council 2012
    NPM Team - FEMA (Aug 9th 2012 3:01 pm)


    Calendar event The Issaquah Salmon Days Festival 2012
    Public Education Garrand (Aug 9th 2012 3:00 pm)
    Welcome to the Pacific Northwest's most-beloved, family-friendly, award-winning and fishiest festival around! We've got lots of activities, arts and crafts, music, food, friends and excitement. State Emergency Management Staff will be hosting a booth along with Radio Disney to promote the October 18, Great Washington ShakeOut.


    Calendar event Washington State Emergency Manager's Association (WSEMA) Conference
    Public Education Garrand (Aug 9th 2012 2:54 pm)
    The Annual Conference is a wonderful time for emergency management professionals all over the State of Washington (and beyond) to network, share fresh ideas and exchange our business cards prior to responding together during emergency events.


    Calendar event Renton Biz Tech Fair
    Public Education Garrand (Aug 9th 2012 2:47 pm)
    Renton Technical College will host the 2012 Washington Small Business Fair. One Day, One Place learn what you need to run a business. State emergency management staff will host a booth to provide business with information and tools to help them prepare their business and their employees survive disasters. What to do - before, during & after.


    Calendar event WA State Dept of Labor & Industries Preparedness Event
    Public Education Garrand (Aug 9th 2012 2:11 pm)
    L & I will be hosting an emergency preparedness event. Booths will provide disaster, health and other information to L&I staff members


    Calendar event Washjam
    Public Education Garrand (Aug 9th 2012 1:45 pm)
    At the third Washington State Jamboree, over 6,000 Cubs, Scouts, and Venturers will experience camping with Scouts from all over Washington, Oregon, Idaho and British Columbia, and even Texas & Utah!. Local and State Emergency Management staff will host a booth providing disaster preparedness information and activities to the attendees.


    Calendar event PETE 3P2P Train-the-Trainer
    Public Education Garrand (Aug 9th 2012 1:36 pm)
    The Community College Citizen Preparedness Program is offering to tribal members and other interested parties this training that includes an overview of local, state, and federal program, 15 national planning scenarios, NIMS, FEMA's IS-22 course and other related topics.


    Actions


    Clamping down on ‘accidents’

    First Published Aug 10 2012 01:01 am • Last Updated Aug 10 2012 01:01 am

    Utah’s pollution-regulation agency was right to move ahead with a new rule that says industries that do more polluting than their permits allow will be penalized unless they can prove they somehow were not at fault. A federal court says so.

    The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver last week refused to review a federal Environmental Protection Agency regulation that the Utah Department of Environmental Quality adopted last month. US Magnesium, a mining and mineral-processing operation southwest of the Great Salt Lake, argued that the EPA hadn’t followed proper procedure when it adopted the tougher rule, but the court wisely found that argument sadly lacking.

    The whole issue of Utah’s lax anti-pollution regulations governing accidental releases originally landed in court when an environmental group, WildEarth Guardians, labeled the state’s industry-friendly "unavoidable breakdown rule" a "loophole" and filed suit.

    The 30-year-old state regulation assumed a company was innocent until proven guilty of negligence when an accident or breakdown occurred. EPA changed its policy in 1999 to hold companies accountable for excess pollution, and Utah came up with a tighter state rule only after the EPA threatened to take over part of Utah’s air-quality program.

    Still, despite objections from big polluters and the US Magnesium lawsuit, the state DEQ commendably moved forward with the updated rule to coincide with the EPA’s.

    If this is, indeed, the end of the drawn-out legal wrangling over this issue, as it appears, Utah’s 1,200 biggest polluters will finally have to do more to prevent breakdowns that temporarily spew even more chemicals into the air than usual. That is welcome news for the thousands of Utahns who struggle to breathe during summertime heavy-ozone days and winter inversions.

    Industries that are allowed to do a certain amount of polluting will no longer be able to simply apologize for "accidents," fill out a report and merrily go along without making substantial changes to the way they operate.

    Now the state can, and should, issue a Clean Air Act citation with fines hefty enough to motivate those businesses to make changes, even expensive changes if necessary, to avoid future penalties.

    The state agency charged with protecting the environment, and the health of people living in it, should never allow a company of any size to get away with needlessly poisoning the Beehive State’s air with virtual impunity.


    Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 03:00 PM PDT

    Drink It In -- Big Wins for Clean Water

    by Mary Anne Hitt

    Imagine you were facing a life-threatening illness, and your doctor told you this: "You need to move or you will never survive this stuff."

    That is exactly what happened to West Virginia resident Debbie Havens, who lives near the infamous Little Blue Run coal ash dump. But Debbie didn't move, and after fighting pollution from the site for decades, she and her neighbors got some unbelievable news last week -- FirstEnergy, the utility that operates the site, is going to shut it down.

    That is just one of the many inspiring successes that made headlines last week, and they all have one thing in common -- they all happened due to the courage, persistence, and determination of committed volunteers and local residents. From West Virginia, to Pennsylvania, to Illinois, last week saw pivotal victories in our fight for clean water and healthy families.

    Good news for West Virginians and Pennsylvanians came when FirstEnergy Corp. agreed to close its Little Blue Run coal ash site, one of the nation's largest and most controversial. The 1,700-acre unlined wet dump for coal ash coming from FirstEnergy's Bruce Mansfield power plant straddles the border between West Virginia and Pennsylvania. It contributes a toxic cocktail of arsenic and selenium pollution to nearby ground and surface water.

    The coal ash dump is visible from space, exuding an eerie bright blue color. In the past, the Sierra Club has profiled West Virginians who live near the dump,including Debbie Havens. Havens' husband had his thyroid removed several years ago after being diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and in 2010, Havens developed a thyroid nodule. With no family history of thyroid problems, the Havens' endocrinologist assessed that environmental exposure was the cause, and told her, "You need to move or you will never survive this stuff."

    Unfortunately, the Havens' experience is not unique. For those living near unlined coal ash dumps like Little Blue Run, the risk of cancer can be as high as 1 in 50. And this statistic only takes into account the risk of cancer from exposure to arsenic in drinking water -- not any of the other poisonous pollutants like lead, mercury, and selenium.

    Given this level of toxicity, it's no surprise that local groups cheered Pennsylvania officials for stepping in and protecting local water sources by ordering the closure of the Little Blue Run coal ash dump. FirstEnergy is required to begin closure plans for an eventual 2016 shutdown of the site. Unfortunately, the company wants to build another coal ash dump to replace Little Blue Run. Though the company claims that the new coal ash dump will be double-lined and "state of the art," many residents oppose it.

    While the closure of the Little Blue Run site will bring some peace of mind to families worried about pollution, and to those who have dealt with it firsthand like Havens, it is important to hold FirstEnergy accountable for cleaning up the mess it has already made and to ensure that water is not jeopardized by future coal ash dumps.

    Meanwhile, in Illinois, volunteers and local residents banded together to protect their water quality and local wildlife from pollution from a proposed coal mine. Capital Resources Development Co. had wanted to operate a 600-acre surface mine near the 150-person town of Banner and the Rice Lake State Fish and Wildlife Area.

    In a decisive victory for the residents of Banner and local wildlife, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources denied the mine's permit application last week. Among other concerns, the mine would have threatened nesting ospreys, bald eagles, and short-eared owls.

    As Mayor Ken Fuller puts it, "Banner could have lost its wells and water if the coal mine had happened… My town could have died."


    ATLaw - The Daily Report's blog about Georgia law, business and politics'

    Former bank president receives 12 years in prison


    10:54 am, August 10th, 2012

    A federal judge in Atlanta has sentenced the former president of the FirstCity Bank of Stockbridge to 12 years in prison for his role in a multi-million-dollar conspiracy that contributed to the bank’s collapse, the U.S. attorney of the Northern District of Georgia announced today.

    U.S. District Judge Steve Jones also banned former bank president Mark Conner from the banking industry for life and ordered him to pay $19.5 million in restitution to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. which took control of the bank when it collapsed March 2009, according to U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates and court documents associated with Conner’s prosecution.  Conner also civilly forfeited $1.7 million in cash and interests in multiple properties in Georgia and Virginia collectively worth more than $5 million, federal prosecutors said.

    “Our state, which leads the nation in bank failures, is still recovering from a banking crisis of epic proportions,” Yates said after Conner was sentenced. “These failures have a ripple effect in every workplace and household in the state. This sentence should serve as a warning that regardless of your position or the complexity of your scheme, bank officers and directors who place FDIC-insured funds at risk through fraud and self-dealing will be brought to justice.”

    Last October, Conner pleaded guilty to a charge that he had conspired with the bank’s former attorney and a former loan officer to  routinely mislead federal and state bank regulators to conceal a scheme in which he reaped more than $7 million, federal prosecutors said.

    According to Christy Romero, acting special inspector general for the federal Troubled Asset Relief Program, Conner – beginning in 2004 – directed the bank to make loans to buy land that he owned and caused the bank to fund draws on construction and development loans from which he personally benefited. “As the real estate market declined,” Romero said, “Conner schemed to take foreclosed properties off the bank’s books through sales to straw purchasers, concealing that the bank funded the purchases.”

    According to federal authorities, Conner and his co-conspirators misrepresented the nature, terms and underlying purpose of the loans they directed the bank to authorize and falsified documents and information presented to the bank’s loan committee and the bank board of directors.  Conner and his co-conspirators also persuaded at least 10 other banks to invest in the fraudulent loans and shifted all or part of the risk to other banks, prosecutors said.

    Conner also pleaded guilty to a perjury charge in connection with a bankruptcy petition that he filed in January 2011 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Georgia, prosecutors said.

    According to prosecutors, Conner claimed in his bankruptcy petition that he had just over $3,000 in cash and no unencumbered real estate holdings and later testified at a bankruptcy hearing that he was “down to less than nothing,” prosecutors said, when Conner had more than $545,000 in off-shore bank accounts through which he had made more than $4 million in loans, which he also had failed to disclose.

    Conner, 46, formerly of Canton, was arrested at by federal agents at Miami International Airport in March 2011 after he debarked from a flight from the West Indies.


    Four Federal Questions:
    Where do you think you are? Who do you think you know? Why do you think you know what to do? What do you think that you want to be when you grow up?


    An Environmental Justice Advocate!


         The Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its statutory authority in issuing a "Final Guidance" when under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the Department of the Interior can delegate its authority to issue permits for discharging water from mining projects to state agencies.
     
         In 2010 and 2011 the EPA released an interim and then final guidance memo to its field offices suggesting that applications for permits for water discharges that did not include conductivity tests to measure the salinity of the discharge, and of the water into which the discharge would flow, should be denied.
         The act provides a limited role for the EPA in reviewing state permitting programs for compliance with water quality standards in the Clean Water Act. "The SMCRA grants to the EPA only the ability to comment on and provide its written concurrence prior to the Secretary's approval of a state SMCRA permitting program. In other words, once the EPA has given its assent to approve a state SMCRA permitting program, the SMCRA affords it no further authority in the oversight or administration of the SMCRA regime." and the EPA's "virtual moratorium on mining permits and the agency's usurpation of the Secretary of the Interior's and the states' permitting authority under the act."  District Court Judge Reggie Walton agreed. Judge Walton agreed the SMCRA "unambiguously limits the EPA's authority" to comment and concurrence on state plans before the secretary of the Interior delegates permitting authority.
         He also agreed that the EPA's actions were not justified by the CWA or it own regulations.
         "As written, the regulation does not mandate when the state permitting authority must conduct its analysis of the discharge's impact on the water quality standard," Walton said.
         Walton found that the fact that the regulations were written in both present and future tense "belies the defendants assertion that the CWA ... require[s] a pre-issuance reasonable potential analysis."
         In the final guidance the EPA presumed that all discharges from coal mining operations would be likely to violate state water standards and that conductivity tests to determine salinity would be instructive- hence the virtual moratorium on permit approvals.
         Judge Walton said "by presuming anything with regard to the reasonable potential analysis the EPA has effectively removed the determination from the state authority."
         And there can be no question that a plain reading of the regulation leaves that determination, and the decision as to when it must be made, solely to state permitting authorities," Walton said.
         While the EPA was free to change the regulations through the normal rulemaking process to require a reasonable potential analysis before state's issue a permit, until it did so the "recommendation" in the final guidance had no support in the Clean Water Act Walton concluded. 

    "The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people."
    Judging the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is "the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform." Blodgett v. Holden. The Court will not shrink from its duty "as the bulwark of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments," The Federalist No. 78
    we are now a very different Nation," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, adding that continued enforcement "must be justified by current needs."


    Chief Justice John Roberts
    called it "a gun to the head"

    The EPA's threat of "a construction moratorium is no less 'a gun to the head' than Congress's threat to terminate Medicaid funding," Mark DeLaquil, an attorney at the firm Baker Hostetler, which represents Texas, wrote in a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    Texas, Wyoming and industry groups have sued the EPA over its decision to seize permitting authority for greenhouse gas emissions after finding the states' plans to be inadequate. The federal agency has said large industrial sources of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases cannot be built or expanded without the permits.

    The case, which has yet to be argued in the appeals court, is the first attempt to use the high court's health care ruling to weaken environmental law.

    Distinction drawn

    Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:57 AM PDT

    Go fly a kite.

    Global Wind Day

    Indoctrinate a child into a global cult.

    by RLMiller

    kids flying kitesFriday, June 15 is Global Wind Day - a day to discover wind and its power to change the world. How better to celebrate the wind than to watch a kite dance on a breezy shoreline?

    Unless you're of the Americans For Prosperity, New Jersey mindset. In that case, Global Wind Day is an effort by global environmentalists connected with the radical Party of European Socialists to indoctrinate and manipulate innocent children as props to advance their radical “renewable” energy schemes.

    Really.

    Because everyone knows that indoctrination starts with children flying kites.

    The Sierra Club of New Jersey decided to gather on the beach at Ocean City and Asbury Park, bring kids and kites, and let everyone have fun. However, if you're paid by  the Koch brothers, "fun" is merely a code word meaning "brainwash kids and then use them as props and human shields in their quest to foist their European-style, anti-free-market, globalist ‘green’ agenda on the world."

    Consider similarities between kids and kites:

    Kites and children have so much in common. For one thing, there's their beauty. Both are inherently gorgeous. For another, both are capable of soaring, one physically, the other spiritually.
    Of course, "soaring" is merely slang for "a cult-like movement to force taxpayers to provide massive subsidies for on land, and the even more costly, offshore wind mills," per the ever zealous AFP.

    Yes, Americans For Prosperity is now sinking to Westboro Baptist Church levels, protesting children flying kites at the beach. The Orwellian-named Liberty and Prosperity is already planning the resistance against the "ignorance, dishonesty, tyranny, and corruption" of an invading mass of kite-armed children:

    We want to teach the truth. Can you join us on the Ocean City Boardwalk this Friday at noon?  We need at least 20 people to (a) distribute literature, (b) display signs like “Enough Green Tyranny”, “Wind Energy = High Electric Bills”,  “Veto RGGI Now!”, (c) display our symbolic wooden pikes draped with red liberty caps. Can you make a sign? Can you get a 4 foot to 6 foot pole (from any lumber store) along with a red  “liberty” cap?
    A side note: using the same logic allowing one to conclude that kite flying constitutes environmental indoctrination, the Liberty and Prosperity authors want it to be known that they're not being paid by the Koch brothers, but they are working closely with Americans For Prosperity. Which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with the Koch brothers, beyond its very existence.

    Of course, Americans For Prosperity's real sleazy aim is for the politicization of wind: these protests will scare off children and their skittish parents from appreciating the wind at their backs. The kids need support. If you're in New Jersey, go to the beach:

    June 15th is Global Wind Day and we need your help to get Governor Christie to move offshore wind forward. We'll be gathering at a beach near you for a kite-flying rally and celebration of NJ's offshore wind potential. Bring your family, friends and kites.  

    FREE kites to everyone who signs up online!

    WHO: You, your friends and family

    WHAT: Get Wind Em-Powered Kite Rally

    WHEN: June 15th at 12 noon

    WHERE: A beach near you

    Ocean City -- 10th Street Beach
    Asbury Park -- Asbury and Ocean Avenue Beach Entrance

    Bring your camera. You might be lucky enough to photograph a teabagger ensuring that kite-flying children grow up in an ever-warming world gone haywire. Or a well organized army of kite-wielding children scaring off hopelessly mismatched lobbyists.

    Go fly a kite!

    Originally posted to Climate Hawks on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:57 AM PDT.


    Pharma giants fail drugs test [Daily Mail, London]

    By Roger Baird, Daily Mail, London McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

    Aug. 09--BOTH AstraZeneca and its smaller partner BTG took a hit in the markets after announcing the failure of a key drug they were jointly testing. The need to refresh its pipeline with new drugs is pressing for both AstraZeneca and BTG alike. (refer to brief joint relief).


    Corporate Breakups: The Hot New Growth Strategy

    Breakups are not a solution to every problem—but for many corporations today, the sum of the parts may be worth more than the whole.

    (How holistic can you get. -ed.)

    Event
    I/UCRC: Center for Resource Recovery & Recycling (CR3) IAB Meeting

    October 3, 2012 7:30 AM  to 
    October 4, 2012 4:00 PM
    KU Leuven Campus; Heverlee, Belgium

    Katolieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium This is a bi-annual meeting of the industry advisory board and center members to assess ongoing research and set priorities for new research direction.  Guests interested in membership are welcome to attend if they sign a non-disclosure agreement.

    Agenda, logistics, and registration information are posted on the CR3 website: http://www.wpi.edu/academics/Research/CR3/meetings.html

    Meeting Type
    Partnership Meeting

    Contacts
    Carol Garofoli, (508) 831-5592

    NSF Related Organizations
    Industrial Innovation and Partnerships


    Event
    Center for Excellence in Logistics and Distribution (CELDi) Fall IAB Meeting


    November 7, 2012 2:00 PM  to 
    November 8, 2012 2:00 PM
    Sheraton DFW Airport Hotel; Irving, TX

    This is a bi-annual meeting of the industry advisory board and center members to assess ongoing research and set priorities for new research and directions.  Visitors interested in membership are welcome if they are willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement.


    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITIES (TASC) CONTRACT
    U.S. EPA, Office of Acquisition Management, Washington DC.
    Federal Business Opportunities, FBO-3893, Solicitation SOL-HQ-12-00004, 2012

    U.S. EPA is issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI). This RFP is being issued as a total small business set aside and is open to all small business socioeconomic classifications. The primary purpose of this contract will be to provide technical assistance services in the following areas: information assistance and expertise, community education, technical assistance needs assessment and plan development, and community infrastructure support as described the performance work statement, which is posted at www.epa.gov/oamsrpod/ersc/TASC/index.htm. EPA intends to issue a single award contract—fixed-rate, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity—with cost-reimbursable elements. The anticipated period of performance includes a 24-month base period, one 12-month option period, one 24-month option period, and one 24-month award-term incentive period for a potential maximum period of performance of 84 months. Offers are due by August 20, 2012. https://www.fbo.gov/spg/EPA/OAM/HQ/SOL-HQ-12-00004/listing.html

    TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS: AN EPA ROADMAP
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Finance. EPA 190-S-12-003, 5 pp, Apr 2012

    EPA has developed the Roadmap to help guide its efforts with both internal and external stakeholders in the implementation of specific strategies to meet the new challenges and opportunities posed by Presidential executive order, Presidential Memorandum, Presidential Strategy, Presidential Initiative, and recent legislation. EPA's vision is expressed as follows: The EPA will promote innovation that eliminates or significantly reduces the use of toxic substances and exposure to pollutants in the environment and that also promotes growth of the American economy. Building upon the EPA's history of scientific and technological expertise, the Agency will seek out prospective technological advances that have the greatest potential to achieve multiple environmental goals. Consistent with its statutory and regulatory authorities, the EPA will partner with a diverse set of new and existing stakeholders to speed the design, development and deployment of the next generation of environmental technologies, creating a cleaner environment and a stronger economy for our nation and the world. Working with new and existing partners and stakeholders, EPA will seek tangible, outcome-oriented opportunities to catalyze and support technology innovation across the range of the Agency's work. www.epa.gov/envirofinance/EPATechRoadmap.pdf


    NOT-FOR-PROFIT AMD RECLAMATION
    Office of Surface Mining, Funding Opportunity S13AS00003, 15Jun 2012

    This funding opportunity is advertised to assist local organizations, especially watershed groups, to begin actual construction projects to improve the water quality of streams affected by acid mine drainage. Lands and water eligible for reclamation or drainage abatement expenditures under Section 404 of Public Law 95-87 are those that were mined for coal or which were affected by such mining, wastebanks, coal processing, or other coal mining processes, except as provided for under Section 411 of Public Law 95-87, prior to August 3, 1977, and for which there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under state or other federal laws. Eligible applicants are nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS other than institutions of higher education. Expected Number of Awards: 15. Estimated Total Program Funding: $2,000,000. Award Ceiling: $100,000. Award Floor: $5,000. The closing date for this opportunity is October 1, 2012. Applications will be accepted throughout the fiscal year. www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=176873

    EPA ANNOUNCES $69.3 MILLION TO CLEAN UP CONTAMINATED SITES AND REVITALIZE COMMUNITIES
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Superfund & Brownfields News Release, 24 May 2012

    EPA has announced $69.3 million in grants for new investments to provide communities with funding necessary to clean up and redevelop contaminated properties, boost local economies, and create jobs while protecting public health. The 245 grantees include tribes and communities in 39 states across the country, funded by EPA's Brownfields Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund, and Revolving Loan Fund Supplemental grants. The grants awarded will assess and clean up abandoned industrial and commercial properties. Nearly half of the grantees this year are new awardees who demonstrate a high level of commitment for undertaking specific projects and leveraging the funding to move those projects forward. Approximately 29% of the grants are being awarded to non-urban areas with populations of 100,000 or less, 16% are being awarded to "micro" communities with populations of 10,000 or less, and the remaining grants are being awarded to urban areas with populations exceeding 100,000. There are an estimated 450,000 abandoned and contaminated waste sites in America. In 2011, EPA's Brownfields Program leveraged 6,447 jobs and $2.14 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funds. Since the program's inception, EPA's brownfields investments have leveraged more than $18.3 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding from a variety of public and private sources and have resulted in ~75,500 jobs. More than 18,000 properties have been assessed, and over 700 properties have been cleaned up. Brownfields grants also target under-served and low income neighborhoods—places where environmental cleanups and new jobs are most needed. See the list of all awarded brownfields grants by state: http://cfpub.epa.gov/bf_factsheets/. More information on EPA's brownfields program: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/.

    BIOCHEMICAL REACTOR CONSTRUCTION AND MINE POOL CHEMISTRY CHANGES, GOLINSKY MINE, CALIFORNIA
    Gusek, J., J. Kelsey, R. Schipper, and B. Shipley.
    2011 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Bismarck, ND, June 11-16, 2011. ASMR, Lexington, KY. 253-268, 2011

    In early 2010, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds were available to implement the "shovel-ready" design package for a biochemical reactor (BCR) module planned for the abandoned Golinsky Mine site in northern California. The construction site, located near Lake Shasta, is only accessible by boat, followed by a 1-mile trip on a narrow dirt road. During construction, this restricted site access was further complicated by the highest lake levels in years, which required the relocation of the construction contractor's mobilization site. The construction of the BCR within the footprint of an abandoned limestone quarry required a few minor design modifications, but the logistics of moving 1,000-plus tons of organic substrate, drainage gravel, HDPE liner, riprap, pipes, and construction equipment safely across Lake Shasta in a coordinated barge and ground transportation program was probably the greatest project accomplishment. In October 2010, supersacks of mixed rice hulls, wood chips, and limestone were proportioned and mixed with hay and placed in the Module 1 geomembrane-lined BCR. Subsequently, 6 cubic yards of composted manure and residual pilot BCR substrate were rototilled into the upper surface of substrate. The construction effort was essentially complete by late October 2010 at a cost of about $1.3 million. The advancement of this project from the first bench-scale investigations into the practicality of BCR in 2003 to the construction of a full-scale module in 2010 spanned seven years. http://www.asmr.us/Publications/Conference%20Proceedings/2011/0253-Gusek-CO-2.pdf


    Research
    FROM VEGETATED DITCHES TO RICE FIELDS: THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX FOR PESTICIDE MITIGATION
    Moore, M.T., R. Kroger, J.L. Farris, M.A. Locke, E.R. Bennett, D.L. Denton, and C.M. Cooper.
    Pesticide Mitigation Strategies for Surface Water Quality. American Chemical Society, ACS Symposium Series 1075, 29-37, 2011

    In agricultural areas, pesticides enter aquatic receiving waters through irrigation and storm runoff, spray drift, or even atmospheric deposition. Innovative mitigation strategies are needed to address pesticide contamination of surface waters. Management practices incorporating vegetation and phytoremediation have demonstrated success in reducing pesticide loads to rivers, lakes, and streams. This chapter focuses on vegetative management practices—constructed wetlands, drainage ditches, and rice fields—that have been studied in the intensively cultivated Mississippi Delta. Summaries of research results and field implementations are presented, as well as potential future directions for additional research. www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/person/3938/2012/MooreetalACSbk-2011-1075.pdf


    THE ROLE OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IN THE ELIMINATION OF POLLUTANTS
    Moore, M.T., R. Kroeger, and C.R. Jackson.
    Ecological Impacts of Toxic Chemicals. Bentham Science Publishers, Ltd. eISBN: 978-1-60805-121-2, Chapter 11:225-237, 2011

    Aquatic ecosystems possess unique capabilities that allow them to eliminate or remediate certain levels of pollutants. Primarily through the presence of vegetation, aquatic ecosystems are known to be capable of removing or at least decreasing pollutant loads travelling through the aqueous phase. In addition to vegetation, soil/sediment and microbes play a significant role in transferring or transforming pollutants to acceptable levels in aquatic ecosystems. This chapter focuses on some of the primary literature describing phytoremediation of organic pollutants (e.g., hydrocarbons and pesticides) and inorganic pollutants (e.g. metals and nutrients). Research indicates the popularity and success of phytoremediation techniques used to remove both organic and inorganic pollutants from the water column. www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/person/3938/2012/MooreKrogerJacksonBookChapter2011.pdf


    EFFECTS OF VEGETATION IN MITIGATING THE TOXICITY OF PESTICIDE MIXTURES IN SEDIMENTS OF A WETLAND MESOCOSM
    Lizotte Jr, R.E., M.T. Moore, M.A. Locke, and R. Kroger.
    Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, Vol 220 No 1, 69-79, 2011

    Investigators measured sediment pesticide effects on an aquatic invertebrate animal, Hyalella azteca, living in and on contaminated sediment. The study took place in a divided constructed wetland, one half with plants and one half without plants, to investigate how well this wetland with or without plants could decrease the effects of two pesticides, diazinon and permethrin, on aquatic animals. The study showed that plants performed more effectively in decreasing the effects of pesticides in sediment within the first 5 hours. Results also showed that a water-retention time of 21 days in the subject constructed wetland was needed to remediate sediment toxicity. These results are potentially of interest to regulatory and other agencies and the pesticide industry by providing additional information to improve and sustain river, stream, and lake water quality using constructed wetlands as an effective conservation practice. http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/50020/PDF


    EFFECT OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED POPLARS ON SOIL MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES DURING THE PHYTOREMEDIATION OF WASTE MINE TAILINGS
    Hur, M., Y. Kim, H.-R. Song, J.M. Kim, Y.I. Choi, and H. Yi.
    Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol 77 No 21, 7611-7619, 2011

    The application of transgenic plants to clean up areas affected by waste associated with heavy metal mining is a promising method for removing metal pollutants from soils; however, the effect of using genetically modified organisms for phytoremediation is a poorly researched topic in terms of microbial community structures, despite the important role of microorganisms in the health of soil. In this study, a comparative analysis of the bacterial and archaeal communities found in the rhizosphere of genetically modified (GM) versus wild-type (WT) poplar was conducted on trees at different growth stages (i.e., the rhizospheres of 1.5-, 2.5-and 3-year-old poplars) that were cultivated on contaminated soil alongside unplanted control soil. Based on the results of DNA pyrosequencing, poplar type and growth stages were associated with directional changes in the structure of the microbial community. The rate of change was faster in GM poplars than in WT poplars, but the microbial communities were identical in the 3-year-old poplars. This phenomenon may arise because of a higher rate and greater extent of metal accumulation in GM poplars than in naturally occurring plants, which resulted in greater changes in soil environments and hence the microbial habitat. http://aem.asm.org/content/77/21/7611.full?sid=e38f3b48-2f64-4db4-a475-51c91d90ae8c

    MUNICIPAL BIOSOLIDS
    Sepulvado, J.G., A.C. Blaine, L.S. Hundal, and C.P. Higgins.
    Environmental Science & Technology, Vol 45 No 19, 8106-8112, 2011

    A study was conducted to investigate the occurrence and fate of perfluorochemicals (PFCs), emerging contaminants of concern, from land-applied municipal biosolids. Investigators evaluated the levels, mass balance, desorption, and transport of PFCs in soil receiving biosolids application at various loading rates. The study is the first to report levels of PFCs in agricultural soils amended with typical municipal biosolids. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) was the dominant PFC in both biosolids (80 to 219 ng/g) and biosolids-amended soil (2 to 483 ng/g). Concentrations of all PFCs in soil increased linearly with increasing biosolids loading rate. These data were used to develop a model for predicting PFC concentrations in soil amended with typical municipal biosolids using cumulative biosolids loading rates. Mass balance calculations comparing PFCs applied versus those recovered in the surface soil interval indicated the potential transformation of PFC precursors. Lab desorption experiments indicated that the leaching potential of PFC decreases with increasing chain length and that previously derived organic-carbon normalized partition coefficients may not be accurate predictors of the desorption of long-chain PFCs from biosolids-amended soils. Trace levels of PFCs were also detected in soil cores from biosolids-amended soils to depths of 120 cm, suggesting potential movement of these compounds within the soil profile over time and confirming the higher transport potential for short-chain PFCs in soils amended with municipal biosolids. http://www.sludgenews.org/resources/documents/Jennifer_G._Sepulvado_et_al._PFCs.pdf


    RECENT TECHNOLOGY ON BIO-REMEDIATION OF POPS AND PERSISTENT PESTICIDES
    Takagi, K., R. Kataoka, and K. Yamazaki.
    JARQ: Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, Vol 45 No 2, 129-136, 2011

    After isolating Nocardioides sp. PD653 and Mucor sp. DDF from contaminated soil as degraders of HCB and dieldrin, respectively, the authors devised an approach for introducing these organochlorine pesticide-degrading bacteria into contaminated media. They developed a soil-charcoal perfusion method using special charcoal (Charcoal A100) as a microhabitat and adsorbent of organic chemicals. The Charcoal A100 is enriched with a degrading bacterial consortium as a new material for bioremediation. This technology was applied successfully to the degradation of simazine in soil and aquatic environments by layering Charcoal A100 enriched with a simazine-degrading bacterial consortium (CD7) under the subsoil of contaminated sites. The material was effective for preventing penetration of simazine into subsoils and nearby aquatic environments for approximately two years. http://www.jircas.affrc.go.jp/english/publication/jarq/45-2/45-02-01.pdf



    ACID MINE DRAINAGE AT ORE KNOB TAILINGS PILE: HYDROLOGIC AND GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION AND BIOREMEDIATION
    Behrooz, Seyedeh Mehrnoosh, Ph.D. dissertation, North Carolina State University, 124 pp, 2012

    A 20-month in situ pilot test was conducted to evaluate the surface application of waste glycerol (WG) to reduce release of acid mine drainage (AMD) constituents from mine tailings. Beneficial characteristics of the WG include high aqueous solubility, high organic content, and high alkalinity. Four columns packed with fine-grained sulfide-rich tailings were incubated in the field under ambient temperature and precipitation conditions. The columns were periodically pumped to maintain an unsaturated condition. In the two replicate untreated control columns, diffusion of oxygen into the tailings resulted in large increases in dissolved Fe, sulfate, Mn, Mg, Al, Zn, and hydrogen peroxide acidity with an associated drop in pH. In the two replicate treated columns, WG was blended into the top 0.18 m of tailings seven months after the columns were established, resulting in large reductions in Fe, sulfate, hydrogen peroxide acidity, Al, Cu, and Mn. Observed pollutant reductions resulted from a combination of (1) neutralization of acidity by the potassium hydroxide present in the WG, (2) reduction of sulfate to hydrogen sulfide with subsequent precipitation of dissolved metals, and (potentially) (3) consumption of oxygen, slowing oxidation of the tailings. http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/handle/1840.16/7781


    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF IN SITU GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION WITH REDUCED IRON REACTIVE MEDIA

    Higgins, Monica R., Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 164 pp, 2011

    This project sought to answer key questions for determination of the environmental impact of permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) that contain reduced-iron reactive media. A life-cycle assessment comparative study of the environmental sustainability of a pump-and-treat-system and a PRB was conducted based on 30 years of treatment, allowing for the quantification of environmental impacts (potentials for global warming, acidification, eutrophication, ozone depletion, and smog formation as well as human health effect), determination of the environmentally preferable technology, and identification of materials and processes that most influence the sustainability of each technology. The project also encompassed an investigation of the local environmental impacts (i.e., toxicity to microorganisms) of in situ remediation with reduced-iron reactive media. This work was conducted in two parts to investigate (1) the effect of zero-valent iron (ZVI) nanoparticles and dissolved ferrous iron on bacterial cultures growing under anaerobic conditions, including the effect of nZVI age, and (2) the effect of iron sulfide nanoparticles and dissolved sulfide on bacterial growth, including the dissolution of FeS in the microbial growth medium. Equilibrium speciation modeling provided insight into the chemical changes in the presence of nZVI and the aqueous species responsible for observed effects. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/89676/1/mrhig_1.pdf


    TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: RECOVERY OF NUTRIENTS FROM WASTEWATER FILTRATION AND THE WASHING OF ARSENIC CONTAMINATED SOILS
    Amofah, Lea Rastas, Ph.D. thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden. ISBN 978-91-7439-389-7, 242 pp, 2012

    In this thesis project, laboratory, pilot-scale, and full-scale investigations were conducted to study phosphorus (P) sorption in blast furnace slag (BF slag) filters. A full-scale wastewater treatment system comprising a willow bed followed by two parallel P-filters with BF slag and Filtralite® P media was examined for wastewater treatment efficiency, nutrient accumulation in willow biomass, and biomass production. The willow bed efficiently reduced the content of total suspended solids and biodegradable organic matter in the influent wastewater and prevented the clogging of downstream phosphorus filters during one year of operation. The Filtralite® P treatment train simultaneously removed over 90% of BOD and 70% of P during the experimental period, whereas the coarse-grained BF slag used in the treatment system was inefficient in retaining P, and the concentrations of oxygen-consuming compounds were elevated downstream of the filter. Additionally, laboratory, pilot-scale, and full-scale investigations were conducted to examine arsenic (As) removal from soil using physical separation and chemical extraction (i.e., soil washing). Arsenic mobilization from contaminated soil was affected by pH, the content of organic substances, and redox potential. The nature of these effects depended on contaminant type (i.e., wood preservatives) and the soil calcium content. Extractions at elevated temperatures facilitated high As mobilization from contaminated soil at short contact times. The fastest As mobilization was achieved by using an acid oxalate citrate solution rather than reductive or alkaline extraction solutions at room temperature. Soil treatment, comprising the exclusion of the fine soil fraction prior to chemical extraction applied at an elevated temperature, was efficient in decontaminating soils, even for short contact times; however, the recovered mass of soil after decontamination is appreciably smaller than the soil mass prior to decontamination, and the process consumes a high amount of energy and lowers the soil quality, which limits the potential end use of the decontaminated soil. The alkaline extraction effluents could be decontaminated at a pH of 4 to 5 with the addition of a coagulant, a process facilitated by the exclusion of the fine soil fraction from the chemical extraction step. http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/36285392/doktorsavhandling.pdf

    THE GLOBAL ACID ROCK DRAINAGE GUIDE
    INAP: The International Network for Acid Prevention, 2012

    Research into the process of acid rock drainage (ARD) formation and methods to minimize its impact has been conducted for over 50 years. A considerable volume of scientific and engineering guidance is available on ARD, but the research is in disparate references, not easily accessible, and tends to be issue, commodity, or geographically centric. INAP and the Global Alliance have undertaken to consolidate the information and produce an up-to-date guide that will be global in scope—a practical reference on best practice rather than a literature or research summary. The Global Acid Rock Drainage Guide (the GARD guide) was created through the contributions of many individuals and organizations. A team lead by Golder Associates prepared the initial draft. The GARD Guide is a technical document designed primarily for a scientist or engineer with a reasonable background in chemistry and the basics of engineering, with little specific knowledge of ARD. The principal user will typically be an employee of the mining industry, regulatory agency, research organization, non-governmental organization, or consulting company. A compendium of the concepts, techniques, and processes, the GARD Guide has been prepared as a road map through the process of evaluating, planning, design, and management of ARD over the lifecycle of mining. It provides a broad but not highly detailed understanding of ARD technologies and management. The guide also gives references to identify more detailed information on ARD for those looking for specifics on ARD technologies and approaches. Initiated in 2009, the GARD Guide is still a work in progress. The GARD website provides for reader input, and comments are welcome. http://www.gardguide.com/index.php/Main_Page


    GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR THE REVEGETATION OF LAND CONTAMINATED BY METAL(LOIDS)
    Kopittke, P.M., F.P.C. Blamey, and N.W. Menzies.
    CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Adelaide, Australia: CRC CARE Technical Report No. 20, 53 pp, Mar 2012

    Successful implementation of a revegetation system in an area affected by metals (e.g., a mining site) requires a true multi-disciplinary effort, with collaboration between soil scientists, agronomists, hydrologists, ecotoxicologists, and economists. The overall revegetation process can be separated into three broad steps: (1) assessment of soil contamination; (2) remediation; and (3) revegetation/plant selection. Although all three steps are considered in this report, emphasis is placed on the first and last steps. This document provides a brief review of current knowledge, with a particular emphasis on Australian plants and landscapes. http://www.crccare.com/publications/downloads/CRC-CARE-Tech-Report-20.pdf


    SAMPLING STRATEGIES FOR BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER ECOSYSTEMS
    Hose, G.C. and M.J. Lategan.
    CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Adelaide, Australia: CRC CARE Technical Report No. 21, 32 pp, Apr 2012

    The biota of an ecosystem consist of two major components: the microbes (including bacteria and fungi), and the larger, mostly crustacean macro- and meiofauna (stygofauna). Accordingly, groundwater ecosystems are very different from surface water ecosystems and so require different strategies for their biological assessment. Sampling of stygofauna generally is conducted by means of pumps, nets, or traps, with the choice of method often having little impact on the variety of animals collected but some influence on abundance. The authors recommend sampling multiple bores on multiple occasions at a location for adequate assessment of stygofauna diversity. Field experience indicates that samples from multiple bores on a single occasion, or from a single bore on multiple occasions, will not assess stygofauna diversity adequately: at least five sampling locations and five sampling events may be required. Microbial assemblages can be assessed by a variety of means including molecular or metabolic fingerprinting, direct measurement of biomass, and microbial enzyme activity. Irrespective of the method chosen, repeat temporal and spatial sampling should be undertaken. While measures of microbial activity at relatively undisturbed sites may be variable over time, the effects of disturbance to an aquifer can cause a large and readily detectable shift in microbial activity, greatly exceeding the spatial and temporal variability among undisturbed sites. Assessments of aquifer ecosystems in the context of environmental impact assessment call for examination of both microbes and stygofauna, reflecting the major biotic components of the ecosystem. Multiple samples over space and time are necessary, with the exact level of replication and sampling effort ideally determined by site-specific studies. http://www.crccare.com/publications/downloads/Tech-Report-21.pdf


    ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS
    Sanchez-Bayo, F., P.J. van den Brink, and R.M. Mann (eds).
    Bentham Science Publishers, Ltd. eISBN: 978-1-60805-121-2, 281 pp, 2011

    The papers in this open-access text offer comprehensive coverage of chemical fate and effects in terrestrial and aquatic environments. The editors have brought together international input from experts for systematic coverage of this complex topic, from the source of organic and metal compounds, to their fate and impacts on land and in freshwater and marine ecosystems. The first two chapters introduce the theme of the book, covering the sources and mode of action of environmental contaminants and the toxicity of various common pollutant categories: mining wastes, sewage, and industrial and metropolitan discharges. The transport and fate of metal and organic pollutants in the environment is described from a modeler's perspective. The processes governing the movement of chemicals between air, land, and water are described, along with biological transformations, including degradation and bioaccumulation, which are essential to risk management. The following three chapters deal with terrestrial ecosystems. Chapter 3 explains how naturally occurring metals and metalloids can become contaminants when they bioaccumulate and result in sublethal to lethal effects on populations and food chains. The key metals of toxicological concern include arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, selenium and zinc. Application of agricultural pesticides (fungicides, insecticides and herbicides) can have a range of unintended adverse effects on non-target biota. Chapter 5 explores the forest industry's use of pesticides (herbicides and insecticides), with case examples of lab to field studies in risks attendant upon pest management. The final six chapters address the many issues of chemicals in marine and freshwater environments. All the chapters in full text are freely available at http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/contents.php?JCode=9781608051212.


    CLUSTER GUIDE
    Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE), ISBN: 978-1-905046-17-1, 50 pp, June 2012

    The Cluster methodology is designed to offer an alternative way of remediating multiple sites that are located in relatively close proximity and share a decontamination or treatment facility located on a single site—the Hub site. Cluster projects are temporary and operate only as long as the sites defined within the Cluster are being remediated or developed. They are also demonstrably appropriate for grouping in terms of geographical distance, relative savings, and practical issues for each of the participating sites. The Cluster methodology follows a different strategy than traditional standalone projects and can provide a more economical and sustainable approach. The guide identifies the key planning considerations required to set up a cluster project but should not be seen as a step-by-step guide to establishing and operating the project. CL:AIRE participants have completed a full-scale commercial cluster project involving four former gasworks in Northwest England. The methodology delivered economies of scale and savings that surpassed expectations and enabled the treatment and reuse of contaminated soil that that ordinarily would have been sent to landfill. Local stakeholders supported operation of the treatment hub and helped to answer questions related to planning: Which sites to include? How to engage the planning authorities? How to put workable contractual arrangements in place? CL:AIRE has compiled the lessons learned to share with the wider environmental sector. http://www.claire.co.uk/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=288:initiatives&Itemid=82


    U.S. Military Opening 16 Million Acres For Renewable Energy

    David Quilty | 07 August, 2012 | Alt Energy, Clean Tech

    militaryrenewables

    The U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Defense have signed a “Memorandum of Understanding,” partnering up to further develop renewable energy technologies pertinent to each department. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed the MOU back in July, with a goal to begin collaborating by October 2012.

    The DOD is looking to develop renewable energy sources in the interest of greater energy security while the DOI has goals of generating additional renewable energy sources on public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf. Through this partnership, the DOD will be opening up 16 million acres of its land for new renewable energy projects and development, with the stated goal of providing clean energy for military bases and installations. “Renewable energy will allow a military base to maintain critical operations for weeks or months if an electric power grid goes down,” said Dorothy Robyn from the DOD.

    In July, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced plans for “solar zones” in six southwestern states in order to encourage solar power development and this partnership will add wind (both on and offshore) and geothermal sources of energy to future studies. Because of the amount of withdrawn lands (public land withdrawn for military use) the DOD currently has under ownership, it expects that renewable projects could generate 1 GW of energy for each branch of military by 2025. This MOU aims to make that a reality.

    A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. - old Greek proverb

    Uncivil War: Custody Battles Cross States

    The Mighty Wind

    Jurisdictional Facilities, Re: Pacific Wind

    Energy Plans
    in News Departments > New & Noteworthy
    email the content item print the content item



    Ever since the earliest turbines were installed in California in the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has had an unfavorable view of wind energy, as wind turbines interfered with radar systems. However, thanks to new technology and a recently announced collaboration, the DOD is set to become a major player in renewable energy procurement, including wind projects.

    Based on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed this week by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar, the DOD will play a significant role in encouraging wind, offshore wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy resources on or near DOD installations.

    According to the agencies, the MOU establishes a plan for how the two departments will work together to deploy renewable energy, and details each department's responsibilities.

    The MOU allows the DOD to explore ways in which renewable energy could be provided directly to a single installation or be transmitted across a network of DOD installations, according to a press release issued by the DOI. Some larger projects could sell their excess power to the grid, as long as appropriate measures are in place to ensure military-base security, the DOI adds.

    Changing winds
    The DOD's involvement in the MOU deviates from its historic stance on utility-scale wind power. Many of the department’s concerns stem from how wind turbines interact with radar systems, as operating wind turbines can be indistinguishable from airplanes on many radar systems and can cause blackout zones in which planes disappear from the radar entirely.

    However, the DOD says it now has a process to review instances where renewable energy projects could impact military operations or readiness.

    Thanks, in part, to that new system, each of the military branches has committed to deploying 1 GW of renewable energy on or near its installations by 2025. In fact, the U.S. Army's Central Contracting Command just released its highly anticipated $7 billion request for proposals (RFP) for renewable energy generation.

    The RFP calls for wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy generation through 30-year power purchase agreements (PPAs).

    The Army's attempts to procure renewable energy got off to a rocky start last February, when the service first released its draft RFP for wind energy.

    Some wind and solar developers - as well as lenders - expressed concerns about certain aspects of risk allocation, such as in cases of national security, or even the process by which a lender could take possession of a distressed project. Because the PPAs would be financed according to nonrecourse financing, it is paramount that banks and lending institutions approve of them, according to industry experts.

    "A lender is going to want an easement or access to the renewable energy facility," says Chris Diaz, principal at Bellaire Bluffs, Fla.-based Seminole Financial Services. "If there's an issue with a base closure, for example, the lender's only recourse may be to come and get the project, unless the U.S. Army agrees to honor the 30-year PPA as long as the system is producing power."

    In fact, the Army's draft RFP drew nearly 800 comments, according to James W. Campbell, spokesperson for the U.S. Army's Engineering and Support Center. The comments generally fell into three categories: bankability of the PPA, scope of the PPA and power pricing.

    Further complicating matters is that most wind and solar developers do not track military procurements. Therefore, the Army's requirements likely created some confusion among civilian respondents.

    Anntonette Alberti, vice president at Saratoga, N.Y.-based Tetra Tech, says that although financial lenders were underrepresented at the beginning of the process, the Army has made efforts to incorporate feedback from lenders.

    "As long as the Department of Army is relying upon project developers to arrange nonrecourse financing to provide the capital to build the renewable energy projects contemplated by the Huntsville PPA procurement, the lending community has a powerful role in determining the ultimate success of the Army's plans,” Alberti says.

    However, Campbell maintains that despite its rocky start, the draft RFP served its purpose.

    "The Army sought comments to get an idea of how the DOD can better work with the wind industry," he says. "That was the entire purpose of the draft RFP."


    Army's Logic for Developing Wind and Solar Energy Makes No Sense

    August 10, 2012 RSS Feed Print

    Daniel Kish is senior vice president at the Institute for Energy Research.

    The Army Corps of Engineers recently put out a request for proposal for renewable energy developers to build energy facilities on Army bases. The Army says building renewables such as wind and solar on Army bases will promote "energy security," however this claim fails to acknowledge the inherent problem of reliability with intermittent sources of energy like wind and solar. The Army also claims that it wants to blunt the impact of electricity price increases, but instead of proposing low-cost sources of electricity, the Army proposes high-cost sources like advanced biofuels. The Army's justification for their plan does not make any sense.  

    It is important to remember that under our system of civilian control of the military, political appointees direct the branches of the military to carry out administration policy, and the military salutes and carries out the orders. It would appear that politicians working to promote renewables is the reason the Army is making this move, because its proposal would essentially accomplish the opposite of what it says it intends to do.  

    When the Army announced that they had sent out a request for proposal for renewables on Army bases, Assistant Secretary for Installations, Energy, and the Environment Katherine Hammack claimed, "Right now, the power grid is aging and we have all seen increased interruptions which have affected our military installations." She continued, "We don't always build them in garden spots around the United States. Some, like Fort Bliss [Texas], are at the end of the power line. This will give us energy security by having power produced on the installation that's able to serve the base in case of power disruption."

    [See a collection of political cartoons on energy policy.]

    The problem with Hammack's argument is it assumes renewables such as wind and solar are reliable, despite the fact that everyone knows these sources of energy are inherently intermittent and therefore unreliable. Weather forecasting has improved such that it is more likely to know whether there will be sufficient wind tomorrow or sufficient sun, but that is not reliability. Wind or solar would make power production on military bases more secure if disruptions to the grid only happened when the wind was blowing or the sun was shining, and that will obviously not be the case.

    Despite the fact that wind and solar are not reliable sources of energy, the Army's request for proposal explicitly calls for proposals for wind and solar (see pages 6, 7 among others). Hammack's argument that producing wind and solar on Army bases with increased "energy security" does not hold water, since the obvious alternatives, coal, and natural gas, are abundant in the United States: The United States has over 450 years of coal at the current rate of consumption, for example.

    [See a slide show of the 10 states that use the most energy per capita.]

    The Army also claims that the purpose of the renewable energy projects is to shield Army bases from electricity price hikes. But like the energy security argument, the Army's assertion that its proposal will save money is rooted in fallacy. One of the reasons electricity prices are rising is because of regulations imposed by the Obama administration, and the Army could simply ask Congress to waive them for the military if high prices were the only issue at hand.

    According to the Energy Information Administration, 27 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity generating capacity will close by 2016. If the Obama administration were truly concerned about electricity prices increases, they would halt the regulations leading to these record plant closures.

    The Army's justifications for building wind and solar installations on its bases does not make sense—at least not according to their own logic. It does not improve energy security to build sources of electricity that are inherently intermittent and unreliable like wind and solar. Furthermore, if the Army and the Obama administration were sincerely troubled by electricity price increases, they would stop the impending regulatory assault on coal-fired power plants, rather than wasting limited defense dollars on high-cost sources like wind and solar. 


    High Country
    Theme: Coraline by Automattic Proudly powered by WordPress.

    The Poisoned Well


    Our mission is to provide citizens with the ideas and news they need to build more prosperous, livable and sustainable communities.

    “Nathaniel Bacon and his Followers Burn Jamestown” — from the lithograph by Howard Pyle

    The Original Bacon’s Rebellion

    In 1676, a Henrico farmer by the name of Nathaniel Bacon led a series of expeditions to defend the frontier against Indian attack. Raising his own militia, he acted in defiance of the colonial governor, Sir William Berkeley, who preferred to deal with the Indians more diplomatically. Elected to the House of Burgesses, Bacon also pressed the interests of the small farmers and common people in the colonial assembly. In a “Declaration of the People” — the first expression of popular sovereignty in the English colonies — he accused Berkeley of raising unjust taxes, elevating his cronies to positions of high office, exercising a monopoly in the beaver trade and interfering with his campaigns against the Indians. The power struggle between Bacon and Berkeley led to a series of armed skirmishes culminating with the siege and burning of Jamestown, the colonial capital. Bacon’s death of “bloodie flux” and “lousey” disease put an end to the first rebellion against English authority in the North American colonies.

    The 21st Century Bacon’s Rebellion

    In 2002 Jim Bacon departed Virginia Business magazine, where he had been publisher and editor-in-chief, to launch Bacon’s Rebellion as an electronic newsletter. Three years later, he added the Bacon’s Rebellion blog as an affiliated but stand-alone project. With funding from the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), Bacon’s Rebellion was the first digital enterprise in Virginia to conduct serious, in-depth journalism on topics related to state and local governmental policy.

    Bacon shut down the blog while taking a job with the Boomer Project, a Richmond-based market research firm with a focus on the Boomer generation. He later wrote a book, “Boomergeddon,” warning Boomers that an eventual collapse of federal government finances would shred the Social Security and Medicare safety net they are counting on for retirement.

    After winding up the “Boomergeddon” project, Bacon re-launched the Bacon’s Rebellion blog, jettisoning the newsletter in order to spend more time on original reporting. He publishes the blog as a full-time endeavor, backed financially with sponsorships from the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Bon Secours Virginia Health System. Bacon’s Rebellion is open to working with other sponsors.

    Jim Bacon has no known relationship to Nathaniel Bacon, and he bears no grievance towards Virginia’s Indian tribes. However, he does live in Henrico County, and he does share his namesake’s predilections for shaking up the established order.

    Guiding Principles of the Rebellion

    The philosophy articulated by the 21st-century Bacon’s Rebellion is based on the following guiding principles:

    ■ Free markets and the individual pursuit of enlightened self-interest are the most efficient means of allocating resources and creating wealth – most of the time.

    ■ The vitality of the economy and well being of a community also require collective action, either in the civic realm or in the governmental realm.

    ■ Government is a necessary evil which requires constant oversight. Even at the state and local level, it falls prey to organized special interests seeking to acquire funds, influence regulations or curry some other favor.

    ■ Governmental institutions are slower to adapt to changing circumstances than are business institutions. Governments lack the discipline of the marketplace – failure does not result in bankruptcy, liquidation or takeover by a stronger entity.

    ■ Governmental institutions also have no clear “bottom line.” Governments have nothing comparable to sales, profits, return on investment and other vital measures – as defined by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles – that investors use to evaluate corporations.

    ■ The managers of all institutions, whether business, educational, civic or governmental, tend to shun accountability. The rules of governance, by which citizens hold these entities accountable, must be constantly updated. And leaders of these institutions must be subject to continual scrutiny.

    ■ Any proper accounting of the general welfare must include the health of the environment.

    ■ The proper focus of social justice is to create equal rights under the law and to open up economic opportunities for all citizens — not to mandate equal outcomes.



    Hearing entitled “Sound Money: Parallel Currencies and the Roadmap to Monetary Freedom”
    Thursday, August 2, 2012 10:00 AM in 2128 Rayburn HOB
    Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology


    Click here for the Archived Webcast of this hearing.

    WITNESS LIST


    AOCS Goes to Washington

    Missed the live feed? Catch the full hearing on YouTube HERE or Mr Gray’s excerpt HERE.

    While debriefing from our most recent trip to FreedomFest in Las Vegas, I posed a question: how do we take our movement to the next level? I mean, we have so many people that are paying attention now, but still believe we can petition the government to solve today’s social and economic problems.

    Last week, Congressman Paul’s bill to audit the Fed finally came to a vote on the House floor. Though it passed with overwhelming majority, it is expected to die in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Years of work, donations, phone calls and effort stopped in their tracks.

    Ron Paul said it best in his final appearance last month with Fed Chairman Bernanke:

    “We’re in deep doldrums and we never change policy. We never challenge anything. We just keep doing the same thing. Congress keeps spending the money, welfare expands exponentially, wars never end, and deficits don’t matter,” Paul said.

    The AOCS position takes in to consideration this reality. Let’s just move on. Let’s stop talking about auditing the Fed. Forget about Ending the Fed. Let’s start ignoring the Fed, and eliminating the impact they have on our lives. This has been our position from day one.

    So, it came as quite a surprise when I received an invitation to testify in front of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy on parallel and competing currencies.

    My first reaction was to turn it down. We’ve enjoyed nearly 5 years of uninterrupted operations, with no sign whatsoever of government interference. We like to fly below the radar, and don’t want unnecessary attention. We have a lot of work to do, and not a lot of time to do it. But at some point, some day, the world will have to know what we’re doing.

    And that day is upon us.

    Let’s stop talking about auditing the Fed.

    Forget about ending the Fed.

    Let’s start ignoring the Fed,

    and eliminating the impact they have on our lives.

    At 10am Eastern time on Thursday, August 2nd 2012, I am taking advantage of a rare opportunity to go on the record before the Domestic Monetary Policy subcommittee and tell them exactly what I’d like them to do to help complementary currencies come in to existence: absolutely nothing.

    Below you can find a transcript of my written testimony, now part of the Congressional record. I invite you to tune in to the hearing, which is tentatively scheduled to be broadcast live on one of the C-Span channels Thursday, August 2nd at 10a Eastern. It will be recorded and posted here after completion, in case you can’t catch it live. Certainly, the hearing can also be cancelled or postponed at any moment without notice.

    But this is it: we can no longer operate quietly. It was only a matter of time, anyway, given the work we’re doing with the Lakota Indian Nation and Commodity Banking. The best we can do is tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

    ________________________________________________

    Date: August 2nd, 2012

    Author: Robert J Gray, Executive Director of the American Open Currency Standard

    Re: Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy & Technology

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

    My name is Rob Gray and I was asked to testify today on the theory of competing currencies, and the practical challenges that make such a theory difficult or impossible to implement.

    For nearly 5 years now, I’ve successfully directed the American Open Currency Standard – the standard for private voluntary and complementary currencies that compete against each other, not against the US dollar. Allow me to clarify: we do not consider AOCS Approved medallions produced and traded in our private barter marketplace ‘competition’ to the US Federal Reserve Note. Because “fair competition”, as one would find in the “free market”, assumes the existence of a level playing field, the existence of a standard set of rules. Those players who wish to compete honestly do so by relying simply on the merit of the value they bring to the market.

    No fair challenge can be made between honest men and thieves. Let me be clear that when I say thieves: I refer to the current private central bank and the men in government who allow it to exist.

    This brings us to a critical point: according to your Employee Handbook, Article 1, Section 8 says: “The Congress shall have the Power …To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof…”.  For anyone who has been a manager or business owner, it is not uncommon to find that you may have an employee who may choose to not do the work that is delegated to them, or even that they simply do it very badly. When such a time comes it is necessary for the manager or owner to step in and do the work themselves. I would argue that since 1913, Congress has failed to do the job with which it had been tasked. We the people are now bypassing you and are no longer waiting for you to make it right.  It is far better to simply walk away from the system.  We are walking away from toxic thoughts, relationships, investments and careers.  We are taking the hard intellectual journey to rid ourselves of the indoctrination that keeps us in this system. We are realizing the power we have in ourselves and the everyday choices that we make to either empower some soulless collective or our own families. We are realizing that we simply need to withdraw our time, energy, and money from banks, politicians and corporations that do not serve our interests.

    In the time since our inception, the American Open Currency Standard has enjoyed nearly five years of growth and success in our mission of issuing a means that allows valuable exchanges among men who produce. In the next five years, we expect to expand our offerings and to increase our ability to keep up with the demand for our private currency. We are doing the job Congress would not.

    The use of community currencies here in the US became popular back in the early 1930′s. You see, at the time, the theory was that a group of the world’s most powerful men, many of them international bankers, were intentionally and systematically removing currency from circulation, creating an artificial scarcity of money across America. Small cities and towns felt it worse than anyone. But life did go on.

    Then, during the greatest economic depression this country had ever seen, individuals across this country developed their own mediums of exchange. They still needed things – food, clothing, daily essentials – they still needed to live, and they didn’t have time to wait for the government to fix the problem, and they certainly weren’t going to rely on the same bankers that caused the crash to offer solutions. And so, according to historical records, thousands of community currencies were created, circulated and traded in places where the scarcity of dollars was interfering with the human desire to live, and the market’s desire to trade. And since their elected employees were not doing the job for which they were hired, these individuals took it upon themselves to secure the means to their own survival and potential prosperity.

    More recently, community currencies have sprung up across Europe as the Euro and national fiat currencies become increasingly unavailable and undependable. Today, communities all across the Eurozone trade their own money instead of the Euro.

    Community currencies are not simply a good idea in theory; they are necessary, alive, and true examples of the free market’s unwillingness to be artificially manipulated. Right now alternative and complementary currencies circulate widely across this country and in many different forms: Ithaca, New York uses a local fiat currency based loosely on the value of time; Berkshire, Massachusetts uses a fiat-backed fiat system, while many more communities circulate gold, silver and copper AOCS Approved barter tokens as a medium of exchange. How they are issued, accepted, accounted for and reported varies widely, as the participants and procedures are as different as the markets they serve.

    As for practical issues to overcome in the issuance and circulation of complementary currencies, there are plenty. In a voluntary system, those that participate in the trading of private currencies must deal with the possibility of counterfeiting, fraud, scarcity, acceptance, accounting, storage and other issues, all without the luxury of big brother holding a gun to anyone’s head to ensure their success.

    Even with all the risks, the market moves on. As in any free market, good ideas circulate with success, and bad ones eventually fade away. Participants voluntarily choose to accept and circulate the highest quality and most valuable currencies in exchange for their best production. Merchants accept complementary currencies based on the premise that someone else is willing to do the same later. Issues arise and are worked out by the market with only one light to guide them: the mutual exchange of value. No guns, no laws, no force: just the willingness to think outside the box and act on principle.

    Complementary currencies are not new, in theory or in practice. Further, private currencies circulated long before governments erected themselves to interfere. What’s new, however, is the public’s apathy towards you and your policies. You’ve managed for the last hundred years somehow to convince the citizenry that you’re relevant. Now, just recently, we’re beginning to see the tides change on this. And once it catches on, you’ll be rendered completely obsolete.

    The greatest hurdle you will face over the next few years is trying to convince “we, the people” that you are still necessary in spite of your failures to get the job done. Sure, some will continue to rely on you for hand-outs; it’s what they’ve known their entire lives and they will be slaves right up and to the point of their own destruction. They don’t know any better and I don’t blame them for their ignorance. But as you continue to squeeze the life out of the middle class, watch out for their greatest weapon: apathy. They may not be ready to admit it, but soon they’ll turn their backs on you and never believe another lie – the lie that you are willing and able to do the job for which you were hired.  In the future you will not have to worry about million man marches or citizen journalists trying to catch you on camera.  What you need to fear is no one paying attention to you.  The next American revolution will not be fought with bullets and bombs; it will be won with the opposite consciousness.

    “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” ~Henry Ford

    To that end, I’m here today to propose a solution. My understanding of this subcommittee is that you desire to be part of the solution. You want to believe you’re doing something good for the country. Today, the greatest gift you can offer to the people you clearly represent is to introduce, not to the legislature but directly to the public, what I call IR 1207 – Individual Resolution 1207 – commonly referred to as  ’Ignore the Fed’. Store your wealth in silver. Bank with a non-fractional bank that pays real money on deposits. Use the card services network to satisfy dollar obligations. Do not try to compete with the federal reserve system: ignore them. This country has succeeded in doing away with two central banks already over the course of its history – it is learning to do the same again.

    Congressman Paul: on July 13, 2011, you asked Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, a question: ‘Is gold money?’ I ask that same question of you here today: is gold money? Is silver money?  They most certainly are not. At least not by the current definition as handed down by Congress’ money-issuing surrogate, the Federal Reserve. And that’s just fine.

    I respectfully petition you, sir, to seriously reconsider your position on this matter. The government has perverted the word money. My wife is a nutritionist, and she tells people, ‘If your grandparents wouldn’t recognize it as food, don’t eat it.’ I suggest to you that if your great-grandparents wouldn’t recognize it as money, don’t accept or spend it.

    A great philosopher once said “When destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, ….”  Today, conventional wisdom tells us that money is a worthless pile of paper. And for the last 100 years Congress has for a third time (again) shunned its responsibility when it comes to issuing money. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve and Congress’ abdication of their responsibility, the dollar has lost 98% of its value. I don’t suspect anyone would call that stellar job performance. I must be blunt and say that, as employees, Congress, you have not been successful in your charge to “…coin money and regulate the value thereof…” and therefore your services in this area are no longer needed.  It is sad that even the men and women in this chamber either do not understand the system they serve or are so dependent upon the system’s favors that they dare not speak in opposition to it.

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” ~Upton Sinclair

    I ask you to leave the Fed their money and leave the people our silver, gold and copper. Do not push to redefine whatever representations we choose for our wealth as ‘money’. Let the Fed do what it wants with their ‘money’, so long as they leave us alone. I warn you: ‘honest money legislation’ is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The record of Congress over time has proven that it will make a miserable failure of this aspect of human survival as it has so many others.

    The greatest thing this Congress can do is exactly what you’ve done so far: nothing.

    “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” — Ronald Reagan.

    I will not facilitate this government to “help” understand, control and ultimately destroy alternative currencies.  All I ask is that you stay out of our way. The people in our world are happy to go right along saving you from your own destruction by producing value against all the odds, regulations, codes, and challenges thrown our way. But leave our money alone. It doesn’t belong to you, and it never will.

    If you really want to help, I would recommend that instead of trying to DO something, you could start by undoing some things. But that list is far too long for me to get into here today and as a responsible employer, I’ll allow you some room for creativity.

    One last thing I would like to leave you all to ponder…

    How is it possible for every single person in the world to be in debt with credit card debt, student debt, consumer debt, auto debt, and mortgages?

    How is it possible that every small business and corporation in the world is also in debt?

    And finally how is it possible that every single local, county, province, state and nation on earth is also in debt?

    Who owns the other side of that debt?

    When you understand that, maybe just maybe, something positive will come out of this chamber.

    The bottom line is simple: humanity is not going to wait for permission to survive. Things that cannot go on forever… won’t.  The market will move on – with or without you. And, based on your rate of success to date, our preference is without you.

    I thank you for your attention to this matter of life and death.

    “There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” -Henry David Thoreau

    http://financialservices.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HHRG-112-BA19-WState-RGray-20120802.pdf

    hydropower summit

    “California is the global pioneer for geothermal energy,”

    The first modern geothermal well in the U.S., Magma No. 1 was drilled in 1955 at The Geysers, in the Mayacamas Mountains of northern California – a site that today comprises about 45 square miles and is the largest geothermal field in the world.


    This is the same geothermal feature that created Iron Mountain and the West Shasta Copper belt over 1/2 million years ago. 


    The USGS has identified over 5400 MW of known geothermal resource capacity, as well as estimated an additional 11,000 MW of undiscovered resource capacity in California. 

    The Geysers represents almost one-half of the state’s geothermal output.  Additional major geothermal power production in California occurs at power plants located around Coso and the Imperial Valley, with enough installed capacity to meet the needs of more than 1 million households. 

    Sandia National Laboratory indicated that with advanced technologies included, there could be as much as 24,750 MW of additional capacity.  More recently, the 2008 USGS assessment reported undiscovered resources at 11,340 MW, and potential for Enhanced Geothermal Systems in the state as high as 48,000 MW.

    It’s important to get the facts straight, because making right policy decisions today is vital.


    California is the largest producer of geothermal energy in the world.


    9 Million Investment in Rural Communities to Foster Job Creation and Innovation

    08/01/2012 | 01:33pm US/Eastern

    Winners of the Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge will strengthen regional industry clusters and rural economies across 12 states

    The Obama administration today announced the winners of the multi-agency Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge to spur job creation and economic growth in rural regions across the country.


    Spiritual Superfund sites

    Cleanup Alternatives

    The Superfund remedial process begins once sites are brought to the attention of the Superfund site assessment program. As the EPA uses all available tools to ensure the protection of human health and the environment, various avenues for site cleanup are evaluated during site assessment to determine which is the most appropriate to meet site cleanup needs.

    In addition to determining whether placing a site on the National Priorities List is the most efficient option to achieve site cleanup, the EPA evaluates a number of other options for addressing site issues. Below, you will find descriptions of each of these site cleanup options and links to external web pages for additional information.

    The National Priorities List (NPL) is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substance, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under Superfund law. The NPL is required to be revised annually and it is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants.


    When a liable Potential Responsible Party (PRP) demonstrates it is viable and cooperative, EPA regional offices, at their discretion, may enter into a Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) agreement with the PRP to facilitate the cleanup of a site. To view a list of all sites currently being managed under these agreements, please visit EPA's Compliance and Enforcement Office's Superfund Alternative Approach webpage.



    Sites completing the Superfund assessment process and determined to need long-term cleanup attention may be addressed under a State or Tribal environmental cleanup program. Those that require no EPA financing, enforcement, or other substantial involvement are assigned a status of "Other Cleanup Activity: State/Tribal Lead" in EPA's CERCLIS database. EPA periodically checks in with State and Tribal regulators on the status of cleanup work at these sites. Should conditions change such that Federal Superfund involvement becomes necessary, EPA will work with its State and Tribal partners to determine next steps and revise the site status accordingly.

    Federal Facility sites completing the Superfund assessment process and determined to need long-term cleanup attention may be addressed under another Federal agency's environmental cleanup program. Federal facilities that are tracked in EPA's CERCLIS database and are being cleaned up off of the NPL are assigned a status of "Other Cleanup Activity: Federal Facility Lead". EPA periodically checks in with other Federal agencies on the status of cleanup work at these sites.



    Removal actions are quick responses to immediate threats from hazardous substances in order to eliminate dangers to the public. Typical situations requiring removal actions include chemical fires or explosions, threats to people from exposure to hazardous substances, or contamination of drinking water supplies. Types of removal actions include removing and disposing of hazardous substances, constructing a fence or taking security precautions to limit human access to a site, providing a temporary alternative water supply to local residents when drinking water is contaminated, and temporarily relocating area residents if necessary.

    It is the EPA's policy to defer placing sites on the NPL that can be comparably addressed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C corrective action authorities. There are certain exceptions to this policy and sites not subject to Subtitle C will continue to be considered for NPL listing.




    It is EPA's policy not to list releases of source, by-product, or special nuclear material from any facility with a current license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) because the NRC has full authority to require cleanup of releases from such facilities. If a facility is licensed by the NRC, but the NRC does not have authority to require cleanup, the site will not be deferred from NPL listing.


    Superfund Help: Acronyms | Topics | Frequent Questions | Publications | Sitemap


    Promoting high-growth entrepreneurship
    Speeding up “lab to market” research:  The President has directed all federal research agencies to help accelerate innovation by speeding up grants to startups.  The National Science Foundation launched an Innovation Corps to get teams of scientists out of the lab and starting new companies.  Over twenty federal agencies have cooperated to fund regional entrepreneurial ecosystems, and are dramatically streamlining patent licenses for entrepreneurs in clean energy and biotech.

    “It … seems doubtful that a defendant can ever be found to be an arranger if he did not know the substance in question is hazardous.” U.S. District Judge Griesbach


    Inspector General to Investigate EPA Enforcement

    The Inspector General for the Environmental Protection Agency will begin an investigation into the consistency and fairness of the agency’s enforcement actions.

    We are accusing the Environmental Protection Agency & Dept. of Justice ENRD of conducting a "vindictive, spurious, retaliatory and overzealous prosecution"

    "we are still driving on the same winding mountain road but this time in a faster car, with faulty brakes." Neil Barofsky

    When Uncle Sam governs with a tire iron in his hand, U.S. companies wisely pull off the road and pray for new management.

    move slowly as we figure out this big water-quality puzzle

    Green Roof Roots: Stumbling Upon Environmental History in Lake Tahoe

    Kelly Coplin
    Tags:
    , , , , ,

    Last weekend I had the great fortune to spend three days biking, swimming and relaxing along the shores of Lake Tahoe with my family. I’ve spent summer weekends at the lake almost annually since I was a baby, and like...continued | comments (2)

    Day-tripping without a car in Los Angeles

    Jessica Lass
    Tags:
    , , , , , , , ,

    Yes, sure, no one walks in LA…except well, more people than you’d think. Every month more Angelenos are choosing to ride their bike to work or ride public transit as a cheaper, healthier alternative to driving (if it can be...continued | comments (3)

    Truth in jest; a livestock industry in denial about its drug problem

    Sasha Lyutse
    Tags:
    , , , , , , ,

    Sometimes a bit of humor is worth a thousand words. Here at NRDC, we’ve written about how the livestock industry employs a strategy of obfuscation—pesky facts be damned!—to try and convince us that their massive and largely unregulated use of...continued | comments (1)

    Ready for round two? A new mega-resort is proposed near Cabo Pulmo National Park

    Carolina Herrera
    Tags:
    , , , , , , ,

    Mexico’s Cabo Pulmo National Park may once more be under threat from a mega tourism resort. Barely two months since President Calderón announced the cancellation of the controversial Cabo Cortés tourism and residential development, a new company has proposed a...continued | comments

    Final Test Before California's Cap-and-Trade Program Kicks Off

    Kristin Eberhard
    Tags:
    , , , , ,

    Next week’s scheduled practice auction of greenhouse gas allowances for California’s largest polluters will provide an important first look into how the state’s cap-and-trade program, a key element of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), will work going forward....continued | comments

    Alaska to EPA: Stay away from Pebble Mine (but please help us clean up this other mine)

    Taryn Kiekow
    Tags:
    , , , , , , , ,

    Alaska is sending EPA mixed messages.  On the one hand, Alaska Attorney General Michael Geraghty has told EPA to steer clear of Pebble Mine.  On the other hand, he just asked EPA to clean up the Red Devil mine.  Does...continued | comments (5)

    A Look at Rural Clean Energy Solutions for Climate Change Impacts

    Grace Gill
    Tags:
    , , , , ,

    The word Punjab is derived from Persian, meaning five (panj) rivers (ab).  It is named so for the five rivers coursing through the arable land, like veins through a body, providing the essential nourishment to cultivate the land.  As a...continued | comments

    Clean Energy Companies Are Powering Economic Recovery and Job Growth

    Peter Lehner
    Tags:
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    A few years ago, Craig Winn launched a new company with two employees and a good idea: leverage the auto industry’s engineering prowess to improve solar manufacturing. Three years later, the Michigan-based company has hired nearly 50 workers and doubled...continued | comments (1)

    LA Ratepayer Advocate Recommends Approval of LADWP Electricity Rate Increase

    Kristin Eberhard
    Tags:
    , , , , ,

    Yesterday the Los Angeles Ratepayer Advocate presented his preliminary report on LADWP’s two-year electricity rate request to the LADWP board. He recommended approval of the rate increase.In his presentation, he highlighted the importance of energy efficiency, which makes up only...continued | comments

    Climate Change SOS: Which Side Are You On

    Franz Matzner
    Tags:
    , , ,

    Burning fossil fuels kills.  Coal and oil are already making the planet sick and it’s only going to get worse until a choice is made to stop denying the truth, start cleaning up, and get on track to putting an...continued | comments (3)

    More evidence of the risks posed by fracking wastewater in the Marcellus region

    Kate Sinding
    Tags:
    , , , , , ,

    The disposal of contaminated wastewater generated from fracking in the Marcellus Shale region presents a significant risk to rivers and other bodies of water, finds a recent study carried out by Stony Brook University and published in this month’s issue...continued | comments (4)

    China Environmental News Alert

    Greenlaw from NRDC China
    Tags:
    , , , , , , , , ,

    NRDC has been working in China for over fifteen years on such issues as energy efficiency, green buildings, clean energy technologies, environmental governance and public participation, and green supply chain issues. This China Environmental News Alert is a compilation of...continued | comments

    Turning the Tide on Plastic Pollution With Art

    Francesca Koe
    Tags:
    , , , , , , , ,

    Beauty can be found in the most unexpected of places. In a moving series of photographs, artist Mandy Barker turns the tragedy of marine plastic pollution into compelling works of art. Her series, SOUP, documents plastics salvaged from beaches around...continued | comments

    New NRDC Report Shows Arctic Oil Development Needs to be Put on Hold

    Chuck Clusen
    Tags:
    , , , , ,

    With the Department of the Interior considering whether to grant Shell permits to drill in America’s Arctic Ocean, and Shell scrambling to get started amid a flurry of problems, a new NRDC report details the huge risks that come with the rush...continued | comments

    Richmond's Toxic Tornado: A Cautionary Tale on Why Power Plants Need Safeguards

    Tiffany Traynum
    Tags:
    , , ,

    I’ve always loved the magic of movies and television. Hollywood has the ability to make anything happen or look like it’s happening with the use of out-of-this-world special effects, sound mixing, and some serious studio make-up. Huge blockbuster hits...continued | comments


    Game On! USDA Launches Feds Feed Families 2012

    On Monday I accepted the challenge for USDA to donate more than 1.8 million pounds of food this summer through the 4th annual Feds Feed Families Food Drive (FFF).  Game on!

    If each USDA employee donates just two pounds of food per week, we will contribute more than 2 million pounds and help our hardworking neighbors put food on the table during these tough economic times.  FFF began four years ago to help fill a gap during the summer months, when food banks and pantries struggle with an increase in demand from families and individuals, but a decrease in donations.  Each year of the food drive, USDA employees have stepped up to the plate: in 2011, USDA employees organized over 2,000 food drives across the country and collected 1.79 million pounds of fresh and shelf-stable food.

    Read more »


    Calling All Champions of Change

    Hunger is an issue that touches the lives of people all around us. Whether it’s the single mother struggling to feed her family of four while simultaneously making ends meet or a person living in rural America who has to drive 50 miles to the closest grocery store, hunger affects us all.


    Rural Development

    Council for Native American Farming and Ranching Begins Work

    Natural Resources/Range Manager of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in Blackfoot, ID., Mark Wadsworth, speaking, was voted as the President of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Council for Native American Farming and Ranching (CNAFR) held at the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012. CNAFR was created to advise the Secretary on ways to eliminate barriers to participation for Native American Farmers and Ranchers in USDA programs. The Council was established as part of the Keepseagle settlement, and is conducted under the oversight of USDA's Office of Tribal Relations under the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture. USDA Photo by Lance Cheung.

    Natural Resources/Range Manager of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in Blackfoot, ID., Mark Wadsworth, speaking, was voted as the President of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Council for Native American Farming and Ranching (CNAFR) held at the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012. CNAFR was created to advise the Secretary on ways to eliminate barriers to participation for Native American Farmers and Ranchers in USDA programs. The Council was established as part of the Keepseagle settlement, and is conducted under the oversight of USDA's Office of Tribal Relations under the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture. USDA Photo by Lance Cheung.

    An intensive two day public meeting wrapped up earlier this week in Washington, D.C., as the recently appointed members of the Council for Native American Farming and Ranching met face-to-face for the first time. Read more »

    USDA Official, Center for Rural Strategies, Discuss Ways Rural Areas can Attract and Retain Creative Young Americans

    Kelle Jolly of the Carpetbagger Theater in Knoxville, TN shares her perspective with other rural arts practitioners at the Double Edge Theater in Ashfield, MA. Photo Courtesy Center for Rural Strategies

    Kelle Jolly of the Carpetbagger Theater in Knoxville, TN shares her perspective with other rural arts practitioners at the Double Edge Theater in Ashfield, MA. Photo Courtesy Center for Rural Strategies

    This past week, I had the opportunity to join a group of rural arts leaders at a conference in the Pioneer Valley of western Massachusetts.   The event had a number of objectives, including some hearty brainstorming about the crucial role rural arts organizations and artists play in buoying small town economies and enhancing the livability of rural places.  Additionally, since there were a number of talented and inspiring young people in the group, this was a chance for them to learn and share their experiences.  While there was no USDA sponsorship of this event, the Obama Administration can certainly feel inspired by the positive energy these practitioners bring to the country. Read more »

    Secretary Meets with Energy and Rural Development Officials During a Nebraska Swing

    Late last week, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack went to Omaha, Nebraska to discuss the President’s “All of the above” energy strategy, and meet with wind energy and rural development officials.  Speaking to members of the American Coalition for Ethanol, he said that while the drought is severe and the Obama Administration is moving to help affected farmers and ranchers, we won’t know the impact of this drought until harvest time – but we do know that working together, we will get through this challenge.

    The Secretary noted that Nebraska has been hit hard by drought. Today, USDA declared an additional 172 additional counties across the United States as primary natural disaster areas due to drought – and as of today, all of the State of Nebraska is covered by primary or contiguous disaster designations for drought.

    Read more »

    Endgame At Hand

    MF Global Files Chapter 11

    MF Global.The curtain may be about to fall on Jon Corzine’s third act.

    Update 10:25 a.m.: MF Global filed for bankruptcy Monday morning, according to Reuters and the Wall Street Journal. The latter reported that a proposed deal in which some of the firm’s assets would be sold to Interactive Brokers, is off.

    ————————–

    MF Global, the brokerage firm Corzine took the helm of in March 2010, had its shares halted by the New York Stock Exchange Monday amid reports that a bankruptcy filing is on its way.

    The Federal Reserve Bank of New York suspended the brokerage firm from conducting new business with the Fed in a terse statement Monday that could ultimately lead to a termination of MF Global’s status as a primary dealer, one of the preferred institutions allowed to conduct business with the Fed like underwriting offerings of U.S. Treasury securities.


    Obama Spars With Romney on Energy in Swing State Pitches

    Knicker Knocker

    Environmental News: Firsthand


    Defending the Homeplace

    The hound dogs ran up the trail, ears flopping and noses close to the ground as we sat on our porch watching the rain clouds move up from the valley. Thunder rumbled and lightning pierced the dark sky. The dogs, never lifting their heads, howled and yipped as they ran through the clearing and disappeared back into the dense woods.

    Within minutes the storm, a real "gully washer," was upon us, pounding the tin roof of our cabin and shaking the windows with powerful thunder claps. The cabin is in a temperate rain forest, which gets up to 90 inches of rain a year, much of it in summer thunderstorms. Tulip Poplar trees grow over 200 feet tall and white oaks are five feet in diameter. Forest floors are so thick with under growth that, as the locals say, "A dog can't wag his tail in it."

    When the storm passed, evening began to settle. A Towhee trilled "Drink your tea!" in the waning light and hoot owls called. Stars shone in the clear sky. Below in the valley, dim lights blinked on farms that have been in families for over a hundred years. Mountains reaching over 6,000 feet folded in the distance.

    (May I borrow your bat for my practice?)

    Yesterday the Justice Department announced that once again it's not going to pursue evidence of Wall Street crimes which has been sent its way. It has already failed to act on information sent to it by sources whose investigators are apparently more dogged than its own, including several other government agencies and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Now the bipartisan committee which was led by Senators Carl Levin and Tom Coburn can be added to the list of sources whose leads weren't pursued by Attorney General Eric Holder and his staff.

    the Holder Justice Department has had a troublesome relationship with facts. That dates back to its ginned-up and ultimately discredited claims about something called "Operation Broken Trust," in which it claimed credit for dozens of mortgage-related convictions that it said had resulted from a coordinated operation of that name. As the New York Times noted, many of those investigations had actually concluded before the 2008 election, Holder's appointment, and the creation of "Broken Trust." The Columbia Journalism Review gave its review of the fiasco the headline "Obama Administration's Financial-Fraud Stunt Backfires."

    Then there's the graphic evidence of inactivity since the election of President Obama and the confirmation of Attorney General Holder, courtesy of Syracuse University's TRAC project:

    2012-08-10-economix15traccustom1.jpg


    (On the other hand, prosecution of immigration cases has soared under this administration.)

    Most tellingly of all, there are the insider comments which suggest that the Justice Department has been dragging its feet in providing the mortgage fraud task force with the extremely modest resources it was promised (roughly 100 staff members to investigate a trillion-dollar fraud that involved all of the major U.S. banks, as opposed to 1,000 for the much smaller savings and loan scandal of the 1980s).

    And despite Holder's claims, the convictions obtained over the least three and a half years have been strictly for small fry. The Justice Department hasn't even tried any cases against major financial executives, despite seemingly overwhelming evidence which includes:

    The AIG allegations: We used the Levin/Coburn Report to review the list of potential criminal activity in that case here.

    GE Capital deceptions: That's the company whose politically-connected CEO was given a presidential appointment. Referring investigators were stunned to find that no criminal charges would be filed over its fraudulent deception of investors, even though they had identified specific individuals in the accounting department who had cooked GE's books. GE Capital has also been implicated in fraudulent mortgage practices.

    Wells Fargo drug-money laundering: That's the case in which bankers laundered money for the Mexican cartels that have killed tens of thousands of people. You know the gangsters we mean -- they're the guys who decapitate people.

    JPMorgan Chase's "London Whale": With particular concern about the cover-up of billion-dollar losses, with special concerns about CEO Jamie Dimon's statement to investors that its London losses were "a tempest in a teapot." Dimon later admitted he had made mistakes. (If he had made false statements to investors, that would be stock fraud, a crime.)

    And there are others, too numerous to mention all of them here: Countrywide. Citigroup. HSBC. The list goes on and on.

    The Justice Department's argument for inaction seems to come down to this: Bank cases are complicated. They're hard to win. We don't want to try. And it has repeatedly used an argument that's also been made by the president and Treasury Secretary as well, as they've tried to explain away the inactivity: that bad banking behavior isn't necessarily criminal behavior. That claim's been repeated many times, especially in the context of "ABACUS" and other Goldman Sachs misdeeds contained in the Coburn/Levin report.

    But it's not true. It's already illegal to lie to clients, to knowingly conceal important information from in order to get their money under false pretenses, or to withhold materially important information from shareholders. And yet that flimsy argument seems to lie at the core of the DOJ's explanation for once again declining to pursue the evidence wherever it may lead.

    Here's what really happened in this case: Goldman was selling its clients "crap" investments (a Goldman employee's word), and which it knew to be "crap," while at the same time betting against those investments. And it concealed the fact that these investments were selected, not by the people it told investors were doing the choosing, but by somebody who was well-known for betting against the "crap" -- and who would make a fortune if they failed.

    Under the massive civil settlement for ABACUS, the parties acknowledged that it was a "mistake" for Goldman marketing materials to claim that "the reference portfolio was 'selected by' ACA Management LLC without disclosing the role of Paulson & Co. Inc. in the portfolio selection process and that Paulson's economic interests were adverse to CDO investors."

    "Mistake"? That's more of the linguistic evasion that's used when crooked bankers pay hundreds of millions to settle criminal and civil charges while "neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing." Goldman paid a record amount -- more than half a billion dollars -- to settle this case. The total settlement came to 550 million dollars. That's 550 million admissions of wrongdoing.

    As they say: Money talks.

    We're not into speculating about the motives for the Justice Department's inaction. But it's not surprising when others who do come to unflattering conclusions, and not just about Holder. This is an issue which the president himself will ultimately have to address -- for his campaign, and ultimately for his legacy.

    Meanwhile, the cases the Justice Department hasn't prosecuted have led to billions of dollars in settlements. Eric Holder says that his department and this administration are doing everything they can to prosecute Wall Street fraud and make sure it doesn't happen again. There's only one thing that makes that statement hard to believe: It's a troublesome little thing called "facts."

    The Administration’s wide approach "all-hands-on-deck"  impotent against drought

    What is the sound of one hand not being handcuffed? haec manus inimica tyrannus

    You're probably wondering how the government chastised the head of a company that's been fined tens of millions of dollars as the result of multiple charges of criminal behavior on his watch? Here's how: By asking him to replace respected economist Paul Volcker as head of the President's Economic Advisory Panel.

    Not that GE's punishment was limited to prestigious presidential appointments. It also received billions of dollars in bank bailout money -- despite the fact that it's not technically a bank. No problem, said the government. It promptly created a loophole that enabled GE to receive TARP assistance without being required to follow that program's limits on executive compensation (or any of its other rules). That loophole also allowed GE to benefit from the government's low interest emergency loan facility for banks, the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. ProPublica reports that "GE received nearly a quarter of the $340 billion in debt backed by the program," which allowed GE to save billions of dollars.

    That'll teach 'em.

    GE's accounting showed a lot of "imagination."

    Just before sunset on April 10, 2006, a DC-9 jet landed at the international airport in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, 500 miles east of Mexico City. As soldiers on the ground approached the plane, the crew tried to shoo them away, saying there was a dangerous oil leak. So the troops grew suspicious and searched the jet.

    They found 128 black suitcases, packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100 million. The stash was supposed to have been delivered from Caracas to drug traffickers in Toluca, near Mexico City, Mexican prosecutors later found. Law enforcement officials also discovered something else.

    The smugglers had bought the DC-9 with laundered funds they transferred through two of the biggest banks in the U.S.: Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp., Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its August 2010 issue.

    Criminal Empires

    On June 15, the Mexican Finance Ministry announced it would set limits for banks on cash deposits in dollars.

    Mexico’s drug cartels have become multinational criminal enterprises.

    Some of the gangs have delved into other illegal activities such as gunrunning, kidnapping and smuggling people across the border, as well as into seemingly legitimate areas such as trucking, travel services and air cargo transport, according to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center.

    These criminal empires have no choice but to use the global banking system to finance their businesses, Mexican Senator Felipe Gonzalez says.

    “With so much cash, the only way to move this money is through the banks,” says Gonzalez, who represents a central Mexican state and chairs the senate public safety committee.

    Gonzalez, a member of Calderon’s National Action Party, carries a .38 revolver for personal protection.

    “I know this won’t stop the narcos when they come through that door with machine guns,” he says, pointing to the entrance to his office. “But at least I’ll take one with me.”

    News From the Field

    Umpire cries "FOWL"; Innocent wildlife sue for protection from the continuing bombardment. Seek to cover monthly overhead, president offers low interest loan.

    Greens keeper balks at suggestion drought is responsible, says its a wild swing.

    National pastime participants indolent and apathetic regarding environmental 'impact' effects of disintegrating lacing and leather in long-term critical ecology national wildlife conservation canal zone flood control watershed observatory.

    Endangered species reject relocation, flock together "In the Shadows" of 'home base'. Fishy-Hunters gather evidence, claim " we have your balls". Commissioner investigates. Free Agents negotiate for fairplay, collective bargaining; team owners maintain lockout. Union Strikes; Air Traffic Control Intervenes on aviation Pilot program; safety first; 

     Institute for Instruction Training flight Instrumentation Transportation Simulators;

    crash course;

    Through a Memorandum of Understanding signed by EPA, the Department of the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers on June 11, 2009, Federal agencies are taking action to minimize adverse environmental and health impacts


    Water quality trading addresses freshwater problems with economic, environmental unity

    Published: Saturday, August 18, 2012, 12:00 PM

    DENMAN-EVANS-CREEK-SITE_20539095.JPG
    Thomas Edlen, a fellow with The Freshwater Trust, uses a densitometer to measure the current shade at a restoration site along Little Butte Creek in Southern Oregon. The readings will be used to set a baseline from which to measure the effects of the tree plantings.
    By Joe Whitworth

    The drought is serving notice that water is a scarce and precious resource coming under serious pressure. This is true even in years of no drought. Right now, if all the issues facing freshwater ecosystems are the size of Yankee Stadium, our collective ability to address those issues -- everybody working everywhere in conservation -- is about the size of a baseball.

    Environmental pioneers dealt well with the issues of their day, but the tools they built only got us so far. We need the next generation: tools that build on success but also recognize the limitations. Today, more than a third of the 3.6 million stream miles in this country are designated as impaired under the Clean Water Act. Under the Endangered Species Act, we have listed 28 types of salmon and have recovered none -- zero. In a very real sense, the environmental war is over and the greens won, but the victories have come mostly on paper. They need to translate to real results on the ground.

    Baseline legal protections are the start, but if we expect a functional environment, we can't just hold the line there -- holding the line by itself is losing. We need to restore our natural systems faster than we degrade them. To do this, we must add to our basic tool kit a market-based, quantified framework that lets us fully account for our actions and create environmental gain.


    Press Release 12-146
    Tale of Two Scientific Fields--Ecology and Phylogenetics--Offers New Views of Earth's Biodiversity

    Scientists report new look at 'patterns in nature' in special issue of journal Ecology

    Image of a pattern created by a leaf miner insect with the words Photo Gallery.

    See nature's patterns in this photo gallery.
    Credit and Larger Version

    August 3, 2012

    View patterns of nature in this photo gallery.

    Patterns in nature are in everything from ocean currents to a flower's petal.

    Scientists are taking a new look at Earth patterns, studying the biodiversity of yard plants in the U.S. and that of desert mammals in Israel, studying where flowers and bees live on the Tibetan plateau and how willow trees in America's Midwest make use of water.

    They're finding that ecology, the study of relationships between living organisms and their environment, and phylogenetics, research on evolutionary relationships among groups of organisms, are inextricably intertwined.

    Results of this tale of two fields are highlighted in a special, August 2012 issue of the journal Ecology, published by the Ecological Society of America (ESA). Most of the results reported are funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

    The issue will be released at the annual ESA meeting, held this year from August 5-10 in Portland, Ore.

    Melding information from ecology and phylogenetics allows scientists to understand why plants and animals are distributed in certain patterns across landscapes, how these species adapt to changing environments across evolutionary time--and where their populations may be faltering.

    "To understand the here and now, ecologists need more knowledge of the past," says Saran Twombly, program director in NSF's Division of Environmental Biology.  "Incorporating evolutionary history and phylogenies into studies of community ecology is revealing complex feedbacks between ecological and evolutionary processes."

    Maureen Kearney, also a program director in NSF's Division of Environmental Biology adds, "Recent studies have demonstrated that species' evolutionary histories can have profound effects on the contemporary structure and composition of ecological communities."

    In the face of rapid changes in Earth's biota, understanding the evolutionary processes that drive patterns of species diversity and coexistence in ecosystems has never been more pressing, write co-editors Jeannine Cavender-Bares of the University of Minnesota, David Ackerly of the University of California at Berkeley and Kenneth Kozak of the University of Minnesota.

    "As human domination of our planet accelerates," says Cavender-Bares, "our best hope for restoring and sustaining the ‘environmental services' of the biological world is to understand how organisms assemble, persist and coexist in ecosystems across the globe."

    Papers in the volume address subjects such as the vanishingly rare oak savanna ecosystem of U.S. northern tier states, revealing an ancient footprint of history on the savanna as well as how it has fared in a 40-year fire experiment.

    Other results cover the influence of ecological and evolutionary factors on hummingbird populations; habitat specialization in willow tree communities; growth strategies in tropical tree lineages and their implications for biodiversity in the Amazon region; and the characteristics of common urban plants.

    "The studies in this issue show that knowledge of how organisms evolve reveals new insights into the ecology and persistence of species," says Cavender-Bares.

    Plants in urban yards, for example, are more closely related to each other--and live shorter lives--than do plants in rural areas, found Cavender-Bares and colleagues.

    Their study compared plant diversity in private urban yards in the U.S. Midwest with that in the rural NSF Cedar Creek Long-Term Ecological Research site in Minnesota.

    Cities are growing faster and faster, with unexpected effects, says Sonja Knapp of the Hemholtz Center for Environmental Research in Germany, lead author of the paper reporting the results.

    "Understanding how urban gardening affects biodiversity is increasingly important," says Cavender-Bares.  "Urbanites should consider maintaining yards with a higher number of species."

    In the special issue, researchers also look at topics such as what determines the number of coexisting species in local and regional communities of salamanders. Kenneth Kozak of the University of Minnesota and John Wiens of Stony Brook University report that variation in the amount of time salamanders occupy different climate zones is the primary factor.

    Evolution of an herbaceous flower called goldfields, and how that led to the plant's affinity for certain habitats, is the subject of a paper by David Ackerly, Nancy Emery of Purdue University and colleagues. Emery is the paper's lead author.

    In all, 17 papers combine ecology and phylogenetics to offer new answers to long-standing questions about the patterns and processes of biodiversity on Planet Earth.

    Integrating Ecology and Phylogenetics
    A special issue of the journal Ecology

    Integrating ecology and phylogenetics: the footprint of history in modern-day communities
    Jeannine Cavender-Bares, David D. Ackerly, Kenneth H. Kozak, Co-Editors

    Synthesizing phylogenetic knowledge for ecological research
    Jeremy M. Beaulieu, Richard H. Ree, Jeannine Cavender-Bares, Nicholas Deacon, George D. Weiblen, and Michael J. Donoghue

    Assessing the effects of spatial contingency and environmental filtering on metacommunity phylogenetics
    Pedro R. Peres-Neto, Mathew A. Leibold and Stephane Dray

    Phylogenetic species-area curves
    Matthew R. Helmus and Anthony R. Ives

    Phylogenetic tree shape as a predictor of niche segregation
    Jonathan Davies, Natalie Cooper, Jose Alexandre Felizola Diniz Filho, Gavin H. Thomas, Shai Meiri

    Shocks to the system: Community assembly of the oak savanna in a 40-year fire frequency experiment
    Jeannine Cavender-Bares and Peter B. Reich

    Demographic drivers of successional changes in phylogenetic structure across life history stages in plant communities
    Natalia Norden, Susan Letcher, Vanessa Boukili, Nathan Swenson, and Robin Chazdon

    Phylogenetic and functional characteristics of household yard floras and their changes along an urbanization gradient
    Sonja Knapp, Lucy Dinsmore, Cinzia Fissore, Sarah Hobbie, Ina Jakobsdottir, Jens Kattge, Jennifer King, Stefan Klotz, Daniel C. Laughlin, Joseph P. McFadden, and Jeannine Cavender-Bares

    Untangling the influence of ecological and evolutionary factors on trait variation across hummingbird assemblages
    Catherine H. Graham, Juan L. Parra, Boris A. Tinoco, F. Gary Stiles, Jim A. McGuire

    Phylogenetic and functional alpha and beta diversity in temperate and tropical tree communities
    Nathan G. Swenson, David L. Erickson, Xiangcheng Mi, Norman A. Bourg, Jimena Montana-Forero, Xuejun Ge, Robert Howe, Jeffrey K. Lake, Xiaojuan Liu, Keping Ma, Nancai Pei, Jill Thompson, Maria Uriarte, Amy Wolf, S. Joseph Wright, Wanhu Ye, Jinlong Zhang, Jess K. Zimmerman and W. John Kress

    Phylogenetic signal and phenotypic plasticity in traits under variable competitive regimes
    Jean H. Burns and Sharon Y. Strauss

    Habitat specialization and the role of trait lability in structuring hyper-diverse willow communities
    Jessica Savage and Jeannine Cavender-Bares

    Niche evolution and habitat specialization in Lasthenia
    Nancy C. Emery, Elisabeth J. Forrestel, Ginger Jui, Michael Park, Bruce G. Baldwin and David D. Ackerly

    Phylogeny, ecology and the origins of climate-richness relationships
    Kenneth H. Kozak and John J. Wiens

    Floral diversity and community structure in Pedicularis (Orobanchaceae)
    Deren A. R. Eaton, Charles B. Fenster, Joe Hereford, Shuang-Quan Huang, Richard H. Ree

    Herbivory, growth strategies and habitat specialization in four tropical tree lineages: Implications for Amazonian Beta-Diversity
    Greg P.A Lamarre, Christopher Baraloto, Claire Fortunel, Nallarett Davila, Italo Mesones, Julio Grandez Rios, Marcos Rios, Elvis Valderrama, Paul Fine

    Predicting the impact of tropical rain forest conversion on insect herbivore abundance from plant traits and phylogeny
    Timothy J. S. Whitfeld, Vojtech Novotny, Scott E. Miller, Jan Hrcek, Petr Klimes, and George D. Weiblen

    Phylogenetic diversity promotes ecosystem stability
    Marc W. Cadotte, Russell Dinnage, David Tilman

    -NSF-

    Media Contacts
    Cheryl Dybas, NSF (703) 292-7734 cdybas@nsf.gov

    Related Websites
    NSF Discovery Article: Oak Savannas: Out of Africa and Into the American Midwest: http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=122756&org=NSF
    Ecological Society of America journal Ecology: http://www.esajournals.org/loi/ecol/
    Life on Earth: Preserving, Utilizing and Sustaining Our Ecosystems: 2012 ESA Meeting: http://www.esa.org/portland/
    NSF Cedar Creek Long-Term Ecological Research Site: http://www.lternet.edu/sites/cdr/
    Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability NSF-Wide Investment (SEES): http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504707

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2012, its budget is $7.0 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 colleges, universities and other institutions. Each year, NSF receives over 50,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes about 11,000 new funding awards. NSF also awards nearly $420 million in professional and service contracts yearly.

     Get News Updates by Email 

    Useful NSF Web Sites:
    NSF Home Page: http://www.nsf.gov
    NSF News: http://www.nsf.gov/news/
    For the News Media: http://www.nsf.gov/news/newsroom.jsp
    Science and Engineering Statistics: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
    Awards Searches: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/

    Small Business Technology Transfer Program Phase I Solicitation FY-2013 (STTR)


    Program Solicitation
    NSF 12-592

    Replaces Document(s):
    NSF 11-561

    NSF Logo

    National Science Foundation

    Directorate for Engineering
         Industrial Innovation and Partnerships

    Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

    October 20, 2012 - November 20, 2012

    LOI must be submitted in order to submit a full proposal

    Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

    December 20, 2012

    A LOI must have been submitted on or before 11/20/2012

    IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES

    New requirements for the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program:

    • A Letter of Intent (LOI). Note that a LOI is required prior to submission of a full STTR proposal.
    • A signed SBIR/STTR Funding Agreement Certification. (See the Special Award Conditions section of this solicitation.)

    All proposals that fail to address the following items will be considered non-responsive and will be returned without review:

    1. A proposal submitted after 5:00 p.m. (proposer's/submitter's local time) on the deadline date. The "proposer's time" is the time zone associated with the company's address, as registered with NSF at the time of proposal submission.

    2. A proposal that does not contain all the required components uploaded into the appropriate module within FastLane. See the required components below that make up a complete proposal. All proposals must have each of the items listed below, without exception.

    A complete proposal consists of the following:
    1. Project Summary (reference section A.9.2)

    2. Project Description (15 page limit) and all 7 parts (reference section A.9.3)

    3. References Cited (reference section A.9.4) - required by NSF for all proposals

    4. Biographical Sketches (reference section A.9.5) - required by NSF for all proposals

    5. Budget and Sub-budgets (reference section A.9.6)

    6. Current and Pending Support - the proposal being submitted is considered pending support" and must be listed (reference section A.9.7).This means that ALL submitted proposals MUST contain this document, without exception.

    7. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources (reference section A.9.8) - required by NSF for all proposals

    8. Supplementary Documents (reference section A.9.9)
    1. A proposal with items in the Supplementary Documents section other than the following:
      1. Letters of Support for Technology (no more than 3 letters; reference section A.9.9.1)

      2. Post Doc Mentoring Plan (required if funds are included on line "B.1 Post Doctoral Scholars" on the proposer's budget or a subaward budget; reference section A.9.9.2)

      3. Company Commercialization History must be provided using the NSF template if Phase II SBIR/STTR awards have been received previously (reference section A.9.9.3)

      4. Data Management Plan (reference section A.9.9.4) - required by NSF for all proposals

      5. Letters regarding Use of Human or Animal subjects e.g. Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval of animal use (if applicable; reference section A.9.9.5)

    2. A STTR proposal with a budget exceeding $225,000.
    3. A proposal missing a Company Commercialization History, if a company has certified on the Cover Page that it has previously received SBIR/STTR Phase II awards. A Company Commercialization History must be submitted using the NSF template (reference section A.9.9.3).

    4. A proposal with documents placed in the "Additional Single Copy Documents" module in FastLane.

    5. A collaborative proposal (defined as simultaneous proposal submissions from different organizations, with each organization requesting a separate award) is prohibited. Note - Small business concerns are encouraged to collaborate with research institutions; however, only one proposal, with subawards, should result.

    6. A proposal lacking sufficient technical/commercial potential substance to justify review.

    7. A proposal that does not fall within the scope of the topic or subtopic as delineated in the topic or subtopic description.

    8. A proposal not containing research proposed in science, engineering, or education.

    9. Unacceptable objectives as defined in Section IV.

    SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

    General Information

    Program Title:

    Small Business Technology Transfer Program Phase I Solicitation FY-2013 (STTR)

    Synopsis of Program:

    The Small Business Technology Transfer program stimulates technological innovation in the private sector by strengthening the role of small business concerns in meeting Federal research and development needs, increasing the commercial application of federally supported research results, and fostering and encouraging participation by socially and economically disadvantaged and women-owned small businesses.

    The Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR) requires researchers at universities and other non-profit research institutions to play a significant intellectual role in the conduct of each STTR project. These researchers, by joining forces with a small company, can spin-off their commercially promising ideas while they remain primarily employed at the research institution. The program is governed by Public Law 112-81 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011).

    NSF seeks to help reach the nation's biological innovation goals, and the larger objective of growing the bioeconomy The bioeconomy has emerged as a national priority because of its growth potential across many key industries and its societal benefits, which include transforming manufacturing processes, increasing agricultural productivity, advancing medicine, addressing energy needs, and meeting challenges in the environment. The STTR research topic for this solicitation is Enhancing the Bioeconomy using emerging Biological Technologies (EBBT). Proposals must use a biologically-based approach, such as synthetic biology, systems biology, metabolic engineering, proteomics, bioinformatics, and computational biology, to address business opportunities in key industry sectors including biomedical, biomanufacturing, and sustainable agriculture. For additional information reference section A.10.

    WEBINAR: A webinar will be held within 6 weeks of the release date of this solicitation to answer any questions about the solicitation. Details will be posted on the SBIR/STTR website: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/index.jsp as they become available.

    Cognizant Program Officer(s):

    Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

    • Ruth M. Shuman, SBIR/STTR Program Director, Biological and Chemical Technologies (BC), telephone: (703) 292-2160, email: rshuman@nsf.gov

    • Prakash Balan, SBIR/STTR Program Director, Biological and Chemical Technologies (BC), telephone: (703) 292-5341, email: pbalan@nsf.gov

    • Jesus V. Soriano, SBIR/STTR Program Director, Biological and Chemical Technologies (BC), telephone: (703) 292-7795, email: jsoriano@nsf.gov

    • Theresa A. Good, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET), telephone: (703) 292-7029, email: tgood@nsf.gov

    • Susanne von Bodman, Program Director, Directorate for Biological Sciences, Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB), telephone: (703) 292-8440, email: svonbodm@nsf.gov

    • Aleksandr L. Simonian, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET), telephone: (703) 292-4826, email: asimonia@nsf.gov

    Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

    • 47.041 --- Engineering

    Award Information

    Anticipated Type of Award: Fixed Amount Awards

    Estimated Number of Awards: 25 (pending availability of funds).

    Anticipated Funding Amount: $5,625,000 (pending availability of funds).

    Eligibility Information

    Organization Limit:

    Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
    • Only firms qualifying as a small business concern are eligible to participate in the STTR program. Socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns and women-owned small business concerns are particularly encouraged to participate. For an STTR Phase I Proposal, a minimum of 40% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the small business concern and a minimum of 30% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the collaborating research institution.

      Proposals from joint ventures and partnerships are permitted, provided the entity created qualifies as a small business in accordance with this solicitation. Proposing firms are also encouraged to take advantage of research expertise and facilities that may be available to them at colleges, universities, national laboratories, and from other research providers. Such collaborations may include research subcontracts, consulting agreements, or the employment of faculty as senior personnel and of graduate or undergraduate students as assistants by the small business.

    PI Limit:

    The primary employment of the Principal Investigator (PI) must be with the small business concern at the time of the award. A PI must spend a minimum of two calendar months on an STTR Phase I project. Employment releases and certifications of intent shall be required prior to award. Primary employment is defined as 51% employed by the small business. NSF considers a fulltime work week to be normally 40 hours and considers employment elsewhere of greater than 19.6 hours to be in conflict with this requirement.

    Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 2

    An organization may not submit more than two (2) proposals. If more than two (2) proposals are submitted, the additional proposals will be returned without review.

    Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 1

    No person may participate as the principal investigator (PI) or Co-PI for more than one (1) proposal submitted to this solicitation. It is the responsibility of the submitting organization to ensure that no person is listed as the PI or Co-PI on more than one (1) proposal submitted to this solicitation.

    Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

    A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

    • Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
    • Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable
    • Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: This solicitation contains information that deviates from the standard NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) proposal preparation guidelines. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

    B. Budgetary Information

    • Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
    • Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

      Indirect costs are limited to an effective rate of 150% of salaries and wages. (See Section V.A.9.6)

    • Other Budgetary Limitations: Not Applicable

    C. Due Dates

    • Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

      October 20, 2012 - November 20, 2012

      LOI must be submitted in order to submit a full proposal

    • Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

      December 20, 2012

      A LOI must have been submitted on or before 11/20/2012

    Proposal Review Information Criteria

    Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

    Award Administration Information

    Award Conditions: Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

    Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    I. INTRODUCTION

    The National Science Foundation (NSF), an independent agency of the Federal Government, invites eligible small business concerns to submit Phase I proposals for its FY 2013 Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program. NSF will support high-quality projects on important scientific, engineering, or science and engineering education problems and opportunities that could lead to significant commercial and public benefit if the research is successful.

    The STTR solicitation is issued pursuant to the authority contained in Public Law 112-81 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011). STTR policy is provided by the Small Business Administration (SBA) through the SBA Policy Directive.

    II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The primary objective of the STTR Program is to increase the incentive and opportunity for small firms to undertake cutting-edge, high-risk, high-quality scientific, engineering, or science and engineering education research that would have a high-potential economic payoff if the research is successful. The STTR program expands the public and private partnership to include collaborative opportunities for small businesses and non-profit research institutions. A team approach is required in an STTR project where at least one research investigator is employed by the small business concern and at least one investigator is employed by a collaborating research institution.

    The fundamental mission of NSF is to promote discoveries and to advance education across the frontiers of knowledge in science and engineering. Consistent with that mission, NSF encourages and supports a wide range of proposals from the research and education community and also from the private small business sector. These proposals are reviewed under NSF's merit review criteria, which cover both the quality of research (intellectual or technical merit) and its potential impact on society (broader/commercial impacts).

    The STTR program solicits proposals from the small business sector consistent with NSF's mission. The program is governed by Public Law 112-81. A main purpose of the legislation is to stimulate technological innovation and increase private sector commercialization. The NSF STTR program is therefore in a unique position to meet both the goals of the NSF and the purpose of the STTR legislation by transforming scientific discoveries into both societal and economic benefit, and by emphasizing private sector commercialization. Accordingly, NSF has formulated an STTR solicitation topic: Enhancing the Bioeconomy using emerging Biological Technologies (EBBT) (see section A.10 for the full topic description).

    Successful proposers will conduct Research and Development (R&D) on projects that:

    1. Provide evidence of a commercially viable product, process, or service, and
    2. Meet an important social or economic need.

    Projects should have the following:

    • High potential commercial payback, and
    • High-risk efforts.

    Projects may also address:

    • Research tools that meet significant commercial market needs, or,
    • Applications that result in multipurpose commercially viable functions.

    For more in-depth program information, please reference the following web site: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/program_reqs.jsp.

    III. AWARD INFORMATION

    STTR Phase I proposals may be submitted for funding up to $225,000. STTR Phase I projects are for 12 months. The program expects to make approximately 25 fixed amount awards. Anticipated funding amount is approximately $5,625,000 (subject to the availability of funds and the quality of proposals). Award notification is typically within five months from the proposal submission deadline date. All awards will have an effective date of July 1, 2013.

    IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

    Organization Limit:

    Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
    • Only firms qualifying as a small business concern are eligible to participate in the STTR program. Socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns and women-owned small business concerns are particularly encouraged to participate. For an STTR Phase I Proposal, a minimum of 40% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the small business concern and a minimum of 30% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the collaborating research institution.

      Proposals from joint ventures and partnerships are permitted, provided the entity created qualifies as a small business in accordance with this solicitation. Proposing firms are also encouraged to take advantage of research expertise and facilities that may be available to them at colleges, universities, national laboratories, and from other research providers. Such collaborations may include research subcontracts, consulting agreements, or the employment of faculty as senior personnel and of graduate or undergraduate students as assistants by the small business.

    PI Limit:

    The primary employment of the Principal Investigator (PI) must be with the small business concern at the time of the award. A PI must spend a minimum of two calendar months on an STTR Phase I project. Employment releases and certifications of intent shall be required prior to award. Primary employment is defined as 51% employed by the small business. NSF considers a fulltime work week to be normally 40 hours and considers employment elsewhere of greater than 19.6 hours to be in conflict with this requirement.

    Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 2

    An organization may not submit more than two (2) proposals. If more than two (2) proposals are submitted, the additional proposals will be returned without review.

    Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 1

    No person may participate as the principal investigator (PI) or Co-PI for more than one (1) proposal submitted to this solicitation. It is the responsibility of the submitting organization to ensure that no person is listed as the PI or Co-PI on more than one (1) proposal submitted to this solicitation.

    Additional Eligibility Info:

    Requirements Relating to Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Numbers and Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM)

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a policy directive (September 14, 2010, 75 FR 22706) which requires applicants to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying for a new award or renewal of an award under Federal grants or cooperative agreements. In accordance with this mandate, each proposer must have a DUNS number prior to submission of a proposal to NSF. Any subawardees named in the proposal must be registered in FastLane, which requires that they obtain a DUNS number.

    In addition, each proposer also must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database prior to submission of the proposal. Subawardees named in the proposal, however, do not need to be registered in the SAM. The SAM is the primary registrant database for the U.S. Government. The SAM collects, validates, stores, and disseminates data in support of agency acquisition missions, including Federal agency contract and assistance awards. This SAM registration must be maintained with current information at all times during which the organization has an active award or a proposal under consideration by NSF. Failure to comply with the SAM registration requirement prior to proposal submission may impact the processing of the proposal. To register in the SAM, go to https://www.sam.gov/. Proposers are advised that it takes approximately three-to-five business days to complete the registration process.

    Unacceptable objectives: Proposed efforts directed toward systems studies; market research; commercial development of existing products or proven concepts; straightforward engineering design for packaging; laboratory evaluations; incremental product or process improvements; evolutionary optimization of existing products; and evolutionary modifications to broaden the scope of an existing product or application are examples of projects that are not acceptable for STTR. Projects deemed unacceptable will be returned without review to the proposer.

    V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

    A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

    Letters of Intent(required):

    A Letter of intent (LOI) must be submitted via FastLane at http://fastlane.nsf.gov/. The LOI, which is a prerequisite to proposal submission, will be used to assist NSF program staff in gauging the number and range of proposals, to enable early selection and better management of reviewers and panels, and to allow NSF to preview proposals with respect to eligibility requirements.

    The LOI provides several data fields to capture the description of the proposed project. Please note that the Synopsis and Other Comments data fields provide a maximum of 2,500 characters to convey important aspects of the project. There are three Additional Information data fields as follows:

    • Designation of Subtopic and Key Words. Provide the name of the subtopic (reference section A.10 for the subtopic descriptions) and up to five key words.
    • Description of the Commercial Opportunity. Provide a short description of the problem addressed by the proposed technology that includes the commercial outcome and impact (limited to 255 characters).
    • List of Partners/Collaborators. Provide a list of partners and collaborators, and a brief indication of their role or expertise, that will participate on the project (limited to 255 characters).

    Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions:

    When submitting a Letter of Intent through FastLane in response to this Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:

    • Sponsored Projects Office (SPO) Submission is not required when submitting Letters of Intent
    • Designation of Subtopic and Key Words is required when submitting Letters of Intent
    • Description of the Commercial Opportunity is required when submitting Letters of Intent
    • List of Partners/Collaborators is required when submitting Letters of Intent
    • Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is not allowed

    Full Proposal Instructions: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the guidelines specified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-PUBS (7827) or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

    The following instructions supplement the GPG guidelines.

    A.1. Responsiveness to NSF STTR Program and Topic.

    A.1.1 Communication with the NSF Program Manager: A company planning to submit a proposal in response to this solicitation is encouraged to describe the innovation and business opportunity to the cognizant program manager via email and receive feedback prior to proposal submission. You may contact the program officer at any time before the submission deadline. Note, however, the communication with the program manager will become increasingly difficult as the deadline approaches.

    A.1.2 Designation of Topic and Subtopics. This STTR solicitation has only one topic; therefore designate "Enhancing the Bioeconomy using emerging Biological Technologies (EBBT)" as the topic. A firm MUST identify the appropriate subtopic on the cover page. The subtopics for this solicitation are listed below and explained more fully in section V.A.10:

    1. Biomedical Applications

    2. Sustainable Agriculture Applications

    3. Biosensing Applications

    4. Biomanufacturing Applications

    5. Advanced Life Science Tools

    A.2. Phase I Proposal Objectives. An STTR Phase I proposal must describe the research effort needed to investigate the feasibility of the proposed scientific or technical innovation. The primary objective of the Phase I effort is to determine whether the innovation has sufficient technical merit for proceeding into a Phase II project. A secondary objective is to assess potential commercial feasibility of the proposed work.

    A.3. Phase I Project Requirements. The deliverable at the end of an STTR Phase I grant is a technical report that summarizes the experimental and theoretical accomplishments of the research proposed. This report serves as the basis for a Phase II proposal.

    A.4. Administrative and Technical Screening. All proposals that fail to address the following items will be considered non-responsive and will be returned without review:

    1. A proposal submitted after 5:00 p.m. (proposer's/submitter's local time) on the deadline date. The "proposer's time" is the time zone associated with the company's address, as registered with NSF at the time of proposal submission.

    2. A proposal that does not contain all the required components uploaded into the appropriate module within FastLane. See the required components below that make up a complete proposal. All proposals must have each of the items listed below, without exception.

    A complete proposal consists of the following:

    1. Project Summary (reference section A.9.2)

    2. Project Description (15 page limit) and all 6 parts (reference section A.9.3)

    3. References Cited (reference section A.9.4) - required by NSF for all proposals

    4. Biographical Sketches (reference section A.9.5) - required by NSF for all proposals

    5. Budget and Subcontract budgets (reference section A.9.6)

    6. Current and Pending Support - the proposal being submitted is considered "pending support" by NSF and must be listed (reference section A.9.7). This means that ALL submitted proposals MUST contain this document, without exception.

    7. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources (reference section A.9.8) - required by NSF for all proposals

    8. Supplementary Documents (reference section A.9.9)
    1. Unallowable items uploaded to the Supplementary Documents section other than the following:
      1. Letters of Support for Technology (no more than 3 letters; reference section A.9.9.1)

      2. Post Doc Mentoring Plan (required if funds are included on line "B.1 Post Doctoral Scholars" on the proposer's budget or a subaward budget; reference section A.9.9.2)

      3. Company Commercialization History must be provided using the NSF template if Phase II SBIR/STTR awards have been received previously (reference section A.9.9.3)

      4. Cooperative Research Agreement (reference section A.9.9.4)

      5. Data Management Plan (reference section A.9.9.5) - required by NSF for all proposals

      6. Letters regarding Use of Human or Animal subjects e.g. Institutional Review Board (IRB) or institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval of animal use (if applicable; reference section A.9.9.6)

    2. A STTR proposal with a budget exceeding $225,000.

    3. A proposal missing a Company Commercialization History, if the company certified on the Cover Page that it has previously received SBIR/STTR Phase II funding. The Company Commercialization History must be submitted using the NSF template (reference section A.9.9.3).

    4. A proposal with documents placed in the "Additional Single Copy Documents" module in FastLane (other than Suggested Reviewers and/or Proprietary Information). Items placed in this module are not accessible to reviewers.

    5. A collaborative proposal of any kind is prohibited. A collaborative proposal is defined as simultaneous proposal submissions from different organizations.

    6. A proposal lacking sufficient technical/commercial potential substance to justify review.

    7. A proposal that does not fall within the scope of the topic or subtopic as delineated in the topic or subtopic description.

    8. A proposal not containing research proposed in science, engineering, or education.

    9. Unacceptable objectives as defined in Section IV.

    A.5. Marking Proprietary Information. To the extent permitted by law, the Government will not release properly identified and marked technical data. If the proposal contains proprietary information, check the box at the bottom of the proposal cover page and identify proprietary technical data in the proposal by clearly marking the information and providing a legend or footnote. Typically, proprietary information is marked in the text either with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the proprietary paragraph, underlining the proprietary sections, or choosing a different font type. An entire proposal should not be marked proprietary.

    A.6. Human Subjects and Animal Use. Please refer to Chapter II, Sections D.5 and D.6 of the GPG (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg). Note that in some cases, product testing involves human subjects. In addition to the information in the GPG, please refer to http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp. Look for federal-wide assurances under the Office of Human Research Protection website.

    If human subjects Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is indicated, and it is not in hand at the time of submission, there must be a plan for such approval; a supporting letter regarding IRB approval should be provided under supplementary documents. The approval must be readily attainable within six weeks of informal notification of recommendation for award to ensure continued processing for funding. The small business has three basic options with regard to human subjects review: 1) establish your own IRB (see Office of Human Rights Protection (OHRP) at Health and Human Services (HHS) http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/; 2) use the review board of a (usually local) university or research institution, either via consultants to the project, a project subcontract, or directly through its own contacts; and 3) use a commercial company.

    Animal use in funded projects requires approval of the company or collaborating institutions' Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Please refer to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/rig.shtml for additional information.

    A.7. Debriefing on Unsuccessful Proposals. When a proposal is declined, verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, and a description of the process by which the proposal was reviewed will be available electronically.

    Phase I proposals that have been declined or returned without review by NSF are NOT eligible for reconsideration under the same program solicitation; however, proposals may be resubmitted under a subsequent solicitation, after suitable revision, conditional upon their falling within the scope of the subsequent topic or subtopic offerings.

    A.8. General Requirements

    A.8.1 Sample Limitations. Samples, videotapes, slides, appendices, or other ancillary items will not be accepted. Websites containing demonstrations, etc., may be cited in the proposal, but reviewers are not required to access them.

    A.8.2 Page Format. Multiple column formats are not accepted.

    A.9. Required Format.

    The required format of a Phase I proposal is described in the following paragraphs. Each proposal submitted to the NSF STTR program will use the following FastLane Forms:

    Cover Sheet
    Project Summary
    Table of Contents (automatically generated)
    Project Description
    References Cited
    Biographical Sketches
    Budgets and Budget Justification (also required for each subaward)
    Current and Pending Support
    Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

    Supplementary Docs (do not upload additional documents besides the following when applicable):

    1. Letter(s) of Support for Technology or Market Opportunity (3 maximum),
    2. Post Doc Mentoring Plan (if applicable),
    3. Company Commercialization History on the NSF Template (if applicable),
    4. Cooperative Research Agreement,
    5. Data Management Plan, and
    6. Letter(s) regarding human subjects Institutional Review Board or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval of animal use (if applicable).

    Single Copy Documents - Suggested Reviewers and/or Proprietary Info are the only items permitted. Documents uploaded here are not accessible to reviewers.

    A.9.1. Cover Sheet and Certification. Complete topic and subtopic fields must be included on the cover sheet. All proposals must be electronically signed. For information regarding electronic signature, reference the FastLane webpage.

    A.9.2. Project Summary. An edited version of the Project Summary will be available to the public if a proposal is awarded. The Project Summary shall be written in the third person and shall begin as follows: "This Small Business Technology Transfer Phase I project...". The summary must have the following components:

    1. A summary paragraph limited to 200 words addressing the intellectual merits of the proposed activity. No proprietary information should be included in the summary. Include a brief identification of the problem or opportunity, the research objectives, a description of the research, and the anticipated results.

    2. A summary paragraph limited to 200 words addressing the broader impacts/commercial potential of the proposed activity. Include information on the potential commercial value, societal impact, and enhanced scientific and technological understanding.

    3. A listing of key words. The key words or phrases should identify the areas of technical expertise in science, engineering, or education which are to be invoked in reviewing the proposal; and the areas of application that are the initial target of the technology.

    4. The subtopic name.

    A.9.3 Project Description. The project description shall contain the following parts in the following order and must not exceed 15 pages.

    Part 1: Identification and Significance of the Innovation. The first paragraph shall contain a clear and succinct statement specifying the research innovation proposed, and a brief explanation of how the innovation is relevant to meeting a need described in the subtopic narrative.

    Part 2: Background and Phase I Technical Objectives. List and explain the key objectives to be accomplished during the Phase I research, including the questions that must be answered to determine the technical and commercial feasibility of the proposed concept. It is important to show how potential customer needs will be met if the research is successful. Therefore, Phase I proposers are strongly encouraged to consider commercial potential as well as the technical challenges of their research.

    Part 3: Phase I Research Plan. This section must provide a detailed description of the Phase I research approach. The description must include the following:

    • A technical discussion of the proposed concept,
    • What is planned and how the research will be carried out,
    • The plan to achieve each objective, and
    • The sequence of experiments, tests, and computations involved in the measurement of those objectives.

    Part 4. Commercial Potential. Proposals must describe the business opportunity to be enabled by the proposed innovation. The information contained within the Commercial Potential section should convey the scope and nature of this business opportunity. This section should briefly describe the current as well as the anticipated market landscape and the resources required to address the opportunity. The goal of this section is to justify, from a market-opportunity perspective, why a Phase I feasibility study should be undertaken.

    In preparing the description of the commercial potential, you are strongly encouraged to address the following four sections: market opportunity, company/team, product/competition, and revenue/finance. A well crafted Commercial Potential section is typically 3-5 pages in order to fully address the four sections referenced below.

    • The market opportunity - Describe the anticipated target market or market segments and provide a brief profile of the potential customer. What customer needs will be addressed with the innovation? Estimated size of the market being addressed? What barriers to entry exist?
    • The Company/Team - What are the origins of the company/team? How many current employees are there? What is the revenue history, if any, for the past three years? Give a brief description of the experience and credentials of the personnel responsible for taking the innovation to market. How does the background and experience of the team enhance the credibility of the effort; have they previously taken similar products/services to market? Does proposed research mesh with company objectives? How does the proposed technology sit within the company mission?
    • Product or technology and competition - How does your product or service sit within the competitive landscape? What is the main competition? What is the value proposition for the product or service enabled by the innovation? How do you plan to protect any IP generated from the proposed innovation? What critical milestones must be met to get the product or service to market?
    • Financing and revenue model - based upon revenue assumptions, describe how you plan to finance your innovation.

    Part 5. Consultants and Subawards/Subcontracts. Keep in mind that an STTR Phase I project requires a minimum of 40% of the research, as measured by the budget, to be performed by the small business concern, and a minimum of 30% of the research, as measured by the budget, by the collaborating research institution. The remaining 30% may be allocated as appropriate to achieve the objectives of the proposed STTR Phase I project.

    Consultant: The services of each consultant must be justified within the context of the proposal. In this section of the proposal, information must be provided on each consultant's expertise, organizational affiliation, and contribution to the project. In addition, each consultant, whether paid or unpaid, must provide a signed statement that confirms availability, time commitment, role in the project, and the agreed consulting rate (not to exceed $600 per day). The maximum consulting rate under this solicitation is $600 per day (NSF defines a day as 8 hours). This rate is exclusive of any indirect costs, travel, per diem, clerical services, fringe benefits, and supplies.

    The signed consultant statements (with the required stated number of days at $600 per day) must be uploaded as part of the proposal budget justification.

    Subaward (also known as the subcontract): Subawards (including contracts, subcontracts, and other arrangements) are used for research, describe the tasks to be performed and how these are related to the overall project. A minimum of 30% of the research (as measured by the budget) must be performed by a research institution. A Co-PI from the research institution must be identified on the subaward proposal budget.

    Each subaward must use a separate proposal budget and budget justification, and provide details of subaward costs by cost category. Each subawardee budget must be prepared in FastLane.

    Purchases of analytical or other routine services from commercial sources and the acquisition of fabricated components from commercial sources are not regarded as reportable subaward activity. Such items -- routine analytical or other routine services -- should be reported on the Budget under Other Direct Costs/Other (Line G.6 on the budget form).

    All research, including subawards and consultancies, must be carried out in the U.S. (See definition of Place of Performance.)

    Note: If a subawardee lists Post Docs as part of the subaward budget, a Post Doc Mentoring Plan must be provided. For more information on what is required, see the information at the following link: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_29/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2j. Upload the mentoring plan into the supplemental docs module of FastLane. A Post Doc Mentoring plan template can be obtained at: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/Sample_Postdoc_Mentoring_Plan.doc

    Part 6. Equivalent or Overlapping Proposals to Other Federal Agencies. A firm may elect to submit proposals for equivalent or overlapping work under other Federal solicitations or may have received or expect to receive other Federal awards for equivalent or overlapping work. The firm must certify on the proposal cover page whether another Federal Agency has received this proposal (or an equivalent or overlapping proposal). In addition, the proposer must inform NSF of overlapping or equivalent proposals and awards as follows: (a) related federal awards (ongoing or completed); (b) proposals that have been submitted under other government solicitations; and (c) anticipated submissions (within the upcoming calendar year) to other agencies of related proposals. For all such cases, the following information is required:

    • The name, address and telephone contact of the sponsoring agency to which the proposal was or will be submitted,
    • Date(s) of proposal submission(s),
    • Title, number, and date of solicitation under which the proposal was submitted or will be submitted,
    • Title and performance period of the proposal, and
    • Name and title of principal investigator, annual person-months (calendar-months) devoted by any personnel on the equivalent or overlapping project who are participating as PI or senior personnel on this proposal.

    If no equivalent or overlapping proposals are under consideration, explicitly state: NONE. NSF will not make awards that duplicate research funded or expected to be funded by other agencies, although in some cases NSF may fund portions of work described in an overlapping proposal provided that the budgets appropriately reduce costs and allocate costs among the various sponsors. If a proposer fails to disclose equivalent or overlapping proposals as provided in this section, the proposer could be liable for administrative, civil, or criminal sanctions.

    Part 7. Lineage of the Innovation. NSF supports basic/fundamental research. A large portion of the research NSF funds finds its way to the market place. Many of the technology/science/education projects that the NSF SBIR/STTR programs supports had origins from previously funded NSF academic/non-profit projects. If the proposed STTR project has connections to previously NSF funded academic/non-profit research, please provide the following information:

    Directorate Name:

    Division Name:

    Award Number:

    A.9.4. References Cited. Provide a comprehensive listing of relevant references, including patent numbers and other relevant intellectual property citations. References must be uploaded into the system.

    A.9.5. Biographical Sketches. (A maximum of 2 pages per person.) Provide relevant biographical information for the Principal Investigator (PI) and key personnel (including consultants and key members of the subaward team). Biographical Sketches must be uploaded into the system.

    A.9.6. Budget. The total budget shall not exceed $225,000 for the STTR Phase I proposal (including all sub-awards). Budget line items must be shown in detail in the budget justification.

    List the principal investigator and senior personnel by name with their time commitments budgeted in person-months and the dollar amount for the performance period. The PI must be budgeted for a minimum of two (2) months to the project.

    Do not list company employees under B.1 Post Doctoral Scholars. If the subawardee institution budgets funds on line B.1 Post Doctoral Scholars, the company is responsible for ensuring that a Post-Doc Mentoring Plan is included with the proposal (see A.9.9.2).

    The reimbursement rates for consultants are a direct cost that cannot exceed the daily equivalent rate paid to an Executive Level IV Federal employee. As of January 2009, that rate is $600 per day (NSF defines a day as 8 hours). Indicate the number of days proposed per consultant. Consultant travel should be shown under the domestic travel category, E-1, but counts as an outsourcing expense.

    The budget justification should provide a line by line explanation of each budget item (including the signed consultant letter/s).

    The proposal justification should indicate the specifics of the materials and supplies required. Materials and supplies are defined as tangible personal property, other than equipment, costing less than $5,000. Each materials and supplies line item should include an estimated cost for that item.

    Letters and supporting documentation from Consultants and Subawardees are NOT considered letters of support and MUST be uploaded with the Budget Justification and not as a Supplemental Document.

    Permanent equipment, patent expenses, and foreign travel are not allowable expenditures. Tuition costs are not considered research or research and development. Accordingly, they are not acceptable costs and should not be included on the budget for the company and the subawardee.

    One domestic trip (for up to two persons, normally the PI and an individual associated with business operations) is required to attend a two-day grantee workshop in the DC area. The intent of this workshop is to discuss the research program with a program officer and to learn the mechanics of preparing a Phase II proposal; therefore, this trip must be included in the Phase I budget. An explicit statement acknowledging attendance at the grantee workshop is required on the budget justification page. A good budget estimate is $2,000 per person to cover the conference registration fee and travel expenses.

    Indirect costs plus fringe benefits is limited to an effective rate of 150% of salaries and wages, i.e. Line C + Line I should not be more than $150% of Line A + Line B. The following expenses will not be funded as part of the indirect cost pool:

    • Independent Research and Development (IR&D)
    • Patent and patent related expenses will not be funded as either a direct or indirect cost
    • Sales and marketing expenses
    • Business development
    • Manufacturing and production expenses

    Reasonable fees (estimated profit) will be considered under Phase I. The amount of the fee approved by NSF cannot exceed seven percent (7%) of the total indirect and direct project costs. The proposal bottom line cannot exceed $225,000 for STTR Phase I proposals.

    Detailed documentation of budget line items is required for ALL budget items and must be documented on the budget justification page.

    A.9.7. Current and Pending Support of Principal Investigator and Senior Personnel. This section should provide information about all research to which the principal investigator and other senior personnel either have committed time or have planned to commit time during the STTR Phase I period of performance, whether salary for the person involved is included in the budgets of the various projects. All current project support from whatever source (Federal, State, local or foreign government agencies, public or private foundations, industrial or other commercial organizations) must be listed. Current and Pending Support must be uploaded into the system. The proposal being submitted is considered "pending" and therefore MUST appear in the Current and Pending Support module.

    For all ongoing or proposed projects or proposals that will be submitted in the near future -- but excluding any proposals already cited above in the Equivalent or Overlapping Proposals to other Federal Agencies section -- that involve the Principal Investigator or senior personnel, provide the following information:

    • Name of sponsoring organization,
    • Title and performance period of the proposal, and
    • Annual person-months (calendar months) devoted to the project by the principal investigator and each of the senior personnel.

    A.9.8. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources. Provide a description that specifies the availability and location of significant equipment, instrumentation, computers, and physical facilities necessary to complete the portion of the research that is to be carried out by the proposing firm in Phase I. Purchase of permanent equipment is not permitted in a Phase I project (reference definition of Permanent Equipment). DO NOT use budget line item D for Phase I proposals. This document must be uploaded into the appropriate module in Fastlane for all proposals.

    If the equipment, instrumentation, computers, and facilities for this research are not the property (owned or leased) of the proposing firm, include a statement signed by the owner or lessor which affirms the availability of these facilities for use in the proposed research, reasonable lease or rental costs for their use, and any other associated costs. Upload images of the scanned statements into this section.

    A.9.9. Supplementary Documents. The items permitted in this module for a Phase I proposal are limited to the following (if applicable):

    A.9.9.1. Letters of Support for Technology or Market Opportunity (no more than three letters). Letters of support act as an indication of market validation for the proposed innovation and add significant credibility to the proposed effort. Letters of support should demonstrate that the company has initiated dialog with relevant stakeholders (potential customers, strategic partners, or investors) for the proposed innovation and that a real business opportunity may exist should the technology prove feasible. The letter(s) must contain affiliation and contact information for the signatory stakeholder.

    A.9.9.2. Post Doc Mentoring Plan. If a proposal requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers, a Post Doc Mentoring Plan must be included as a supplementary document. The plan must provide a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. The mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral researchers supported by the project, irrespective of whether they reside at the submitting organization, any subawardee organization, or at any organization participating in a simultaneously submitted collaborative project. Proposers are advised that the mentoring plan may not be used to circumvent the 15-page project description limitation. A template for the Post Doc Mentoring Plan can be obtained at: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/Sample_Postdoc_Mentoring_Plan.doc

    A.9.9.3. Company Commercialization History. A Company Commercialization History is required for all proposers certifying receipt of previous Phase II awards from any Federal agency. The NSF Commercialization History Template must be used. All items must be addressed in the format outlined in this template. Additional narratives and commercialization history documents from other SBIR/STTR agencies are not permitted.

    A.9.9.4. Cooperative Research Agreement. See the Cooperative Research Agreement (CRA) model. The proposing small business concern must provide a signed written CRA between the small business and the research institution at the time of award. For proposal submission, place a draft of the CRA or a letter stating that a CRA will be provided upon notification of award recommendation.

    A.9.9.5 Data Management Plan. Proposals must contain a supplementary document labeled "Data Management Plan" which should include the statement, "All data generated in this STTR Phase I project is considered proprietary." Fastlane will not permit submission of a proposal that is missing the newly required Data Management Plan. For further information on the content of data management plans, see: http://nsf.gov/eng/general/ENG_DMP_Policy.pdf

    A.9.9.6. Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) Approval for Animal Use. Please refer to Chapter II, Sections D.5 and D.6 of the GPG (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg). Note that in some cases, product testing involves human subjects. In addition to the information in the GPG, please refer to http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp. Look for federal-wide assurances under the Office of Human Research Protection website.

    Animal use in funded projects requires approval of the company or collaborating institutions' Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Please refer to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/rig.shtml for additional information.

    A.10. Research Topic - Enhancing the Bioeconomy using emerging Biological Technologies (EBBT) The fundamental mission of NSF is to promote discoveries and to advance education across the frontiers of knowledge in science and engineering. Consistent with that mission, NSF encourages and supports a wide range of proposals from the research and education community and from the private small business sector. These proposals are reviewed under NSF's merit review criteria, which cover both the quality of research (intellectual or technical merit) and its potential impact on society (broader impacts or commercial potential).

    The STTR program solicits proposals from the small business sector consistent with NSF's mission. The program is governed by Public Law 112-81. A main purpose of the legislation is to stimulate technological innovation and increase private sector commercialization. The NSF small business program is therefore in a unique position to meet both the goals of NSF and the purpose of the STTR legislation by transforming scientific discovery into both societal and economic benefit, and by emphasizing private sector commercialization. NSF has formulated a solicitation topic for STTR that conforms to the legislation. The STTR Topic for this solicitation is Enhancing the Bioeconomy using emerging Biological Technologies (EBBT). Research and innovation in the biological sciences has created a large and rapidly growing bioeconomy built on three fundamental technologies - genetic engineering, DNA sequencing, and high-throughput automation. Future growth of the bioeconomy is dependent upon expansion of emerging technologies. The aim of this solicitation is to harness emerging advances in life sciences research to address commercial opportunities in the subtopic areas listed below.

    Proposals submitted to this solicitation must utilize emerging biologically-based technologies such as synthetic biology, systems biology, metabolic engineering, proteomics, bioinformatics, and computational biology. In additional, proposers must clearly identify the intended commercial outcome of the research: product, process, or service.

    Proposals must address one of the subtopics that are outlined below. Proposals that are not responsive to the subtopics outlined below or proposals deemed to be basic/fundamental research, will be returned without review.

    The subtopics for this solicitation are as follows:

    1. Biomedical Applications: Creating devices, systems, and organisms with novel functions that provide new strategies for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer, infectious diseases, immune diseases, and metabolic disorders. This includes (but is not limited to) novel diagnostic tools, drug delivery, and drug production.

    2. Sustainable Agriculture Applications: New approaches for meeting the world's future nutritional needs. Target areas for improvement may include (but are not limited to) drought tolerance, improved nutritional value, enhanced disease resistance, and higher crop yield. Proposers should give consideration to technologies that enhance biodiversity, produce less carbon dioxide, and use less water and fertilizer.

    3. Biosensing Applications: Engineer organisms and cells to achieve novel properties, making use of signaling networks and regulatory elements. Application areas of interest may include (but are not limited to) toxicity testing, food safety, drug evaluation, environmental monitoring, and bio-prospecting.

    4. Biomanufacturing Applications: Creating new manufacturing capability by designing microorganisms, plants, and cell-free systems for the production of novel chemicals and biomolecules. Applications may include (but is not limited to) health-care products, food ingredients, chemicals, and other biomaterials such as enzymes and bio-based polymers.

    5. Advanced Life Science Tools: Create new tools and approaches with the goal of reducing costs and shortening the time line for emerging life science tools technologies. This may include (but is not limited to) tools for identification and standardization of parts such as genes and regulatory elements, synthesis and assembly of DNA, testing and evaluation, and computational modeling.

    An interdisciplinary and interdependent team approach is required in response to this STTR topic. Proposers should endeavor to bring scientists and engineers from multiple fields together to form collaborative teams.

    When preparing the Project Summary portion of your proposal, use the subtopic letter and name as the first item in the key words/phrases portion of the Project Summary (i.e., A. Biomedical Applications).

    Proposers are reminded to identify the program solicitation number (NSF 12-592) in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.

    B. Budgetary Information

    Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited

    Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

    Indirect costs are limited to an effective rate of 150% of salaries and wages. (See Section V.A.9.6)

    C. Due Dates

    • Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

      October 20, 2012 - November 20, 2012

      LOI must be submitted in order to submit a full proposal

    • Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

      December 20, 2012

      A LOI must have been submitted on or before 11/20/2012

    D. FastLane Requirements

    Proposers are required to prepare and submit all proposals for this program solicitation through use of the NSF FastLane system. Detailed instructions regarding the technical aspects of proposal preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

    Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.

    VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

    Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where they will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposal preparation requirements. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal.

    A. NSF Merit Review Criteria

    All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board (NSB)-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and the broader impacts of the proposed effort. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

    The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make judgments.

    What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
    How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

    What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
    How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

    Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf.

    Mentoring activities provided to postdoctoral researchers supported on the project, as described in a one-page supplementary document, will be evaluated under the Broader Impacts criterion.

    Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

    The STTR program has additional criteria which reflect the legislative emphasis of the program and complement the standard NSF review criteria listed above.

    "What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?"

    1. Is the proposed plan a sound approach for establishing technical and commercial feasibility?
    2. To what extent does the proposal suggest and develop unique or ingenious concepts or applications?
    3. How well qualified is the technical team (Principal Investigator, key staff, consultants, and subawardees) to conduct the proposed activity?
    4. Is there sufficient access to resources (materials and supplies, analytical services, equipment, facilities, etc.)?
    5. Does the proposal reflect state-of-the-art in the major research activities proposed? (Are advancements in state-of-the-art likely?)

    "What are the broader impacts/commercial potential of the proposed activity?"

    1. What may be the commercial and societal benefits of the proposed activity?
    2. Does the outcome of the proposed activity lead to a marketable product or process that warrants significant NSF support?
    3. Given the stage of the proposed effort, is the team well-balanced between technical and business skills?
    4. Has the proposing firm successfully commercialized SBIR or STTR-supported technology where prior awards have been made? (Or, has the firm been successful at commercializing technology that has not received SBIR or STTR support?)
    5. Has the proposer evaluated the competitive advantage of this technology vs. alternate technologies that can meet the same market needs?
    6. Does the proposal lead to enabling technologies (instrumentation, software, etc.) for further innovation?
    7. How well is the proposed activity positioned to attract further funding from non-SBIR sources once the project ends?

    NSF staff also will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:

    Integration of Research and Education
    One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.

    Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
    Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

    B. Review and Selection Process

    Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

    Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

    After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.

    A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

    In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

    VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

    A. Notification of the Award

    Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

    B. Award Conditions

    An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

    *These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

    More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

    Special Award Conditions:

    STTR Phase I and Phase II awards are subject to availability of funds. NSF has no obligation to make any specific number of STTR Phase I or Phase II awards based on a solicitation and may elect to make several or no awards under any specific subtopic. STTR Phase I awards are 12-month, fixed-price grants and shall not exceed $225,000. The STTR Phase II fixed-priced grants typically will not exceed $750,000 per award. A Phase II award is based on a Phase I award. STTR Phase II awards normally will be made for a 24-month period of performance. (For information on Phase II, reference Phase II proposal preparation found on the SBIR/STTR web site (Phase II Award Information). Reasonable fees for profit (not to exceed 7% of the total direct and indirect costs) will be considered under both phases.

    SBIR/STTR prospective grantees will be notified by NSF to provide a signed SBIR/STTR Funding Agreement Certification. The federal government relies on the information provided by grantees to determine whether the business is eligible for a Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program award. Certification will be used to ensure continued compliance during the life of the funding agreement. (http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/Forms/SBIR_STTR_FUNDING_AGREEMENT_CERT.doc)

    C. Reporting Requirements

    The Principal Investigator must submit a final project report to the cognizant Program Officer within 15 days after expiration of a grant.

    Failure to provide the required final project report will delay NSF review and processing of any pending proposals for that PI. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

    PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of final project reports. Such reports provide information on activities and findings, project participants (individual and organizational) publications; and, other specific products and contributions. PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system. Submission of the report via FastLane constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete.

    The Phase I final report will be due to NSF within 15 days of the expiration of the grant. A Phase II proposal requires an approved Phase I Final Report to be uploaded as part of the Phase II proposal package.

    VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

    Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

    General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

    • Ruth M. Shuman, SBIR/STTR Program Director, Biological and Chemical Technologies (BC), telephone: (703) 292-2160, email: rshuman@nsf.gov

    • Prakash Balan, SBIR/STTR Program Director, Biological and Chemical Technologies (BC), telephone: (703) 292-5341, email: pbalan@nsf.gov

    • Jesus V. Soriano, SBIR/STTR Program Director, Biological and Chemical Technologies (BC), telephone: (703) 292-7795, email: jsoriano@nsf.gov

    • Theresa A. Good, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET), telephone: (703) 292-7029, email: tgood@nsf.gov

    • Susanne von Bodman, Program Director, Directorate for Biological Sciences, Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB), telephone: (703) 292-8440, email: svonbodm@nsf.gov

    • Aleksandr L. Simonian, Program Director, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET), telephone: (703) 292-4826, email: asimonia@nsf.gov

    For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

    IX. OTHER INFORMATION

    The NSF Website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this Website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, National Science Foundation Update is a free e-mail subscription service designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail when new publications are issued that match their identified interests. Users can subscribe to this service by clicking the "Get NSF Updates by Email" link on the NSF web site.

    Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.

    ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

    NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

    NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

    Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

    The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

    The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

    The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.

    To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov

    • Location:

    4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230

    • For General Information
      (NSF Information Center):

    (703) 292-5111

    • TDD (for the hearing-impaired):

    (703) 292-5090

    • To Order Publications or Forms:

    Send an e-mail to:

    nsfpubs@nsf.gov

    or telephone:

    (703) 292-7827

    • To Locate NSF Employees:

    (703) 292-5111

    PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

    The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

    Suzanne H. Plimpton
    Reports Clearance Officer
    Division of Administrative Services
    National Science Foundation
    Arlington, VA 22230





    Policies and Important Links

    |

    Privacy | FOIA | Help | Contact NSF | Contact Web Master | SiteMap

    National Science Foundation

    The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA
    Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 | TDD: (800) 281-8749

    Last Updated:
    11/07/06
    Text Only




    Genomic Study of Africa's Hunter-gatherers Elucidates Human Variation and Ancient Interbreeding

    July 26, 2012

    a young boy practices his archery skills In a report to be featured on the cover of the Aug. 3 issue of the journal Cell, University of Pennsylvania geneticists and their colleagues analyze the fully sequenced genomes of 15 Africans belonging to three different hunter-gatherer groups and decipher some of what these genetic codes have to say about human diversity and evolution. Full Story

    continental drilling

    NSF 12-111

    Dear Colleague Letter - Continential Scientific Drilling

    DATE: July 30, 2012

    This letter is to inform you of two actions that the National Science Foundation (NSF) will take to accommodate the needs of the continental scientific drilling community.

    (1) To facilitate the planning activities that are necessary to support earth science proposals requiring continental scientific drilling, the Division of Earth Sciences (EAR) will accept "planning grant proposals". Such a planning grant may be used to support pre-drilling activities that will strengthen a drilling proposal intended for submission to one of EAR's core science programs. These activities could include workshops, community planning activities, site surveys, equipment design, and drilling plan and budget preparation. These proposals should be submitted to the EAR/Instrumentation and Facilities Program as "unsolicited proposals" with a budget of less than $50,000.

    (2) EAR intends to release a solicitation to re-compete the management and operation of a Continental Scientific Drilling Program Office. This plan will address existing National Science Board policy requiring periodic re-competition of the management of major NSF facilities (NSB-08-16). NSF welcomes community feedback on this plan. Please contact the following NSF program officer with questions or comments:

    David Lambert
    Instrumentation & Facilities Program
    703-292-8558
    dlambert@nsf.gov

    Subject:
     WATCH - National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Overview
     From:
    National Science Foundation Update <nsf-update@nsf.gov>
    To:

    Aug 16 2012 12:00PM to
    Aug 16 2012 1:00PM
    NSF Room 110

    Abstract

     This presentation will be an overview of the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE). Initiative history, current status, and future directions will be covered along with insight into how cybersecurity education, awareness, training, and workforce development all interact and enable the larger Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education enterprise of this country. A National Cybersecurity Workforce Framework document has ...
    More at http://www.nsf.gov/events/event_summ.jsp?cntn_id=125064&WT.mc_id=USNSF_13&WT.mc_ev=click


    This is an NSF Events item.

    GSA Seeks Ideas to Develop Miami Courthouse

    miami

    Kelp Forestry?

    Top Materials News


    News From the Field
    Superfast Evolution in Sea Stars

    July 23, 2012

    an image of the sea star c. pentagona How quickly can new species arise? In as little as 6,000 years, according to a study of Australian sea stars. Full Story

    When the World Burned Less

    July 30, 2012

    image of fire In the years after Columbus' voyage, burning of New World forests and fields diminished significantly--a phenomenon some have attributed to decimation of native populations by European diseases. But a new University of Utah-led study suggests global cooling resulted in fewer fires because both preceded Columbus in many regions worldwide. Full Story

    Big Horns Trump Smooth Pickup Lines Every Time

    July 26, 2012

    image of beetle horns Elk and rhinoceros beetles aren't diabetic, but to grow big horns and attract mates it appears that the males are insulin-dependent. Ian Dworkin, a Michigan State University zoologist, was part of a team that for the first time ever, showed why horns--from elk to rhinoceros beetles--and other decorative, mate-attracting structures are sensitive to changes in nutrition. As reported in the current issue of Science, the key ingredient for this growth is insulin. Full Story

    Are you the mayor of your favorite coffee shop, café, or park?

    112th


    Calling All Champions of Change

    Posted by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, on June 6, 2012

    Hunger is an issue that touches the lives of people all around us. Whether it’s the single mother struggling to feed her family of four while simultaneously making ends meet or a person living in rural America who has to drive 50 miles to the closest grocery store, hunger affects us all.

    That is why I am calling upon all community leaders who have committed themselves to ending this struggle to apply to the “White House Champions of Change:  Alleviating Hunger at Home and Abroad” program.  The purpose of this program is to recognize individuals who are using innovative community-based approaches to reduce hunger and ensure that people have access to enough food both in the United States and internationally. Read more »

    In order to “acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture…

    Private Citizen on the Public Agenda: Too few of the intellectual elite provide the society with statesmanlike leadership and guidance in public affairs. Cross-fertilization of ideas and experience enriches the practice of public policy. The raw material is still here.

    It is essential to the healthy functioning of our system that we have in the non-governmental sector a generous supply of leaders who have an understanding -- gained first hand -- of the challenges that our national government faces. In a day when the individual feels increasingly remote from the centers of power and decision, such leaders can help their fellow citizens comprehend the process by which the Nation is governed.

    storm cloud

    Priorities: Catalyze large-scale change so every American has the necessary tools at hand

    Joint Support for Governors’ Institute on Community Design

    “The Institute is a vital tool for our states’ leaders as they look for ways to trigger economic development and create strong, resilient communities,” says former Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening, who co-chairs the Institute alongside former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.

    The Institute, established in 2005 and administered by Smart Growth America, will now receive joint support from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in a new, collaborative effort as part of the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

    Joint funding supports the ability to provide thought leadership and policy-development assistance, the Institute is one of the first programs to receive joint support from all three participating agencies.

    Abolish Aerial Surveillance Bill

    Multiple Award Government & Industry Conference in Arlington, Va.( MAGIC)

    Are Fiat Currencies Headed for a Collapse?

    Published: Friday, 27 Jul 2012 | 5:27 AM ET
    Text Size
    By: Lisa Oake
    Anchor, CNBC Asia-Pacific

    As the investment world eagerly awaits more stimulus, a debate on a previously unthinkable topic has started to emerge – can fiat currencies survive round after round of debasement?

    Some heavy hitters say the answer is no.

    A fiat currency derives its worth from the issuing government - it is not fixed in value to any objective standard. That means central banks can print as much money as they want.  If an economy is struggling, injecting more notes into the system juices activity but lowers the value of the currency in question.

    With major central banks all desperate to stimulate their economies, some say currencies have entered a dangerous new phase often described as a race to the bottom.

    Mark Mobius, Executive Chairman of Templeton Emerging Markets Group, says investors will soon start to demand fiat currencies be backed by gold or other hard assets.

    “It's already happening, you're beginning to see that trend with central banks stocking up on gold.  The estimate is that at least half of the buying is central bank buying. They are looking to the day when they can say okay, our currency is backed by gold and therefore we're a strong country,” Mobius told CNBC Asia.

    Mobius has $50 billion under management.

    Yu-Dee Chang, Chief Advisor at ACE Investment Strategists, says repeated stimulus is shortsighted. “If you keep printing money, sooner or later, we're going to get in trouble.  QE is good for the economy and for the market but the long-term effect is very much questionable,” said Chang.

    But not everyone thinks fiat currencies are approaching their demise.  Sean Callow, Senior Currency Strategist at Westpac Bank, says if there was going to be a melt-down, it would have happened by now.

    “The bond market vigilantes have had every chance to punish the U.S. for its huge fiscal deficits. The markets are confident in these currencies - the U.S. dollar [.DXY  Loading...      ()], the pound [GBP=X  Loading...      ()], and the yen [JPY=X  Loading...      ()] in particular. That's where the balance sheet expansion has occurred and yet those currencies have held up pretty well over the past couple of years,” said Callow.

    As the fiat currency debate gains momentum and relevance, one London-based manager of a billion dollar fund says the answer about what lies ahead is in the past.

    “Every single fiat currency in history has collapsed, this time will be no different.”

    cnbc
    “I just want to say one word to you, Benjamin.  Plastics.”
    To distinguish a cost recovery action under Section 107(a) from a contribution action under Section 113(f), the U.S. Supreme Court observed that a Section 107(a) action may lie where a party has itself “incurred” cleanup costs, as opposed to reimbursing costs paid by other parties, which is more appropriately covered by Section 113(f).[7] A significant practical difference between the two sections presents itself when one or more defendants has settled its liability with the federal government — while Section 113 contribution claims are barred by the CERCLA contribution protection scheme, Section 107 cost recovery claims, whether brought by the government or a PRP, are not barred.[8] Although a PRP that settles with the federal government or a state is entitled to contribution protection, CERCLA provides no protection for settlements among private parties. To remedy this situation, the courts — recognizing there is little incentive for partial settlements in multiparty cases without such protection — have created common-law mechanisms to provide contribution protection in private CERCLA actions. They rely on one of two competing federal contribution-protection mechanisms: the Uniform Comparative Fault Act (“UCFA”) and the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (“UCATA”). Both are model statutes and have not codified in federal law. Nonetheless, the courts rely on them to create a federal common law corollary to the statutory contribution protection found in CERCLA. UCATA was promulgated in 1955 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Section 1 provides that joint or several tortfeasors have a right to contribution to the extent they have paid more than their pro rata share of common liability. Section 4 explains that when one joint tortfeasor settles with a plaintiff, that tortfeasor’s liability for contribution to other tortfeasors is discharged, and the nonsettling tortfeasors’ liability to plaintiff is reduced by either the amount stipulated to or paid in the settlement, whichever is greater. The UCFA was promulgated in 1977 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws as a replacement to UCATA in jurisdictions adopting the principle of comparative fault.[9] Section 2 of the UCFA provides that liability among tortfeasors is to be allocated according to their respective percentages of fault. Section 6 provides that if one tortfeasor settles with the plaintiff, the settling party is protected against contribution claims by its fellow tortfeasors, and plaintiff’s claim against the remaining tortfeasors is reduced by the settlor’s “equitable share” of liability.

     The joint and several liability language was deleted from the final legislation in order to secure passage.Evidence supporting apportionment need not be precise—and that there only need to be "facts contained in the record reasonably support[ing] the apportionment of liability." Most agree BNSF establishes a lower standard for divisibility.
     The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue. In 2007, Justice Thomas in U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp. stated "[w]e assume without deciding that § 107(a) provides for joint and several liability.” The Supreme Court and many other judicial bodies have repeatedly stated that if Congress has deleted a proposal for a particular rule or remedy, and did so as a part of a legislative compromise, that deletion should be recognized and given effect by the courts. So far this rule of statutory construction has been disregarded.

    Settling CERCLA litigation is a minefield, but armed with a carefully developed and executed strategy, a CERCLA plaintiff can successfully bring finality to the government’s claims without hindering its ability to seek contribution from other PRPs for an equitable share of remediation costs.


    "THE ALTRUIST IN POLITICS"


    By Benjamin Cardozo

    delivered by Cardozo as his commencement oration at Columbia College in 1889


    There comes not seldom a crisis in the life of men, of nations, and of worlds, when the old forms seem ready to decay, and the old rules of action have lost their binding force. The evils of existing systems obscure the blessings that attend them; and, where reform is needed, the cry is raised for subversion. The cause of such phenomena is not far to seek. "It used to appear to me," writes Count Tolstoi, in a significant passage, "it used to appear to me that the small number of cultivated, rich and idle men, of whom I was one, composed the whole of humanity, and that the millions and millions of other men who had lived and are still living were not in reality men at all." It is this spirit-the spirit that sees the whole of humanity in the few, and throws into the background the millions and millions of other men-it is this spirit that has aroused the antagonism of reformers, and made the decay of the old forms, the rupture of the old restrictions, the ideal of them and of their followers. When wealth and poverty meet each other face to face, the one the master and the other the dependent, the one exalted and the other debased, it is perhaps hardly matter for surprise that the dependent and debased and powerless faction, in envy of their opponents' supremacy, should demand, not simple reform, but absolute community and equality of wealth. That cry for communism is no new one in the history of mankind. Thousands of years ago it was heard and acted on; and, in the lapse of centuries, its reverberations have but swelled in volume. Again and again, the altruist has arisen in politics, has bidden us share with others the product of our toil, and has proclaimed the communistic dogma as the panacea for our social ills. So today, amid the buried hopes and buried projects of the past, the doctrine of communism still lives in the minds of men. Under stress of misfortune, or in dread of tyranny, it is still preached in modern times as Plato preached it in the world of the Greeks.

    Yet it is indeed doubtful whether, in the history of mankind, a doctrine was ever taught more impracticable or more false to the principles it professes than this very doctrine of communism. In a world where self-interest is avowedly the ruling motive, it seeks to establish at once an all-reaching and all-controlling altruism. In a world where every man is pushing and fighting to outstrip his fellows, it would make him toil with like vigor for their common welfare. In a world where a man's activity is measured by the nearness of reward, it would hold up a prospective recompense as an equal stimulant to labor. "The more bitterly we feel," writes George Eliot, "the more bitterly we feel the folly, ignorance, neglect, or self-seeking of those who at different times have wielded power, the stronger is the obligation we lay on ourselves to beware lest we also, by a too hasty wresting of measures which seem to promise immediate relief, make a worse time of it for our own generation, and leave a bad inheritance for our children." In the future, when the remoteness of his reward shall have weakened the laborer's zeal, we shall be able to judge more fairly of the blessings that the communist offers. Instead of the present world, where some at least are well-to-do and happy, the communist holds before us a world where all alike are poor. For the activity, the push, the vigor of our modern life, his substitute is a life aimless and unbroken. And so we have to say to communists what George Eliot might have said: Be not blinded by the passions of the moment, but when you prate about your own wrongs and the sufferings of your offspring, take heed lest in the long run you make a worse time of it for your own generation, and leave a bad inheritance for your children.

    Little thought has been taken by these altruistic reformers for the application of the doctrines they uphold. To the question how one kind of labor can be measured against another, how the labor of the artisan can be measured against the labor of the artist, how the labor of the strong can be measured against the labor of the weak, the communists can give no answer. Absorbed, as they are, in the principle of equality, they have still forgotten the equality of work in the equality of pay; they have forgotten that reward, to be really equal, must be proportionate to effort; and they and all socialists have forgotten that we cannot make an arithmetic of human thought and feeling; and that for all our crude attempts to balance recompense against toil, for all our crude attempts to determine the relative severity of different kinds of toil, for all our crude attempts to determine the relative strain on different persons of the same kind of toil, yet not only will the ratio, dealing, as it does, with our subjective feelings, be a blundering one, but a system based upon it will involve inequalities greater, because more insidious, than those of the present system it would discard.

    Instances, indeed, are not wanting to substantiate the claim that communism, by unduly exalting our altruistic impulses, proceeds upon a false psychological basis. Yet if an instance is to be chosen, it would be hard to find one more suggestive than that afforded by the efforts of Robert Owen. The year 1824 saw the rise of Owen's little community of New Harmony, and the year of 1828 saw the community's final disruption. Individuals had appropriated to themselves the property designed for all; and even Owen, who had given to the enterprise his money and his life, was obliged to admit that men were not yet fitted for the communistic stage, and that the moment of transition from individualism to communism had not yet arrived. Men trained under the old system, with its eager rivalry, its selfish interests, could not quite yet enter into the spirit of self-renunciation that communism demands. And Owen, therefore, was led to put his trust in education as the great moulder of the minds of men. Through this agency, he hoped, the eager rivalry, the selfish interests, the sordid love of gain, might be lost in higher, purer, more disinterested ends; and, animated by that hope-the hope that in the fullness of time another New Harmony, free from contention and the disappointments of the old one, might serve to immortalize his name-animated by that hope, Owen passed the last thirty years of his life; and with that hope still before his eyes he died.

    But years now have passed since Owen lived; the second New Harmony has not yet been seen; the so-called rational system of education has not yet transformed the impulses or the aims of men; and the communist of today, with a history of two thousand years of failure behind him, in the same pathetic confidence still looks for the realization of his dreams to the communism of the future.

    And yet, granting that communism were practicable, granting that Owen's hopes had some prospect of fulfillment, the doctrine still embodies evils that must make it forever inexpedient. The readers of Mr. Matthew Arnold's works must have noticed the emphasis with which he dwells on the instinct of expansion as a factor in human progress. It is the refutation alike of communism and socialism that they thwart the instinct of expansion; that they substitute for individual energy the energy of the government; that they substitute for human personality the blind, mechanical power of the State. The one system, as the other, marks the end of individualism. The one system, as the other, would make each man the image of his neighbor. The one system, as the other, would hold back the progressive, and, by uniformity of reward, gain uniformity of type.

    I can look forward to no blissful prospect for a race of men that, under the dominion of the State, at the cost of all freedom of action, at the cost, indeed, of their own true selves, shall enjoy, if one will, a fair abundance of the material blessings of life. Some Matthew Arnold of the future would inevitably say of them in phase like that applied to the Puritans of old: "They entered the prison of socialism and had the key turned upon their spirit there for hundreds of years." Into that prison of socialism, with broken enterprise and broken energy, as serfs under the mastery of the State, while human personality is preferred to unreasoning mechanism, mankind must hesitate to step. When they shall once have entered within it, when the key shall have been turned upon their spirit and have confined them in narrower straits than even Puritanism could have done, it will be left for them to find, in their blind obedience and passive submission, the recompense for the singleness of character, the foresight, and the energy, that they have left behind them.

    In almost every phase of life, this doctrine of political altruists is equally impracticable and pernicious. In its social results, it involves the substitution of the community in the family's present position. In its political aspects, it involves the absolute dominion of the State over the actions and property of its subjects. Thus, though claiming to be an exaltation of the so-called natural rights of liberty and equality, it is in reality their emphatic debasement. It teaches that thoughtless docility is a recompense for stunted enterprise. It magnifies material good at the cost of every rational endowment. It inculcates a self-denial that must result in dwarfing the individual to a mere instrument in the hands of the State for the benefit of his fellows. No such organization of society-no organization that fails to take note of the fact that man must have scope for the exercise and development of his faculties-no such organization of society can ever reach a permanent success. However beneficent its motives, the hypothesis with which it starts can never be realized. The aphorism of Emerson, "Churches have been built, not upon principles, but upon tropes," is as true in the field of politics as it is in the field of religion. In a like figurative spirit, the followers of communism have reared their edifice; and, looking back upon the finished structure, seeking to discern the base on which it rests, the critic finds, not principles, but tropes. The builders have appealed to a future that has no warrant in the past; and fixing their gaze upon the distant dreamland, captivated by the vision there beheld, entranced by its ideal effulgence, their eyes were blinded to the real conditions of the human problem they had set before them. Their enemies have not been slow to note such weakness and mistake; and perhaps it may serve to clear up misconceptions, perhaps it may serve to lessen cant and open the way for fresh and vigorous thought, if we shall once convince ourselves that altruism cannot be the rule of life; that its logical result is the dwarfing of the individual man; and that not by the death of human personality can we hope to banish the evils of our day, and to realize the ideal of all existence, a nobler or purer life.



    Associate Justice Benjamin Cardozo Judicial opinions

    • Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.
      • In re Rouss, 221 N.Y. 81, 84 (N.Y. 1917).
    • Consequences cannot alter statutes, but may help to fix their meaning.
      • In re Rouss, 221 NY 81, 91 (N.Y. 1917).
    • The defendant styles herself "a creator of fashions." Her favor helps a sale. Manufacturers of dresses, millinery and like articles are glad to pay for a certificate of her approval. The things which she designs, fabrics, parasols and what not, have a new value in the public mind when issued in her name. She employed the plaintiff to help her to turn this vogue into money.
      • Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88, 91; 118 N.E. 214 (N.Y. 1917). This opening paragraph has been debated among legal practitioners, some of whom take its tone to be a sly rebuke by Cardozo of a profession which he considered to have an exaggerated influence.
    • The law has outgrown its primitive stage of formalism when the precise word was the sovereign talisman, and every slip was fatal. It takes a broader view to-day. A promise may be lacking, and yet the whole writing may be "instinct with an obligation," imperfectly expressed. If that is so, there is a contract.
    • Danger invites rescue. ... The wrongdoer may not have foreseen the coming of a deliverer. He is accountable as if he had.
      • Wagner v. International Railway Co., 232 N.Y. 13 (N.Y. 1926), setting forth the rescue doctrine which holds negligent parties liable not only for injury to the victim, but to those who attempt to rescue the victim.
    • Inaction without more is not tantamount to choice.
      • Richard v. Credit Suisse, 242 N.Y. 346, 351 (N.Y. 1926).
    • The whole problem of the relation between parent and subsidiary corporations is one that is still enveloped in the mists of metaphor. Metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it. We say at times that the corporate entity will be ignored when the parent corporation operates a business through a subsidiary which is characterized as an 'alias' or a 'dummy.'... Dominion may be so complete, interference so obtrusive, that by the general rules of agency the parent will be a principal and the subsidiary an agent.
      • Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway, 244 N.Y. 84, 94, 155 N.E. 58, 61 (N.Y. 1926). Sometimes misquoted as referring to "figures of speech" rather than metaphors, or with other minor variations.
    • Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior.
    • Fraud includes the pretense of knowledge when knowledge there is none.
      • Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170, 179, 174 N.E. 441, 444 (N.Y. 1931).
    • Expediency may tip the scales when arguments are nicely balanced.
      • Woolford Realty Co., Inc., v. Rose, 286 U.S. 319, 330 (1932).
    • Prophecy, however honest, is generally a poor substitute for experience.
      • West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (No.2), 294 U.S. 79, 82, (1935).
    • Price security, we are told, is only a special form of sanitary security; the economic motive is secondary and subordinate; the state intervenes to make its inhabitants healthy, and not to make them rich. On that assumption we are asked to say that intervention will be upheld as a valid exercise by the state of its internal police power, though there is an incidental obstruction to commerce between one state and another. This would be to eat up the rule under the guise of an exception. Economic welfare is always related to health, for there can be no health if men are starving. Let such an exception be admitted, and all that a state will have to do in times of stress and strain is to say that its farmers and merchants and workmen must be protected against competition from without, lest they go upon the poor relief lists or perish altogether. To give entrance to that excuse would be to invite a speedy end of our national solidarity. The Constitution was framed under the dominion of a political philosophy less parochial in range. It was framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division.
    • Due process is a growth too sturdy to succumb to the infection of the least ingredient of error.
      • Roberts v. New York, 295 U.S. 264, 278 (1935).
    • Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.

    Other writings

    • Justice is not to be taken by storm. She is to be wooed by slow advances. Substitute statute for decision, and you shift the center of authority, but add no quota of inspired wisdom.
      • Lecture at Yale University Law School (1923) as quoted in The American Journal of International Law Vol. 29 (1935), p. 32.
    • The repetition of a catchword can hold analysis in fetters for fifty years or more.
      • Mr. Justice Holmes, 44 Harv. L. Rec. 682, 289 (1931).
    • With traps and obstacles and hazards confronting us on every hand, only blindness or indifference will fail to turn in all humility, for guidance or for warning, to the study of examples.
      • "Law and Literature" in Law and Literature and Other Essays and Addresses (1931), p. 9.
    • As I search the archives of my memory I seem to discern six types or methods which divide themselves from one another with measurable distinctness. There is the type magisterial or imperative; the type laconic or sententious; the type conversational or homely; the type refined or artificial, smelling of the lamp, verging at times upon preciosity or euphuism; the demonstrative or persuasive; and finally the type tonsorial or agglutinative, so called from the shears and the pastepot which are its implements and emblem.
      • On types of judicial writing, in "Law and Literature" in Law and Literature and Other Essays and Addresses (1931), p. 10.
    • Method is much, technique is much, but inspiration is even more.
      • "The Game of the Law" In Law and Literature and Other Essays and Addresses (1931), p. 163.
    • In truth, I am nothing but a plodding mediocrity — please observe, a plodding mediocrity — for a mere mediocrity does not go very far, but a plodding one gets quite a distance. There is joy in that success, and a distinction can come from courage, fidelity and industry.
      • As quoted in Nine Old Men (1936) by Drew Pearson and Robert Sharon Allen, p. 221.

    The Altruist in Politics (1889)

    Commencement address at Columbia College (1889)
    • There comes not seldom a crisis in the life of men, of nations, and of worlds, when the old forms seem ready to decay, and the old rules of action have lost their binding force. The evils of existing systems obscure the blessings that attend them; and, where reform is needed, the cry is raised for subversion.
    • Again and again, the altruist has arisen in politics, has bidden us share with others the product of our toil, and has proclaimed the communistic dogma as the panacea for our social ills. So today, amid the buried hopes and buried projects of the past, the doctrine of communism still lives in the minds of men. Under stress of misfortune, or in dread of tyranny, it is still preached in modern times as Plato preached it in the world of the Greeks.
      Yet it is indeed doubtful whether, in the history of mankind, a doctrine was ever taught more impracticable or more false to the principles it professes than this very doctrine of communism. In a world where self-interest is avowedly the ruling motive, it seeks to establish at once an all-reaching and all-controlling altruism. In a world where every man is pushing and fighting to outstrip his fellows, it would make him toil with like vigor for their common welfare. In a world where a man's activity is measured by the nearness of reward, it would hold up a prospective recompense as an equal stimulant to labor. ... In the future, when the remoteness of his reward shall have weakened the laborer's zeal, we shall be able to judge more fairly of the blessings that the communist offers.
    • It is the refutation alike of communism and socialism that they thwart the instinct of expansion; that they substitute for individual energy the energy of the government; that they substitute for human personality the blind, mechanical power of the State. The one system, as the other, marks the end of individualism. The one system, as the other, would make each man the image of his neighbor. The one system, as the other, would hold back the progressive, and, by uniformity of reward, gain uniformity of type.
      I can look forward to no blissful prospect for a race of men that, under the dominion of the State, at the cost of all freedom of action, at the cost, indeed, of their own true selves, shall enjoy, if one will, a fair abundance of the material blessings of life. ... Into that prison of socialism, with broken enterprise and broken energy, as serfs under the mastery of the State, while human personality is preferred to unreasoning mechanism, mankind must hesitate to step.

    The Nature of the Judicial Process (1921)

    • There is in each of us a stream of tendency, whether you choose to call it philosophy or not, which gives coherence and direction to thought and action. Judges cannot escape that current any more than other mortals. All their lives, forces which they do not recognize and cannot name, have been tugging at them — inherited instincts, traditional beliefs, acquired convictions; and the resultant is an outlook on life, a conception of social needs. ... In this mental background every problem finds it setting. We may try to see things as objectively as we please. None the less, we can never see them with any eyes except our own.
      • Pages 12-13.
    • It is well enough to say that we shall be consistent, but consistent with what? . . . The origins of the rule? The course and tendency of development? With logic or philosophy? With the fundamental conceptions of jurisprudence? All these loyalties are possible. All have sometimes prevailed.
      • Page 64.
    • My analysis of the judicial process comes then to this, and little more: logic, and history, and custom, and utility, and the accepted standards of right conduct, are the forces which singly or in combination shape the progress of the law. Which of these forces dominate depends largely upon the comparative importance or value of the social interests that will be thereby promoted or impaired. ... The most fundamental social interest is that law shall be uniform and impartial. ... Uniformity ceases to be a good when it becomes uniformity of oppression.
      • Page 112.
    • If you ask how he is to know when one interest outweighs another, I can only answer that he must get his knowledge just as the legislator gets it, from experience and study and reflection; in brief, from life itself.
      • Page 113.
    • I am ready to concede that the rule of adherence to precedent, though it ought not to be abandoned, ought to be in some degree relaxed. I think that when a rule, after it has been duly tested by experience, has been found to be inconsistent with the sense of justice or with the social welfare, there should be less hesitation in frank avowal and full abandonment. ... That court best serves the law which recognizes that the rules of law which grew up in a remote generation may, in the fullness of experience, be found to serve another generation badly, and which discards the old rule when it finds that another rule of law represents what should be according to the established and settled judgment of society.
      • Pages 150-51.
    • We like to picture to ourselves the field of law as accurately mapped and plotted. We draw our little lines, and they are hardly down before we blur them. As in time and space, so here. Divisions are working hypotheses, adopted for convenience. ... So also the duty of a judge becomes itself a question of degree, and he is a useful judge or a poor one as he estimates the measure accurately or loosely. He must balance all his ingredients, his philosophy, his logic, his analogies, his history, his customs, his sense of right, and all the rest, and adding a little here and taking out a little there, must determine, as wisely as he can, which weight shall tip the scales.
      • Page 161.
    • The judicial process, as was said at the outset of these lectures, is a process of search and comparison, and little else.
      • Page 163.
    • I have spoken of the forces of which judges avowedly avail to shape the form and content of their judgments. Even these forces are seldom fully in consciousness. They lie so near the surface, however, that their existence and influence are not likely to be disclaimed. But the subject is not exhausted with the recognition of their power. Deep below consciousness are other forces, the likes and the dislikes, the predilections and the prejudices, the complex of instincts and emotions and habits and convictions, which make the man, whether he be litigant or judge.
      • Page 167.
    • The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by.
      • Page 168.
    • I sometimes think that we worry ourselves overmuch about the enduring consequences of our errors. They may work a little confusion for a time. In the end, they will be modified or corrected or their teachings ignored. The future takes care of such things. In the endless process of testing and retesting, there is a constant rejection of the dross, and a constant retention of whatever is pure and sound and fine.
      • Page 179.

    The Growth of the Law (1924)

    • Magic words and incantations are as fatal to our science as they are to any other. Methods, when classified and separated, acquire their true bearing and perspective as a means to an end, not as ends in themselves. We seek to find peace of mind in the word, the formula, the ritual. The hope is illusion.
      • Pages 66 – 67.
    • I do not underrate the yearning for mechanical and formal tests. They are possible and useful in zones upon the legal sphere. The pain of choosing is the pain of marking off such zones from others. It is a pain we must endure, for uniformity of method will carry us upon the rocks. The curse of this fluidity, of an ever shifting approximation, is one the law must bear, or other curses yet more dreadful will be invited in exchange.
      • Pages 67 – 68.
    • Code is followed by commentary, and commentary by revision, and thus the task is never done.
      • Page 132.

    The Paradoxes of Legal Science (1928)

    • The reconciliation of the irreconcilable, the merger of antitheses, the synthesis of opposites, these are the great problems of the law... We have the claims of stability to be harmonized with those of progress. We are to reconcile liberty with equality, and both of them with order. The property rights of the individual we are to respect, yet we are not to press them to the point at which they threaten the welfare or the security of the many. We must preserve to justice its universal quality, and yet leave to it the capacity to be individual and particular.
    • The state in commissioning its judges has commanded them to judge, but neither in constitution nor in statute has it formulated a code to define the manner of their judging. The pressure of society invests new forms of conduct in the minds of the multitude with the sanction of moral obligation, and the same pressure working upon the mind of the judge invests them finally through his action with the sanction of the law.
    • Our course of advance... is neither a straight line nor a curve. It is a series of dots and dashes.
    • It comes down to this. There are certain forms of conduct which at any given place and epoch are commonly accepted under the combined influence of reason, practice and tradition, as moral or immoral. ... Law accepts as the pattern of its justice the morality of the community whose conduct it assumes to regulate. In saying this, we are not to blind ourselves to the truth that uncertainty is far from banished. Morality is not merely different in different communities. Its level is not the same for all the component groups within the same community. A choice must still be made between one group standard and another. We have still to face the problem, at which one of these levels does the social pressure become strong enough to convert the moral norm into a jural one? All that we can say is that the line will be higher than the lowest level of moral principle and practice, and lower than the highest. The law will not hold the crowd to the morality of saints and seers. It will follow, or strive to follow, the principle and practice of the men and women of the community whom the social mind would rank as intelligent and virtuous.
    • A judge is to give effect in general not to his own scale of values, but to the scale of values revealed to him in his readings of the social mind. ... Objective tests may fail him, or may be confused as to bewilder. He must then look within himself.
    • What has once been settled by a precedent will not be unsettled overnight, for certainty and uniformity are gains not lightly sacrificed. Above all is this true when honest men have shaped their conduct on the faith of the pronouncement.
    • They do things better with logarithms.
      • Commenting on the uncertainty of the law.
    • Bills of rights give assurance to the individual of the preservation of his liberty. They do not define the liberty they promise.
    "There is only one Boalt but many nuts." -Matt (takes one to know one. -ed.)

    Nemo me impune lacessit.

    Homeland Security takes up robust resilience baking; Turn off heat; impatience on the rise:



    March 13, 2008


    Today in History (1862) - The U.S. government forbids all Union army officers from returning fugitive slaves, thus effectively annulling the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and setting the stage for the Emancipation Proclamation. On the same day in 1865, the Confederate Congress voted to enlist 300,000 black troops, granting them freedom with the consent of their owners. Lee surrendered a few weeks later.

    GSA looking to turn everything into a service

    Infrastructure-as-a-Service and Software-as a-Service have become common terms in the federal IT vernacular in discussing cloud services. But now the General Services Administration is looking to the same business model to include everything else

    BYOD security: Are agencies doomed to a permanent game of catch-up?

    AC/DC 'Thunderstruck' worm and the rise of infrastructure attacks

    Analytics platform helps agencies fight cyber crime

    41 percent of public sector can't handle data deluge, survey finds

    Mass. health authority uses ID software to prevent

    Related White Papers

    More Resources



    Tools & Technology

    more

    Atomic Force Microscope
    Atomic Force Microscope

    Bruker Corp. has introduced the Dimension FastScan Bio atomic force microscope, which enables high-resolution microscopy research in biological dynamics. The microscope uses a XYZ scanner designed to operate at high-speed rates while delivering low drift and low noise.

    Beyond the Hype of the Cybersecurity Act

    What the Senate Bill Means for Those Charged with Securing IT

    •  CISOs Can't Afford to Be Too Nostalgic

    Friday, July 27, 2012

    The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis released a report on Friday, showing that the United States’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has slowed to an annual rate of 1.5 percent vs. a 3.5 percent rate in 2010.

    Rep. Scott DesJarlais (Tn.-04) released the following statement:

    “Today’s dismal economic report provides us with further evidence that this administration’s policies of more spending, more regulation and more government are moving our economy in the wrong direction.

    US Classification System 'Dysfunctional'

    In the year since the collapse of the case against NSA whistleblower and GAP client Thomas Drake, it has become increasingly clear that the way the US government currently classifies information is inefficient and unsustainable. Through a FOIA request, the Washington Post obtained a federal document that bolsters criticism of the Espionage Act case against Drake. The memo supports the views of J. William Leonard, the former federal classification czar who was set to testify on behalf of Drake. Leonard calls the classification system “dysfunctional” and said he had “never seen a more willful example” of inappropriate classification.

    Subsequently, the Post opined – sarcastically – on the flimsy evidence the government used to threaten Drake with spending "the rest of his natural life" behind bars.

    GAP National Security & Human Rights Director Jesselyn Radack has been following these developments, and you can read more of her analysis here, here, and here.

    navy

    "Urgent work needs to be done to instill resilience as a strategic imperative across sectors. When critical systems neglect these underlying goals, they increase the opportunity for cascading consequences. There is no better example than the transportation sector, which possesses a myriad of vulnerabilities than can multiply disastrous consequences throughout the global supply chain. By baking-in resilience we can create more robust critical infrastructure platforms that will support our economic and national security imperatives for years to come."

    EPA Region IX, Navy Sign Pact To Use 'Green' Cleanup Actions

    U.S. EPA Region IX has signed an agreement with the Navy to step up existing actions of cleanup activities in California and elsewhere, adding "green" practices such as water reuse and alternative energy sources into cleanup remedies.

    Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.  ~ James Madison
    utility scale photo-voltaic
    California Mine Lands
    real pollution
    Arman Hydro-power
    bio-mass
    safety
    panic?
    NOAA fish police report
    July 31, 2012 - Gloucester Daily Times

    July 31–In separate letters, U.S. Sens. John Kerry and Scott Brown have expressed impatience at the delay by the U.S. Commerce Department in making public what is expected to be a second scathing set of case studies by a retired judge of federal fisheries law enforcement gone bad.

    Kerry, whose brother Cameron Kerry, as general counsel for the department, has the lead role in approving the redacted version of the work of special judicial master Charles B. Swartwood III, wrote first to NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco on July 23.

    Three days later, last Thursday, Brown wrote to Acting Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank, asking for the report “as a member of Congress and under the Freedom of Information Act.”

    Attorneys with clients that are among the 66 cases that Swartwood reviewed on the direction of former Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, have said that Swartwood made his full report to the then Commerce Secretary John Bryson in March.

    If true, Bryson, and his acting successor, Blank, have had the second report for four months — three months longer than than it took Locke to review, redact and release the first set of findings more than a year ago.

    “This Department thinks that it is accountable to no one,” said New Bedford attorney Pamela Lafreniere, who has more than a dozen clients whose cases are among those studied and reported on by Swartwood. “Why would anyone be surprised that they would withhold this report from the public?”

    “It is imperative that the Department of Commerce release the final report of the Special Master in a timely manner. Fishermen who were unduly targeted and fined by NOAA’s (Office of Law Enforcement) should receive appropriate compensation and reprieve as soon as possible,” added Congressman John Tierney, whose district includes Cape Ann.

    “It is disappointing — but not surprising — that we are again waiting on NOAA to release the second report under Special Investigator Charles B. Swartwood, III,” said Rep. William Keating, the Democrat whose district includes the ports of central Massachusetts and Cape Cod.

    A spokesman for Rep. Barney Frank said the congressman also believes the report should be released “immediately.”

    “It continues to be disappointing that the department is stuck in a pattern of delay and denial,” said Rep. Walter Jones, whose district includes coastal North Carolina. “This is all the more reason why administrator Lubchenco should resign.”

    Frank and Tierney, both Democrats, and Brown and Jones, both Republicans, have all called for Lubchenco’s ouster, but their demands have fallen in deaf ears elsewhere on Capitol Hill or within the Obama administration.

    The first Swartwood report became the basis of a Cabinet level apology and more than $650,000 in reparations distributed to the 11 most harmed victims — businesses based in Gloucester and New Bedford.

    Commerce Department spokeswoman Sarah Horowitz issued a statement to the Times Monday.

    “The lengthy report includes numerous cases spanning more than a decade, so the review time for such a report is appreciably longer than for the prior report,” Horowitz wrote in an email. “Further, the resignation of Secretary Bryson required Acting Secretary Blank to review the report and get up to speed on the issues.”

    Bryson was found unconscious behind the wheel of his car in in early June after a series of mishaps. He explained his behavior as resulting from a seizure, and although his system was found by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office to have had traces of Ambien, a sleeping drug that is often used recreationally, he was not charged before he resigned his Commerce post.

    Across the congressional delegation of coastal communities policed by the agents and lawyers out of NOAA’s Northeast Regional Offices in Gloucester, and within the fishing world, the lack of clarity about the status of the second Swartwood report has produced increasing frustration and aggravation.

    “Its past time for NOAA to stand up and be held accountable,” said state Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante, D-Gloucester. Her work organizing a letter from state legislative leaders to the congressional delegation in 2009 started a chain reaction that ended with Lubchenco heeding the demands of the delegation and eventually asking for the Commerce Depaatment inspector general to begin an investigation into wrongful police practices.

    In a series of reports, Inspector General Todd Zinser documented ways in which law enforcers picked their targets, and acted freely and improperly to extract inflated fines. In addition, Zinser revealed that the then-chief of law enforcement organized a document shredding that might have been aimed at frustrating the inspector general’s teams while they were still in the field, and assembled a massive asset forfeiture fund that was abused at the pleasure of agents.

    Locke, now ambassador to China, gave Swartwood a $500,000 budget to do case studies of loose strands from the more general investigations of the inspector general. With additional complaints coming in as the scandal widened, Locke recommissioned Swartwood, who went back to work. In his letter to Lubchenco, Sen. Kerry asked for “an update on the timing of the release of the most recent report” from Swartwood.

    “It is my understanding that the report has been completed and may contain crucial additional information about victims and injustice at the hands of NOAA Office of Law Enforcement personnel,” he wrote.

    For Brown, the letter was his second seeking to make the report public. His first letter was dated Maty 16.

    Richard Gaines can be reached at 978-283-7000, x3464, or at rgaines@gloucestertimes.com.


     

    IMMI's STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING THE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT (SWR)

    Court for the Eastern District shall be held at Redding.

    Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/sec-california-19212558#ixzz11HJZkgsS

    28 USC 84 - Sec. 84. California

    US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

    Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/sec-california-19212558#ixzz11HIWPdJQ


    Christ Statue and Spiritual Sanctuary MR. T.W. "TED" ARMAN, OWNER OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINE, LTD., PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN, CEO OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC. OWNER OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINE, IRON MOUNTAIN, THE COPPER MOUNTAIN MINING CO., MOUNTAIN COPPER CO., IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO., THE ARMAN CONSOLIDATED MINES, THE ARMAN CONSOLIDATED MINING CLAIMS, THE ARMAN MINES EQUITABLE TRUSTS, THE ARMAN SOVEREIGN WAR ON POVERTY FUND, THE ARMAN MINES CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, THE ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES FEDERATION, THE ARMAN LOST CONFIDENCE MINE, THE ARMAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, THE ARMAN MINES HAZARD AND REMEDIATION DIRECTORATE, THE ARMAN MINES DISCHARGE ASSISTANCE DIRECTORATE, AND THE ARMAN MINES HUMMINGBIRD INSTITUTE COLLEGE OF THE HUMMINGBIRD CENTER FOR HEALTH INSTITUTE FOR LIBERTY AND INDEPENDENCE.

    THE HUMMINGBIRD INSTITUTE IS ESTABLISHED AS A FOUNDATION FOR THE CARE OF THE IRON MOUNTAIN CHRIST STATUE AND SPIRITUAL RETREAT.

    OLD WORLD MIX - MINERALS & METALS, PAINTS & STAINS, CATALYSTS & NANOMATERIALS, GRANITE & PORPHYRY, AGGREGATES & BUILDING STONE, COPPER, ZINC, SILVER, & GOLD

    CALIFORNIA - EPA DELISTING IRON MOUNTAIN MINE! PROCLAMATION TERMINATING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY

    "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 aquatic life." Rick Sugarek, EPA project manager for Iron Mountain Mine Superfund cleanup, 2008 5 year review. (How much is two orders of magnitude damages?)

    Un-dam the Klamath

    July 29, 2012

    (Hayley Hutt is a member of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council.)

    Stalling could continue through 2020, making Warren Buffet's PacifiCorp $27 million a year, even though PacifiCorp has operated the dams outside the law for over 50 years.

    Full water allotments went to farmers in the Upper Klamath this year, which left little water for salmon. Only water mandated by the Endangered Species Act to keep coho salmon alive will be available, regardless of the fact 380,000 Chinook are expected. This is two-and-a-half times the run in 2002, when the last major fish kill occurred.

    For 40 years, up to 90 percent of the Trinity River, the Klamath's largest tributary, was diverted to the Central Valley. Then, in 2000 — after a 15-year flow study and a public process — the Trinity River Record of Decision was signed. This ROD called for the Trinity to receive 47 percent of flows and appropriations for restoration. Salmon and tribal rights were balanced with farmers' needs, and salmon began to rebound.

    The California State Water Resources Control Board decided to let Warren Buffett's PacifiCorp, the owner of the Klamath dams, delay a Clean Water Act permit process for the seventh year.

    read more at the Redding Record Searchlight

    Razing Dams

    Removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River

    These dams removal will reopen more than 300 miles of prime salmon and steelhead habitat and reduce toxic algae and fish disease in the river. In doing so, it will restore income to hundreds of commercial salmon fishermen, who have suffered closures due to declining salmon runs in recent years. And it will create at least 6,000 new jobs in economically struggling Siskiyou County, according to a recent environmental impact statement (EIS) by the federal government.

    2012-08-27-Raftingclose_KRK.jpg


    The EIS states that a dam-free Klamath will produce 70,000 more fall run Chinook salmon. Klamath dam removal will save the power company that owns the dams, PacifiCorp, and its ratepayers more than $100 million. It will also save the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars in disaster relief spending to bail out unemployed farmers and fishermen in any given drought year.

    The dams removal agreement and its companion watershed restoration agreement took years of collaboration, listening and compromising to achieve. It's an answer created by the local people who came together in overcoming the conflicts and competing water needs from the upper and lower parts of the basin to build a plan to remove the dams by the year 2020. The result is the Klamath settlement that the Klamath Basin Economic Restoration Act (KBERA) introduced in Congress last fall, which now awaits a hearing in Washington, D.C.


    apes planet

    Yellowstone National Park should be a Superfund site.

    Toxic is in the eye of the beholder. Deadly for humans, sure, but now we know there’s a whole section of the tree of life that does just fine there. In fact, the archaeon that live in the pools and deep underground may represent the part of the tree with the deepest roots.

    Yellowstone’s microbial communities and other so-called “extremophiles” have revolutionized the way scientists think about the possibility for life on Mars. Life doesn’t necessarily need moderate conditions or sunlight. Living things do need some source of energy, but life is flexible – chemical reactions can supply the energy at the base of a food chain.

    For years people assumed the bright colors in the hot springs were the work of minerals. It wasn’t until the later part of the 20th century that the biology community came around to the realization that the steaming pools were teeming with life. The rings of color come from different types of microbes that colonize different regions, with the darker-ones generally congregating in the less extreme heat.

        Yellowstone

    About Planet of the Apes
    Faye Flam - writer
    In pursuit of her stories, writer Faye Flam has weathered storms in Greenland, gotten frost nip at the South Pole, and floated weightless aboard NASA’s zero-g plane. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and started her writing career with the Economist. She later took on the particle physics and cosmology beat at Science Magazine before coming to the Inquirer in 1995. Her previous science column, “Carnal Knowledge,” ran from 2005 to 2008. Her new column and blog, Planet of the Apes, explores the topic of evolution and runs in the Inquirer’s health section each Monday. Email Faye at fflam@phillynews.com.


    Shares of fertilizer producers soar

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - HEMATITAN™ $1200/TON - $45/ 5 gal. plus shipping fax to 530-275-4559

    EPA/ CALIFORNIA DTSC/ CAL-EPA/ REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD: COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing


    EPA Awards $1.9 Million in Environmental Justice Grants

      

    a private party may “recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites.” United States v. Atl. Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 131

    October 11, 2010 CERCLA 'Arranger' Liability Narrowed

    CALIFORNIA - EPA DELISTING IRON MOUNTAIN MINE!

    "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 aquatic life." Rick Sugarek, EPA project manager for Iron Mountain Mine Superfund cleanup, 2008 5 year review.

    CALIFORNIA - COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing;

    05/01/ 1986 P R C Environmental Management, Inc. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Endangerment assessment draft final rpt, w/TL to T Mix fr T Brisbin 51189

    12/15/2000 C H 2 M Hill Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6FSP, QAPP, Health & Safety Plan for surface-water sampling 103636

    03/17/1997 Charles Alpers / US Geological Survey Richard Sugarek / Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9Ltr: Transmits QAPP, draft workplan, & draft FSP, w/attchs

    08/01/2001C H 2 M HillEnvironmental Protection Agency - Region 9Amended QAPP for air & surface-water sampling (QAPP & amendment 1)165834

    Keswick dam to Cottonwood Creek; Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list. JUNE 15, 2010;

    EPA has not yet implemented ICs (Institutional Controls) as required at the IMM Superfund Site in the five signed RODs
    (EPA, 1986; EPA, 1992; EPA, 1993; EPA, 1997; EPA, 2004
    )

    The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” (James Madison, Federalist 45 )

    See also Madison 's explanation of the purpose of the 9 th Amendment in response to Hamilton 's objection in Federalist 84 :

    1. “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general (i.e. Federal) government, and were consequently insecure.  This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against.  I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4 th resolution (i.e. the original draft of the 9 th amendment)” (James Madison, U.S. House of Representatives, June 8, 1789)

     2. “The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution” (An early version of the 9 th amendment—the last clause of the 4 th resolution—as submitted by James Madison, June 8, 1789).

    CERCLA allows PRPs to seek contribution from one another in order to apportion response costs equitably. But CERCLA bars contribution claims against PRPs that have obtained administratively or judicially approved settlements with the government.

    CERCLA thus provides an incentive for PRPs to settle by leaving non-settling PRPs liable for all of the response costs not paid by the settling PRPs.

    We consider a question that has split the federal courts:
    May a non-settling PRP intervene in litigation to oppose a consent decree incorporating a settlement that, if approved,
    would bar contribution from the settling PRP? We join the Eighth and Tenth Circuits in holding that the answer is “yes.”

    THE REAL MEASURE OF SUPERFUND SUCCESS IS IN OUR BACKYARD

    MR. T.W. ARMAN ON THE BRICK FLAT 'MOSH' PIT, EPA SLUDGE DUMP; 560K TONS, & GROWING.

    Dam Inspection By Owner

    Scholar

    PDF] COURTS OF APPEAL FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    [PDF] from ironmountainmine.com TW ARMAN, I MOUNTAIN - ironmountainmine.com
    Ex rel. TWO MINERS & 360, 2744, 4400, 8000, 52,000, 103 million ACRES of LAND ... TW ARMAN
    and IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC. et al, OWNER & OPERATOR, plaintiffs' ... CITIZENS and
    STATESMEN in loco parentis, parens patriae, supersedeas, qui tam, intervention. v. ...
    Related articles - View as HTML - All 4 versions

    Freeminers University's Chief Research Coordinator shapes the agenda of global change factors.


    Spiritual Transformation Faculty Chair called to service for local occupy movement groups.


    "How to be a Survivor, Not a Statistic..."

    At the Aurora theater, not a single person fired back at Holmes as he went on his rampage.

    joint statisticsWelcome to the 2012 Joint Statistical Meetings Web site. Follow the tabs at the top of this page to navigate through the site. Comments and suggestions are welcome at meetings@amstat.org. This page is updated frequently, so visit often.

    JSM (the Joint Statistical Meetings) is the largest gathering of statisticians held in North America. It is held jointly with the American Statistical Association, the International Biometric Society (ENAR and WNAR), the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, the Statistical Society of Canada, and the International Chinese Statistical Association, and the International Indian Statistical Association. Attended by more than 6,000 people, meeting activities include oral presentations, panel sessions, poster presentations, continuing education courses, an exhibit hall (with state-of-the-art statistical products and opportunities), career placement services, society and section business meetings, committee meetings, social activities and networking opportunities.

    San Diego, California, the host city for JSM 2012, offers a wide range of options for sharing time with friends and colleagues or sightseeing with family. For information, contact meetings@amstat.org.

    The 2012 Joint Statistical Meetings will be held July 28-August 2, 2012, at the San Diego Convention Center, located at 111 West Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101. 

    National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES)


    Parental Rights at Stake


    backdoor globalism FLAGS?

    This is a radical attempt to take away parental rights. Make no mistake—if they succeed at ratifying this treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is next. This is not a battle just for parents with disabled and special needs children. This is a battle for every parent.


    Science Across Virtual Institutes (SAVI) is a mechanism to foster interaction among scientists, engineers and educators around the globe. It is based on the knowledge that excellence in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) research and education exists in many parts of the world, and that scientific advances can be accelerated by scientists and engineers working together across international borders. Virtual institutes that connect researchers with shared interests and goals will have a great impact on solving important societal challenges.

    WHY SAVI?

    A virtual institute will serve as a catalyst to foster many activities efficiently and economically, and will seek to:

    • Create a uniform platform for broad sets of international collaborations;
    • Bring leading researchers from various countries together, both virtually and physically to coordinate their work on problems or issues of common interest;
    • Create research partnerships among NSF-funded U.S. institutions and other institutions around the world to address global scientific challenges at the frontier;
    • Strategically leverage NSF funding with new funding opportunities from around the globe;
    • Leverage complementary intellectual strengths and share unique research facilities;
    • Mentor and train junior researchers by providing them with opportunities to network with research leaders within the U.S. and abroad; and
    • Create opportunities for scientific collaborations within the U.S. and across the globe to work across disciplinary, institutional, geographic, linguistic and cultural barriers.

    SAVI will provide a mechanism for U.S. research communities to build long-term, structured collaborations with partnering countries in STEM fields. These partnerships will make a greater impact on research and education, which fuel economic growth, prosperity and well-being.

    Federal employees committed offenses — in some cases, potentially criminal — yet their agencies refused to disclose their identities, saying that would amount to an unwarranted infringement on their right to privacy. Critics counter that federal employees caught doing wrong must be held publicly accountable.

    Residents turning tide on erosion

    Hello John,

    A fundamental American value - the right to a trial - is at risk. The guarantee that anyone accused of a crime will have their day in court is an ideal that is deeply ingrained in the character of America since our nation's founding.

    Under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), anyone accused of providing financial support to terrorism can be arrested on U.S. soil and detained indefinitely without access to a lawyer or trial, in direct violation of our Constitutional rights. This language is so overly broad that it could include:

    • A Rotary club that organizes a food drive in support of Indonesian earthquake victims
    • A banker who approves a loan for a local small business
    • A computer programmer who helps write code for someone they met online
    • A journalist who spends time in a remote Afghani village to write a news story
    • A church group that uses a microfinance website to help a Ugandan farmer

    It happened to you. It could happen to anyone.

    To fix this problem in the NDDA, I’ve authored the Civil Liberties Act of 2012, H.R. 5936, which restores our due process rights. The bill has already received bipartisan support with Republican Congressman Justin Amash co-sponsoring the legislation and more than two dozen retired admirals and generals who believe we need to change this dangerous law.

    We will continue to expand our coalition and work to build support for this cause. These aspects of my job are why I am running for reelection; so I can continue collaborating with communities throughout the district and Representatives regardless of political affiliation to craft and pass quality legislation.

    Thank you for all the ways you help me achieve these goals,

    John Garamendi

    Congressman John Garamendi


    Issues For Plaintiffs Settling Private CERCLA Litigation

    Law360, New York (July 26, 2012, 2:08 PM ET) -- Mapping out a strategy to settle multiparty environmental litigation brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act is difficult under the best of circumstances. It has been made even more difficult by a slate of recent federal CERCLA decisions that have made the settlement process even more of a minefield.

    A private CERCLA plaintiff often walks the tightrope between dealing with local, state and federal regulators overseeing the site remediation and the myriad potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) from whom it seeks contribution

    Fishers Face a New Threat: Poisons Used by Marijuana Growers

    Rat poison used on illegal marijuana farms pose a threat to fishers (pictured) and other forest animals.

    Rat poison used on illegal marijuana farms pose a threat to fishers (pictured) and other forest animals.

    Illegal marijuana farms in our nation’s forests are not only threatening the safety of humans in these recreational areas, but are also causing ecological damage to the land. And now, there’s proof that the animals that make the forests their homes are also being harmed.

    Rat poison used on illegal marijuana grows in remote areas of California is killing fishers, a cat-sized, weasel-like critter, according to a recent study conducted by a team of scientists from the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Research Station, University of California Davis, University of California Berkeley, Integral Ecology Research Center, Wildlife Conservation Society, Hoopa Tribal Forestry, and California Department of Fish and Game.

    Researchers discovered commercial rodenticide in dead fishers in Humboldt County near Redwood National Park, and in the southern Sierra Nevada on the Sierra National Forest. The fishers became ill after eating the rodenticides directly, or by consuming prey that have ingested the poisons.

    “The ecological consequences of this are frightening, but not well understood,” says co-author Craig Thompson, a Pacific Southwest Research Station research wildlife ecologist. “These poisons are entering the system not only through prey species, but also through the contamination of the soil and water.”

    The researchers deduce that illegal marijuana farms are a likely source, because the fishers in this study were radio-tracked and many were not observed venturing into rural, urban or agricultural areas where rat poison is often found. Illegal marijuana cultivation on public lands is widespread, and some growers apply the poisons to deter a wide range of animals and insects from encroaching on their crops.

    “Fishers face plenty of threats to their survival, including predators, disease, and vehicular collisions,” says co-author Kathryn Purcell, a Pacific Southwest Research Station research wildlife biologist. “Adding this new risk factor could mean the difference from a population that is stable or increasing, to a decreasing population. The fact that the problem is so widespread is particularly surprising.”

    This new threat could have potential impact on other species already facing declining populations, including wolverines, martens, great gray and spotted owls, and Sierra Nevada red foxes, which may also be exposed to the poison, say the scientists.



    Fertilizer Agreement -

    Zinc deficiency is a worldwide problem that has serious impacts on agricultural production and human health. More than 450,000 children around the world die every year as a result of zinc deficiency. Full Story

    To maintain a claim that EPA has “unreasonably delayed” its duties under CERCLA, the court held that plaintiffs may continue to press their claims under another statute, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), but must do so in another court.  The court stated, “plaintiffs may bring an APA claim in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit alleging EPA unreasonably delayed in promulgating the financial responsibility regulations required under Section 108(b).”   Id . at 6.  Unless and until such a litigation is brought and decided, the timeline for financial assurance requirements under CERCLA will remain unclear.


    Report: Alive

    The prior appropriation doctrine in today’s western water law

    Posted by: Maven on June 12, 2011 at 7:46 am
    From the Social Science Research Network (hat tip to the Water Sisweb!):
    National & World Ag News Headlines

    House Committee Takes Up Water Bills with Agriculture Impacts
    USAgNet - 07/27/2012

    The House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee is scheduled on Thursday to mark up several water-related measures that relate directly to agriculture.

    The bills on the committee agenda include:

    ** H.R. 4278, sponsored by Reps. Robert Hurt (R-Va.) and Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), would eliminate limits on the regulatory exemptions provided in the Clean Water Act for agricultural activities.

    ** H.R. 5961, by Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), would amend the Clean Water Act to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from conducting aerial surveillance of farmland without voluntary written consent, public notice and a certification of reasonable suspicion that a violation has occurred.

    ** H.R. 2541, by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.), would prohibit EPA from requiring a water pollution permit for silviculture.

    ** H.R. 3158, by Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), would specify EPA enforcement of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule including realistic threshold sizes for tank regulation at the farm level and allowing more farms to self-certify for large containers on farms.

    Agricultural groups sent a letter earlier this year in support of H.R. 3158, which expresses the need for clarity on the requirements of the EPA's SPCC rule. H.R. 3158 and the other ag-related measures are expected to pass the House T&I Committee and possibly the full House, but prospects in the Senate are uncertain.

    EPA Inspector General's Office ongoing investigation into what Senator Inhofe called "alarming evidence of EPA abuse of scientific information and mismanagement of its Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee."

    DOI Acting Inspector General Called to Testify Before Full House Natural Resources Committee



    WASHINGTON, D.C., July 26, 2012 - House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) today invited the Department of the Interior’s Acting Inspector General Mary Kendall to testify at a Full Committee hearing on Thursday, August 2nd titled “Oversight of the Actions, Independence and Accountability of the Acting Inspector General of the Department of the Interior.” Click here to read the invite letter.

    The letter specifically asks Acting IG Kendall to be prepared to testify and answer questions on her role in overseeing the operations and actions of the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General (“IG”), including circumstances surrounding 1) Whether the Obama Administration intentionally misrepresented the views of engineering experts in order to justify the unilateral moratorium decision and the Administration response to complaints by the engineering experts, 2) actions by the Office of Inspector General concerning its investigation into these matters, 3) the IG’s response to a Committee subpoena for documents, 4) the independence and effectiveness of an Inspector General in an Acting capacity, and 5) previous testimony before the Committee by the Acting Inspector General, and other matters.

    “It is important for an Inspector General to be independent and hold an Administration accountable. This hearing will focus on legitimate questions involving the Acting Inspector General’s actions, including the thoroughness of the investigation into President Obama’s Gulf Drilling Moratorium Report, subpoena compliance, and related decisions,” said Chairman Hastings.

    WHAT: Full Committee Oversight Hearing on:
    “Oversight of the Actions, Independence and Accountability of the Acting Inspector General of the Department of the Interior.”

    Witnesses invited to date:

    • Department of the Interior’s Acting Inspector General Mary Kendall
    WHEN: Thursday, August 2, 2012
    10:00 A.M.

    WHERE: 1324 Hearing Room in the Longworth House Office Building

    Visit the Committee Calendar for testimony and additional information, once it is made available. The hearing is open to the public and a live video stream will be broadcast at http://naturalresources.house.gov/live.

    ###

    USDOJ: Justice Department Reaches Agreement with Merced County, Calif., on Bailout from the Voting Rights Act

    The Justice Department announced that it has reached an agreement with Merced County, Calif ., that will allow for the county and some 84 political subdivisions in the county that conduct elections to bail out from their status as “covered jurisdictions” under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and thereby exempt these jurisdictions from the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  The agreement is in the form of a consent decree filed today in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and must be approved by the court.

    Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, certain covered jurisdictions, determined according to Section 4 of the act, are required to seek preclearance for any changes in voting qualifications, standards, practices or procedures from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or from the United States Attorney General, prior to their implementation.  Section 4 of the act provides that a covered jurisdiction may seek to “bail out,” or remove itself from such coverage, and therefore be exempted from the preclearance requirements, by seeking a declaratory judgment before a three-judge panel in United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  A bailout judgment can be issued only if the court determines that the jurisdiction meets certain eligibility requirements for bailout contained in the statute, including a 10-year record of nondiscrimination in voting-related actions.  The act also provides that the attorney general can consent to entry of a judgment of bailout only if, based upon investigation, the attorney general is satisfied that the jurisdiction meets the eligibility requirements.

    Merced County filed its bailout action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on March 6, 2012.  Counsel for the county contacted the attorney general prior to filing the action, indicating that the county was interested in seeking a bailout.  The county provided the Justice Department with substantial information, and the department conducted an investigation to determine the county’s eligibility.  Based on that investigation, the department is satisfied that the county meets the Voting Rights Act’s requirements for bailout.

    “In the department’s view, the county has met the requirements necessary for bailout.  We reached this conclusion after thoroughly reviewing information provided by the county and gathered during the department’s independent investigation,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.  “I commend the county on their cooperation to ensure resolution of this matter.”

    The consent decree details the legal and factual basis for a bailout determination and, if approved by the court, the county’s request will be granted.  The court will retain jurisdiction of the action for 10 years and can reopen the action upon the motion of the attorney general or any aggrieved person alleging conduct by the county that would have originally precluded the county from bailing out if it had occurred during the 10-year period preceding entry of the consent decree.

    Information about bailout, the Voting Rights Act and other federal voting laws is available on the Department of Justice website at www.justice.gov/crt/voting.  Complaints may be reported to the Voting Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division at 1-800-253-3931.

    Contact: Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000



    Reported by: US Department of Justice

    press release

    July 31, 2012, 5:01 a.m. EDT

    Judicial Watch Sues Federal Reserve Board of Governors for Records Detailing Justification for AIG Bailout

    WASHINGTON, DC, Jul 31, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Judicial Watch announced today that on July 18, 2012, it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (judicial watch v. board of governors of the federal reserve system (no. 1:12-cv-01175)) against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) seeking records related to the government bailout of American International Group, Inc. (AIG). Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit on behalf of Vern McKinley, a former employee of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and author of Financing Failure: A Century of Bailouts.

    Judicial Watch seeks the following records pursuant to its original May 15, 2012, FOIA request: "Copies of any and all records of the Board located at the [Federal Reserve Bank of New York] concerning, regarding, or relating to the proposition that 'the disorderly failure of AIG was likely to have a systemic effect on financial markets that were already experiencing a significant level of fragility.' Such records include, but are not limited to... detailed meeting minutes, meeting notes, supporting memoranda, communications, and electronic messages and attachments."

    The Board acknowledged receiving Judicial Watch's request on May 15, 2012, and requested a 10-day extension to respond. A response was due by June 27, 2012. However, as of the date of Judicial Watch's lawsuit, the Board failed to respond in accordance with FOIA law.

    On September 16, 2008, the Board decided to extend an initial $85 billion loan to insurance giant AIG, which it claimed "faced the imminent prospect of declaring bankruptcy." According to minutes from the September 16, 2008, meeting: "Board members agreed that the disorderly failure of AIG was likely to have a systemic effect on financial markets that were already experiencing a significant level of fragility and that the best alternative available was to lend to AIG to assist it in meeting its obligations in an orderly manner as they came due... " According to CNN, the total cost committed to AIG was $182 billion.

    The Board's contention -- that the failure of major corporations would spread a contagion throughout the financial system -- has been used repeatedly to justify the bailouts. However, to date, the government has no evidence to support this contention. Judicial Watch, meanwhile, has launched a comprehensive investigation to determine under what legal authorities and lawful rationales the federal government initiated the Wall Street bailouts and has filed a number of lawsuits on behalf of Mr. McKinley.

    "We are now trillions of taxpayer dollars into these financial bailouts and the government refuses to answer basic questions about the government's radically intrusive response to the financial crisis," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The American people are tired of the Obama administration's stonewalling and they want answers. The Fed should obey Freedom of Information Act law and respond immediately."

    With respect to the AIG bailout, Judicial Watch previously uncovered documents showing that the government did not expect taxpayers to recover their "investment" in AIG. For example, Judicial Watch uncovered a series of presentation slides detailing the terms of the AIG bailout. Included among the items is a slide entitled "Investment Considerations." On the slide the words, "The prospects of recovery of capital and a return on the equity investment to the taxpayer are highly speculative" are crossed out by hand.

    On February 25, 2010, Judicial Watch also filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Obama Treasury Department to obtain documents regarding meetings involving Kenneth Feinberg, special master for executive compensation under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); AIG Chairman Robert Benmosche; and New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley. Feinberg, also known as the Obama administration's "pay czar," is the federal official responsible for setting compensation guidelines for the seven largest firms, including AIG, using funds from TARP.

    In March 2009, AIG disbursed $165 million in taxpayer-funded TARP funds to its top executives, prompting a massive public backlash. Obama officials reportedly lobbied Congress to insert legislative language allowing the AIG bonus payments and then apparently lied about their knowledge of the payment scheme. As then-head of the New York Federal Reserve, current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner helped craft the original AIG deal.

    Visit www.judicialwatch.org

    Read about the bailouts and more in Tom Fitton's The Corruption Chronicles, on sale now.



    The EPA’s regulations-

    JUST PLAIN MURDERERS!

    “They’re paid by the taxpayers, so they should be accountable to the taxpayers,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in an interview. Anyone found to have abused the public trust, whether a contractor or government employee, should be identified.”
    McCain, citing the political clout of federal employee unions, was pessimistic about the chances of changing the status quo. But Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said that lawmakers are looking at a “total” overhaul of the Office of Personnel Management in the next year or two, “so we’ll be addressing that then.”

    "Our entire housing system is built on a foundation of fraud,"

    “I had no idea that the U.S. government had been captured by the banks." TARP Watchdog- Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky

    "The red-coats are back and they're here, the red-coats are back and they're here" -ed. see Paul Revere

    Messenger of the Revolution

    Americans should lose faith in their government. They should deplore the captured politicians and regulators who distributed tax dollars to the banks without insisting that they be accountable. The American people should be revolted by a financial system that rewards failure and protects those who drove it to the point of collapse and will undoubtedly do so again.

    Only with this appropriate and justified rage can we hope for the type of reform that will one day break our system free from the corrupting grasp of the megabanks. The government’s special inspector general in charge of oversight of the Troubled Asset Relief Program Neil M. Barofsky

     “Incentives are baked into the system to take advantage of it for short-term profit,” he said. “The incentives are to cheat, and cheating is profitable because there are no consequences.” 

    Despite all of this, Mr. Barofsky ends on something of a positive note. Meaningful changes to our broken system may finally come about, he writes, if enough people get angry. His conclusion is this: “Only with this appropriate and justified rage can we sow the seeds for the types of reform that will one day break our system free from the corrupting grasp of the megabanks.”

    navy

    regulatory relief may be within reach. We encourage the U.S. Senate to  move on S. 1729 as quickly as possible."

    the commentary on Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians during a time of war. In this case, the sine qua non refers to the assurance that relief aid will go to the civilian population and not be diverted toward "the benefit of the Occupying Power."

    Ag-Gel

    "Urgent work needs to be done to instill resilience as a strategic imperative across sectors. When critical systems neglect these underlying goals, they increase the opportunity for cascading consequences. There is no better example than the transportation sector, which possesses a myriad of vulnerabilities than can multiply disastrous consequences throughout the global supply chain. By baking-in resilience we can create more robust critical infrastructure platforms that will support our economic and national security imperatives for years to come."

    Protecting Water at the Source

    "We need to determine how our 'built' water systems and our governance systems can be made more reliable, resilient and sustainable," Tim Killeen, NSF Geosciences assist. dir.
    "This type of research is key to determining what needs to be done to ensure sustainability." says Tom Torgersen, NSF lead program director

    URGENT AND IMMEDIATE EXPEDITED RELIEF


    EPA’s conflicting standards for streams and rivers are "arbitrary and capricious."Feb.17, 2012 U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle

    NSF Research Alliances Begin New Efforts to Accelerate Innovation

    Eight teams around the country establish collaborations that strengthen the innovation ecosystem.

    Photo of CASA ERC students deploying an off-the-grid, wireless radar system in Puerto Rico.

    CASA ERC students developed and deployed an off-the-grid, wireless radar system in Puerto Rico.
    Credit and Larger Version

    July 30, 2012

    The National Science Foundation recently awarded nearly $6 million for eight emerging-technology projects that may result in technologies poised for commercialization.

    The grants, issued as part of NSF's Accelerating Innovation Research program, will go to projects that aim to create innovative products, processes and systems. Each project will seek to solve problems for various industries, ranging from energy and weather to healthcare and information technology.

    "The collaborations fostered by AIR will accelerate the translation from innovative research to market reality and strengthen the national innovation ecosystem," said Grace Wang, director of NSF's Division of Industrial Innovation and Partnerships, which funds the awards. "Partnerships and third-party investment are essential for successful technology translation."

    Academic researchers will collaborate with private-sector partners as they begin the development of new technology concepts. In addition, the AIR Research Alliance competition requires researchers to obtain an equal commitment of resources for their projects from a company; a venture capital firm; an individual "angel" investor or a federal, state or local government--or a combination of these.

    "With AIR, NSF-supported research alliances have a chance to expand their industrial reach and understand first-hand what's involved in commercialization," said Lynn Preston, director of the NSF Engineering Research Centers program.  "They also have an opportunity to build upon their promising discoveries and technologies."

    Fiscal 2012 AIR awards were granted to three engineering research centers, three industry/university cooperative research centers and two partnerships for innovation sites.

    "These projects are expected to not only result in new technologies and start-up businesses," said AIR program director Karlene Hoo, "they also will provide opportunities for students to learn about innovation, entrepreneurship and the technology translation process."

    During the next two years, AIR awards will support the following projects:

    1237848 PFI-AIR: Nanoplasmonic Metamaterial Antennae for Efficient Wireless Power Transmission
    Thomas Bifano (tgb@bu.edu), Trustees of Boston University, Mass.

    1237873 PFI-AIR: Industry-Academia Research Partnership for Developing & Implementing Non-Destructive Characterization and Assessment of Pharmaceutical Oral Dosages in Continuous Manufacturing
    Alberto Cuitino (cuitino@jove.rutgers.edu), Rutgers University New Brunswick, N.J.

    1237734 PFI-AIR: Advanced SiNWs: Partnerships for Innovative Research in Energy (ASPIRE)
    John Hartley (jhartley1@uamail.albany.edu), SUNY at Albany, N.Y.

    1237805 PFI-AIR: Accelerating Commercialization of the Solid State Transformer through Strategic Partnership
    Alex Huang (aqhuang@ncsu.edu), North Carolina State University, N.C.

    1237857 PFI-AIR: Transitioning Novel Polymeric Membranes for Natural Gas, Air, and Hydrogen Separations
    James McGrath (jmcgrath@vt.edu), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Va.

    1237821 PFI-AIR: Architectures for the Future Cellular Networks
    Shivendra Panwar (panwar@catt.poly.edu), Polytechnic University of New York, N.Y.

    1237767 PFI-AIR: CASA Warning System Innovation Institute
    Brenda Philips (bphilips@ecs.umass.edu), University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.

    1237818 PFI-AIR: CREST-I/UCRC-Industry Ecosystem to Pipeline Research
    Naphtali Rishe (rishen@cs.fiu.edu), Florida International University, Fla.

    -NSF-

    Implicating Environmentalism -Becoming an Expert Witness

    “(Nanotechnology) is a new science that is going to change our economy,” said Andre Nel, professor of medicine at UCLA. “It’s going to change how we can take care of the environment, it’s going to change healthcare, it’s going to make safer energy.”

    The University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology aims to ensure the safe use of nanotechnology so the world can benefit from the science both economically and socially.

    “Nanotechnology is here and it is the future,” EPA 's Lisa P. Jackson said.

    "they’re actually only finding problems because then they turn around and find the solution at the same time.”


    Showdown at the EPA corral


    Administrator testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

    EPA to Hold Public Meeting on Liberty

    Finishing Superfund

    "AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES"

    “Superfund has been such a stigma, and has contributed to an economically depressed community,” “We believe this community can thrive again.” “We didn’t have the bare bones before. This brings us up to speed,”

    Formal risk assessments for food, water, and environmentally-relevant chemicals have been undertaken for decades.  However, an overarching microbial risk assessment guideline has not been available until now.  The guideline announced today meets this need by providing comprehensive, yet specific and descriptive information for developing assessments of microbial risk in food and water.

    “The microbial risk assessment guideline developed by FSIS, the EPA and our other public health partners will help protect consumers by allowing us to uniformly assess and reduce health risks from pathogens,” USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elisabeth Hagen said. “We’re proud to have worked with our partners on this guideline that will provide our risk assessors with a transparent and scientifically rigorous document to use in protecting public health.”

    “This guidance contributes significantly to improving the quality and consistency of microbial risk assessments, and provides greater transparency to stakeholders and other interested parties in how federal agencies approach and conduct their microbial risk assessments,” said Dr. Glenn Paulson, EPA Science Advisor. “Based on the success of this project, we are seeking further opportunities to combine our technical expertise in our continuing efforts to protect the Americans’ health.”

    More information on the guideline: http://www.epa.gov/raf/microbial.htm  

    News From the Field
    Pollution Can Make Citizens Go Green

    July 30, 2012

    image of Beijing covered with smog A study of residents living in Chinese cities indicates that environmental harm could be more important than economic status in predicting environmental behavior. Results show that in order to protect the environment, even people with low economic status may sacrifice some economic benefit in favor of better environmental conditions. Full Story

    Source
    Michigan State University

    Little Butte Creek Fecal Bacteria Pathway makes summer less fun 



    Image description: These U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigators are “tasting” tea. The Tea Importation Act of 1897 was enacted to improve the quality of America’s imported tea, described as “little better than hay or catnip.” Organoleptic experts at FDA sampled lots of every tea entering the country for nearly a century. FDA’s last tea taster, Robert Dick, retired soon after Congress rescinded the law in 1996.

    Ag-Gel

    "It means over multiple administrations of both parties we've failed to protect these families whose lives and futures hang in the balance," Lautenberg said

    Senate Agriculture Committee grills CFTC, SEC on delayed Dodd-Frank implementation

    The Senate Agriculture Committee questioned members of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday regarding implementation of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.

    SAC Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow said that the industry is still waiting for the finalization and effective date of several rules that affect clearing and trading, capital and margin, swap execution facilities and block trading.

    CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler told the SAC that the agency and its staff members have held 18 public roundtables regarding Dodd-Frank. Additionally, Gensler said that the agency has received more than 35,000 comment leaders, all of which must be read and considered carefully.

    “Last summer, we turned the corner and started finalizing rules,” Gensler said, according to Feedstuffs. “To date, we’ve completed 35 rules and now have fewer than 20 to go.”

    Of all the regulatory agencies required to issue new rules under Dodd-Frank, the CFTC has led the way in the finalization of rules. Of 60 rules assigned to the CFTC, as of July 2, the regulator has finalized 39 rules.

    Industry participants have, as a result of delayed rule implementation, expressed uncertainty regarding the regulatory future. Critics of the financial reforms argue that the compliance burden will be too much for many participants.

    “The length and complexity of many of the final rules combined with short compliance timelines are making the compliance progress nearly impossible for many of our members,” Thomas Erickson, the vice president of government and industry affairs at Bunge North America and representation for the Commodity Markets Council, said, Feedstuffs reports.


    "Real Wake Up" Call For Sleeping U.S. Regulators

    PR Newswire community

    Troubling Parallels Seen:  The "U.S. Has the Same Colluding System Between Industry, Regulators and Government"

    Suppose someone has scrap copper lying around, which is of no value to him but is valued by others.  To him it is scrap, but to others it is useful and therefore valuable.  When he sells the scrap to a dealer, he might have some general inkling that the copper could be used in wire or tubing or any number of other applications, but as far as he is concerned his purpose is simply to make a little money.  And, although he wants to get the scrap off of his property, there is nothing harmful or toxic about the scrap that would give him extra motivation to have it disposed of or to cause him to think about its final destination.  He is simply indifferent to the final destination of the copper.”  Slip Op. at 14-15.

    Work-at-Home Schemes: Making a great income from home is an appealing prospect. But promises of guaranteed incomes and big returns for little work are the sign of a scam, whether it’s envelope stuffing, craft work, rebate processing, online search work,  medical billing, or outsourcing the U.S. Postal Service to independent contractors (meaning minimum wage workers).


    News From the Field

    Researchers Unravel Secrets of Parasites' Replication

    Half a Million Tax Dollars Go Missing

    A report published by the DOE Office of Inspector General says the agency has been unable to locate $500,000 worth of equipment purchased with stimulus money. The $500,000 was part of a $2 billion Recovery Act dispersment given to the Advanced Batteries and Hybrid Components Program to “support the construction of U.S. based battery and electric drive component manufacturing plants.”

    But the report won’t say where the equipment was lost, or who lost it: “It would not be appropriate to release the name of stimulus-money recipient where the $500,000 worth of equipment could not be located.”

    This is not the first time the OIG’s found “monetary misplacement” in the Advanced Batteries and Hybrid Components Program. In April 2010, it conducted a similar audit. According to the OIG

    “A follow-up audit was necessary, in part, because [the OIG] wanted to evaluate circumstances related to an allegation received by the Office of Inspector General that an employee of one recipient had unduly influenced procurement decisions and violated conflict of interest provisions.”

    Protecting EPA Priority

    Release Date: 07/18/2012

    The court joined with the EPA "duty to err on the side of caution"

    • Due process is a growth too sturdy to succumb to the infection of the least ingredient of error.
      • Roberts v. New York, 295 U.S. 264, 278 (1935).

    What is fear, saith Solomon, but a betraying of the succours that reason offereth.

    "EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute." Read the Court's 5-4 opinion [text] per Justice Stevens, along with a dissent [text] from Chief Justice Roberts and a second dissent [text] from Justice Scalia. Reuters has more.

    NSF 12-107

    Dear Colleague Letter - Operations and Management of Earthquake Engineering Research Infrastructure during FY 2015 - FY 2019

    The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) will complete ten years of National Science Foundation (NSF) support for operations and research at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2014. As was stated in the NSF 10-071 Dear Colleague Letter on "Plans for the Future of Earthquake Engineering Research Infrastructure Support beyond 2014," NSF commissioned two external studies to identify future grand challenge research in earthquake engineering, and to make recommendations on how NSF might support earthquake engineering research and associated research infrastructure. After careful consideration of the findings from these two studies, NSF is now able to inform the community of its plans for future support of earthquake engineering research starting in FY 2015. Realizing the continuing need for large-scale experimental research facilities to enable grand challenge research advancements for the earthquake engineering field, the NSF Directorate for Engineering (ENG) will continue to support research infrastructure in this area.

    To ensure that the nation is receiving the greatest value for its investment in earthquake engineering research infrastructure and to adhere to the National Science Board (NSB) Statement on Competition, Recompetition, and Renewal of NSF Awards (NSB-08-16), ENG intends during FY 2013 and FY 2014 to recompete all phases of earthquake engineering research infrastructure operations for support during FY 2014 - FY 2019, to create the "NEES2" research infrastructure. Recompeted tasks will include the management headquarters, cyberinfrastructure, experimental facilities, and education, outreach and training activities. All recompeted tasks will be supported under one cooperative agreement for the management of NEES2 operations for FY 2015 - FY2019.

    NSF's plan for support for earthquake engineering research infrastructure will be as follows:

    NEES2 Operations FY 2015 - FY 2019: Under the NEES2 operations cooperative agreement, ENG will support four to six major earthquake engineering experimental facilities that provide the following key attributes: unique, large-scale experimental capabilities located in the United States critical for addressing earthquake engineering research grand challenges; the capability to be fully operational as of July 1, 2014; and a clear strategy/plan to ensure that the facilities will effectively support a strong external user base. In addition to the experimental facilities, the other major component under NEES2 operations will be a user-driven, community cyberinfrastructure that includes an experimental data repository; computational, simulation, and collaborative tools; access to high performance computing resources; and hybrid simulation capabilities. ENG plans a solicitation to be issued on/about October 2012, with at least a 120-day window for full proposal submission. Suggestions regarding evaluation criteria are welcome before August 15, 2012, and should be submitted to the NSF contact below. Contingent on availability of funds from NSF, NSF would seek approval from the National Science Board in May or July 2014 for a cooperative agreement to support NEES2 operations. A tentative timeline is shown below for community planning and will be updated in the NEES2 operations program solicitation:

    Event Tentative Date
    divider line
    Dear Colleague Letter Issued July 2012
    divider line
    NEES2 Operations Recompetition Solicitation Issued October 2012
    divider line
    Full Proposals Due February 2013
    divider line
    Full Proposal Evaluation April 2013
    divider line
    Site Visits June-July 2013
    divider line
    Reverse Site Visit at NSF October 2013
    divider line
    Request for NSB Award Approval May or July 2014
    divider line
    NEES2 Operations Award Commences October 2014

    Research Planning Grants to Utilize NEES2 Experimental Facilities: During FY 2013 and FY 2014, to provide continuity in support to the earthquake engineering research community, ENG intends to support planning grants, using a revised NEES Research solicitation, to support research investigations that could eventually require use of NEES2 facilities. The planning grants could involve material and component testing and develop preliminary plans for systems level testing. As the systems level testing would require design of experimental specimens dependent on the specific NEES2 experimental facility to be used, the expectation is that all preliminary testing at other than NEES2 facilities would have been completed by FY 2015, and this research would thus be "NEES2-ready" to submit proposals in early FY 2015 to design the needed specimens to utilize the newly identified NEES2 experimental resources and complete the large-scale research component. ENG plans to issue a revised NEESR solicitation in November 2012, with at least a 90-day window for full proposal submission.

    Decadal Earthquake Engineering Research Science Plan for FY 2020 - FY 2029: The 2011 National Research Council report entitled Grand Challenges in Earthquake Engineering Research: A Community Workshop Report (http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13167) identified 13 grand challenge research questions for the earthquake engineering field, organized around five major themes, and a network of 14 experimental facilities, some of which currently do not exist in the United States, to address these grand challenges. Building upon this NRC report, the development of more detailed science requirements and data products needed to address grand challenge research, the refinement of the specific capabilities for the experimental facilities to address the science requirements, and the prioritization for development of these facilities, will require longer-term planning. NSF intends to issue a program solicitation in early FY 2014 for an entity to organize the community for the FY 2020-FY 2029 decadal planning to address these science requirements, experimental capabilities, and prioritization.

    NSF Contact: Questions or comments should be directed to Joy Pauschke, NEES Program Director, 703-292-7024, jpauschk@nsf.gov.

    Sincerely,
    Steven H. McKnight
    Director, Division of Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation

    The Technology Innovation News Survey welcomes your comments and suggestions, as well as information about errors for correction. Please contact Michael Adam of the U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation at adam.michael@epa.gov or (703) 603-9915 with any comments, suggestions, or corrections.

    joint


    House panel keeps 'activist' EPA in its crosshairs


    Lost Enviro-junkies seek directions to water from vigilante "city-girl" unfamiliar with federal surveys & surveyors.

    Enviro-Fix: "What can be done to make sure that we are monitoring and know where we are?"

    EPA Administrator Jackson: "We’ve never been able to fund all the monitoring to really get a comprehensive look."

    "We know that U.S.Geological Services does a great job."

    "The coolest thing about water, especially surface water, is that it is always a local issue."

    "It really comes down to your local creek, your local fishing hole, your local river."

    Enviro-Fix: "Wastewater treatment plants were funded when the Clean Water Act began but now it’s deteriorating and nobody wants to pay to fix it. What do we do about our infrastructure?"

    EPA Administrator Jackson:  "You know the American Society of Civil Engineers gives us a D- I think for water infrastructure. We have moved from a construction grants program that gave out billions of dollars across the country to fund these plants to now a construction loan, a revolving loan program for new construction. In the years he (President Obama) has been in office, (but) it is still nowhere near our needs."

    [1] 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(2).

    [2] United States v. Atlantic Research Corporation, 127 S. Ct. 2331, 2338 (2007) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary).

    [3] See Atlantic Research, 127 S. Ct. at 2337, United States v. Colorado & Eastern Railroad Co., 50 F.3d 1530, 1537 (10th Cir. 1995).

    [4] 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1).

    [5] 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(3)(B).

    [6] 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A), (B).

    [7] Atlantic Research, 127 S. Ct. at 2338.

    [8] Atlantic Research, 127 S. Ct. at 2337.

    [9] See UCATA, Commissioners’ Prefatory Note.

    [10] On July 19, 2012, Solutia filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Eleventh Circuit’s decision.

    [11] UCFA §2.

    [12] UCATA §4.

    [13] ITT Commer. Fin. Corp. v. Harsco Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13376, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. 2000); Hillsborough County v. A & E Rd. Oiling Serv., 853 F.Supp. 1402, 1409 (M.D. Fla. 1994).

    [14] Acme Fill Corp. v. Althin CD Med. Inc., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22308, at *24 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

    [15] See, e.g., Patterson Envtl. Response Trust v. Autocare 2000 Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28323, at *21 (E.D. Cal. 2002); Barton Solvents Inc. v. Southwest Petro-Chem Inc., 834 F.Supp. 342, 349 (D. Kan. 1993); Comerica Bank-Detroit v. Allen Industries Inc., 769 F.Supp. 1408, 1414 (E.D. Mich. 1991).

    [16] See General Time Corp. v. Bulk Materials, 826 F.Supp. 471, 478 (M.D. Ga. 1993).

    [17] 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(2)

    [18] See Adobe Lumber Inc. v. Hellman, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2009); Tosco Corp. v. Koch Industries Inc., 216 F.3d 886, 897 (10th Cir. 2000).

    [19] Azko Nobel Coatings Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 197 F.3d 302, 308 (7th Cir. 1999); American Cyanamid Co. v. Capuano, 381 F.3d 6, 20-21 (1st Cir. 2004); Action Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Simon Wrecking Co., 428 F. Supp. 2d 288, 327 (E.D. Pa. 2006).

    [20] See Tyco Thermal Controls LLC v. Redwood Indus. (N.D. Cal. Aug 12, 2010).


    Follow on Twitter Friend of Facebook

    Editor's Column

    The rigged casino as a business model

    A month ago, hardly anyone knew or cared what LIBOR was or the role it plays in the global rate of usury; today, many more folks not only understand LIBOR, but are learning to see it as just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the gaming of the nearly worldwide financial system. 

    In case you’ve lost track of the evidence for racketeering, collusion, and manipulation of money, interest, stock, and bond markets, here’s a brief recap of recent events:

    The current list of known frauds include the Fed’s Permanent Open Market Operations (open and hidden purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds), which fund computerized front running in the stock market. We’ve all read of the ludicrous bonuses paid to the top executives, managers, and traders who orchestrate these scams, but beyond such base greed, there are some very serious objectives, including the suppression of interest rates to keep the derivatives markets from collapsing the global house of cards.

    This situation puts the private banks in the odd position of holding down interest rates to keep the system going, which explains why they are spending their money on manipulating and speculating in high-return markets, rather than loaning money to the medium and small-sized businesses that represent half the jobs in the U.S. For example, while the rigging of LIBOR may slow down the usury cycle, it has also supported a more lucrative scam initiated before the interest plunge—manipulating the municipal bond market and selling interest rate swaps to cities (such as Baltimore and Oakland that are now suing), counties, states, and other taxing districts, such as public schools, with the help of whatever vassal governments are necessary.

    The usual strategy employed by the cartel is to pretend to investigate the transgressions, consolidate any lawsuits so that a small group of people can be controlled (much like they did in corralling the 50 states attorneys general to defuse the MERS scandal), slap a few hands, and move on to bigger and better criminal activities. When the banks, the Fed, and the regulators all work hand-in-hand, the heads of the crime families go scot free. We’ll see what transpires.

    Meanwhile, as the depth and breadth of the gaming is revealed, the 99% are increasingly interested in alternatives, such as the viral video of Victoria Grant or, more recently, Ellen Brown’s interview with the popular mercola.com.  One interesting development is the growing movement of sheriffs moving against financial crime within their jurisdictions, an example of which is “High Noon in New Hampshire.”

    On Saturday, July 14th, Gar Alperovitz, the keynote speaker at our national conference in April, gave the keynote address at the Green Party convention in Baltimore and received strong applause for his plug of public banking. Personally speaking, I was further pleased to see a high school friend, Dr. Jill Stein, nominated for President by the convention.

    One of the main thrusts of Gar’s speech was the necessity of local control, including worker owned businesses (over 10 million Americans are involved in this), co-ops (40% of Americans are involved in these), and public banking.

    Recently, in Colorado, a friend of mine, an attorney, and I submitted initiatives for two amendments to the state constitution: one to create a state bank and the other to enable other political subdivisions (cities, counties, and other tax districts, such as school districts) to create their own banks (if they meet minimum capitalization requirements).

    One of the main benefits of this approach is that we will be concentrating our energy on the voting public and not a small group of legislators that are easily manipulated by the cartel. I urge you to look what you can do locally to bring back the prosperity that Americans enjoyed when each of the colonies ran their own monetary and banking systems.


    Robert Bows
    robert.bows@publicbankinginstitute.org
    PBI Newsletter Editor
    Public Banking Institute

    _________________________

    Featured Article:   Banking on Montana

    Marshall Swearingen

    DURING THE 2011 MONTANA legislature—perhaps the most bitterly partisan in recent state history—something curious happened. Rep. Joe Read, a Tea Party-backed Republican who was briefly famous on the Colbert Report for his House Bill 549 declaring global warming "beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana," sponsored the lesser-known HB 643. The bill would authorize a state-run bank like the Bank of North Dakota.

    What is curious—besides that a Tea Party Republican would support a "state-run" anything—is that a Democrat, Rep. Sue Malek of Missoula, sponsored a similar resolution. Rep. Read spoke wholeheartedly in its favor. The support, and opposition, for both bills was bipartisan.

    Both bills stalled out before a final vote, but that has not dampened efforts for a state bank. A grassroots campaign, having learned from the experience, is redoubling the push for one in 2013. Montana, among the 17 other states that have tried since 2010, may become the first state to get its own bank in nearly a century.

    Besides having an independent political spirit—the state’s 100-year-old Corrupt Practices Act has been on the front lines of a national pushback against the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizen United decision—Montana is right next door to North Dakota, and similar in many ways. "It's got the agriculture, it's got the Bakken reserves," says Marc Armstrong, director of the Public Banking Institute, a national non-profit. "But unfortunately, it hasn't been able to leverage its resources like North Dakota has." (North Dakota's unemployment rate is 3.0%, compared to 6.3% in Montana and 8.2% nationally.)

    Montanans, says Armstrong, are uniquely positioned to "recognize that a public bank will allow them to stop giving away their bank credit, which is what happens when it's deposited in a Wall Street bank, and, instead, can leverage public revenues for public purposes."

    THE BANK OF NORTH DAKOTA, the only state bank in the U.S., was created in 1919 as the populist Non-Partisan League rebelled against an out-of-state cartel of brokers, bankers, and railroads that suppressed grain prices and sent interest rates sky-high. The League, as part of its sweeping reforms, authorized the BND as a way to provide a direct line of credit to farmers.

    The specific function of the BND has changed over time, but it has remained true to its purpose of serving the public. In 1967 it started the nation's first student loan program, which today boasts no fees and a 1.97% variable interest rate. It offers a variety of low-interest loan programs for farmers and ranchers, small businesses, entrepreneurs, and municipalities. With its Rebuilders Loan Program, it has issued hundreds of loans to families whose homes were flooded along the Missouri in 2009.

    The BND is able to do all this because it serves as the depository for the state's revenue. Whereas other states depend on the "Big Banks"—who in turn invest as is expedient, whether in-state or not—the BND plows the money back into North Dakota. It partners with local banks, who are able to make bigger loans backed by BND's assets, and buys down the interest rates. This is beneficial to the state's private sector, but it also yields the state a profit: Last year, the BND earned $70 million, giving the state a 17.6% return on investment. That money goes to further capitalizing the bank, to the state's general fund, and to offset taxes.

    In Montana the state's deposit account is with US Bank, but most of that money is swept each day to the New York State Street Bank, a "custodian" bank that handles the transactions overseen by Montana's Board of Investments. Much of it is bundled up on short-term international money markets, and State Street takes a cut—in 2011 it reported net income of $1.92 billion. The bank was among others that came under scrutiny in 2009 following the $3.3 trillion "Back Door" bailout—which it helped engineer—when it took $89 billion from the Fed and invested it in government short-term securities, at a guaranteed profit.

    "We've been led to think that investing in Wall Street is a smart thing to do," says Josh Davis, who grew up in Livingston and Billings and now volunteers as Montana's coordinator for the Public Banking Institute. "Now it just seems like a risky thing to do. I think we should be rethinking our investment strategy."

    To the envy of Wall Street, the BND hardly felt a ripple in 2008. Its "executives"—who are modestly salaried public officials—were never enticed into the Wall Street casino of sub-prime lending, derivatives, and credit-default swaps. They were making a fine profit (for the public) by investing in tangible, long-term, in-state economic development.

    Critics note that North Dakota has its own share of Wall Street gambles with its pension and retirement funds; and opponents of the 2011 Montana bills questioned the need for a state bank given that the Montana Board of Investments, like the BND, offers several loan programs since it joined with the Economic Development Board in 1988. Armstrong says the main difference between the two states is that North Dakota, in 2011, held $5.3 billion of its assets in-state with the BND, and used that money to leverage $3 billion in loans, whereas in Montana "we gave our bank credit away to private banks to use for their own gain."

    That's a missed opportunity for small businesses, says Amanda Harrow, program director with the Montana Small Business Alliance. "The public bailed out the big banks, but the big banks didn't resume lending to small businesses," who have suffered as a result. North Dakota has been largely spared the credit crunch—it has more than double the loan lending rate of Montana—because the state bank has taken up the slack. A state bank "would also provide more funding for public programs and services that make our communities a good place to live, that in turn allow our businesses to succeed."

    The Montana Organizing Project, a non-partisan collaboration of civic, labor, and faith groups based in Missoula and Billings, is also part of the grassroots alliance. Sheena Rice, MOP's Eastern Montana organizer, says a state bank would advance their goals of social justice by providing more equitable lending and retaining money in local economies. "With the right amount of education, Montanans could really unite around this."

    The legislators aren't backing down either. Joe Read, if re-elected, plans to re-introduce his bill for the "Last Chance State Bank." He's still got a stack of DVDs of "The Secret of Oz"-- a film expressing distrust of the Federal Reserve and concern over the fragility of a debt-based international money system--ready to hand out to fellow legislators. He says, "It's time for states to start looking out for themselves." Sue Malek, who grew up in small-town Baker, Mont., near the North Dakota border, is running for state senate this time around, and looks forward to working with the grassroots effort. Reflecting on the opposition of the last session, she jokes that a state bank "is kind of a socialist idea."

    So, creeping socialism, end-the-Fed libertarianism, or just plain old sovereignty?

    "What I would like is some out-of-the-box thinking," says Davis. "When we have more control over the flow of credit, we can decide what kinds of projects and businesses we want to have in our state, and not be dependent on multi-national banks to make those decisions for us." -TBM

    Marshall Swearingen aspires to be a long-term citizen of Greater Yellowstone. In late May and in only his third article for the Magpie, "Gasland Comes to Central Montana," his astute brand of journalism and writing prowess left readers (and at least one editor) clamoring for more.

    Audit the Fed

    This year, Audit the Fed is back with a vengeance. Reintroduced on 01/26/2011 as HR 459, Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve now has 227 co-sponsors, and the numbers keep growing! HR 459′s companion bill in the Senate, S 202, has already attracted 20 co-sponsors.

    This is history in the making, and victory is within reach. Imagine what will happen if HR 459, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, comes up for vote in Congress! It has real potential to pass — BUT only if we educate and rally the people to support it and get our Congresspeople to put it to vote and pass it.

    EPA Helpless to Stop, Furthers Pollution at Superfund Site

    By , on July 13th, 2012

    National Security News Service


    New Science Endangers EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”

    “If the EPA were to have done that with the regulations being proposed here … it is quite likely that their original Endangerment Finding would have to be revised and potentially overturned.”
    The public comment period for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units closed on June 25, 2012. A number of extensive comments were submitted arguing that the basis of the Endangerment Finding—that human greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations”—has become so outdated as to require a thorough re-assessment.
    Strong cases were made that the EPA failed to completely consider new and influential scientific results which have a direct relevance to the impact that climate change as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions may have on the public health and welfare. Overwhelmingly, the “missing” science from the EPA’s support documents included evidence that either lessened the certainty that human GHG emissions were behind the observed changes in the climate, or provided examples of positive impacts resulting from climate change on human health and welfare.
    It is a recipe for pure waste and unintented consequences if EPA continues to propose regulations based upon static, even outdated, science in a field where the scientific knowledge-base is rapidly evolving. In his public comment to the EPA, the Cato Institute’s Dr. Patrick Michaels neatly described this situation:
    [N]o static report can provide long-term guidance as to the nature of climate change and its impacts as this field is constantly evolving under the weight of new scientific findings. Consequently, it is imperative EPA reassess the current scientific understanding on an annual basis, if not continuously. If the EPA were to have done that with the regulations being proposed here (consideration of my comments and Addendum would have been an appropriate place to start) it is quite likely that their original Endangerment Finding would have to be revised and potentially overturned.
    Relying on dated and incomplete science in a rapidly evolving environment will almost certainly lead to poor regulations. In the name of science and in the spirit of responsible government, the EPA must revisit the Endangerment Finding before adopting sweeping regulations with potentially enormous economic and social implications.
    As a demonstration that, indeed, new science (as well as overlooked or ignored science) can supplant existing science in many important topic areas related to climate change, Dr. Michaels included in his comments to the EPA a draft of a major report that he has been editing which serves as a re-evaluation of the potential impacts of climate change on the United States. Dr. Michaels views his report as an “Addendum” to the 2009 U.S. Global Change Research Program’s “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States”—a report which synthesizes some 21 reports issued by the USGCRP since the early 2000s.
    The final version of Dr. Michaels’ Addendum is planned to be released in late summer or early fall, but in the meantime, the Fourth Order Draft is currently available from the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Public Science and Public Policy and is well worth a look. It is especially insightful to compare, side-by-side, Dr. Michaels’ Addendum to the original USGCRP report (available here).
    In addition to Dr. Michaels’ comment on new science overlooked by the EPA, Peabody Energy Company (the world’s largest private-sector coal company) submitted an extensive and detailed set of comments which included a lot of focus on new science missed by the EPA—science which Peabody argues should require that the EPA reassess their Endangerment Finding.
    The findings on new science, along with findings on the significance of the revelations within the Climategate 2.0 emails, the many benefits of carbon dioxide and fossil fuel-produced energy, the lack of climate influence of the EPA emissions restrictions, and a host of other deficiencies have led Peabody to this conclusion:
    EPA has committed basic legal error by failing to justify its NSPS Proposal in a finding that CO2 emissions for new coal-fueled EGUs endanger the public health and welfare. And EPA has failed to consider the health and welfare benefits of coal-fueled electric generation that will be foregone under the proposal. The proposal is ill-conceived and should be withdrawn.
    Peabody’s full set of comments is available here, as well as two support documents, one detailing the new science, and the other detailing the relevant contents of the Climategate 2.0 email release.
    I include here an excerpt from Peabody’s Comment which summarizes their findings on new science to give you a flavor of the types of new findings that the EPA has not (yet?) considered and why the EPA Endangerment Finding should itself be considered endangered.


    40 years after Clean Water Act, our waterways still need watchdogs and stewards

    Posted by: Maven on July 18, 2012 at 9:00 am

    From the American Rivers blog:

    “In early 2012, Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced “America’s Great Outdoors Rivers Initiative,” an effort to protect and restore America’s rivers for people and wildlife and to support jobs in tourism and outdoor recreation.
    This is good news, because rivers— and oceans— are our lifeblood and need ongoing care. Thanks to the Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, it’s now possible to swim and fish in many rivers and seas that were extremely polluted only a few years or decades ago. … “

    Continue reading from the American Rivers blog by clicking here.

    (And they need obedience training)


    Why would the best and brightest want to accept a job at the EPA when they know that their salary will not increase or keep pace with inflation

    National Council of EPA Locals to Host Congressional Breakfast July 18

    Published: Tuesday, Jul. 17, 2012 - 12:03 pm

    budget proposals for EPA are, in reality, economic time bombs that will cause jobs to be lost, people to get sick and die


    Like Captain Ahab, But Without The Sparkling Personality…

    On my last fishing trip I apparently jammed my right ankle pretty good, but it’s taken a while to realize just how badly.

    That’s one of the downsides of becoming a geezer; things move so slowly that an injury a younger me would have noticed the next day takes 2-3 days to fully manifest. (Turns out I also groan more than I did when I was younger.)

    So in what I’ll suggest is a Kodak moment that will never, ever find its way onto the Internet, I’m writing with my right leg up on the corner of the desk, a feat of writing-related contortion so powerful I should rightly receive the Pulitzer just for making the attempt. (That it hasn’t happened suggests they don’t fully appreciate my talents either.)

    Sadly, I’m not the only hobbler in the house.

    Spoil The Wonderdog

    Wally the Wonderdog has become my buddy in gimpiness, and unfortunately, his problems are less temporary than mine.

    His anti-seizure medication dopes him up, slows him down and also plays havoc with his liver. I didn’t like the seizures, but it’s possible I like this even less.

    We’re giving him something to support his liver, but that goodness is being washed away by the more-frequent doses of Novox (an anti-inflammatory) that are needed to fight his increasing gimpiness, but which are also hard on the liver.

    Things have reached the point where the L&T and I broke down and bought one of those giant therapeutic foam dog beds from Orvis, and as promised, the damn thing is more comfortable than my own bed.

    In fact, it’s not clear why we’re wrestling with cribs and beds for the kids; Little M liked Wally’s bed enough that she tried to steal it, so why not throw one of these in each corner and call it good? (Seriously.)

    Of course, all this takes place as backdrop against the integration of M2 (Mihret) into the family alongside Little M (Meski). That’s an unpretty process involving jealousy, infighting, verbal taunts, the denial of reality, and childish temper tantrums (sorta like congress, but with sippy cups), and it’s illustrated an interesting point.

    You want your kids to be happy, but it’s clear they need to learn about entitlement, greed, whining and getting along with others. And you’re willing to teach them those lessons by saying “no” to another toy/book/iPad/car.

    The Wonderdog, by contrast, has already learned every lesson he needs to, and he’s so goofy that nothing you buy him will ever change him (except for the better).

    Which basically means at this stage of his life, you’re willing to buy him anything if it makes him happier. Like a therapeutic foam dog bed.

    Pets fill an odd niche in our lives, though it’s a little startling to realize they sometimes occupy a privileged niche higher than your own.

    See you hobbling, Tom Chandler.


    The Top Seven Signs You Might Not Want To Fish With That Guide After All

    The Top Seven Guide Warning Signs

    7) Front seat backrest in drift boat has bullet holes with powder burns on rower’s side

    6) Insists on tying your fly to tippet, but uses bow tie knot

    5) “I Brake For Human Flesh” bumper sticker on truck

    4) Guarantees you’ll catch boatloads of 20″ trout, then backs boat trailer into a wall saying “Wow, thought I had a another 20″ of room.”

    3) Thinks PBR is real beer, not fermented horse urine

    2) “Super secret” spot occupied by two dozen other fishermen, and when you mention it, he says “What fishermen?”

    1) Mumbles angrily to himself about last client not tipping while drawing pentagram on boat in fresh blood.


    press release

    July 20, 2012, 2:48 p.m. EDT

    California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Concerned Over Court Decision and Increased Liability for Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permittees

    MENLO PARK, Calif., Jul 20, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), recently documented concern over a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision regarding the Los Angeles County NPDES stormwater permit, which determined that a municipality is strictly liable for violations of its permit if rainfall runoff causes or contributes to an exceedance of a water quality standard in the receiving waters, regardless of the source of the pollution.

    The 9th Circuit Court decision potentially places every municipal stormwater discharger in the State of California in non-compliance with their stormwater NPDES permit if monitoring data shows pollution in public waterways. Members of the CASQA board believe this exposes municipalities to considerable liability, fines and costly remediation with no reasonable timeframe to improve the water quality entering their systems and they believe the decision undermines the historical systematic and cost effective approach to addressing stormwater quality issues previously established by the State Water Board.

    "CASQA's solution is to work with the State and Regional Water Boards to craft permit language that fully supports an iterative process to address problematic stormwater discharges," indicated Richard Boon, Chair of CASQA. " NPDES stormwater permit language must be redrafted to remove the immediate unlimited legal liability for all of California's municipalities for stormwater discharge." Currently two NPDES permits, Los Angeles and San Diego, are being renewed and the issue of the iterative process is a critical factor.

    The Clean Water Act establishes NPDES permit requirements for storm discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4 Permits), which makes cities, counties and others responsible for minimizing pollutants discharged from their publicly owned storm drains and flood control channels. The intent of the regulation is to protect the quality of creeks, rivers, estuaries and ocean waters receiving storm runoff. Federal regulations acknowledge that stormwater pollution is not created by municipal discharges.

    CASQA's mission is to "advance stormwater quality management through collaboration, education, implementation guidance, regulatory review and scientific assessment". CASQA is a non-profit organization dedicated to assisting the State Water Resources Control Board and municipalities throughout the State of California in implementing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater mandates of the Federal Clean Water Act. www.casqa.org

    SOURCE: California Stormwater Quality Association

    USDA considering changing the way chicken is inspected

    By Scott Wickersham

    CHARLOTTE, N.C. —

    The USDA is considering changing the way the chicken you eat is inspected, but one group calls that a huge mistake.

    (Isn't that why they crossed the road?)

    Alarmist tactics have helped drive a good bit of recent policy at all levels of government. Sometimes it is important to examine the tactic as much as the policy.

    Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

    Women beneath a desk practicing drop, cover, and hold on Dear John,

    The 2012 Great California ShakeOut earthquake drill is three months from today (October 18th at 10:18 a.m.), and already more than 5.2 million people have been registered to participate!  Your participation will inspire many others to practice earthquake safety and get prepared this year.  Thank you!

    If you have not yet confirmed your participation for this year's drill, by renewing your registration, please take a minute to log in today at ShakeOut.org/california.

    If you are a new ShakeOut participant, make sure to check out our simple instructions for how to participate and prepare that are available for a variety of ShakeOut participant categories, and include custom preparedness information and suggestions for how you can share the ShakeOut with others. If you have participated previously we encourage you or your organization to do something more this year: Drop, Cover, and Hold On graphic this could mean holding a more comprehensive earthquake drill, securing furniture and other objects to minimize injury and damage, or updating your emergency plans and supplies.


    The ShakeOut is now Coast to Coast... and Global!

    Global Map with ShakeOut logoThe California Shakeout began in 2008 in Southern California, grew statewide in 2009, and was joined by ShakeOut Drills in Nevada and Guam in 2010.  In 2011, new ShakeOut drills were held in Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia on the same day as California's drill, and in April eleven states of the Central U.S. held ShakeOut drills with more than 3 million participants! The Central U.S. held its second ShakeOut in February of this year, and ShakeOut expansion has continued.  In March an initial test ShakeOut drill was held in Tokyo, Japan, and many more cities and prefectures throughout Japan will hold ShakeOut drills this fall.  Utah held its first ShakeOut drill in April (with 940,000 participants).  New Zealand is organizing its first nationwide ShakeOut in September with a goal of 1 million people.  This October 18th, along with California and other existing ShakeOut drills, new ShakeOuts will be held in Alaska, Washington, Puerto Rico, Southern Italy, and the Southeastern U.S. (Georgia, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Virginia, Washington D.C., and Maryland)!  In total more than 15 million people worldwide may participate in 2012. 

    Because of this expansion, ShakeOut.org is now a global home page with links and statistics for all regions, and
    the California ShakeOut site is now at ShakeOut.org/california. As of today more than 9.3 million people worldwide have participated or registered to participate in 2012! If you have family, friends, or colleagues in these regions please encourage them to participate by directing them to this web address. 


    Who will ShakeOut with you? 

    Join Us! For the 2012 Great California ShakeOutWhen we think about preparedness, we usually consider how we will protect ourselves, how we will reconnect with our families, or how we will reopen our businesses. These are important factors in speeding our recovery. However, your recovery will also depend on how prepared your community is, including your neighbors, schools, businesses, and organizations. Individuals should encourage their employer to be prepared (so they will continue to be employed), and organizations should encourage their employees to be prepared at home (so employees can return to work quickly). Organizations should also encourage their clients, customers, and suppliers to be prepared, so that work can continue or resume as soon as possible.

    A great way to help your community, your employer, and others to prepare to survive and recover is to encourage them to register to participate in the Great California ShakeOut. Let them know that you are participating and ask them to join you by registering at ShakeOut.org/california. Spread the word at family gatherings, community events, and work meetings, and online with email, facebook, or twitter. You can also place one of the ShakeOut web banners on your organization's website, display posters in your office, distribute flyers, and use other materials available on the ShakeOut Resources page.

    Thank you for your continued participation in this historic event and for your commitment to disaster preparedness!

    The Great California ShakeOut

    5,807 likes
    About us: At 10:18 a.m. on October 18, 2012,
    millions of Californians will participate in the largest earthquake drill ever! Register today at www.ShakeOut.org/california
    connect with me!

    California ShakeOut

    3,444 followers
    456 tweets
    following 531 people
    follow

    Find Education and Training Opportunities to Build a New Career

     

    Help for Difficult Financial Times

    If you've lost a job or want to change career paths, you can take advantage of education and training opportunities to help you build new skills.

    The Department of Labor offers training programs through Career OneStop. You can find short-term trainings, certification programs, apprenticeship opportunities and more.

    You'll also find resources for further professional development in your current career and ways to update your skills to be more marketable to employers.

    If you're considering student loans to help finance any training or education, learn the process of applying for student loans and managing student loan debt.

    Find more education and training opportunities.

    GSA News & Information Update: News Releases

    You are subscribed to GSA News Releases for GSA, General Services Administration. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.

    Federal Government Returning to World, wants job back; princes, dukes and barons say "no way".l

    For more resources on helping your family cope with financial challenges, check out Help for Difficult Financial Times.

    CLU-IN | In The News | Technology Innovation News Survey


    Geithner focused on 'helping banks, not home owners'

    Former TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky, now stationed at NYU Law School, paints an awfully unflattering portrait of Tim Geithner in a new book, featuring some claims that undercut the White House narrative about standing up for the middle class against big corporations. MJ Lee:
    “Helping banks, not home owners, did in fact seem to be Treasury’s biggest concern,” Barofsky writes in “Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street.” POLITICO obtained an advance copy of the book, which is set to be released next week.
    Treasury is avoiding a public food fight with Barofsky, who is now a senior fellow at New York University law school’s Center on the Administration of Criminal Law.
    “We haven’t seen the book, but we wish Mr. Barofsky well,” a Treasury spokesman said on Friday. He pointed POLITICO to an April blog post that highlights how various federal programs have been “effective in preventing the collapse of the financial system.” ...
    Barofsky claims that Treasury tried, unsuccessfully, to drive a wedge between himself and Elizabeth Warren, who was another vocal critic of TARP from her perch as head of an oversight panel created by Congress, and treated her shabbily as well.
    “It was revolting,” he writes. “Much as Treasury had leaked negative stories about me ‘scaring away’ banks from TARP, such stories had recently sprung up about Elizabeth, suggesting that she was a ‘Cassandra’ whose criticism of TARP ‘could undermine already tenuous support’ for the bailouts.’”
    One of the more R-rated narratives in “Bailout” is of Barofsky’s face-off with Geithner in the fall of 2009. He writes that when he relayed to the Treasury secretary his belief that the American people would be increasingly critical of TARP unless the department started giving a full and transparent description of how banks were using funds from the program Geithner set off on a profanity-laced rant.
    “Neil, I have been the most fucking transparent secretary of the Treasury in this country’s entire fucking history!” Barofsky recounts Geithner saying. “No one has ever made the banks disclose the type of shit that I made them disclose after the stress tests. No one! And now you’re saying that I haven’t been fucking transparent?”
    Geithner has not been much of a public figure lately and is less of a political target than he was in, say, 2009. The perception that he and other members of the Obama administration took an accommodationist stance toward Wall Street has irked Obama's liberal supporters from the beginning, and helped create a political opening for a conservative consensus around opposition to TARP, other government spending and the broader Obama administration agenda.

    Read more about: , , ,

    By Jon Prior
    • July 24, 2012 • 11:00pm

    Taxpayers are still owed more than half their original investment in American International Group ($31.43 0.74%) even as its non-insurance business operates without a consolidated banking regulator, according to the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    AIG still has $30.4 billion from the original $67.8 billion TARP investment outstanding as of July, which is on track to actually earn a return, SIGTARP said in a special report Wednesday.

    The more than 1 billion shares equal a 61% government stake in the monoline.

    Including other asset purchases, the total original commitment to the AIG bailout was $161 billion. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York continues to sell off those assets, most tied to faulty mortgages.

    The AIG Financial Products Corp. still operates today even though it has shrunk its credit default swap portfolio to $168 billion, one-tenth its former size.

    The firm remains massive and could be considered a systemically important financial institution, or SIFI, when regulators release such a definition. As a SIFI, the company would fall under Federal Reserve supervision.

    It still has 219 subsidiaries and is the third largest insurance company by assets in the U.S. The non-insurance business at AIG still lacks consolidated oversight, according to SIGTARP. Before the crash, part of it was considered a thrift and thus fell under Office of Thrift Supervision.

    The Dodd-Frank Act rolled this agency into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Moving it the Fed would be "a massive undertaking," the watchdog said.

    "For more than two years, AIG has had no consolidated banking regulator of its non-insurance financial business," SIGTARP said in its report.

    Despite the regulatory uncertainty, AIG continues to bet on the mortgage market. From December 2010 through March 31, it doubled its commercial mortgage-backed securities and private-label mortgage bond holdings to $28.4 billion.

    "AIG is one of the world's largest companies and is the largest outstanding TARP investment. For two years, AIG has had no federal banking regulator responsible for overseeing its non-insurance financial business, and its prior regulator OTS admitted failures," said Christy Romero, the special inspector general for TARP. "Effective, comprehensive, and rigorous regulation of AIG is vital to ensure that history does not repeat itself."

    jprior@housingwire.com

    The $48 billion TARP puzzle

    Neil Barofsky (New York University)

    Neil Barofsky’s new book on his experience as the government watchdog for the bank bailouts of late 2008 is getting a fair bit of press, both for its accusations that the White House did too much to protect its political allies in the financial sector and too little to help everyday homeowners. But another accusation is getting much less attention: He thinks the Treasury Department doesn’t know how to count.

    Currently, the Treasury Department says (pdf) that the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), the bailout program for which Barofsky served as inspector general, will cost taxpayers a total of $43.32 billion, when gains from it and related asset buys are taken into account, or $59.75 billion when only TARP gains are included. But Barofsky alleges in a recent Bloomberg column that these figures include revenue gains that it shouldn’t include, and excludes losses that it should include.

    Specifically, the $43.32 billion figure includes gains the Treasury department made from stock of the American Investment Group (AIG) that was bought with non-TARP money. If it wasn’t bought with TARP money, Barofsky reasons, it shouldn’t be included as a TARP gain. Without considering these other shares, the higher $59.75 billion estimate is correct. Matthew Anderson, a spokesperson at the Treasury department, argued in an e-mail that including the other shares is appropriate, noting a previous report from Barofsky himself stating (pdf) that “All of these infusions to AIG are linked inextricably.” In an e-mail, Barofsky calls this characterization of his past views “laughable.” The bottom line, he says, is that Treasury is “including Fed gains as if they were part of a Treasury investment, when they were not.”

    Barofsky also faults Treasury for not taking into account lost revenue due to changes in the tax treatment of AIG, General Motors, and Citigroup following their bailouts. Usually, companies are allowed to “carry forward” past losses for up to twenty years in the future to reduce their tax burdens. So if a company loses $5 billion one year and gains $7 billion the next, it can carry forward the $5 billion and only pay taxes on the $2 billion difference.

    However, section 382 of the tax code limits the ability of companies to carry forward losses from companies they bought. The idea is to prevent companies from buying smaller, loss-heavy companies just to reduce their tax burden. According to a paper (pdf) by Harvard Law School’s J. Mark Ramseyer and Indiana University’s Eric B. Rasmusen, this provision would have meant that if private buyers acquired AIG, General Motors, and Citigroup, those buyers could have carried forward none of the bought-out firms’ losses, as firms are limited to carrying forward an amount equal to the total stock value of the company purchased times the interest rate charged on tax exempt bonds. “I believe the technical term on Wall Street for what Citi was worth then is ‘bupkis,’” USC’s Ed Kleinbard, who was chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation at the time, tells me, so the provision could well have wiped out all tax carry forwards for the three firms. To prevent this, Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson exempted the government from that provision when it bought shares of AIG, GM, and Citigroup.

    As a consequence, the three companies got to carry over a combined $90.38 billion in losses, according to Ramseyer and Rasmusen. Since all three firms are big enough to pay the top corporate tax rate — which is a 35 percent flat tax — that works out to $31.633 billion in lost revenue, over the next decade or more. But some, like Kleinbard, defend the move, saying that it doesn’t make sense to apply a provision meant to prevent firms from lowering their tax loads to the government itself. “The rationale was, ‘Don’t be stupid, that’s not what the rule’s about,’” he says.

    What’s more, it could be the case that, absent that exemption, it would be harder for the government to sell shares of the companies in the future, as their inability to deduct past losses would have made them less valuable. If the shares sold for enough less, the new revenue could be swamped, and not exempting the firms could have actually cost taxpayers money. Barofsky dismisses this idea, noting that with the exemption, “The windfall goes not just to treasury, but also, in proportional amounts, to all of the other shareholders. Therefore, it would seem that the benefit would go to the many under the current scheme, while without a tax break, all the benefit would’ve gone exclusively to the taxpayers.”

    That’s something of an evasion. Even if interests other than the taxpayer’s made money off the tax exemption, that doesn’t answer the question of whether the government would have made more money without it. There, the evidence is mixed, and thus the Treasury’s decision to leave the exemption out of its calculations seems fair. Where Barofsky’s case is much stronger is on the $16.43 billion in non-TARP AIG gains. That really is a case where Treasury is counting money that wasn’t part of TARP as a gain for the program, at least in one of its estimates. Regardless, whether TARP cost $59.75 billion, as the government’s estimate without non-TARP gains has it, or $91.38 billion, as Barofsky’s math would have it, the total cost came in a whole lot less than the $356 billion that the Congressional Budget Office estimated the program would cost in March 2009. It cost real money, but a fraction of what we thought it would.


    Greenberg, AIG Case Headed to State Court of Appeals

    New York Law Journal

    July 18, 2012


    The New York attorney general's seven-year-old civil fraud case against ex-American International Group CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg and other AIG defendants is headed to the state Court of Appeals. Yesterday, the Appellate Division, First Department, granted leave in People v. Greenberg, 401720/05.
    The case, initiated in 2005 by then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and sustained by his two successors, Andrew Cuomo and Eric Schneiderman, charges that Greenberg and ex-CFO Howard Smith violated state Executive Law and the Martin Act based on their role "in fraudulent transactions designed to portray an unduly positive picture of AIG's loss reserves and underwriting performance," according to court records.
    There were never any criminal charges, but AIG admitted to structuring sham transactions to boost its loss reserves and agreed to pay a $1.6 billion fine in 2006, over the objections of Greenberg, who by then had been removed as CEO but remained an AIG shareholder. In May, the First Department (95 AD3d 474) allowed the Martin Act claims to go forward but said the attorney general was wrongly granted summary judgment with regard to two transactions. Both issues are now before the Court of Appeals.
    Lee Wolosky, a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, which represents Greenberg, said in a statement that the appeal raises a question of whether the Executive Law and Martin Act are preempted by federal statutes designed to establish uniform standards in securities fraud cases. "The appeal thus places in jeopardy for the first time the continued viability of the Martin Act, which the New York Attorney General and his predecessors have used prodigiously, but with questionable legality in light of conflicting federal standards," he said.
    In a statement, the attorney general's office said: "Our office is confident the Court of Appeals will uphold the lower court's decision, and we look forward to trying this case to hold the defendants accountable for perpetrating a major reinsurance scheme to defraud investors."


    SUPPORT CONTRACT FOR THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGREM (NTP) INTERAGENCY CENTER FOR THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TOXICOLOGICAL METHODS (NICEATM) (SRCSGT)
    SOL: NIHES2012151
    DUE: 080612
    POC: Juanita A Campbell, Contracting Officer, campbellj@niehs.nih.gov, 919-541-7893, Fax: 301-451-5400.
    WEB: FBO.gov Permalink at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/HHS/NIH/NIEHS/NIHES2012151/listing.html
    NAICS: 541712. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is seeking capability statements from qualified Small Businesses which have the capability to provide the necessary administrative, scientific, and logistical expertise, personnel, materials, facilities, and equipment necessary to support the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods NICEATM in promoting the development, validation, acceptance, and use of alternative and other new testing methods and strategies that are more predictive of human health and ecological effects than currently available methods and strategies. DESCRIPTION: This is a Small Business Sources Sought notice. This is NOT a solicitation for proposals, proposal abstracts, or quotations. The purpose of this notice is to obtain information regarding: (1)the availability and capability of qualified small business sources; (2)whether they are small businesses; HUBZone small businesses; service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses; 8(a) small businesses; veteran-owned small businesses; woman-owned small businesses; or small disadvantaged businesses; and (3)their size classification relative to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the proposed acquisition. Your responses to the information requested will assist the Government in determining the appropriate acquisition method, including whether a set-aside is possible. An organization that is not considered a small business under the applicable NAICS code should not submit a response to this notice. BACKGROUND: The mission of the NIEHS is to discover how the environment affects people in order to promote healthier lives. Our vision is to provide global leadership for innovative research that improves public health by preventing disability and disease from our environment. The NTP arose out of increasing scientific, regulatory, and Congressional concerns about the human health effects of chemical agents in our environment. The NICEATM and the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) contributes to the mission and vision of NIEHS and the NTP by advancing improved safety assessment tools to protect, promote, and advance the health of people, animals, and the environment. NICEATM is responsible for ensuring compliance with duties and provisions of the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 2851-3). The overall goal of NICEATM is to promote the development, validation, acceptance, and use of alternative and other new testing methods and strategies that are more predictive of human health and ecological effects than currently available methods and strategies. ICCVAM is a statutorily mandated interagency committee established under NICEATM. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this requirement is to solicit a contractor to support NICEATM by providing administrative, logistical and scientific support. The contractor support shall include but is not limited to: (1) updating and maintaining the NICEATM/ICCVAM web-pages (http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/), which has both public and secured domains; (2) Conducting literature searches, and preparing background review documents;(3) providing administrative, logistical, and scientific support necessary for meetings such as ICCVAM, ICCVAM subcommittees and interagency working groups, expert panels, peer reviews, workshops, symposia, and seminars; (4) providing draft and final reports to the COR, expert panels, and peer reviewers; (5) presenting materials on behalf of the Government during meetings; (6) coordinating the validation and evaluation of alternative test methods and approaches; (7) maintain compliance with Federal Government Regulations; and (8) follow appropriate procedures for addressing potential conflicts of interests. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS: It is anticipated that level of effort (LOE) for this project shall be approximately 27,550 per year excluding vacation, holiday, and sick leave (excludes subcontractor/consultant hours). In addition, up to 7,600 optional LOE per year may be exercised. The estimated LOE consists of labor categories such as: *3800 Professional (Principal Investigator/Senior Toxicologist); *10,450 Professional Support (Toxicologist/Bioinformatics); *9500 Technical Support (Management Coordinator/Project Manager, Scientist, IT Specialist); *3800 Administrative Support; *Key Personnel - the identified personnel are essential to the performance of the contract and may be considered as key personnel. The Government anticipates several types of meetings per year such as: 4-5 ICCVAM Meetings (1 day each); 2 Peer Review Meetings (3 days each); 1-2 Workshops (1-2 days each). Meetings are usually held in the Bethesda, MD area or near the NIEHS in Research Triangle Park, NC. In addition, Optional Meetings may be exercised throughout each year. ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: The anticipated start date of the award is April 15, 2013. The estimated total period of performance shall be up to five years. It is anticipated that the base period of the contract shall be one year with four one year options. OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS: There will be no Government-furnished equipment, or facilities provided. The contractor shall provide all equipment, internet access, materials, software, hardware, supplies, facilities, etc. required to perform the objectives of the proposed requirement and produce the deliverables as required in this statement of work. The contractor must maintain systems compatible with the equipment, internet access, systems, software, hardware, etc. used by NICEATM Government Staff (currently Macintosh computers and laptops, Microsoft Office + Outlook for Mac Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro, FileMaker Pro 9 Advanced , EndNote, and TIBCO Spotfire). The software/hardware must meet the needs for activities such as word processing, data collation, e-mail communication, electronic transfer of files, and web-based searches. Proximity: Although this requirement is for off-site support, the nature of the support role requires frequent, often impromptu, in-person meetings with NICEATM staff. Consequently, contract staff must be capable of meeting face-to-face with NICEATM staff daily (2-4 hours), and on short notice (within 2 hours of request). CAPABILITY STATEMENT/INFORMATION SOUGHT: Small business concerns that believe they possess the capability to perform the work described above should submit an original and two (2) copies of their capability statement. Capability Statements should include: 1) The name and telephone number of a point of contact for the company, history of the organization (e.g. number of years in business, duns #); 2) The type of business or organization, organizations size standard under NIACS code 541712 (number of employees and gross annual revenue), identify eligibility under 8(a) veteran owned, small disadvantaged, service disabled veteran owned, hub zone, women owned or other set aside programs as applicable; 3) Indicate previous experience and capabilities related to the work identified above. Capability Statements should clearly identify the Offerors experience and qualifications to perform the proposed work; 4) management structure, identify resources available to perform the work (e.g. scientific equipment, facilities, personnel, etc.); 5) organizations should identify capability to administer and coordinate interrelated tasks in an effective and timely manner. Documentation may include but is not limited to, Government and/or Commercial Contracts, previously performed, references to publications, awards, commendations, etc. Capability Statements should not exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, excluding standard brochures, to be submitted for receipt within fifteen (15) days from the date of this announcement [i.e., NO LATER THAN AUGUST 6, 2012]. Please submit information to Ms. Juanita A. Campbell, Contracting Officer, Post Office Box 12874, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Overnight address: 530 Davis Drive, Morrisville, NC 27560. Electronic Capability Statements will be accepted via email at campbellj@niehs.nih.gov. Inquiries will be accepted in writing only via mail or email.
    CITE: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=04c1321b33794d9ee443f7dce0e26346&tab=core&_cview=0
    Posted: 07/20/12
    SPONSOR: Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Office of Acquisitions, Office of Management, 530 Davis Drive, Durham, North Carolina 27713
    PUBLICATION DATE: July 22, 2012
    ISSUE: FBO-3893

    A--TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITIES (TASC) CONTRACT (PRESOL)
    SOL: SOL-HQ-12-00004
    DUE: 082012
    POC: Nicole Hairston, hairston.nicole@epa.gov.
    WEB: FBO.gov Permalink at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/EPA/OAM/HQ/SOL-HQ-12-00004/listing.html
    NAICS: 541620. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Acquisition Management (OAM), under the authority of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiations, is officially issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP)(#SOL-HQ-12-00004) for the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI). This RFP is being issued as a total small business set aside and is open to all small business socioeconomic classifications. The primary purpose of this contract will be to provide Technical Assistance Services in the following areas: Information Assistance and Expertise, Community Education, Technical Assistance Needs Assessment and Plan Development, and Community Infrastructure Support as described the Performance Work Statement. The EPA intends to issue a single award contract as a Fixed Rate, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity type contract with cost reimbursable elements. The anticipated period of performance includes a 24-month Base Period, one 12-month Option Period, one 24-month Option Period, and one 24-month Award Term Incentive Period for a potential maximum period of performance of eighty-four (84) months). Technical questions submitted in response to this solicitation are due on or before Monday, July 30, 2012 by 3:00pm EST. Technical questions should be submitted via e-mail to Wanda Carrier at carrier.wanda@epa.gov, Nicole Hairston hairston.nicole@epa.gov, and Claudia Armstrong at armstrong.claudia@epa.gov. Prospective sources are reminded that an award can only be made to a vendor who is registered and in an active status in the Central Contractor Database (CCR). If not registered, please go to www.ccr.gov (Must have DUNS number in order to begin CCR registration process. Both DUNS number and CCR registration are free). The Government will not reimburse offerors for expenses associated with proposal preparation in response to this RFP. The solicitation for this requirement and all related amendments and subsequent procurement notifications will be posted to FedBizOpps and are available at the following web address: http://www.epa.gov/oamsrpod/ersc/TASC/index.htm. All interested parties should check these sites routinely for updates. These documents will remain available at this website through the date of contract award. PLEASE NOTE: NO FAXES OR PHONE CALLS RELATED TO THIS SOLICITATION WILL BE ACCEPTED AT THIS TIME.
    CITE: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=21becaab55a5c06eec7ef4069ecf9203&tab=core&_cview=0
    Posted: 07/20/12
    SPONSOR: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Acquisition Management, Ariel Rios Building,1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Mail Code: 3805R, Washington DC 20460
    PUBLICATION DATE: July 22, 2012
    ISSUE: FBO-3893

    CALICO II AML REMEDIATION PROJECT OUT OF THE BLM BARSTOW FIELD OFFICE (SNOTE)
    SOL: L12PS00983
    DUE: 082212
    POC: Andralee Holden-Hughes, jholden@blm.gov.
    WEB: FBO.gov Permalink at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOI/BLM/CA/L12PS00983/listing.html
    NAICS: 562910. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Barstow Field Office (BFO) has a requirement for remediation of 22 abandoned mine land features on public lands located in San Bernardino County within jurisdiction of the BLM Barstow Field Office. This requirement is 100% set a-side for small business under NAICS 562910. A PRE-BID SITE VISIT WILL BE HELD ON THE 2ND OF AUGUST 2012 @ 8:00 AM (PDT). Prospective Contractors will meet at BLM Barstow Field Office located at 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, Ca 92311. Transportation will not be provided to the site, prospective contractors will have to provide their own transportation to and from the site. Point of contact for technical questions is Sterling White 951-697-5239. Point of contact for contractual questions is Judy Holden-Hughes 951-697-5254. POTENTIAL OFFERORS MAY OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SOLICITATION AT FEDCONNECT.NET ON OR ABOUT THE 3RD OF AUGUST 2012, LOOK FOR RFQ L12PS00983. No hard copies of the solicitation will be provided. Contractors must be registered at http://www.ccr.gov to be considered eligible for award. Fascimile quotes will be accepted at 951-697-5309. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF QUOTES IS THE 22ND OF AUGUST AT 4:00PM (PDT).
    CITE: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=efca8de103e2742421b36522361fc7f1&tab=core&_cview=0
    Posted: 07/19/12
    SPONSOR: BLM CA-DESERT DIST OFC (CAD00) 22835 CALLE SAN JUAN DE LOS LAGOS, MORENO VALLEY CA 92553
    PUBLICATION DATE: July 21, 2012
    ISSUE: FBO-3892

    UMBERCI & CADIZ SUMMITT AML REMEDIATION PROJECT OUT OF THE NEEDLES FIELD OFFICE (SNOTE)
    SOL: L12PS00985
    DUE: 082312
    POC: Andralee Holden-Hughes, jholden@blm.gov.
    WEB: FBO.gov Permalink at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOI/BLM/CA/L12PS00985/listing.html
    NAICS: 562910. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Needles Field Officce (NFO) have a requirement for remediation of 13 abandoned mine land features on public lands located within the BLM's California Desert District ((CDD) Zone 11 NAD 83). This requirement is 100% set aside for small business under NAICS 562910. A PRE-BID SITE VISIT WILL BE HELD ON THE 3rd OF AUGUST 2012 @ 9:00 AM (PDT). Prospective Contractors will meet at the back parking lot at Whiskey Pete's located in Primm, NV at 9:00 AM on the 3rd of August 2012 and drive to the Umberci project location. Afterward the group will drive approximately 2.5 hours south to visit the Cadiz Summit location. After this stop is completed the site tour will conclude. Transportation will not be provided to the site, prospective contractors will have to provide their own transportation to and from the site. Point of contact for technical questions is Sterling White 951-697-5239. Point of contact for contractual questions is Judy Holden-Hughes at 951-697-5254. Potential offerors may obtain a copy of the solicitation at Fedconnect.net on or about the 7th of August 2012, look for RFQ L12PS00985. No hard copies of the solicitation will be provided. Contractors must be registered at http://www.ccr.gov to be considered eligible for award. Fascimile quotes will be accepted at 951-697-5309. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF QUOTES IS THE 23RD OF AUGUST 2012 AT 4:00PM (PDT).
    CITE: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d8a5dc5eea72817468120d49d6c3db23&tab=core&_cview=0
    Posted: 07/19/12
    SPONSOR: BLM CA-DESERT DIST OFC (CAD00) 22835 CALLE SAN JUAN DE LOS LAGOS, MORENO VALLEY CA 92553
    PUBLICATION DATE: July 21, 2012
    ISSUE: FBO-3892

    SUNLAND AML REMEDIATION PROJECT FOR RIDGECREST FIELD OFFICE (SNOTE)
    SOL: L12PS00757
    DUE: 082412
    POC: Andralee Holden-Hughes, jholden@blm.gov.
    WEB: FBO.gov Permalink at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOI/BLM/CA/L12PS00757/listing.html
    NAICS: 562910. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Ridgecrest Field Office (RFO) have a requirement for remediation of 20 abandoned mine land features on public lands within BLM's California Desert District ((CDD) Zone 11 NAD 83) which is management by BLM Ridgecrest Field Office. This requirement is 100% set a-side for small business under NAICS 562910. A PRE-BID SITE VISIT WILL BE HELD ON THE 6TH OF AUGUST 2012 @ 9:00 AM (PDT). Prospective Contractors will meet at BLM Ridgecrest Field Office located at 300 S. Richmond Road, Ridgecrest, CA 93555. Transportation will not be provided to the site, prospective contractors will have to provide their own transportation to and from the site. Point of contacts for technical questions is Sterling White 951-697-5239 Point of contact for contractual questions is Judy Holden-Huges at 951-697-5254. POTENTIAL OFFERORS MAY OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SOLICITATION AT FEDCONNECT.NET ON OR ABOUT THE 8TH OF AUGUST 2012, LOOK FOR RFQ L12PS00757. No hard copies of the solicitation will be provided. Contractors must be registered at http://www.ccr.gov to be considered eligible for award. Fascimile quotes will be accepted at 951-697-5309. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF QUOTES IS THE 24TH OF AUGUST AT 4:00PM (PDT).
    CITE: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a49758696ea7b07500812009dfc0ea99&tab=core&_cview=0
    Posted: 07/19/12
    SPONSOR: BLM CA-DESERT DIST OFC (CAD00) 22835 CALLE SAN JUAN DE LOS LAGOS, MORENO VALLEY CA 92553
    PUBLICATION DATE: July 21, 2012
    ISSUE: FBO-3892


    Technology Innovation News Survey

    Entries for May 16-31, 2012

    Market/Commercialization Information
    ORONOGO-DUENWEG OU1 PHASE 6
    U.S. EPA, Office of Acquisition Management, Region VII, Kansas City, KS.
    Federal Business Opportunities, FBO-3863, Solicitation DOL-R7-12-00019, 2012

    The Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site is in Jasper County, Missouri. This remedial action is for the Phase 6 Remedial Design applicable to Operable Unit (OU) 1, pursuant to the 2004 OU1 Record of Decision. The work to be performed under this contract consists of excavation, consolidation, disposal, capping, and re-vegetation of mining wastes and contaminated soils at portions of the site. The work performed under the base period of the contract will address ~150 acres of mine waste and contaminated soil. Subsequent remedial designs will be completed over the next several years. Remediation will be conducted pursuant to CERCLA, as amended, and requirements of the National Contingency Plan, and the contractor will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. EPA anticipates issuing an indefinite-quantity contract with fixed unit prices, consisting of a base period and two option periods. Estimated dollar value for this procurement is between $35 million and $45 million. This procurement will be a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business set-aside. Issuance of the RFP is anticipated to occur in July 2012, posted at www.epa.gov/oam/regions/index.htm. The associated North American Industry Classification System code is 562910. https://www.fbo.gov/spg/EPA/OAM/RegVII/DOL-R7-12-00019/listing.html


    FLORIDA GROUP PERFORMANCE BASED REMEDIATION (PBR) REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)
    Air Force Materiel Command, Enterprise Sourcing Group, Wright Patterson AFB, OH.
    Federal Business Opportunities, FBO-3875, Solicitation FA8903-12-R-0051, 2012

    This RFI is being issued to develop a viable solicitation that will best communicate the Government's requirements to industry. Response to this RFI is strictly voluntary and will not affect any contractor's ability to submit an offer if or when a solicitation is released. If asked to provide engineering, restoration, and construction services to achieve site closure (SC) through remedial action at the following activities—Avon Park Air Force Range, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Homestead Air Reserve Base, MacDill Air Force Base, and Patrick Air Force Base, Florida—the 772d Enterprise Sourcing Squadron/Environmental Restoration Flight (772 ESS/PKB) at Lackland AFB, Texas, is considering an SC performance-based approach. Performance-based remediation (PBR) emphasizes results in terms of environmental cleanup for an entire installation (fence-to-fence), or group of installations, in lieu of a study-based approach. The PBR approach looks for cost-effective methods for achieving the cleanup by focusing on achievement of desired objectives without specifying the processes or technologies for obtaining those objectives. The PBR initiative has an overarching goal to implement remedies as necessary to protect human health and the environment that maximizes the number of SCs or advances sites as close to SC as practicable during the period of performance in a cost-effective manner. If SC with no new institutional controls is not obtainable within the period of performance of this effort, the contractor will outline the optimization exit strategy that can be implemented to accomplish SC. The period of performance is estimated at 120 months (10 years) from date of award, with an estimated rough order of magnitude for any resultant contract between $68,500,000 and $85,500,000. The 772 ESS/PKB requests feedback from interested parties through a survey link, which is posted with instructions and additional information concerning this RFI in the notice at FBO.gov. The online questionnaire will be the source tool for gathering responses. https://www.fbo.gov/notices/74eb2e628e7735dd9eff700fb3bcc33e


    CONTRACTOR SERVICES FOR TRANSPORTATION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL OF NNPP MIXED WASTE MATERIALS
    Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, Portsmouth, VA.
    Federal Business Opportunities, FBO-3879, Solicitation N0018912RE006, 2012

    NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk intends to issue a request for proposal (RFP) in the near future for contractor services for transportation, treatment, and disposal of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) mixed waste materials. The waste materials may have both a hazardous component (as defined under RCRA and 40 CFR Part 260 through 270) and a radioactive component (i.e. source, special nuclear or by-product material subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954). In addition, some waste material might contain Toxic Substances Control Act-regulated PCBs or asbestos and/or be identified with state-only hazardous waste codes. The resulting contract will be for indefinite-delivery requirements with firm-fixed prices. This procurement is unrestricted for competition amongst all interested firms. The North American Industrial Classification System Code applicable to this requirement is 562211. The RFP will be posted in the Navy Electronic Commerce On-Line (NECO) system (https://www.neco.navy.mil/), possibly within the month of July. https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/NAVSUP/N00189/N0018912RE006/listing.html


    EVALUATING REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR AN ACID MINE DRAINAGE STREAM: A MODEL POST AUDIT
    Runkel, R.L., B.A. Kimball, K. Walton-Day, P.L. Verplanck, R.E. Broshears.
    Environmental Science & Technology, Vol 46 No 1, 340-347, 2012

    This paper presents a post audit for a reactive transport model used to evaluate acid mine drainage treatment systems. The post audit is based on a paired synoptic approach in which hydrogeochemical data are collected at low (existing conditions) and elevated (following treatment) pH. Data obtained under existing, low-pH conditions are used for calibration, and the resultant model is used to predict metal concentrations observed following treatment. Predictions for Al, As, Fe, H+, and Pb accurately reproduce the observed reduction in dissolved concentrations from the treatment system, and the information provided in regard to standard attainment is also accurate (predictions correctly indicate attainment or nonattainment of water quality standards for 19 of 25 cases). Errors associated with Cd, Cu, and Zn are attributed to mis-specification of sorbent mass (precipitated Fe). In addition to these specific results, the post audit provides insight into calibration and sensitivity analysis that runs contrary to conventional wisdom. Steps taken during the calibration process to improve simulations of arsenic sorption ultimately were detrimental to the predictive results, for example, and the sensitivity analysis failed to bracket observed metal concentrations. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es2038504




    Help for Difficult Financial Times

    When you're looking for a new job, it can be tempting to jump at new opportunities. However, if a job offer seems too good to be true, it could be a scam.

    Many jobs scams have a few things in common that you should watch for:

    • The potential employer says you can make fast money working from home.
    • You are asked to pay money to the employer up front.
    • Emails from the employer are full of spelling and grammatical errors.
    • The employer asks for personal and bank account information upfront.
    • You are asked to transfer money through Western Union or MoneyGram.

    Learn more about how to avoid job scams.

    "We just want a little bit of privacy,"


    NAVIGATE THIS!

    MINING:

    Lawmakers float legislation to undo transportation offset on reclamation funding


    Finding a Job, Avoiding the Scams

    Looking for a job can be a full-time job. So when you do come across a promising prospect, you might be tempted to leap before you get a good look.

    But job hunters need to know that scammers also are in the mix, posing as real employers. They may pretend to be a business looking to hire, or they may claim they can give you access to special job listings or interviews. Some even guarantee to place you in a job. What’s more, they often advertise in the same places real employers do.

    Whatever their angle, job scammers are looking for the same thing — to convince you to send money — or your credit or debit card information — before you catch on to their schemes.

    So how do you know when you’re dealing with a scam? The surest sign of a job scam is someone who wants you to pay for the promise of a job. That’s true even when they say they’ve got a job waiting and that the money is for certification or some other fee. If you have to pay, it’s not a job offer.

    Some popular job scams to look out for include:

    Government and Postal Job Scams: Scammers pretend to have access to special government job listings, or guarantee to get you a job with the postal service. But information about federal and postal job openings is free and available to everyone. Applying also is free. Find out more about federal jobs at usajobs.gov, and postal jobs at usps.com/employment.


    And be sure to check out the FTC’s Job Scams


    Feds broaden scope of intrusions and usurpation, plot to expand despotism and tyranny, initiate wholesale theft of private enterprise entrepreneurship under guise of "innovation corps"


    NSF Innovation Corps

    The NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) is a set of activities and programs that prepare scientists and engineers to extend their focus beyond the laboratory and broadens the impact of select, NSF-funded, basic-research projects.

    While knowledge gained from NSF-supported basic research frequently advances a particular field of science or engineering, some results also show immediate potential for broader applicability and impact in the commercial world. Such results may be translated through I-Corps into technologies with near-term benefits for the economy and society.

    Combining experience and guidance from established entrepreneurs with a targeted curriculum, I-Corps is a public-private partnership program that teaches grantees to identify valuable product opportunities that can emerge from academic research, and offers entrepreneurship training to student participants.

    I-Corps Teams--composed of academic researchers, student entrepreneurs and business mentors--have participated in the I-Corps curriculum administered via online instruction and on-site activities through one of several I-Corps Nodes.

    The new I-Corps Nodes program was announced July 18, 2012; learn more in the NSF I-Corps news release. The announcement was part of an I-Corps Anniversary Event at NSF; for information on this event, please see the NSF I-Corps media advisory.





    How to look like a Greek - A step by step guide!



    NSF Graduate Research Fellows Invited to Take Part



    Greeks Look for Financial Shelter Abroad, Foreigners Buy Greek Real Estate


    U.S. House passes Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act




    Emergency water supply. Prepare plans to assure the provision of usable public water supplies for essential community uses in an emergency. This shall include inventorying existing supplies, developing new sources, performing research, setting standards, and planning distribution. In carrying on these activities, the Department shall have primary responsibility but will make maximum use of the resources and competence of State and local authorities and of other Federal agencies.


    Take Action Now and Tell the State of California to Uphold the Clean Water Act on the Klamath River

    Come out to the California Water Resources Board meeting in Sacramento on July 17, 2012 at 9:00 am. There will be a rally the day of the meeting:

    State Water Resources Control Board — 1001 I Street, 24th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814


    When Patent Jurisdiction Gets Personal

    When Patent Jurisdiction Gets PersonalMerial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., Nos. 2011-1471, -1472 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2012) (Judges Lourie, Schall, and Reyna)

    Jurisdiction questions at the Federal Circuit usually relate to subject matter jurisdiction—whether the case encompasses issues that court has the authority to decide. In Merial, however, the jurisdiction question gets personal: how does the court determine if it has authority over a particular defendant?

    There are several issues at play in this case, but I’m going to focus on the personal jurisdiction question since that’s the issue that caused some disagreement on the panel.

    No U.S. Sales for You, Patent Violator

    Cipla is an Indian company. In 2007, Merial and BASF Agro sued Cipla for infringing its patent for flea/tick pills for pets. Merial filed the lawsuit in the district court for the Middle District of Georgia, claiming that Cipla had enough contacts with the state of Georgia to establish personal jurisdiction over it. Cipla never responded to the complaint.

    In April 2008, the district court entered an injunction barring Cipla from infringing or inducing infringement of the patents in question. Shortly after the injunction order was entered, Cipla submitted an “informal communication” to the court, claiming that it didn’t have any presence in the U.S. or in Georgia, and asking the court to dismiss of the suit. The district court said “Too bad,” and entered final judgment for Merial.

    In 2011, Merial discovered that Cipla was involved in selling a rebranded version of Cipla’s original infringing product. Merial filed a motion for contempt of the 2008 injunction. Cipla responded this time, arguing that the 2008 judgment was void because the Georgia court never had personal jurisdiction over Cipla. The district court disagreed, determined that it had jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and held Cipla in contempt. Cipla appealed the contempt order to the Federal Circuit.

    Existing Nowhere and Everywhere

    The general rule of personal jurisdiction is this: a defendant has to have enough contacts with the state in which it’s sued that the defendant could foresee that it would be sued in that state, and that the location of the suit doesn’t “offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, defendants can waive their rights to claim a lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing in court or consenting to a particular jurisdiction.

    Rule 4(k)(2) is an interesting provision. It says that, in cases involving federal claims, personal jurisdiction exists over foreign defendants who have sufficient contacts with the U.S. generally but not with any particular state in the U.S. In fact, for Rule 4(k)(2) to apply, the defendant cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in any court in any state. The idea is that foreign defendants can’t escape getting sued in the U.S. by doing just a little business in each state, but a lot of business collectively in the U.S.

    Since it would be hard for plaintiffs to prove that no court in any of the 50 states has jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant has to identify an alternate forum in which the case could proceed. If the defendant refuses to identify an alternate forum, a court can rely on Rule 4(k)(2) to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant in that state.

    Pick a State, Any State, for the Patent Suit

    In this case, Merial never mentioned Rule 4(k)(2) in its 2007 complaint—it relied solely on the Georgia long-arm statute and alleged that Cipla had enough contacts with the state of Georgia to establish personal jurisdiction. During the contempt proceedings based on the 2008 decision, Cipla offered the Northern District of Illinois as an appropriate alternate forum in which it could have been sued in 2007.

    The district court said that Rule 4(k)(2) could confer jurisdiction on the Georgia court even if Merial didn’t rely on that rule in its original complaint. It then analyzed whether Merial could have sued Cipla in Illinois in the first place. The district court determined that Cipla didn’t have enough contacts with Illinois to establish personal jurisdiction there, so Rule 4(k)(2) is a proper basis for jurisdiction.

    On appeal, the majority of the Federal Circuit panel agreed with the district court’s analysis. The majority, like the district court, focused on language from the Federal Circuit’s Touchcom opinion that says a defendant must identify an alternate forum where the plaintiff “could have brought suit” to avoid the application of Rule 4(k)(2) In the majority’s view, a defendant can’t simply point to a state and say, “You should have sued me here.” The alternative forum should be a “more appropriate state”—the majority thinks it would be unfair for a defendant to get to throw out a default judgment and uproot an action to any forum that would be convenient for the defendant after another court has spent substantial time considering the issues.

    In dissent, Judge Schall disagreed. He thought that the district court didn’t need to determine whether Cipla could establish personal jurisdiction in Illinois; Cipla consented to jurisdiction in Illinois by naming it as a possible forum. Judge Schall also believed that allowing the case to proceed in Illinois would allow Merial to fully litigate its case.

    Timing is Everything in Patent Cases

    The other Rule 4(k)(2) issue that arose involved timing. Merial first brought up Rule 4(k)(2) in its response to Cipla’s naming of an alternate forum. Cipla argued that it was entitled to rely on the grounds for jurisdiction that Merial alleged in its complaint. Since Merial didn’t raise Rule 4(K)(2) in the complaint, Cipla said so it shouldn’t be required to anticipate that Rule 4(k)(2) could apply.

    The Federal Circuit majority was unsympathetic to Cipla’s situation. Basically, the majority said that Cipla’s decision to ignore Merial’s 2007 complaint was risky, and Cipla had to bear the consequences of its own strategic decision. If Cipla believed the Georgia court didn’t have personal jurisdiction over it, Cipla could have used other procedural methods, like a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, to contest the original complaint in 2007. The majority concluded that Cipla shouldn’t get a second bite at the jurisdictional apple just because it lost the first time around.

    Judge Schall also dissented on this point. He argued that Rule 4(k)(2) applies only when no court in any state has personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant. Merial claimed that Cipla had enough contacts with Georgia to establish personal jurisdiction. If that’s true, he said, then Rule 4(k)(2) couldn’t apply: “I do not believe Cipla should have been on notice of the application of Rule 4(k)(2) when the allegations in the complaint precluded the application of Rule 4(k)(2).” Although he agreed that Merial could rely on Rule 4(k)(2) for the first time in the contempt proceeding, he believed the district court should have let Cipla designate an alternate forum.

    I think this jurisdiction issue is a difficult one, because it’s hard to reconcile the legal issues with the practical ones. On the one hand, Judge Schall is correct that a defendant’s consent to participate in a suit in a particular place can confer personal jurisdiction on that court. On the other hand, allowing a defendant to defeat Rule 4(k)(2) jurisdiction and a default judgment in one court simply by picking a different court after a default judgment against it seems to invite forum shopping and efforts that upset settled judicial decisions after the court has spent resources dealing with a particular set of claims. Since Rule 4(k)(2) can only apply when no state has personal jurisdiction, it makes sense to me that the trial court should determine if a defendant has sufficient contacts with the alternate forum to establish jurisdiction.

    Who do you think is right?

    Training Opportunity!!! E386 Residential Coastal Construction

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Emergency Management Institute (EMI) are pleased to announce their offering of the 4-day course, E386 Residential Coastal Construction, on August 13-16, 2012. E386 is designed to train students on the updated fourth edition of FEMA’s Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA P-55, 2011). FEMA P-55 was recently updated and is the primary reference for planning, designing, constructing, maintaining, and retrofitting residential structures in coastal environments. E386 will provide students with an overview of FEMA P-55 through instruction, interactive student activities, and a group case study. Continuing Education Units and Continuing Education Credits for the Association of Floodplain Mangers will be awarded following completion of the course. Engineers, architects, and building code officials; along with floodplain management, hazard mitigation, planning and building officials are urged to apply! See the attached flyer for more information about this exciting and informative upcoming course.


    U.S. Department of Commerce : Obama Administration Announces $9 Million Investment in Rural Communities to Foster Job Creation and Innovation

    08/01/2012 | 01:33pm US/Eastern

    Winners of the Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge will strengthen regional industry clusters and rural economies across 12 states

    The Obama administration today announced the winners of the multi-agency Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge to spur job creation and economic growth in rural regions across the country.

    Economic development partnerships and initiatives in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia will receive awards ranging from nearly $200,000 to over $1 million from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration (EDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Delta Regional Authority (DRA) and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). The winning projects will promote job creation, accelerate innovation and provide assistance to entrepreneurs and businesses in a wide range of industrial sectors, including advanced manufacturing, agribusiness, energy and natural resources, technology and tourism.

    "This $9 million investment builds on the Obama administration's commitment to supporting business growth, expanding opportunities and creating jobs throughout our nation's rural regions," said Acting U.S. Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank. "These thirteen partnerships and innovation clusters will provide entrepreneurs and businesses with research and development support to foster innovation, and other resources to gain access to capital, build supply chains, and hire and train workers so they can build things here, sell them everywhere and create good paying American jobs."

    "The announcement of this round of winners marks another step in the Obama administration's commitment to help create jobs and economic opportunities across the country," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "The Jobs and Innovation Accelerator challenge winners are able to assist in a wide-range of areas include housing, community facilities, and economic and community development leading to job creation, expanded markets, and economic growth."

    The Rural Jobs Accelerator Challenge is a national initiative to support rural partnerships that are critical components of the Obama administration's efforts to support small businesses. By leveraging local assets, the selected industry clusters and partnerships can do even more to help entrepreneurs and small businesses foster innovation, increase competitiveness and employ highly skilled workers, all of which are critical to long-term economic growth in their regions.

    Last year's 20 challenge winners generated millions in matching funds and their projects are expected to help create hundreds of new businesses and thousands of new jobs.

    "The White House Rural Council recognizes the potential for economic growth and job creation in rural America. It brought the four agencies together to provide this joint funding opportunity that supports the work of rural leaders who are growing their economies by leveraging local assets, encouraging entrepreneurship, and working collaboratively throughout their regions. The result will be the strengthening of a number of Appalachian industry clusters-such as local food systems, automotive manufacturing, and cultural tourism-that will generate the jobs of tomorrow and an economy that will last," said Appalachian Regional Commission Federal Co-Chair Earl F. Gohl.

    "Promoting job growth in economic clusters continues President Obama's commitment to growing and investing in the nation's rural communities," said Delta Regional Authority Federal Co-Chairman Christopher Masingill. "Congratulations to the winners of the Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge who will help create good jobs in rural America and build a stronger economy across the Delta and throughout the country."

    This competition, which is being funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Appalachian Regional Commission, and Delta Regional Authority, was designed by the Taskforce for the Advancement of Regional Innovation Clusters and the White House Rural Council. The initiative is also supported by nine other Federal agencies: Commerce's U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership; Denali Commission; U.S. Department of Education; U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration; U.S. Department of Energy; Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and the Small Business Administration.

    This year's winners of the Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator challenge are:

    • Alaska: Bristol Bay Jobs Accelerator Project, $405,023
    • Connecticut: New England Food Hub Cluster Initiative, $568,150  
    • Illinois: Henry-Rural Rock Island-Mercer County Economic Development Consortium, $193,500
    • Kansas: Advanced Manufacturing Institute at Kansas State University, $715,000
    • Louisiana-Arkansas: I-20 Corridor Regional Accelerator, $964,134 
    • Mississippi: Mississippi State University, $1,065,000 
    • New Hampshire: Northern Tier Farm and Forest Jobs Accelerator, $708,750
    • North Carolina: WNC AgriVentures-Cultivating Jobs and Innovation Project, $815,000
    • North Carolina: Northern Carolina Eastern Region Aerospace and Automotive Cluster Project, $715,000
    • South Carolina: Southern Carolina Alliance Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge, $650,000
    • Virginia: Appalachian Spring - Using Asset-Based and Creative Economy Methods to Catalyze Rural Job Acceleration, $815,000 
    • West Virginia: Southern West Virginia Rural Jobs Accelerator Partnership, $717,985 
    • West Virginia: Value Chain Cluster Initiative, $815,000

    SCIENCE:

    Pink salmon population has evolved to cope with climate change -- scientists

    Published:

    Pink salmon populations in Alaska have evolved to migrate earlier in the season, reacting to rising stream temperatures.

    Fluctuations in water temperature can adversely affect fish populations, leading to an increased risk of disease and mortality. When streamwater began to warm faster than normal, pink salmon populations took the hint, leaving their freshwater homes earlier than usual.

    Now, migration occurs nearly two weeks sooner than it did 40 years ago, according to a study sponsored by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and University of Alaska Southeast. The rapid adaptation is a sign that larger organisms can cope with climate change, said David Tallmon, an associate professor of biology and marine biology at UAS and author of the paper.

    "It demonstrates evolutionary change in response to warming temperatures," he said. "It provides some hope for species to adapt to changing climate."

    The study, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, looked at pink salmon populations in Auke Creek, analyzing 32 years of genetic data beginning in the 1970s. Scientists examined 17 generations of the salmon, and they sampled five to 30 fish every day during the odd years from 1983 to 1993, plus 2001 and 2011. Their findings show a 20 percent reduction in late-migrating fish, which made up only about 10 percent of the sampled population as of last year.

    The switch toward an earlier migration pattern was exceptionally apparent between 1989 and 1993. Stream temperatures during peak migration in 1989 were the second highest on record. From then on, scientists observed substantial genetic changes in the offspring from that spawning generation, the study says.

    But evolution isn't always a good thing, because genetic shifts are a give-and-take process. When an organism adopts one positive attribute, another is weakened, potentially reducing the overall fitness of the organism.

    An evolutionary impact

    Changes in genetic makeup also come at a cost in terms of biocomplexity. The Auke Creek late-migrating salmon populations have all but disappeared in favor of early-migrating salmon. This significantly reduces the genetic variability in the population and would make it difficult for salmon to cope should temperatures reverse.

    Pink salmon have adapted so far, Tallmon said, but no one can predict the extent to which they can stretch. It is possible that they will not continue to evolve in the coming decades.

    "We may exhaust the ability of these wild populations to adapt -- and stuff hits the fan," Tallmon said.

    It's a possibility that could negatively affect local and national fishing industries.

    Pink salmon "represents a substantial portion of some fisheries. In southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound and in the Kodiak area, it's a significant part of the commercial fishery catch," said Eric Volk, a fisheries scientist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. "We're talking about hundreds of millions of pink salmon fry released from hatcheries each year."

    While all signs point to climate as a catalyst for evolution, Tallmon cautions against applying his team's findings across the board.

    It's unlikely, he said, but this incidence of evolution could be an isolated event. More research is required before scientists can ascertain whether this applies to all pink salmon and not just the ones in Auke Creek. However, that doesn't change the overall message of the study.

    "People should be aware that climate change can have evolutionary impacts, and that's something we need to be aware of and measuring," Tallmon said.

    "sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc"- "We gladly feast on those that would subdue us."

    In the memory of virtue when it is present, people imitate it, and they long for it when it has gone;

    The "Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act" would place new restrictions on the practice and force agencies to publish proposed consent decrees and settlement agreements for public comment before they are filed with courts.

    "In recent years, consent decrees and settlement agreements have been used to circumvent the laws and procedures that govern how regulations are enacted and to speed up the process in ways that limit the public's ability to fully participate and to exercise the rights guaranteed by our laws," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement introducing the measure on the Senate floor yesterday.

    "The lack of advance notice and the expedited schedule for the proposal and promulgation of regulations allows an agency to avoid the input that comes with meaningful public participation. It may also allow agencies to short-circuit the analytical requirements of regulatory process statutes, such as the Administrative Procedure Act."

    In March, the House Judiciary Committee approved the House version of the bill, H.R. 3862, which was sponsored by Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.).

    In a blog post last week, Natural Resources Defense Council legislative advocate Elly Pepper decried the House bill as one of the ways congressional Republicans are trying to freeze regulations.

    "Under this bill, a party that disagrees with a settlement agreement or consent decree entered into by the federal government and a plaintiff ... would be able to obstruct and delay such an agreement," Pepper wrote. "In other words, a third party would be able to prevent the federal government from having to follow the law."


    Federal Agencies

    INTERIOR:

    USGS deputy becomes department's scientific integrity officer

    Published:

    Story Tools sponsored by the National Biodiesel Board

    Since the Interior Department released its new scientific integrity policy two years ago, it has dealt with a wide range of accusations -- some of which have nothing to do with misconduct at all, according to the agency's new scientific integrity officer.

    "We often get complaints that ... turn out to be an issue of difference of opinion between scientists," Suzette Kimball said in a recent interview. "To me, one of the big challenges is making sure that it's clear to everyone just what scientific integrity means and what scientific misconduct means."

    Kimball, the deputy director of the U.S. Geological Survey, is taking over as Interior's top official for scientific integrity, a position that has taken on new importance under President Obama's renewed focus on keeping politics out of government research. The job promises its share of controversy as advocacy groups keep a close eye on how Interior officials handle a relatively new process.

    But in a short interview yesterday, Kimball exuded confidence in the agency's dedication to scientific integrity -- a priority she said was in the "lifeblood" of USGS, where she has worked for more than 10 years.

    "I personally believe that being able to point to high standards of scientific integrity is what makes the science robust," she said. "Our challenge is to be consistent and be diligent in following through on all issues that come to the table that do involve scientific integrity issues. We have to be absolutely consistent in following our policies."

    That is something watchdog groups will no doubt be happy to hear.

    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has characterized Interior's process as a "mosh pit" with unclear walls between the Scientific Integrity Office and the Office of Inspector General. The group has filed several scientific integrity complaints, including one arguing that allegations of scientific misconduct should not go through the IG.

    Other groups have been less harsh. Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists said earlier this year that while she is frustrated at what appears to be an unclear process, "I didn't expect it to work perfectly out of the gate."

    Earlier this week, PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said he was unfamiliar with Kimball but emphasized the need for clearer procedure.

    "The challenge for her will be to impose some structure in the investigations into complaints of scientific misconduct," Ruch said. "Currently, there is no timeline, no process, no consistency and no independence."

    The main source of anxiety appears to be how officials determine whether a complaint is investigated by scientific integrity officials or the IG. The IG technically has first dibs, but groups like PEER argue that IG officials do not have the necessary scientific background to conduct scientific integrity investigations.

    If the IG's office decides to investigate an integrity complaint, scientific integrity officers offer support. If it declines to pursue it, then the case falls to the Scientific Integrity Office and follows the procedures laid out in the agency's Scientific Integrity Policy.

    When asked about the process yesterday, Kimball emphasized that she was still transitioning into her position and "may not be able to give a complete answer" for a few months. But she was confident about the relationship between her new office and the IG.

    "The interactions I've had thus far with the IG's office have been very respectful of the need to ensure that the scientific integrity process has discreet firewalls between what is an ethics issue that the IG's office may have primary interest in pursuing versus an issue that's really about scientific integrity," she said.

    Kimball replaces Ralph Morgenweck, who is nearing retirement and has kept a relatively low profile since he took on the position in 2011. Morgenweck is a senior science adviser at the Fish and Wildlife Service, where he has worked for more than 30 years. He will return to FWS part-time.

    While Morgenweck focused solely on the Scientific Integrity Office, Kimball said she will keep her job as deputy director of USGS. Two assistants will help with the workload, she said, as well as the scientific integrity officers within Interior's various bureaus.

    Kimball joined USGS in 1998 as eastern regional executive for biology, leading the establishment of the agency's Florida Integrated Science Center, according to USGS. She has a bachelor's degree in English from the College of William & Mary, a master's degree in geology and geophysics from Ball State University, and a doctorate in environmental sciences/coastal and oceanographic process from the University of Virginia.


    HEALTH: EPA, CDC officials testify to Senate on child lead poisoning

     Jul. 13, 2012  |  

    WASHINGTON - A U.S. senator questioned federal environmental health officials at a hearing Thursday about what is being done to address lead poisoning risks posed by contaminated soil around hundreds of old lead factory sites featured in a recent USA TODAY investigation.

    "Generations of children are growing up playing in the shadow of these lead smelting plants," said U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. "Throughout the nation, the USA TODAY report shows lead contamination has had a devastating impact … it's obvious we could help fix this problem if the EPA had the resources to fully test and clean up" the sites.

    The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. President George Washington's farewell address


    Kind King Whatevers

    pac com

    fleet

    Rising Sea Levels Threaten Toxic Sites

    Contaminated areas along the San Francisco Bay could be inundated

    Quest/KQED

    The Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard is one of the EPA's Superfund sites in the Bay Area.

    As water levels rise, old landfills, shipyards and industrial sites that line the San Francisco Bay are at risk of being submerged, exposed to higher storm surges and inundated by groundwater. Toxic substances, including arsenic, lead, petroleum products, asbestos and DDT that have been sealed off could leech into groundwater or into the Bay.

    While the agencies that have a hand in keeping the Bay clean consider sea level rise in new clean-up projects, they can’t necessarily revisit every old one, according to reporter Nate Seltenrich, who wrote about the problem in this week’s East Bay Express.

    “There’s a good likelihood that containment measures that were put in place before sea level rise, and may still be effective now, will no longer be effective,” Seltenrich told me. “The real challenge is money. The costs that could be associated with going back and retrofitting any previously contained site, it’s really expensive.”

    In his article, Seltenrich wrote that there are forty or more sites that will be affected by sea level rise:

    Among the most contaminated locations are Alameda’s Naval Air Station, Richmond’s United Heckathorn site (a former shipyard and agricultural chemical warehouse), and San Francisco’s Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Other cities containing waterfront toxic sites include Oakland, Hayward, Newark, Hercules, Rodeo, Antioch, Novato, Tiburon, Sausalito, South San Francisco, Redwood City, San Mateo, and East Palo Alto; Richmond has more waterfront toxic sites than any other city, with a total of nine.

    There are eight Superfund sites near the Bay, according to EPA Region 9 Director Jared Blumenfeld. The EPA factors sea level rise into its clean-up plans, and it reviews each Superfund site every five years. But Blumenfeld says these big sites won’t necessarily be the biggest problems as the sea level rises.

    “There are everyday operations that would need to be examined, from a mechanic’s shops to dry cleaners, that have the potential to be toxic,” he said. With sea levels projected to rise three feet or more in the next century, businesses that handle chemicals on a daily basis could be flooded.

    Bruce Wolfe of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board echoed that view.

    “We wouldn’t necessarily single out what might be called toxic sites, we would say that any site that has the potential for waste to get into either surface water or groundwater is a concern,” he said.

    “Historically we have used the Bay margin as a place to put disposal sites, so we’ve always had this challenge to manage sites that are adjacent to the Bay, be they landfills or the military sites,” Wolfe added. “So this just adds another layer of challenge.”


    Celebrating Independence Day


    EMERGING FRONTIERS

    Back to School Tips from the Experts


    Everybody and their brother claims to have the solution to fix all our problems. From Governments to Politicians to Central Bankers to the Good Guys to the Bad Guys to Freedom Fighters to Liberty Lovers and on and on. They all claim to have the solution - the "Right Road" to travel down.

     Concordia res Parvae Crescunt

    Through concord little things grow



    Phosphorus Famine: The Threat to Our Food Supply 

    This under-appreciated resource--a key component of fertilizers--is still decades from running out. But we must act now to conserve it, or future agriculture could collapse

    Image: Jen Christiansen

    In Brief

    • Mining phosphorus for fertilizer is consuming the mineral faster than geologic cycles can replenish it. The U.S. may runout of its accessible domestic sources in a few decades, and few other countries have substantial reserves, which could also be depleted in about a century.
    • Excess phosphorus in waterways helps to feed algal blooms, which starve fish of oxygen, creating “dead zones.”
    • Reducing soil erosion and recycling phosphorus from farm and human waste could help make food production sustainable and prevent algal blooms.

    As complex as the chemistry of life may be, the conditions for the vigorous growth of plants often boil down to three numbers, say, 19-12-5. Those are the percentages of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, prominently displayed on every package of fertilizer. In the 20th century the three nutrients enabled agriculture to increase its productivity and the world’s population to grow more than sixfold. But what is their source? We obtain nitrogen from the air, but we must mine phosphorus and potassium. The world has enough potassium to last several centuries. But phosphorus is a different story. Readily available global supplies may start running out by the end of this century. By then our population may have reached a peak that some say is beyond what the planet can sustainably feed.

    Moreover, trouble may surface much sooner. As last year’s oil price swings have shown, markets can tighten long before a given resource is anywhere near its end. And reserves of phosphorus are even less evenly distributed than oil’s, raising additional supply concerns. The U.S. is the world’s second-largest producer of phosphorus (after China), at 19 percent of the total, but 65 percent of that amount comes from a single source: pit mines near Tampa, Fla., which may not last more than a few decades. Meanwhile nearly 40 percent of global reserves are controlled by a single country, Morocco, sometimes referred to as the “Saudi Arabia of phosphorus.” Although Morocco is a stable, friendly nation, the imbalance makes phosphorus a geostrategic ticking time bomb.


    A rapidly growing world population, expected to reach 9 billion people by 2050, compounded by a decreasing amount of arable land, is leading to a global panic over a pending hunger crisis. One solution may be for the United States to aggressively mine for an important crop nutrient called potash.

    Potash is a potassium-bearing mineral found in the Earth's surface. It has become a critical ingredient in fertilizer and is required to support the healthy growth of crops by regulating enzyme activation, photosynthesis, water use efficiency, starch formation, and protein synthesis. Crops infused with potash are more likely to survive harsh environments and ward off attacks from disease and pests. According to The Fertilizer Institute, billions of people could starve without the use of potash fertilizers.

    The Fertilizer Institute also reports that only 12 countries in the world produce potash. Over 80 percent of the world's potash production is exported, and as many as 99 countries import the product, including major consumers such as China, India, Brazil, and the United States. The United States, in particular, relies on foreign production for over 85 percent of its potash demand.

    Currently, the United States has limited potash output with just three companies mining in three states. Intrepid Potash (IPI) with mines in New Mexico and Utah, is the largest producer in America with an annual output of 870,000 tons. With ownership of 4 mines in New Mexico and Utah, Intrepid supplies 9.3 percent of annual U.S. consumption. Despite meeting only a small percentage of American demand, Intrepid has a market capitalization of $1.75 billion and earned $441 million in revenue in 2011.

    Major investors like BHP Billiton (BHP) clearly see potential in the potash industry, as evidenced by the company's $40 billion hostile takeover attempt of Canada's Potash Corporation (POT), the world's leading potash producer. This potential also exists in the United States as companies seek to invest in prospective potash mines. In January 2012, Magna Resources Ltd announced a deal with Confederation Minerals Ltd (CNRMF.PK) to acquire Confederation's 50 percent interest in American Potash LLC.

    American Potash LLC plans to mine for potash in the Paradox Basin in Utah. Another prospective location for potash mining is northern Arizona. The state's potash resources are virtually untouched and provide a geographic advantage with its proximity to California, the country's agricultural epicenter. One company invested in Arizona's potash resources is Passport Potash Inc (PPRTF.PK), which currently controls over 81,000 acres, or 126 square miles, of the Holbrook Basin. A survey completed by the state of Arizona estimated 682 million to 2.58 billion tons of potash are located in the Holbrook Basin. With total U.S. potash production of just 1,100 million tons in 2011, the Holbrook Basin could help America compete with Canada and Russia as leading world potash producers.

    There are several other benefits to investing in potash mining within the United States. First, the price of domestic potash will be more competitive since distributors can avoid the high costs associated with importing foreign products. Companies like Passport Potash can sell directly to California farmers, presenting an opportunity to lower prices even further. Second, there could be a correlating drop in food prices as American farmers realize the savings from purchasing cheaper potash. Lastly, companies could see revenue growth by using American ports to export to major foreign consumers with a growing demand for potash. California's ports provide quick access to major markets in China, Brazil, and India.

    Experts are in agreement that the demand for potash will continue to grow in both the short and long run. In the U.S. Department of the Interor's 2012 Mineral Commodity Summaries, it is projected that world potash consumption will increase 4 percent annually during the next five years due to world population growth and a correlating need for additional crop production. William Doyle, the CEO of Potash Corp, also predicts that consumption of potash will reach an all-time high in 2012. Considering this growth in potash demand, as well the virtually untapped resources inside the U.S., American potash mining could be a good opportunity for investors.

    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

    Disclaimer: The writer is not a licensed broker or investment adviser and therefore cannot recommend that you buy, sell, or hold any security. While every attempt was made to verify the information in this report, much has been derived from public sources and cannot be guaranteed for accuracy.


    Hancock Town Council says it can't afford watershed plan

    July 11, 2012|By DON AINES | dona@herald-mail.com

    The Hancock Town Council followed the example of some other Washington County governments, voting Wednesday night to send a letter to the county’s Watershed Implementation Plan Committee stating it cannot afford to spend $31 million to reduce water pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay.

    “These numbers were just so astonishingly ridiculous,” Mayor Daniel Murphy said of the costs of reducing nitrogen and phosphorous pollution in the bay’s watershed.

    Earlier this week, Clear Spring’s town council took the same action, sending a letter to the committee acknowledging the problem, but stating it could not pay for $1.3 million in pollution-reducing measures.

    The town could take some measures to help reduce pollution — swail repair, riparian buffers and planting trees — but the town does not have the money to implement any large plans to reduce nutrient pollution, Town Manager David Smith said.

    Advertisement

    Among municipalities, only Hagerstown ($210 million) and Boonsboro ($36 million) had larger estimates for reducing stormwater runoff into the watershed than Hancock. The cost for the county government to control runoff was estimated at more than $500 million.

    The total cost to the county and local governments is estimated in excess of $1.1 billion over a 13-year period. That includes $230 million to reduce septic system discharges.

    “This is a mandate that has been forced down everyone’s throat ... and no one can pay for it,” Smith said.

    Real estate taxes in the county would have to triple to meet the annual bill for implementing the plan, Smith said.

    The Environmental Protection Agency has set the target amounts by which the watershed’s states and Washington, D.C., must reduce nitrogen and phosphorous discharges. The EPA set the targets after the agency was sued more than a decade ago by environmental groups claiming it was not following the Clean Water Act in reducing those nutrients.

    Our understanding of the universe is about to change…

    Event display showing particle tracks from a collision as seen by the CMS experiment

    A proton-proton collision event in the CMS experiment producing two high-energy photons (red towers). This is what we would expect to see from the decay of a Higgs boson but it is also consistent with background Standard Model physics processes. © CERN 2012

    Graphene gives boost to Edison's Nickel-Iron battery

    Summary: Graphene has been used to revive a rechargeable battery technology invented by Thomas Edison (yes, that Thomas Edison) more than 100 years ago in a collision of technologies that could prove very fruitful.Edison’s idea was that the batteries would power electric vehicles, but the largely technology fell out of use in the 1970s, because although it is very durable, the charge and discharge times are very slow.

    Graphene has been used to revive a rechargeable battery technology invented by Thomas Edison (yes, that Thomas Edison) more than 100 years ago in a collision of technologies that could prove very fruitful.

    Edison’s idea was that the batteries would power electric vehicles, but the largely technology fell out of use in the 1970s, because although it is very durable, the charge and discharge times are very slow. Those Edison batteries in existence today are mostly used to store surplus energy from wind farms and solar energy arrays.

    But researchers at Stanford University, led by chemistry professor Hongjie Dai, have dramatically improved the battery’s performance adding graphene to the mix, resulting in nickel-iron battery that can be fully charged in about two minutes and discharged in less than 30 seconds.

    "We have increased the charging and discharging rate by nearly 1,000 times," said Stanford graduate student Hailiang Wang, lead author of the study. "We've made it really fast."

    "In conventional electrodes, people randomly mix iron and nickel materials with conductive carbon," Wang explains in this press release. "Instead, we grew nanocrystals of iron oxide onto graphene, and nanocrystals of nickel hydroxide onto carbon nanotubes."

    This produced strong bonds between the metal and the carbon nanomaterials, which allow the charges to move quickly between the electrodes and the external circuit.

    The only problem is that the improved charge and discharge speeds mean that battery is now more fragile: "It doesn't have the charge-discharge cycling stability that we would like," Professor Dai said. "Right now it decays by about 20 percent over 800 cycles. That's about the same as a lithium-ion battery. But our battery is really fast, so we'd be using it more often. Ideally, we don't want it to decay at all."

    Dai sees a use for the new Nickel-Iron battery is large scale power storage for the grid; as a boost for lithium-ion batteries in cars, and potentially for the military, where the rapid discharge of power could prove useful.

    The results are published in the June 26 issue of the journal Nature Communications.

    Contingent strategies for emergent future scenarios

    The Road Ahead

    Ready plans to take full advantage of what the future brings.

    Corporate leaders can take a number of “to-do” actions today for tomorrow. All can be taken individually, in companies, on corporate boards, and across industries.

    Using Scenarios to Plan for the Future

    Scenarios are a proven, strategic planning tool that help make planning for the future more tangible and immediate and also help test how decisions made today could affect a company in the future.

    Considering changes in global economic patterns and shifts in U.S. policy and regulation towards climate change as key factors that would affect the shape of the future ahead, the following four scenarios were created by the corporate executives who participated in the GBN workshops:

    • The Same Road — where the world continues much in the same direction it appears to be going now in regard to energy and environmental concerns around climate change.
    • The Long Road — where the world undergoes a significant shift in the economic, geopolitical and energy centers of gravity.
    • The Broken Road — where the world continues much in the direction of today, but is then hit by a severe event that overturns established systems and rules.
    • The Fast Road — where reasoned decisions and investments about energy and climate risk are made early enough to make a difference.

    Taking Action Now for the Future

    Businesses leaders involved in the workshops were asked to explore the impacts of these four “road” scenarios on energy strategy and management in their companies. They identified five robust steps that companies should take to prepare for the future:

    Take personal action.
    Corporate leaders can take a number of “to-do” actions today for tomorrow. All can be taken individually, in companies, on corporate boards, and across industries.


    "Any One for a spot of Tea?

    OP-ED: A critical resource is preserved
    July 11, 2012, 05:00 AM By Adrienne Tissier


    Adrienne Tissier


    The passage of the Gov. Jerry Brown’s infrastructure initiative for California high-speed rail is an important milestone in bringing modern, electric train service to the Bay Area.

    The initiative ensures funding for the modernization of Caltrain — a project that is critical to the Bay Area and the state.

    We are grateful to the governor, the elected officials, the communities served by Caltrain and the people who have supported the effort to preserve and improve this vital service.

    Many of the state legislators who represent the Caltrain service area had the wisdom to support this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the region. In particular, senators Leland Yee and Mark Leno and Assemblymen Jerry Hill and Rich Gordon worked tirelessly to ensure that the state’s effort to deliver high-speed rail will prioritize and upgrade the Bay Area’s transit systems, including Caltrain.

    At the federal level, it was U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo who first called for the high-speed rail program to “hit the reset button” and established support for a “blended system” to protect Peninsula communities from unnecessary impacts. Working together with U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Eshoo has helped rally federal support critical to the success of the project.

    Thanks to all of them, Peninsula residents will soon be able to travel on faster, cleaner, quieter trains that operate more frequently between San Francisco and San Jose, transforming the Caltrain system into one that is more financially stable and can accommodate growing ridership demands.

    The Caltrain Modernization Program is a comprehensive program that includes the infrastructure and equipment to operate electric train service and an advanced signal system with Positive Train Control, a federally-mandated safety feature that prevents train collisions. Such a system will serve Caltrain now and in the future, when the demand for reliable, convenient public transportation is expected to increase. Caltrain could be electrified as soon as 2019.

    A modern, electric-powered railroad will provide more service, carry more riders, take more cars off the road, cost less to operate and reduce pollution.

    Because electric trains can stop and start more quickly than Caltrain’s current diesel locomotives, trains can be scheduled more closely together. This means more service. More service will attract more riders, which will generate more revenue. Revenue is projected to increase 49 percent by 2019, while operating costs remain flat. This additional revenue will provide much-needed funding for Caltrain, which continues to grapple with financial issues.

    In addition, electric trains produce almost no pollution, a significant environmental benefit for the region.

    An electrified train system also is less expensive to operate and reduces Caltrain’s dependence on a fluctuating fuel supply.

    As the project moves forward, Caltrain will continue to engage the community and work with our stakeholders to address their concerns.

    The environmentalist David Brower said, “We don’t inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.”

    This is a moment in time we will be able to look back on with satisfaction, knowing that we preserved an important resource for future generations.


    Adrienne Tissier, is chair of the Caltrain Board and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. She is also president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.

    (psst. ever heard of BART?)

    press release

    July 13, 2012, 10:50 a.m. EDT

    GSA Sustainable Facilities Tool, Version 2.0 Released

    GSA's Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP) Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings Releases Sustainable Facilities Tool Version 2.0, Implemented by Noblis

    FALLS CHURCH, Va., Jul 13, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Noblis is pleased to report that its client, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), has released the second version of its popular GSA Sustainable Facilities Tool (SFTool).

    GAO: Clean Water Act Funds Need Oversight

    Clean Water Act Section 319 funding to clean non-point water pollution has gone unused or has had mixed success; Government Accountability Office calls for increased oversight for the program.

    Published on: Jul 9, 2012


    "If I Was Inspector General I Would Plan For A Very Long Day On Capitol Hill"

    NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION
    Greater Oversight and Additional Data Needed for Key EPA Water Program
    Report to Congressional Requesters
    May 2012
    GAO-12-335
    United States Government Accountability Office
    GAO

    EPA’s Oversight and Measures of Effectiveness of States’ Programs Have Not Consistently Ensured Projects Likely to Yield Measurable Water Quality Outcomes

    A Key USDA Program Largely Complements EPA’s Section 319 Program, although It Is Unclear How Closely Its Procedures to Protect Water Quality Are Followed


    Commission for Environmental Cooperation Meeting

     

    WASHINGTON Tomorrow U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will join Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent and Mexican Environment Secretary Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada in New Orleans, La. for the 19th Annual Council at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) session.

     

    Administrator Jackson will lead discussions on major challenges facing North America’s environment and the CEC’s ongoing efforts to address these challenges. The meetings will also focus on efforts to establish a more efficient process for citizen submissions on enforcement matters, supporting the development of healthier communities and strengthening community and ecosystem resilience.

     

     

    Wednesday, July 11, 2012

    1:45-4:45 p.m. CDT        CEC Council Session Public Meeting

                                         Intercontinental Hotel, La Salle Ballroom A, 444 Saint Charles Ave, New Orleans, La.

     

    Media wishing to attend should RSVP to EPA at press@epa.gov and Megan Ainscow at the CEC (Mainscow@cec.org).

     

    Participate in the conversation with hashtag: #CEC12


    The CEC is an international organization established by the United States, Canada, and Mexico under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), an additional agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Since its creation in 1994, the CEC has advanced our understanding of trade-environment linkages, successfully promoted citizen engagement and increased government accountability regarding enforcement, achieved substantial results on key North American issues such as chemicals management and the conservation of North American biodiversity, and built substantial environmental capacities, particularly in Mexico, but also in the United States and Canada.

     

    More information on the CEC and to view the event live: http://www.cec.org/webcast/




    Sutter Gold Mining procures county, state and federal permits Print E-mail
    Monday, 09 July 2012

    Amador County – Sutter Gold Mining Incorporated procured county, state and federal permits last month and announced it is on track to reach its goal to produce gold in the fourth quarter of 2012.

    Sutter Gold will accept terms of a permit proffered June 15 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the Lincoln Mine Project in California’s Mother Lode Gold Belt.

    President and CEO of Sutter Gold, Dr. Leanne Baker said after reviewing the permit terms and conditions, Sutter Gold plans to sign and return the permit to the District Engineer for final authorization.

    On June 1, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the last regulatory approval needed for the Corps of Engineers to issue the permit to fill wetlands, Baker said.

    “The timing of the Water Quality Certification Order and the permit proffered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fits well with the Company’s summer 2012 construction schedule,” she said. Sutter Gold “has worked very hard to minimize the environmental impacts of the Lincoln Mine Project and this permit allows us to move forward with construction of surface disposal facilities for waste rock and tailings, including a new access road to the tailings disposal unit.”

    The permit allows the Company to fill three-quarters of an acre of “seasonal wetlands and other waters of the United States while fully mitigating these impacts with higher value seasonal wetlands,” Baker said. The final stages of earthwork and construction of mine waste management units were scheduled to start July 1, consistent with Sutter Gold’s plans to put the Lincoln Mine into gold production in the fourth quarter of 2012.

    Baker announced two other important developments in regulations and permitting. On June 4, the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration notified Sutter Gold that it approved the company’s Alternative Mine Rescue Plan. This will allow for the start of pre-development underground. And on June 12, Amador County issued a building permit for the Shop and Staff Services Building.

    Chief Operating Officer Matthew Collins said Mine Safety’s “approval of our mine rescue plan is a critical milestone towards bringing the mine to production and vacating the temporarily closed status approved” received in 1994. “With the mill building construction well under way, issuance of the latest county permit should allow for planned completion of the Shop and Staff Services Building in time for the commissioning of the mill.”

    Story by Jim Reece jim@tspntv.com




    Getting California ISOs Up to Snuff

    Creating a Program to Assure Agency ISOs Have the Right Stuff

    by Eric Chabrow

    A two-year-old California law requires each of some 120 state agencies to have an information security officer, but not every agency ISO is well-versed in IT security.


    Rolling back the EPA


    By Wesley Coopersmith on July 09, 201


    Informing Decision Makers -- Linking Science to Water Management and Protection

    innovative $7 billion joint purchase

    ASTRAZENECA EYES MORE JOINT DEALS, "has the cash and appetite for more joint acquisitions" according to the innovative weekend joint purchasers' acting head.


    Using Scenarios to Plan for the Future

    Scenarios are a proven, strategic planning tool that help make planning for the future more tangible and immediate and also help test how decisions made today could affect a company in the future.

    Considering changes in global economic patterns and shifts in U.S. policy and regulation towards climate change as key factors that would affect the shape of the future ahead, the following four scenarios were created by the corporate executives who participated in the GBN workshops:

    • The Same Road — where the world continues much in the same direction it appears to be going now in regard to energy and environmental concerns around climate change.
    • The Long Road — where the world undergoes a significant shift in the economic, geopolitical and energy centers of gravity.
    • The Broken Road — where the world continues much in the direction of today, but is then hit by a severe event that overturns established systems and rules.
    • The Fast Road — where reasoned decisions and investments about energy and climate risk are made early enough to make a difference.

    Economic disaster looms

    Before departing as Secretary of Defense last year, Secretary Gates stated that the greatest threat to national security is the U.S. mounting national debt. That was nearly a year ago and what has Congress done to address it? Nothing! The debt, now approaching $16 trillion, continues to grow daily as we speed headlong toward what most economists call a “fiscal cliff” - a $60 trillion shortfall that portends a second recession that could dwarf the one in 2008 from which the nation has not yet fully recovered. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this month published the effects of reducing the fiscal restraint (Sequester) that is scheduled to occur January 2, 2013. According to CBO, if we continue with our current spending and revenue generation, the gap between income and outgo widens. This gap will grow, over time, with the aging of the population and the rising cost of health care boosting federal spending under current policies. Therefore, putting the budget on a sustainable path will require significant changes in spending policies, tax policies, or both.

    Many analysts and pundits refer to the “lame duck” - post election congressional session - as “taxageddon” or a “fiscal cliff,” heralding the convergence of automatic expenditure cuts - sequestration - and expiring tax provisions. These “bumper sticker” characterizations tend to obscure the very, very serious consequences to our economy and to the well-being of each of us if we fail to address before “lame duck” the debt and deficit needs, particularly as exacerbated by sequestration.

    Sequestration was never intended as a rational approach to the reduction of our mounting debt and deficit -a deficit approaching 8% of GDP and the debt approaching 100% of GDP. Rather, it was intended to be a draconian measure (requiring an automatic $1.2 trillion cut, half defense and half non-defense discretionary) to force the members of the so-called “Super Committee” to address these long-term issues that, if not addressed, would put our nation in line to become another Greece or Spain - another nation incapable of living within its means.

    However, the Super Committee failed to address the issues and Sequestration is now a matter of law. If it takes effect, not only the nation’s national security but the nation’s overall economy - and all of us - take a hit from which it will take years to recover. The effect is unprecedented, mandating a 15% across-the-board cut in all defense ‘programs, projects, and activities’ (PPAs) and a 12% cut in non-defense discretionary programs, with a loss of an estimated 1 million jobs. No region of the country will avoid its impact if it has a military facility, defense contractor or supplier, or participant in the health services or supplier industry.

    If ever our country needed bold, courageous, patriotic and political leadership, it is now. Time is running out -and fast.

    The Eurozone is teetering on the brink of collapse, China’s growth is slowing, and U.S. and German bond yields are less than two percent. The stock market fell last week to its lowest this year and yet the Congress remains frozen in paralytic, ideological, dysfunction. It is worse than I’ve seen in over 50 years of involvement in policy and politics since coming to Washington just out of law school as a young aide to learn at the knee of LBJ, Senate Majority Leader, then President. During those years, even with significant democratic majorities, both Democrats and Republicans, acting in a bipartisan manner, set aside their differences to find common ground - compromise - for the good of their country. Despite deeply divergent convictions, with broad bi-partisan support they passed history-changing legislation - creating Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Medicare and Medicaid, Elementary and Secondary Education and more to improve social justice, better health care for our elderly, and education of our young.

    Today “compromise” is considered a pejorative term by far too many members of Congress, leaving us with stalemate and the nation’s economy at greater risk than anytime since the Great Depression. Yet there seems little likelihood of avoiding a looming disaster.

    The respected non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) last week published its report that concludes that without congressional action, our growth rate for the first quarter of 2013 will plummet to .5%. On the other hand, with a proper mix of reduction in entitlement expenditures and an increase in revenue, the first quarter rate could be 4.4%. The only way financial ruin for millions of Americans can be avoided is if we individually - yes individuals still matter in a democracy - communicate to each member of Congress that it is now time to heed the centuries old words of Isaiah, “come now let us reason together,” and seek compromise. This requires risking incumbency for the sake of the country. It is not too great a sacrifice to ask if we seek to avoid the fate befalling Greece, Portugal, Spain, and others.

    Both presidential candidates and Republicans and Democrats in Congress claim their highest priority for the country is a better economy, yet what is being done by any of the above to address this critical issue - nothing! Only posturing and empty rhetoric while the nation’s economy continues to descend toward a second recession. Without an agreement on expiring tax breaks and necessary spending cuts, according to the CBO, it predicts a plunge back into recession. Under the current Budget Control Act Sequester Provision, automatic cuts to defense and non-defense spending will occur January 2, 2013. These cuts will cause draconian consequences for most of the nation’s defense contractors - including many of our firm’s clients - who cannot wait for the “lame duck” solutions. Current law requires 60-day notice if severe layoffs are made by companies with more than 100 employees. Sixty days from January 2, 2013, is two days before the election. Yet Congress remains in an intractable standoff, with each side committed to the mantra of “no entitlement reductions” or “no taxes.” Who among us entering negotiations or arbitration for our clients could reasonably expect 100% accession to our demands. It is simply not rational. No wonder Congress’ approval rating is at a historical low of 17%!

    Before contributing a dollar or a vote for a member of Congress, whether Republican or Democrat, we should extract a commitment to compromise by passing legislation that will free the country from this impasse. Every thoughtful and responsible effort to address our debt and deficit, including Domenici/Rivlin and Simpson/Bowles, among others, have recommended reducing entitlement expenditures and generating new revenues. Waiting until the lame duck occurs to address this impending train wreck will be too late. There will be too little time to reach accord, debate it, score it and enact it by January 2, 2013, when the Sequester must occur.

    By the beginning of 2013, the nation’s debt limit of $16.4 trillion will need to be raised. Already the dispute is arising that could preempt that from occurring, threaten a government shutdown, likely triggering another downgrade in our credit rating. This will be an ever occurring event until our policymakers come together and agree on a long-term debt reduction plan that demonstrates to the world that we are a serious nation capable of political courage to agree on serious solutions. Only then can we restore confidence in global markets and resume economic growth so essential for a strong national economy and our national security.

    As fewer and fewer members of Congress fail to see common sense solutions to our nation’s challenges and more and more leave the Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, discouraged and disappointed at so few accomplishments - how long before respectable, experienced, ambitious people see the folly in public service? Where, then, will be the source of leadership our nation desperately needs?

    As our nation’s economy appears to go over the “fiscal cliff” you are wise to assess your investment portfolio, your 401(k) and prepare for another recession that could be more severe than the last one from which we are still recovering. It can be avoided with yours and your fellow Americans’ help. This is still a democracy, your voice, your vote and your political contributions (or withheld contributions) still matter. The only way our nation avoids financial disaster of epic proportions is for all of us to communicate to our elected officials that their highest priority - incumbency - depends on their willingness to compromise. Until they get a message from the “marketplace,” the public, we will not get the new policy direction critical to avoid a looming disaster

    Event
    Advisory Committee for Geosciences

    Fall 2012 Meeting

    October 10, 2012 8:30 AM  to 
    October 11, 2012 2:00 PM
    Arlington

    Fall Meeting of AC GEO.

    Meeting Type
    Advisory Committee Meeting

    Contacts
    Melissa J. Lane, (703) 292-8500 mlane@nsf.gov
           Preferred Contact Method: Email

    NSF Related Organizations
    Directorate for Geosciences


    press release

    July 12, 2012, 2:27 p.m. EDT

    State Foresters Receive SFI Grant to Measure Water Quality Successes




    -- The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) will receive a grant from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI®) to promote continuous improvement in water quality protection and assess how well best management practices (BMPs) are protecting water resources in the United States.

    "Thanks to SFI, as well as support from the U.S Forest Service, we will update our assessment of how states and territories are developing and implementing best management practices to safeguard lakes, rivers and watersheds," NASF President C. Randall (Randy) Dye said today. "This information will be used by land managers to assess and improve the protection and enhancement of water resources in their state."

    The $40,000 USD grant is being awarded under the SFI® Conservation and Community Partnerships Grant Program.

    "This project is exciting because it helps government agencies assess effectiveness of best management practices. This will ultimately support our shared objective for healthy water resources," SFI President and CEO Kathy Abusow said today. "Implementation of science-based, best management practices to support water quality is a core component of the SFI Program and central to the work of SFI's grassroots network of 37 SFI Implementation Committees."

    SFI Inc. created the Conservation & Community Partnerships Grant program in 2010 to foster partnerships between organizations interested in improving forest management in the United States and Canada, and promote responsible procurement globally. Through the involvement of partners, these research projects leverage additional resources, achieving a total investment of $4.8 million. The NASF project is one of five SFI Conservation and Community Partnerships Grants to be awarded this year that will specifically support water resources.

    This grant is especially timely given a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to review the NEDC v. Brown decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ruled logging roads are "point sources" requiring a discharge permit under the Clean Water Act. Since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has held that runoff from forestry activities, including forest roads, should be regulated through state BMPs rather than through federal permits. Congressional action preventing the decision from taking effect expires at the end of September.

    The SFI program is the only forest certification standard in North America that requires participants to support and engage in research activities to improve forest health, productivity and sustainable management of forest resources. Since 1995, its program participants have contributed more than $1.3 billion for research activities, including forestry research, science and technology.

    About SFI Inc. ( www.sfiprogram.org )SFI Inc. is an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization, and is solely responsible for maintaining, overseeing and improving the internationally recognized Sustainable Forestry Initiative program. Across North America, more than 195 million acres/79 million hectares are certified to the SFI forest management standard, making it the largest single forest standard in the world.

    About the National Association of State Foresters ( www.stateforesters.org ) The National Association of State Foresters is a non-profit organization made up of the directors of forestry agencies in the states, territories and the District of Columbia of the United States. The association seeks to discuss, develop, sponsor and promote programs and activities which will advance the practice of sustainable forestry, the conservation and protection of forest lands and associated resources and the establishment and protection of forests in the urban environment.

    SOURCE Sustainable Forestry Initiative

    Copyright (C) 2012 PR Newswire. All rights reserved


    Controlling the playing field: nanotechnology patent application makes it to Federal Circuit but found obvious

    Interesting to see a nanotechnology-related application made the Federal Circuit decisions this week (In re Mouttet, 2011-1451, June 26, 2012). Unfortunately for the applicant, the Court affirmed the US PTO’s determination and found the claim(s) obvious, using standards for administrative review which respect the US PTO’s factual findings.

    One reason applicant lost, per court analysis, is that he argued “teaching away,” but failed to support his points by failing to cite references that help his argument. Evidence and facts are key.

    So in “digging to the bottom” on obviousness, do not be limited by the art set forth by the examiner. Within the practicalities of time and money: think more broadly; dig deeper. Control the references under review.

    First, if facing an obviousness rejection, take the references the examiner cites and view them in a way that is fair and reasonable but in your favor. Then, find other references. It is not fair that, considering the vast sea of prior art,  the examiner usually only selects references that “help” the examiner to establish prima facie obviousness. Push back on this unlevel playing field. Control to the extent you can selecting the prior art on the table upon which 103 will be resolved. Build your facts.

    Of course, this applies both to USPTO work and also larger opinion and litigation contexts.

    Each case has its own twists, but this is an important lesson for this nanotechnology case. Some of the claims are cited below in the published application:

    Claim 1. A computing device comprising: at least one crossbar array including a first set of N conductive parallel wires (N.gtoreq.2) forming a set of columns and a second set of M conductive parallel wires (M.gtoreq.2) forming a set of rows, and formed so as to intersect the first set of conductive parallel wires, wherein intersections are formed between the first and second sets of wires forming M.times.N crosspoints wherein each of the crosspoints is programmable so as to be in a relatively high conductive state representative of a binary value 1 or a relatively low conductive state representative of a binary value 0; a programming unit configured to program the crosspoints to have one of the relatively high conductive state or the relatively low conductive state so that at least one column of the crossbar array stores a bit pattern representative of a programmed numerical value; an input unit configured to provide a bit pattern representative of an input numerical value to the columns of the crossbar array; and a post-processing unit configured to convert analog signals output from each of the rows of the crossbar array into digital output bit patterns and configured to combine the digital output bit patterns so as to form a resultant bit pattern representative of an output numerical value, wherein the output numerical value is mathematically dependent on both the programmed numerical value and the input numerical value.

    Claim 3. The computing device of claim 2, wherein the resistance layer includes a conducting polymer or an organic semiconductor.

    Claim 6. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the wires of the at least one crossbar array are formed from individual nanotubes or nanotube ribbons.  



    The Supreme Court to revisit the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption

    In 1988, in Basic Inc. v. Levinson,1 the Supreme Court first recognized that investors seeking to pursue claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 may invoke in an appropriate case a rebuttable presumption of reliance based on the “fraud-on-the-market” theory. Reliance on the defendant’s alleged misstatement is a necessary element of any Section 10(b) claim.2

    Without the ability to invoke a class-wide presumption of reliance, the Court in Basic recognized that investors would not be able to join together as a class to pursue their Section 10(b) claims.3 This is so because individualized reliance issues on the part of each investor would necessarily predominate and destroy the commonality requirement for class treatment.4

    In Basic, the Supreme Court observed that the fraud-on-the-market theory is based on the hypothesis that, in an open and developed trading market, the price of a company’s stock is determined by all available material information regarding the company and its business.5 Accordingly, an investor who buys or sells stock at the price set by the market does so in reliance on the integrity of that price and is, therefore, presumed to rely on any material public misrepresentations that are reflected in that price.6 Basic made clear, however, that this presumption of reliance could be rebutted by defendants and that any showing that severs the link between the price paid by investors and the alleged misstatements would successfully rebut the presumption.7

    On June 11, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal that will present the Court with the opportunity to revisit the fraud-on-the-market theory outlined in Basic.8 In Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds v. Amgen Inc.,9 the District Court and the Court of Appeals both held that (1) a class of investors could be certified based on a narrow reading of the requirements for invoking the fraud-on-the-market theory and (2) the issue of whether the presumption of reliance may be rebutted by defendants will not be considered at class certification.10 Class certification is generally viewed as a critical juncture in the life of a securities case and the inability to obtain class certification often ends the case. With the Amgen appeal, the Supreme Court will be asked to rule on two important issues that could make it harder for securities cases to be certified.

    First, the Court could embrace the approach advocated by the defendants in Amgen—namely, that evidence supporting the materiality of the alleged misstatements must be offered affirmatively by plaintiffs in order to invoke Basic’s presumption of reliance. The defendants in Amgen point to the Supreme Court’s multiple references in Basic to the theory that “material” misstatements have the ability to affect a company’s stock price. Should the Court adopt the defendants’ view, plaintiffs in certain jurisdictions will face more challenges in providing the evidentiary support necessary to invoke the presumption of reliance.

    Second, even if the Supreme Court should decline to reach the materiality issue or rule in the plaintiffs’ favor on that point, the alternative grounds for reversal in Amgen would have equally broad and defendant-favorable implications for putative securities class actions. The Supreme Court’s endorsement of the view (currently embraced in many Circuits) that a defendant is entitled to put forth evidence at class certification to rebut the presumption of reliance would insure that defendants throughout the country will have the opportunity to litigate at an early stage certain matters that could very well prove to be fatal to the plaintiffs’ claims. The evidence necessary to rebut the presumption is drawn from the public record and there is, thus, no need to wait until costly fact discovery has been completed before the issue is ripe for the Court’s consideration.

    Overview of the Ninth Circuit’s Prior Decision. The Ninth Circuit in Amgen held that there were only two items that plaintiffs must show to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption and the Court deemed both to be unchallenged by the defendants.11 First, the Ninth Circuit explained that a plaintiff must show that the security in question traded in an efficient market. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged misrepresentations at issue in the case were made publicly.12

    The Ninth Circuit rejected the defendants’ position that a plaintiff must prove the “materiality” of the alleged misstatements in order to invoke the presumption. The Court instead ruled that, at class certification, materiality need only be plausibly alleged.13 The Ninth Circuit reasoned that materiality, “like all other elements of a 10b-5 claim, is a merits issue” and one common to all class members, which will be resolved at trial or on a motion for summary judgment.14 Accordingly, the Court concluded that the defendants’ contention that the alleged misstatements in the case were immaterial was not relevant to and did not preclude certification of the proposed class.15

    The Ninth Circuit used similar logic in concluding that a “rebuttal of the fraud-on-the-market presumption, at least by showing that the alleged misstatements were not material, is a matter for trial or summary judgment, not a matter to be taken up in a class certification motion.”16 The defendants in Amgen had argued that the truth supposedly concealed by the alleged misstatements was already known to the market by the time the alleged misstatements were made and, therefore, their statements could have had no possible effect on the market price of Amgen stock—i.e., the “truth-on-the-market” defense.17

    The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the truth-on-the-market defense, if proven at summary judgment or trial, would rebut the presumption of reliance that is sometimes available to investors under Basic, but held that these issues could not be addressed at class certification.18 The Court interpreted the truth-on-the-market defense as “a method of refuting an alleged misrepresentation’s materiality.”19 The Court likewise failed to attach any significance to the fact that Basic specifically observed that the truth-on-the-market defense is a means by which a defendant may rebut the presumption of reliance.20

    Analysis of the Issues on Appeal. Basic clearly held that anything that severs the link between the alleged misrepresentation and the price paid by investors rebuts the presumption of reliance.21 The defendants in Amgen presented evidence that the price at which investors purchased in the wake of the alleged misstatements was unaffected by their statements because the supposedly undisclosed “truth” was already known to the market and, therefore, was already factored into the trading price when purchases were made.

    Thus, even if the Supreme Court should find that materiality is not a separate requirement for which plaintiffs bear the burden of proof as an initial matter in invoking the presumption of reliance, it is hard to see how the decision of the Ninth Circuit can stand in light of (1) Basic’s clear directive that the presumption of reliance is rebuttable and (2) the Supreme Court’s prior acknowledgement in Basic that the presumption is rebutted under the very fact pattern raised by the defendants in Amgen.

    That leaves only the issue of the timing of the rebuttal inquiry and, on that score, the Ninth Circuit’s emphasis on whether the matters at hand touched on the “merits” was misplaced. The Supreme Court has already ruled on multiple occasions that issues concerning the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims can and often should be considered at class certification because they are directly relevant to determining whether the commonality requirement for certification has been met.22 Accordingly, under existing Supreme Court precedent, the fact that the Ninth Circuit deemed the defendants’ rebuttal arguments to be “merits-related” was not an adequate basis for refusing to consider those arguments at class certification.



    Back to basic: US Supreme Court to hear Amgen and clarify “fraud-on-the-market” reliance presumption in class actions

    The Supreme Court of the United States has announced it will hear the appeal in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, setting the stage for an important clarification of the use of the “fraud-on-the-market” reliance presumption in U.S. securities class actions. The Court first set out the presumption in its 1988 landmark decision in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). The Amgen decision will have an impact in Canada, where courts have grappled with the question of reliance in such cases. Generally, Canadian courts have been sceptical about importing a “fraud-on-the-market” approach, but recent case law has created some ambiguity about what evidence is necessary to prove reliance in common law misrepresentation claims. The Amgen appeal decision may help focus key aspects of that debate.

    Background

    Any securities class action is ultimately premised on the idea that a material misrepresentation caused a loss to plaintiffs who relied upon it in deciding to trade on the securities market. Statutory causes of action, including those under Part XXIII of the Ontario Securities Act, may exist without regard to individual reliance, but a common law negligent misrepresentation claim in Canada is inherently linked to the notion of reliance, which must be considered both at the duty of care stage – asking whether reliance was foreseeable and would have been reasonable – and in assessing whether there was, in fact, reliance on the misrepresentation in question that caused the loss. As the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Hercules Managements, reliance is engaged from the very first step of analysis: it is the very “reliance by the plaintiff on the defendant’s words” that creates the necessary relationship of proximity that permits a duty of care to exist. In its recent decision in Sharbern Holding, the Supreme Court of Canada again re-affirmed the need for actual reliance, and clarified that this requirement cannot be waived by deemed reliance pursuant to a statute.

    In the United States, claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC’s Rule 10b-5 also require the plaintiffs to demonstrate reliance on the allegedly untrue statement or material omission. Given that common issues must predominate over individual issues, class action certification in a securities case will therefore require a finding that the element of reliance is common to the class. In Basic Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court found that it was appropriate to adopt a rebuttable presumption of reliance in such cases, given the difficulties for plaintiff investors to otherwise prove individual reliance. The Court found that the presumption is appropriate given the nature of modern securities trading:

    The modern securities markets, literally involving millions of shares changing hands daily, differ from the face-to-face transactions contemplated by early fraud cases, and our understanding of Rule 10b-5’s reliance requirement must encompass these differences.

    The Court thereby relieved the plaintiff of an “unnecessarily unrealistic evidentiary burden.” Instead of having to demonstrate individual reliance, the plaintiff could rely on the presumption that, if the relevant security traded in an efficient market, its market price would reflect all publicly available information, including any misrepresentations. Instead of proving that he or she relied on the misrepresentation, the plaintiff can effectively benefit from the market as a whole having relied on it in determining the share price.

    Nearly twenty-five years later, Amgen provides the Court with an opportunity to reconsider two aspects of the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption and how it operates in the class action context. First, the Court will determine whether or not the plaintiffs must demonstrate at the certification stage that the alleged misrepresentation is material before permitting certification on the basis of the “fraud-on-the-market” theory. Second, the Court will consider whether defendants should be permitted to lead evidence rebutting the applicability of the presumption at the certification stage, or whether this effectively amounts to an assessment of the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim.

    Decisions Below

    Amgen Inc. is a pharmaceutical company. The plaintiff, Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (“Connecticut Retirement”), claims Amgen made certain misrepresentations about its products. It alleges that Amgen’s share price was artificially inflated by these alleged misstatements and that, when disclosure was ultimately made, the drop in share price caused Connecticut Retirement significant losses. The district court certified the class action, in part on the basis that reliance was a common issue by operation of the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption.  Amgen had conceded that the market in which its shares traded was an efficient one, but argued that the truth that the plaintiff claimed had been concealed by the misrepresentations had in fact already entered the market at the relevant time. The district court refused to permit Amgen to lead evidence on this argument (sometimes referred to as the “truth-on-the-market” defence), finding that it was an issue for trial. Amgen also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the materiality of the alleged misrepresentation, but the district court found that the plaintiffs merely had to allege materiality rather than prove it in order to engage the presumption.

    On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision and enthusiastically endorsed a sweeping interpretation of the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption. On the question of what the plaintiff must show about the materiality of the alleged misrepresentation, the Court found that plaintiffs need only “allege materiality with sufficient plausibility” in order to get the benefit of the presumption of reliance. The Court found that Amgen’s argument that the alleged misrepresentation was immaterial was effectively an argument on the merits. If it were true, none of the plaintiffs would have a claim and therefore it did not affect whether certification was appropriate. In effect, the Court found that Amgen’s claim of immateriality was too good to be true at the certification stage and should be left for trial.

    On the question of whether Amgen should have been permitted to lead evidence to support a “truth-on-the-market” defence, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision to deny it this opportunity. The Court of Appeals found that this was simply another way to consider an argument about the materiality (or lack thereof) of the alleged misrepresentations, and that materiality is a merits issue best left for trial or a summary judgment motion.

    Potential Significance

    The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Amgen has left only a very narrow window for defendants in that circuit seeking to rebut the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption. Defendants are permitted to argue that the market is not an efficient one, or to argue that the alleged misrepresentations were not publicly made, but are otherwise unable to lead any evidence to suggest that the market price was not affected because the alleged misrepresentations were insignificant or already known to the market. This interpretation deprives defendants of any opportunity at the certification stage to demonstrate that the alleged misrepresentations had no effect on the market price because the market was indifferent to them. This would seem to have proven Justice White correct in his dissent in Basic, where he noted that while rebutting “fraud-on-the-market” was possible in theory, “such rebuttal is virtually impossible in all but the most extraordinary case.”

    In Amgen, the Supreme Court accepted two issues for review:

    1. whether proof of materiality is necessary before the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption is engaged as the basis for certification of a class action; and
    2. whether the defendant must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption’s applicability on the facts of the case.

    Each of these will give the Supreme Court an opportunity to address whether the approach taken in the Ninth Circuit appropriately considers the interests of defendants who have an argument, on the facts, that the alleged misrepresentation likely had no impact whatsoever on the share price. Given that share prices rise and fall for a variety of reasons, where defendants have compelling evidence about the immateriality of the alleged misrepresentation, it would seem appropriate to allow them the opportunity to lead it before the court decides whether a class action should be certified. Circuit courts presently fall into two distinct camps on these questions, with three circuits now clearly invoking the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption without any requirement that materiality have been proven.

    The Amgen appeal will be watched closely in Canada. While Canadian courts have been sceptical of “fraud-on-the-market” either as a proper legal or factual presumption, there is nevertheless some ambiguity about its proper place in misrepresentation claims. In Carom v. Bre-X, Justice Winkler (as he then was) provided a thoughtful rejection of “fraud-on-the-market” as a legal or factual presumption that should apply in Canadian common law claims of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. Notwithstanding Carom, however, some courts have suggested it may be possible to find, on the particular facts of a case, that an “efficient market” operated in relation to the specific alleged misstatements at issue and that reliance by many plaintiffs could be inferred without evidence of individual reliance.

    Given the Supreme Court of Canada’s re-affirmation in Sharbern Holding of the need for “actual reliance” in common law misrepresentation claims, it will be interesting to see how lower courts apply this requirement in proposed securities class actions. Two recent developments suggest the implications of Sharbern are being felt.

    In February, Leitch J. granted leave to appeal the decision in Arctic Glacier, in which the court had dismissed a defence motion to strike a pleading of negligent misrepresentation that failed to specifically plead detrimental reliance by individual plaintiffs. In part, the motions judge had relied on cases taking a relaxed approach to the reliance requirement at the certification stage and suggesting that reliance may be inferred on the facts. Leitch J. found that Sharbern “creates a correctness and conflict issue…which would benefit from appellate review.”

    Similarly, in a decision released yesterday, Strathy J. dismissed an attempt to certify detrimental reliance as a proposed common issue in Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, finding that Sharbern “has re-affirmed the need to establish reliance in a common law misrepresentation claim” and that the issue was not capable of resolution on a common basis. His Honour noted that “there is no authority to support the proposition that “fraud on the market” or the “efficient market” theory can supplant the need to prove individual reliance.”

    These recent cases suggest that courts in Ontario may be abandoning earlier attempts to create a distinction between a “legal” and “factual” presumption of reliance in such cases. This distinction was always tenuous, given that either formulation of the presumption depends on accepting that an efficient market hypothesis should drive not only judicial decision-making, but the very elements of the tort in question. While the Canadian discussion about the proper place of market price theories in class action certification is ongoing, we can expect that protagonists on this side of the border will be listening carefully when the U.S. Supreme Court releases its decision in Amgen.

    Case Information

    Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

    U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 11-1085

    Petition for a writ of certiorari granted: June 11, 2012



    One federal appellate court outlines parameters for racially hostile environment

    One of the issues most frequently litigated in employment cases is whether the remarks and actions of an employer rise to the level of the “hostile work environment” needed to support a claim of discrimination.  The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed that issue, and provided at least some clarity to the definition, adding its voice to the courts that have held that racial epithets directed at employees other than the plaintiff, and non-racial adverse actions directed at that plaintiff, both can be considered as elements of a hostile work environment if other evidence of racial animus is present.  Hernandez v. Valley View Hosp. Assn., 10th Cir., No. 11-1244, June 26, 2012.

    Teresa Hernandez, a Latina of Mexican heritage, was hired by Valley View Hospital Association in 2001, and began working in the food service department at that time.  Beginning in 2004 and 2005, Hernandez was supervised Marc Lillas and Nicholas Stillahn, a duo of supervisors whose actions form the basis of Hernandez’ federal court complaint.

    Hernandez alleges that during a fourteen month period of her employment, beginning in 2006, she was the target of a number of remarks by her supervisors based on her heritage, and that she had experienced certain incidents of non-racial derogation.  Hernandez frequently complained directly to Lillas and Stillahn that she felt that the remarks were racist and demeaning.  On July 20, 2007, Stillahn angrily yelled at Hernandez about the status of the cafeteria, then shoved a food cart and kicked a door in response a statement by Hernandez’s that “maybe I’m not white enough” for Stillahn.  Hernandez was then suspended for that remark, and asked to be reassigned from the food service area.  Her request for reassignment was denied, but Valley View’s Director of Human Resources, Daniel Biggs, offered to allow Hernandez to take FMLA leave until October 15, 2007, which Hernandez accepted.  On October 12, Biggs met with Hernandez to discuss with her certain performance concerns by her supervisors that had not previously been “formally documented.”  Hernandez again asked for a transfer from food services, and Biggs again denied the request.  When Hernandez failed to return from her FMLA leave, her employment was terminated.

    After exhausting her administrative remedies, Hernandez filed a complaint in federal court, which included racial and national origin discrimination claims based upon a hostile work environment, and a claim for constructive discharge.  Valley View’s motion for summary judgment was granted by the lower court, and Hernandez appealed to the Tenth Circuit.  The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision, reinstating Hernandez’s hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims.

    The lower court characterized Hernandez’s evidence as “a handful of racially insensitive jokes and comments over a period of more than three years.”  However, the Tenth Circuit, while recognizing that “Title VII does not establish a general civility code for the workplace,” and that “boorish, juvenile, or annoying behavior” is insufficient to support a claim of hostile environment, found that there is not a “mathematically precise test” for a hostile work environment claim and that the term “pervasive” is not a “counting measure” that can be viewed in a vacuum.  It found, instead, that Hernandez experienced more than a “handful” of “sporadic” racially derogatory jokes and comments, and that Hernandez was able to articulate at least twelve instances of racial remarks by her supervisors within a 14 month period within which Hernandez also had suffered behavior and remarks that, while arguable non-racial, had subjectively offended her to the point where she formally complained about that behavior.

    The Tenth Circuit held that, viewing the records as a whole and in a “broader contextual analysis,” a reasonable jury could find that the workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment,” and reversed the lower court’s decision, sending the case forward to be heard by a jury.

    While the Tenth Circuit’s opinion arguably is limited to court decisions within a particular geographic area (the Tenth Circuit encompasses Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming), the rationale articulated by the Court in this case provides broader guidance to all employers.  First, every supervisor must be trained to respond to complaints regarding discrimination, whether or not the supervisor agrees with the employee’s characterization of the behavior as illegal or inappropriate.  To ignore such reports risks legal liability for harassment, hostile environment, or -- when the employee ultimately is fired -- constructive discharge.  In addition, employers cannot assume that because the incidents allegedly suffered by an employee are few, that a court necessarily will agree with the employer’s characterization of those incidents as “sporadic” or not pervasive enough to support a Title VII cause of action.  Lastly, simply because discriminatory remarks are not directed at a complainant, or because the behavior directed toward a complainant arguably is not based upon a protected characteristic, an employer cannot assume that such remarks or behavior will not become part of the complainant’s lawsuit.  Here, because other evidence of racial animus existed, the Court viewed epithets directed at others, and incidents of “non-racial’ abusive behavior toward Hernandez as supportive of Hernandez’s claims of hostile work environment.  



    Third Circuit establishes joint employment test under FLSA

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit late last week considered the broad definition of “employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act to determine when two employers jointly employ an employee, an issue that has been arising with increasing frequency as plaintiffs’ lawyers seek to file sweeping collective actions encompassing parent corporations, subsidiaries, and affiliated entities..

    The decision in In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car announces a new test—which the court dubbed “the Enterprise test”—for determining joint employment under the FLSA. Drawing on its existing test for joint employment under the National Labor Relations Act and the Ninth Circuit’s FLSA joint employment test set forth in Bonnette v. California Health & Welfare Agency, the Third Circuit instructed lower courts to analyze the following factors when considering whether a joint employment relationship exists:

    • authority to hire and fire
    • authority to promulgate work rules and assignments and set employees’ conditions of employment (compensation, benefits, and work schedules, including the rate and method of payment)
    • involvement in day-to-day employee supervision, including employee discipline
    • actual control of employee records, such as payroll, insurance, or taxes 

    Emphasizing that application of the Enterprise test requires a balanced approach, the Third Circuit cautioned that the factors should not be “blindly applied” and said that courts also may consider “other indicia of ‘significant control’” that might suggest a joint employment relationship. 

    The Third Circuit then applied its newly crafted test and held that Enterprise Holdings, Inc.—the parent company and sole stockholder of 38 domestic subsidiaries—was not a joint employer of the subsidiaries’ assistant managers. Because Enterprise Holdings lacked the authority to hire or fire employees, promulgate work rules or assignments, or set compensation or benefits, and had no involvement in daily supervision or control over employment records, the Third Circuit found that Enterprise Holdings did not exert control over the assistant managers sufficient to make it a joint employer.

    While the Third Circuit’s decision provides guidance for courts and employers in assessing whether joint employment liability exists, the court’s decision, not surprisingly, ultimately centers on the degree of control exercised by a putative joint employer. Entities that seek to avoid FLSA joint employment liability should evaluate the factors enunciated by the Third Circuit to assess the degree of control exerted over putative employees.

    Click here to sign up for Ballard Spahr e-communications in a variety of practice areas.

     

    Copyright © 2012 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
    www.ballardspahr.com
    (No claim to original U.S. government material.)
    All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.
    This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.




    Prosecutors to dismiss indictment against Gen Re and AIG executives



    On August 2, 2011, we reported on a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to vacate the criminal convictions of Gen Re and AIG executives stemming from an allegedly fraudulent finite reinsurance transaction designed to improve AIG’s financial statements. On June 22, 2012, the defendants entered into agreements with prosecutors to defer prosecution and dismiss the indictments after passage of one year, subject to the defendants’ respective payment of fines ranging from $250,000 to $100,000, and compliance with other conditions. The agreements identified “relevant considerations” to their execution, namely, (a) the Second Circuit’s vacatur decision, (b) the 12 months time that has now elapsed since the defendants’ conduct, (c) the significant resources required to conduct a retrial, (d) the defendants’ payment of fines, (e) SEC penalties, and (f) defendants’ admission that certain “aspects” of the reinsurance transaction were fraudulent. United States v. Ferguson, Case No. 3:06CR137 (USDC D. Conn. June 22, 2012).


    WIPO Treaty grants audiovisual performers new rights


    The Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, signed on June 26, is an attempt to harmonize the substantive IP rights of audiovisual performers across the globe. Intended to complement the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 (the “WPPT”), which only covered audio performances, the Beijing Treaty grants audiovisual performers certain moral and economic rights in line with those granted to audio performers under the WPPT. Hailed as extending the rights of American actors over the global reuse of their performances, the Beijing Treaty may nevertheless augur more conflicts between both traditional media and Internet service providers, and U.S. copyright law and the First Amendment.

    The Beijing Treaty will come into force once 30 countries have ratified it, a process expected to take at least one year, but significantly less time than the 16 years required to negotiate the Treaty. The delay was largely caused by a standoff between Europe and the USA over the transfer of rights, which clarifies who may claim royalties for the use of audiovisual works. In the U.S., these rights transfer to the producer of the work under the work-made-for-hire doctrine, while in much of Europe they remain in the hands of the performers. Eventually, a compromise was achieved: the presumption is that the rights will transfer to the producer of an audiovisual work unless there is a contract to the contrary.

    The ratification process in the Senate will likely focus on the changes to U.S. copyright law required to implement the Beijing Treaty. The USPTO’s position is that because actors and musicians are considered to be “authors” of their performances U.S. law already provides the protection mandated by the Beijing Treaty, and implementation will require only “technical amendments” to the Copyright Act. While much has been made of the fact that the Beijing Treaty provides for moral rights for audiovisual performers, the WPPT provided for similar rights for performers of audio works and moral rights continue to be protected in the U.S. under the regimes of defamation, misappropriation and unfair competition.

    More potentially problematic, though, is the right of authorizing the broadcast and fixation of unfixed performances provided for by Article 6, which is not a right that transfers to the producer under the Beijing Treaty. The Treaty defines “performers” as persons “who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore.” Most likely, motion picture, television and Broadway stage actors will contractually authorize producers to act in their discretion, but this provision may have significant implications for video hosting services like YouTube in situations where an “amateur” video has been uploaded by a person who is not the performer.

    The Beijing Treaty’s biggest impact, though, may be felt at the intersection of First Amendment and copyright law. On paper, the Treaty’s authorization provisions give performers greatly expanded power to control the use of their work, images or likenesses in “unofficial” parodies, remixes, “mash-ups,” etc. While ratification of the Beijing Treaty is some distance away, it seems inevitable that, once implemented, the Treaty will provide yet another obstacle for courts to navigate in harmonizing copyright and free speech.


    ICANN publishes applications for new generic top-level domain names

    On June 13, 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) published a list of the 1,930 applications for new generic Top-Level Domain Names (gTLDs) it had received during its recent January to May 2012 application period. The influx of applications was due to new rules approved in June 2011 by ICANN, the body which oversees the registration and coordination of the Internet’s system of unique domain names. The rules transform naming conventions for Internet Web sites by removing restrictions on allowable suffixes for domain names. Currently, Web site domain names end in either a country code (such as .ca or .uk) or in one of only twenty-two gTLDs, such as “.com” or “.org”.  Now organizations can apply to register any character string as a gTLD. This will allow companies to register their brands as gTLDs or to select other unique domain names for marketing purposes, drastically increasing the number of available domains. Applications were received from sixty countries, including sixty-six requests to register geographic names as gTLDs, and 116 requests for strings in non-Roman characters (called Internationalized Domain Names, or IDNs), such as Chinese, Arabic, and Cyrillic.

    ICANN will consider a number of factors when reviewing the applications. For example, they will evaluate whether a proposed gTLD is confusingly similar to an existing gTLD, to a reserved character string or to another proposed gTLD; whether it is a geographic name requiring government support; and whether it contributes to domain name system (DNS) instability. They will also look at whether the applicant possesses adequate technical, operational and financial resources with respect to the registry services they will be required to provide.

    As part of a public review process, the public will have an opportunity to comment on proposed gTLDs during the 60 days following the June 13 posting. Interested parties will also be able to file one of several types of objections during a formal seven month objection period. Bases for objection include: “string confusion”, where the proposed string is confusingly similar to that of an existing gTLD or to another application; “limited public interest”, where an application is contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order; “community”, where there is substantial opposition among a significant proportion of the community targeted by the proposed gTLD; and “legal rights”, where rights-holders, such as owners of registered or common law trademarks, may oppose a gTLD which infringes on their legal rights. Trademark owners should review the list of proposed gTLDs to ensure that none infringe upon their trademark, and submit comments or file an objection if appropriate.

    The new rules also mean that there is now a greater variety of domain name extensions which could be used in combination with trademarks in an infringing way, requiring continuing vigilance by trademark owners to protect their legal rights. To help address this concern, ICANN will operate a Trademark Clearinghouse - a centralized database where trademark owners can deposit their trademark information in order to support future infringement claims.  The Clearinghouse can also be used to support Sunrise claims, allowing mark holders to register domain names in a TLD before the name is available to the general public.  

    While marketing opportunities exist for trademark owners who can afford to invest in the chance to register their marks as a new gTLDs, the resulting proliferation of new domain names will present challenges for others. To protect their marks, trademark owners should monitor applications for gTLDs, file objections when problems are identified, and register their trademarks with the Trademark Clearinghouse.




    Cities' economic power unlocked in radical power shift

    Published 5 July 2012

    Government has agreed to devolve new powers to England's largest cities in a series of unique deals that will help them invest in growth, improve local workers' skills and create jobs, support local businesses, control budgets and improve critical infrastructure Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Cities Minister Greg Clark announced today.

    The core cities are Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Manchester. These eight largest and most economically important English cities outside of London were invited to set out the powers they need to drive local growth in December last year. In return the cities have agreed to put in place stronger, more accountable local leadership and to spend their resources more efficiently. The resulting groundbreaking agreements signal a dramatic shift, freeing cities from Whitehall control.

    Following Greater Manchester's example, Leeds and Sheffield will each form Combined Authorities, bringing their existing local authorities together so they can make more strategic decisions about how money is spent and what it is spent on. Liverpool and Bristol have voted to have directly elected mayors supported by strong decision making structures across the wider economic area. Leeds will form a West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Sheffield will form the South Yorkshire Combined Authority.

    Newcastle is working with the seven authorities across their economic area to take steps towards forming a North East Combined Authority; Greater Birmingham and Solihull has established strong private sector leadership and decision-making across its Local Enterprise Partnership. And Nottingham has created a new private sector-led governance structure to deliver their City Deal.

    Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said:

    "These groundbreaking deals signal a dramatic power shift, freeing cities from Whitehall control. Everyone in these eight core cities will feel the benefits - from young people looking for jobs, to businesses looking to expand.

    "Over the coming months, we are transferring more and more power from Whitehall to these cities.

    "They are the economic powerhouses of England - so it makes sense that the cities decide for themselves how to boost their local economies."

    Cities Minister Greg Clark said:

    "City deals represent a watershed moment in the Government's revolution to hand power down from Whitehall to the local level.

    "These landmark agreements will unlock the huge potential of our cities by harnessing their unique strengths to drive the growth Britain needs.

    "Our major cities have seized the opportunity to take control of their economic destiny and will now reap the benefits of new financial freedoms and investment opportunities available to them.

    "Now we have concluded the first deals, we will shortly set out next steps for this radical extension of power to other places across the country."

    The deals give new freedoms, powers and tools to help the cities go for growth, including:

    More power to invest in growth

    • Powers to 'earn back' tax from the HM Treasury for Manchester
    • Freedom to fund critical infrastructure through tax increment financing for Newcastle, Sheffield and Nottingham
    • Self-sustaining investment funds to spend on local priority projects, reducing dependence on grants from central government for Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield

    More freedom to support local businesses

    • Power to create a venture capital fund to invest in high tech start ups and growth businesses for Nottingham
    • Business Growth hubs bringing support, advice and services to help businesses grow for Manchester and Bristol

    More power over budgets and resources to drive infrastructure development

    • Devolved transport budgets for Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds and Sheffield
    • Responsibility for commissioning and managing franchise arrangements for local and regional rail services devolved to Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield
    • Joint investment programmes bringing together private and public sector assets to unlock resources for housing development and regeneration

    Powers to deliver the skills training local people and businesses need

    • Control of the skills budget so the city can better respond to what businesses need from the local workforce for Sheffield
    • Apprenticeship hubs for Bristol, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Nottingham, enabling the cities to boost apprenticeship numbers by supporting small and medium sized businesses to take on more apprentices with measures such as incentive payments

    A 'Guarantee for the Young', with innovative new ways to give every young person access to a job, training, apprenticeship, volunteering or work experience for Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle.

    Guide

    Notes to editors

    1. The core cities are: Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield. The eight core cities are the largest and most economically important English cities outside of London.

    2. Cities account for 58 per cent of England's population and 61 per cent of its jobs. When their wider commuting areas are taken into account, this rises to 74 per cent of population and 78 per cent of jobs. Source: Data for 2008, from Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) Updating the evidence base on English Cities. Data for cities relates to Primary Urban Areas; for hinterlands includes travel to work areas.

    3. Manchester's city deal was announced on 20 March 2012. To see the deal document visit: www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/unlocking-growth-cities (external link).

    4. The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Cities Minister Greg Clark announced the first wave of deals on 8 December 2011, at an Institute for Public Policy Research North event in Leeds. The eight core cities were invited to bid from a menu of transformative new powers as the basis of a series of bespoke 'City Deals'.

    Additional comments

    Birmingham

    Sir Albert Bore, Leader of Birmingham City Council said:

    "City Deal comes at a time when Birmingham and the wider Local Enterprise Partnership area is enjoying renewed confidence and has, for the first time, all of the building blocks for success in place.

    "We have a strong private and public sector partnership, a strategy for growth and, now, a deal with Government that will give us the powers to rebalance the economy.

    "For this to be a truly successful and globally competitive city region we need to maximise our full potential in areas such as Life Sciences, where we already have a leading position internationally.

    "There is much more to be done, but the City Deal is testament to the strength of the relationship between the public and private sectors and the local authorities involved in the Local Enterprise Partnership."

    Andy Street, Local Enterprise Partnership Chairman said:

    "From the moment we were first invited by Government to put together our vision for the City Deal, we took a stance of being bold and ambitious, looking at what we could deliver in order to drive the growth being demanded.

    "We looked at our assets and the key economic challenges before setting about outlining the ambitious proposals we know will bring about sustained economic growth.

    "Not only will the City Deal support immediate job creation but also improve our skills base and invest in our infrastructure to meet the economic needs of the future.

    "This announcement is a key part of our continued journey to rebuild the pride and passion that is so needed."

    Leeds

    Cllr Keith Wakefield, Leader of Leeds City Council, said:

    "Today's announcement is hugely significant for Leeds, for the eleven local authorities that make up the City Region and for the North as a whole.

    "This deal spells the beginning of a fundamental shift in the relationship between Whitehall and the regions. It marks the first steps of a new era which will allow the North to truly control its own destiny.

    "For a long time we have suffered from under investment and over-centralised decision-making.

    "This deal will allow us to create thousand of new apprenticeships, offering a much needed boost to the local economy in a very difficult time and providing young people with the skills and training they need to survive in the workplace.

    "It also gives us the opportunity and the means to transform our transport system so that travel to other city regions becomes easier and faster. A better transport system will mean high productivity, lower costs and more jobs. It will also enable us to create a single economy across the Pennines.

    "I'm looking forward to working with the other local authorities in the city region to attract investment, exploit exports and create a thriving economy which will bring real benefits and exciting opportunities to the people of Leeds and to local businesses."

    Cllr Peter Box CBE, Chairman of the Leeds City Region Partnership and Leader of Wakefield Council said:

    "This is major first step forward towards delivering our city region priorities and I hope it will lead to even greater devolution of power from Whitehall to the regions.

    "The Deal gives the Partnership more powers to act quickly to achieve economic growth, create more jobs and work more efficiently across the whole region.

    "It means we can support businesses to grow, cut through red-tape and get make sure everyone in the workforce is in education, employment or training.

    "We will now have a much bigger say in how happens in our region and can use our local knowledge to get resources to the areas which need them most. We can access better links to national and international business and trade, opening up opportunities for the whole Leeds City Region with the potential fund of £400m to underpin our local economy."

    Neil McLean, Chairman of the Leeds City Region local enterprise partnership said:

    "The city deal is the result of months of discussion and refinement and really starts to unlock the potential of the City Region and our ability to grow the economy and employment through investment in skills, infrastructure, trade and investment and progress on our low carbon and planning agendas."

    Nottingham

    Cllr Jon Collins, Nottingham City Council's Leader said:

    "In Nottingham we have much to be proud of. Our city is safer, cleaner, and greener than it has ever been, and through our investment in projects like the tram and the station we have delivered major improvements to infrastructure. But we cannot stand still. Through our Growth Plan we will help Nottingham become, once more, a city that designs and makes things.

    "Key to the City Deal is Nottingham's new Creative Quarter. This is a significant step forward and a bold statement that Nottingham is prepared to think differently to effect change. This Deal provides a platform for the next generation of Nottingham entrepreneurs to carve out their future, create opportunity and jobs, and lead Nottingham to an exciting new future."

    Sheffield

    Cllr Julie Dore, Leader of Sheffield City Council:

    "This deal is a clear demonstration of the shared ambitions of the public and private sectors in Sheffield City Region. When I was elected as Leader of Sheffield City Council, I promised that I would stand up for Sheffield and work with Government to achieve the best outcomes for the city and the City Region. The deal is real proof that by working with city regions and business leaders, Government can give local areas the right tools they need to support economic growth and create jobs.

    "This deal is vital for our economy. Last year, there were 7 engineering jobs for every young person gaining an engineering qualification in Sheffield. At the same time, every 2 young people that gained a hair and beauty qualification in the city were competing for just 1 job.

    "This deal means we can change all that by making the skills system work for our economy, for our communities and for our businesses.

    "With local businesses in the lead, this deal means that there'll be 4,000 new apprentices working in the City Region by 2016, getting the skills they need for a successful career. There will also be 2,000 more employees with the necessary skills to help our businesses and the City Region's economy grow."

    James Newman, Chairman of the Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership said:

    "This deal will further allow the Local Enterprise Partnership to drive forward real economic growth and create jobs for the Sheffield City Region.

    "Our £700m shared investment programme creates the funding firepower for business leaders to influence local funding allocation decisions - so that future investments are prioritised on creating new growth opportunities.

    "The skills deal gives businesses unprecedented control over the way in which our skills system works, so that we can make sure we have a highly skilled workforce which corresponds with the City Region's business needs.

    "Our transport deal will ensure that our workforce can travel faster, smarter and more efficiently. This deal is essential to achieving our growth potential and devolves the power to make transport decisions which focus on growing the City Region's economy."

    John Mothersole, Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council:

    "This is a groundbreaking deal for Sheffield City Region which reflects our position as a lead partner of Government in delivering the jobs and growth that the UK needs.

    "The proposals in our deal signal an unprecedented shift in control away from Whitehall and are a major step on the road to giving cities the tools they need to facilitate sustainable economic growth. With greater control over skills, infrastructure investment and transport, Sheffield City Region increasingly has control over the economic enablers which create growth opportunities. Using our strong, accountable governance arrangements, we can now make decisions based on local economic need.

    "We welcome the announcement of the 'MADE in Sheffield' deal and the advent of a new, stronger relationship between Sheffield City Region and Government based on mutual trust, strong public and private leadership and shared aspirations."

    Newcastle

    Cllr Nick Forbes Leader of Newcastle City Council said:

    "Today's announcement is magnificent news for Newcastle and the wider region. It is the culmination of a lot of hard work by the city council over many months lobbying Government and setting out in no uncertain terms the benefits of our City Deal proposals. 

    "We take our responsibilities as the regional capital very seriously and are delighted in this vote of confidence. Our top priority has always been to make Newcastle a working city - and the creation of up to 13,000 jobs will go a long way to achieving that. These jobs will improve the lives of thousands of families and give many young people the chance to start their careers.

    "As well as creating jobs, this City Deal is good news on a number of other fronts. It will establish the city as a low carbon economy; deliver up to 15,000 homes on brownfield sites, reduce congestion on the A1 Western Bypass, and create 500 new apprenticeships in three years.

    "Our priority now is to get on with this and make it happen on the ground as soon as possible."

    Mick Henry Leader of Gateshead Council said:

    "Any support that will help to boost economic growth in our area is to be warmly welcomed. The package announced today will help to re-ignite development on Gateshead Quays and Baltic Business Quarter, to ensure our ambitions for that area can be further progressed. The news that we will finally secure improvements to the A1 is very significant as this will unlock the potential of Team Valley to grow further and ensure that key brown field regeneration projects around Metrocentre can go ahead, as well as enabling further growth across the whole A1 corridor from Durham to Northumberland."

    Paul Woolston Chairman of the North East Local Enterprise Partnership said:

    "The Newcastle City Deal represents a welcome boost for the whole of the North East.

    "The Accelerated Development Zone will help the North East attract new businesses and create world-class venues for trade, science and visitors in Newcastle and Gateshead.

    "Through this Deal the government will now ensure that the investment on the A1 Western Bypass is given the priority it deserves and also help the Local Enterprise Partnership to craft a strategic alliance on skills.

    "I particularly welcome the Government's strong commitment to secure investment in the marine and offshore sector and the low carbon economy as further evidence that we're leading the way in this region."

    Liverpool

    Robert Hough, Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership Chair said:

    "This City Region Deal is critically important for our economy as we seek to increase our competitiveness over the next few years. For instance, our innovative 'Skills for Growth' programme will enable us to support The City Deal process has shown how the partners within the City Region can work together to achieve positive benefits for the economy. A focus on low carbon engineering resonates strongly with the key sector growth strategies of the Local Enterprise Partnership while support to get 17,400 people into work while creating around 6,000 apprenticeships. Additionally, the focus on low carbon engineering resonates strongly with the key sector growth strategies of the Local Enterprise Partnership.

    "Delivering this City Deal will be a significant step forward in realising our ambitions and the potential of the City Region."



    House set to advance permit legislation despite White House opposition

    Published:

    The House is expected to vote by tomorrow on legislation aimed at streamlining the permitting process for mining and mineral exploration on federal land.

    Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei's H.R. 4402 would require federal agencies to promote the domestic production of materials important to economic growth and national security. GOP leaders have fast-tracked the bill, introduced in April, as part of their bureaucracy-busting agenda.

    During the Rules Committee meeting yesterday on the measure, Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) likened it to efforts at increasing oil and gas production on public land through "cutting red tape and adding certainty to the process." He said, "Now we're focusing on the minerals that are so important to our economy."


    PUBLIC LANDS:

    Settlement could complicate utility's plans for Northwest energy corridor

    Published:

    A settlement between environmental groups and federal agencies on energy corridor development in the West could create more obstacles for a Portland utility whose attempt to build a pipeline across the Cascade Range through Mount Hood National Forest has already been thwarted several times.

    Under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, energy corridors in the West are eligible for streamlined regulatory approvals for transmission lines and pipelines. Environmentalists have long criticized the allowance for failing to take into consideration the consequences an expedited approval process could have on the environment and on public lands.

    If the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approves the settlement, which was prompted by a 2009 lawsuit from environmentalists, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and the Energy Department would be forced to adopt a more rigorous approval method, as well as consider renewables access, public input opportunities and environmental impact mitigation strategies.

    The agencies would also need to re-evaluate designated "corridors of concern," including the one that cuts through Mount Hood National Forest, complicating NW Natural's plan to build a pipeline there. Environmental groups say the utility's proposed Palomar pipe would destroy mature and old-growth forests and interfere with waterways that provide critical salmon habitat.

    NW Natural originally floated the pipeline as a means of transporting gas from a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal on the Columbia River. When the LNG project fell through, the utility said it was still interested in building the eastern section of the line as an alternate gas supply route from an interstate pipe in central Oregon to the state's northwestern Willamette Valley.

    After withdrawing its application for the line last year, citing insufficient demand to support the project, NW Natural recently announced that it planned to revise its pipeline proposal as soon as this year.

    The district court settlement "should be the final nail in the coffin for that route" of Palomar, said Olivia Schmidt, program director for Bark, one of the conservation groups that has been fighting the pipeline.

    NW Natural spokeswoman Claire Levine said the utility was still reviewing the settlement to see how it would affect a potential application.



    National Science Foundation

    Directorate for Engineering
         Division of Industrial Innovation and Partnerships

    Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

    September 26, 2012

    Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

    December 12, 2012

    IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES

    The NSF 12-511 solicitation combined two standalone solicitations (NSF 10-581 and NSF 10-608), joining PFI: Building Innovation Capacity (PFI: BIC) and PFI: Accelerating Innovation Research (PFI: AIR). Two separate solicitations are now being offered to the community: one for PFI: BIC and one for PFI: AIR (NSF 12-571). This solicitation describes PFI: BIC.

    The NSF Partnerships for Innovation (PFI) program is an umbrella for two complementary subprograms, one of which involves an early stage that focuses on building innovation capacity and the other, which involves a later stage that focuses on accelerating innovation research. This program solicitation, Partnerships for Innovation: Building Innovation Capacity (PFI: BIC), is pursuant to the PFI: BIC portion of the program solicitation NSF 12-511. The PFI: BIC program starts with an existing sound scientific and/or engineering-based research discovery that can be translated through a partnership between academe and small businesses to potentially market-valued solutions and to enhance the innovation capacity of the partners.

    The merit of a proposal relies on the following elements: the existence of research discovery findings that have potential to contribute to U.S. competitiveness or to provide a solution to a problem of national and/or global importance; the quality of the established partnership between the academic research team and the small technology-based businesses; the quality of the proposed partnership activities to translate the existing research discovery findings into technical and/or economic "takeaways"--defined as capabilities, competencies, or more tangible items that one can take possession of and can move forward with--for both academe and the businesses; and the strategy that has the potential to build the innovation capacity.

    The funds will provide support to an academic institution to partner with at least two small technology-based businesses that are not in direct competition with each other. The primary aims of the activities of this partnership are three-fold: (1) to build the innovation capacity of the individual participants from academe and from business; (2) to increase the viability of the small business concerns; and (3) to develop the next-generation workforce by providing opportunities for students at different levels to effectively learn from, participate in, and be profoundly changed by exposure to the process of building innovation capacity that occurs in BIC projects. The active collaboration between academe and business could result in solutions with potential for an impact on more than one market.

    There is no longer a requirement for a Co-PI to be a senior administrator, as in the previous year's solicitation.

    Close attention needs to be paid to the Additional Eligibility Information pertaining to the small technology-based business partners.






    $60K EPA Grant

    The purpose of the grant is to “educate the community about history and ecology of the river and what can be done to protect it,”  EPA is awarding grants to 46 organizations. The projects selected for the funding will promote the restoration of urban waters through community engagement and outreach, water quality monitoring and studies, and environmental education and training.

    In the largest settlement involving a pharmaceutical company, the British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about a top diabetes drug, federal prosecutors announced Monday. The agreement also includes civil penalties for improper marketing of a half-dozen other drugs.

    Joe Raedle/Getty Images

    GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia.

    The fine against GlaxoSmithKline over Paxil, Wellbutrin, Avandia and the other drugs makes this year a record for money recovered by the federal government under its so-called whistle-blower law, according to a group that tracks such numbers.

    In May, Abbott Laboratories settled for $1.6 billion over its marketing of the antipsychotic drug Depakote. And an agreement with Johnson & Johnson that could result in a fine of as much as $2 billion is said to be imminent over its off-label promotion of another antipsychotic drug, Risperdal.

    No individuals have been charged in any of the cases. Even so, the Justice Department contends the prosecutions are well worth the effort — reaping more than $15 in recoveries for every $1 it spends, by one estimate.

    But critics argue that even large fines are not enough to deter drug companies from unlawful behavior. Only when prosecutors single out individual executives for punishment, they say, will practices begin to change.

    “What we’re learning is that money doesn’t deter corporate malfeasance,” said Eliot Spitzer, who, as New York’s attorney general, sued GlaxoSmithKline in 2004 over similar accusations involving Paxil. “The only thing that will work in my view is C.E.O.’s and officials being forced to resign and individual culpability being enforced.”

    The federal whistle-blower law, officially the False Claims Act, dates to 1863 and was originally envisioned as a check on war profiteering after the Civil War.

    Whistle-blowers get a share of any money recovered by the federal government. So far, according to Patrick Burns, spokesman for the whistle-blower advocacy group Taxpayers Against Fraud, at least $10 billion has been agreed to in settlements this fiscal year, which ends in September.

    The settlement, which requires court approval, stems from claims made by four employees of GlaxoSmithKline, including a former senior marketing development manager for the company and a regional vice president, who tipped off the government about a range of improper practices from the late 1990s to the mid-2000s.

    Prosecutors said the company had tried to win over doctors by paying for trips to Jamaica and Bermuda, as well as spa treatments and hunting excursions. In the case of Paxil, prosecutors claim GlaxoSmithKline employed several tactics aimed at promoting the use of the drug in children, including helping to publish a medical journal article that misreported data from a clinical trial.

    A warning was later added to the drug that Paxil, like other antidepressants, might increase the risk of suicidal thoughts in teenagers. Prosecutors said the company had marketed Wellbutrin for conditions like weight loss and sexual dysfunction when it was approved only to treat major depressive disorder.

    They said that in the case of Avandia, whose use was severely restricted in 2010 after it was linked to heart risks, the company had failed to report data from studies detailing the safety risks to the F.D.A.

    “Today’s multibillion-dollar settlement is unprecedented in both size and scope,” said James M. Cole, the deputy attorney general. “It underscores the administration’s firm commitment to protecting the American people and holding accountable those who commit health care fraud.”

    The initial terms of the settlement were announced in November, and Glaxo had already set aside cash for the settlement. In a statement Monday, the company said it has since changed many of its policies, including no longer rewarding sales representatives for the number of drug prescriptions sold.

    Andrew Witty, the chief executive, sought to portray the illegal actions as part of the company’s past.

    “Whilst these originate in a different era for the company, they cannot and will not be ignored,” he said in the statement. “On behalf of GSK, I want to express our regret and reiterate that we have learned from the mistakes that were made.”

    The three criminal charges involved Paxil, Wellbutrin and Avandia and included a criminal fine of $1 billion. The remaining $2 billion involves fines in connection with a civil settlement over the sales and marketing practices of the blockbuster asthma drug Advair and several other drugs.

    Part of the civil settlement also includes claims that the company overcharged the government for drugs. Glaxo did not admit any wrongdoing in the civil settlement.

    Despite the large amount, $3 billion represents only a portion of what Glaxo made on the drugs. Avandia, for example, racked up $10.4 billion in sales, Paxil brought in $11.6 billion, and Wellbutrin sales were $5.9 billion during the years covered by the settlement, according to IMS Health, a data group that consults for drugmakers.

    “So a $3 billion settlement for half a dozen drugs over 10 years can be rationalized as the cost of doing business,” Mr. Burns said.

    Mr. Burns and others have said that to institute real change, executives must be prosecuted criminally or barred from participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, an action known as “exclusion.”

    This has occurred in only a handful of cases, and rarely in a case involving a major pharmaceutical company. In 2011, four executives of the medical device company Synthes were sentenced to less than a year in prison for conducting clinical trials that were not authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.

    That same year, the former chief executive of K.V. Pharmaceutical was sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $1 million for selling misbranded morphine tablets. The previous year, the Department of Health and Human Services excluded him from doing business with the federal government.

    Those in the pharmaceutical industry have stressed that the activities revealed in the recent settlements occurred many years ago, and practices have changed radically since then. The Glaxo settlement includes an agreement by the company to withdraw bonuses from top executives if they engaged in or supervised illegal behavior, believed to be a first.

    “That creates pressure and it creates an element of responsibility,” said Erika Kelton, who represented two of the four whistle-blowers in the Glaxo case. “I think it’s a good step in the right direction.”

    Texas Federal Court Splits Environmental Claims: CERCLA Claims Remain in Federal Court, State Claims are Remanded to State Court

    The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in May v. Apache Corporation, 2012 WL 156547 (S.D.Tex. May 1, 2012) issued an interesting decision on the relationship between federal and state environmental claims and where they can be heard. The case has some parallels to a case pending in the New Jersey State court captioned the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Occidental Chemical Corp., et als.

    In the May case, plaintiffs had filed various state law claims and a jury demand that lingered for four years in the Texas state court arising out of drilling for and production of oil and gas on the plaintiffs’ property. On the eve of trial, plaintiffs amended their pleadings to advance CERCLA causes of action based on alleged groundwater contamination. The defendants promptly removed the entire case to federal court.

    On the remand hearing, the federal court held that CERCLA is an exclusive federal jurisdiction matter and claims brought under CERCLA could not be remanded. Plaintiffs, perhaps regretting the assertion of their CERCLA claims, back-tracked, arguing that their federal causes of action were premature. Premature or not, since they did not dismiss the federal claims, the Court held that those claims had to remain in the federal court.

    The next issue was what to do with the state law claims. If the claims were so related to the federal CERCLA claims that they formed a part of the same case or controversy under Article III analysis, the court would have supplemental jurisdiction. If not, then the court would have to sever and remand the state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(2).

    The court determined that the claims were sufficiently intertwined for supplemental jurisdiction, but noted that if the State claims raise a novel issue of state law, or the state claims substantially predominate over the federal claims, or the state claims are dismissed or such other exceptional circumstances exist, the court could decline jurisdiction under its analysis of 28 U.S.C § 1367(a)

    In reviewing the factors, the court found that the key factor was that the state claims were subject to a jury trial and the federal claims to a bench trial. As a result, the court remanded the state claims. In contrast, in the New Jersey case which was also removed to federal court, the federal court noted that NJDEP had amended its pleadings and pled around CERCLA. See New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et als. v. Occidental Chemical Corp., et als, docket No. 2006 cv 00 401 (Jan. 27, 2006). In cases where the plaintiff has cast its claims as state claims, the federal court only has very narrow grounds for jurisdiction over removed state claims. The New Jersey federal court determined that unless CERCLA completely preempted the state claims, it did not have jurisdiction. Further, the federal court determined that CERCLA did not completely preempt state law and accordingly, remanded the entire action to the state court.



    Both the May case and the Occidental Chemical case illustrate the importance of careful drafting of an environmental complaint.


    John H. Klock is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.


    Bristol’s $5.3 Billion Amylin Deal Heralds Buying Hunger

    Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.’s $5.3 billion deal to buy diabetes drugmaker Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (AMLN) gives Bristol (BMY) immediate access to a market of growing medical need, while heralding a burgeoning hunger among pharmaceutical companies for acquisitions.

    The agreement is the second announced this year for Bristol, and the largest for the industry. It comes after the blood-thinner Plavix, Bristol’s top seller in 2011 at $7.1 billion, faced generic competition for the first time in May.

    Drugmakers last year lost patent protection on products valued at $34 billion in annual sales, an amount that will rise to $147 billion by 2015, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The Bristol deal would be the fifth sealed in 2012 for more than $1 billion, more than the three in each of the previous two years. More deals like this one are coming, said Seamus Fernandez, of Leerink Swann & Co.

    “We are on the cusp of the next consolidation wave,” said Fernandez, a Boston-based industry analyst, by telephone. “There just isn’t enough top-line growth in the industry.”

    AstraZeneca, Pfizer

    Last year, drugmakers “took a little bit of a pause,” he said. “Now, I think we are going to see a reacceleration in that number.” Fernandez identified London-based AstraZeneca Plc (AZN), New York-based Pfizer Inc. (PFE) and Merck (MRK) & Co., of Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, as possible acquirers during the year ahead.

    “AstraZeneca and Pfizer have pretty much been out of the market,” he said. “We should anticipate they will be back. I wouldn’t be surprised with some of the spin outs to see more large acquisitions being considered.”

    Bristol said on June 29 that it agreed to buy San Diego- based Amylin for $31 a share in cash, a 10 percent premium to the June 29 closing price. The New York-based drugmaker also announced it will be paid $3.4 billion by AstraZeneca to help develop Amylin’s drug pipeline.

    Amylin rose 8.9 percent to $30.71 at the close of New York trading. The stock was at $15.39 on March 27, the day before it was reported Bristol had made an unsolicited offer of $22 a share. Bristol gained less than 1 percent to $36.05.

    The AstraZeneca partnership means the companies will share both the risk and the reward of potential treatments.

    Going to Fail

    “Drugmakers say they would do more deals, but the issue with biotech companies is that most of the drugs they’re developing are going to fail,” said Mark Schoenebaum, an analyst at ISI Group in New York, by telephone. “So the biggest issue isn’t the willingness to do a deal, or the appetite to do deals, but rather finding stuff that’s worth buying.

    “When you have good assets coming along you’ll see deals,” Schoenebaum said.

    Amylin offered Bristol two products already approved for sale by U.S. regulators -- the twice-daily diabetes injection Byetta, which generated $518 million in 2011, and a longer- acting form of that drug, called Bydureon, that’s taken just once a week.

    “We believe this is a very strategic transaction for Bristol Myers Squibb,” said Bristol Chief Executive Officer Lamberto Andreotti in a conference call with investors. “It will enhance our already strong diabetes portfolio, something that is very important in light of the significant unmet medical need.”

    Creating Value

    If the easier-to-use Bydureon becomes a $2 billion product, “it will create value” for shareholders, Schoenebaum said. “We saw a lot of interest in Amylin because it’s diabetes and there aren’t a lot of diabetes assets out there. It is increasingly strategic to be in that market.”

    Bristol’s own experimental diabetes product, dapagliflozin, failed to win U.S. marketing approval in January, when the Food and Drug Administration asked for more data to assess its risks and benefits. The treatment, being developed jointly with AstraZeneca, is approved in Europe.

    Diabetes has become a key target for pharmaceutical companies as a result of rising obesity rates and the aging of the Baby Boom generation. About 346 million people globally have the illness, and the number of deaths may double from 2005 to 2030, according to the World Health Organization.

    AstraZeneca, Paris-based Sanofi (SAN) and Merck also made offers during a bidding process, people with knowledge of the process had said.

    Marketing Partnership

    Amylin ended a marketing partnership on Bydureon and Byetta with Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) in November, and had been seeking a partner to sell the medicine outside the U.S. The company began to seek acquisition suitors after rejecting a $22- a-share offer from Bristol in February, people familiar with the matter said earlier this year.

    For Bristol, the purchase is the largest of 19 since 2007, when it began its so-called string of pearls acquisition strategy designed to revitalize the company in the face of patent losses and produce a more diverse stable of products.

    This year, there have been four announced acquisitions of biotechs for more than $1 billion, and one takeover attempt that’s still active, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

    GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s $2.6 billion hostile offer for Human Genome Sciences Inc. is still pending. The two companies have a partnership on the approved lupus drug Benlysta, as well as experimental medicines for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

    Bristol purchased Inhibitex in January for $2.5 billion to gain access to experimental hepatitis C medicines, while Agilent Technologies Inc. bought Danish cancer-diagnostics maker Dako for $2.2 billion to expand its life-science business.

    AstraZeneca took over Ardea Biosciences Inc. for $1.26 billion in April, adding experimental drugs for gout and cancer.

    Amylin was advised by Goldman Sachs & Co. and Credit Suisse Securities LLC. Citigroup Inc. and Evercore Partners Inc. (EVR) are serving as financial advisers to Bristol. Bank of America Merrill Lynch advised AstraZeneca.

    To contact the reporters on this story: Meg Tirrell in New York at mtirrell@bloomberg.net; Ryan Flinn in San Francisco at rflinn@bloomberg.net; Jeffrey McCracken in New York at jmccracken3@bloomberg.net

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reg Gale at rgale5@bloomberg.net

    NIAC Presentation on Regional Resilience Working Group Show citation box

    Europe's Shock Doctrine: Government by the Banks, for the Banks

    The ESM Coup D’Etat in Europe

    On Friday, June 29th, German Chancellor Angela Merkel acquiesced to changes to a permanent Eurozone bailout fund—“before the ink was dry,” as critics complained.  Besides easing the conditions under which bailouts would be given, the concessions included an agreement that funds intended for indebted governments could be funneled  directly to stressed banks.German chancellor Angela Merkel arrives for day two of the summit in Brussels on Friday. (Photograph: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images)

    According to Gavin Hewitt, Europe editor for BBC News, the concessions mean that:

    [T]he eurozone’s bailout fund (backed by taxpayers’ money) will be taking a stake in failed banks.

    Risk has been increased. German taxpayers have increased their liabilities. In future a bank crash will no longer fall on the shoulders of national treasuries but on the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), a fund to which Germany contributes the most.

    In the short term, these measures will ease pressure in the markets. However there is currently only 500bn euros assigned to the ESM. That may get swallowed up quickly and the markets may demand more. It is still unclear just how deep the holes in the eurozone’s banks are.

    The ESM is now a permanent bailout fund for private banks, a sort of permanent “welfare for the rich.”  There is no ceiling set on the obligations to be underwritten by the taxpayers, no room to negotiate, and no recourse in court. Its daunting provisions were summarized in a December 2011 youtube video originally posted in German, titled “The shocking truth of the pending EU collapse!”:

    The treaty establishes a new intergovernmental organization to which we are required to transfer unlimited assets within seven days if it so requests, an organization that can sue us but is immune from all forms of prosecution and whose managers enjoy the same immunity.  There are no independent reviewers and no existing laws apply.  Governments cannot take action against it.  Europe’s national budgets [are] in the hands of one single unelected intergovernmental organization.

    Here is the text of some of the ESM’s provisions:

    [Article 8]  “The authorised capital stock shall be EUR 700 000 [700 billion Euros].”

    [Article 9]:  “ESM Members hereby irrevocably and unconditionally undertake to pay on demand any capital call made on them . . . such demand to be paid within seven days of receipt.”

    [Article 10]: “The Board of Governors . . . may decide to change the authorised capital and amend Article 8 . . . accordingly.”

    [Article 32, paragraph 3]: “The ESM, its property, funding, and assets . . . shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process . . . .”

    [Article 32, paragraph 4]: “The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall . . . be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation, or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.”

    [Article 30]:  “ . . . Governors, alternate Governors, Directors, alternate Directors, as well as the Managing Director and other staff members shall be immune from legal proceedings with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity and shall enjoy inviolability in respect of their official papers and documents.”

    And that was before Merkel’s recent concessions, which allow this open-ended indebtedness to be funneled directly to the banks.

    Why Did Merkel Cave?

    “Reactions back home were devastating,” reported der Spiegel.  “[T]he impression was that [Merkel] had been out-maneuvered by Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti and Spanish Prime Minster Mariano Rajoy.”

    As of June 21, 13 of 17 countries still had not ratified the ESM; and the most important ratification needed was Germany’s, the largest economy in the Eurozone.  Earlier, Angela Merkel had opposed using the bailout fund to pump money directly into struggling European banks.  But at the EU summit that began on Thursday and dragged on well into the night, she finally relented.  Late Friday evening, German lawmakers voted 493-106 in favor of the €700 billion ($890 billion) permanent bailout fund.

    What caused Merkel to back down?  According to an article in The Economist, the late night was “filled with bluff and bluster,” in which

    Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish prime minister . . . , along with Italy’s Mario Monti, had threatened to block any agreement at the summit unless their demands were met. Mr Rajoy obtained satisfaction, but the same is not quite true of Mr Monti, who had been the most adamant of the two.

    Mr Monti declared himself satisfied, but caused considerable irritation to partners. Among the deals he had blocked was the “growth pact”, a mixture of stimulus measures.

    What Monti achieved by this maneuver was not clear:

    “Who needs the growth pact? Not Germany,” said one bemused participant. The euro zone’s fiscal hawks say the bond-buying mechanism will be little different from the existing system. “Mario Monti raised a gun to his head and threatened to shoot himself. In the end he wounded himself in the shoulder,” said one scornful diplomat.

    Maybe.  Or maybe the bond-buying mechanism was not what he was really after.

    The Italian Coup D’Etat

    There is reason to suspect that “Super Mario” Monti may be representing interests other than those of his country.  He rose to power in Italy last November in what critics called a “‘coup d’etat’ engineered by bankers and the European Union.”  He was not elected but stepped in after Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi resigned under duress.

    Monti is not only an “international advisor” to Goldman Sachs, one of the most powerful financial firms in the world, but a leader in the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.  In an article in The New American, Alex Newman calls these clandestine groups “two of the most influential cabals in existence today.”  Monti is listed as a member of the steering committee on the official Bilderberg website and as the European Group chairman on the Trilateral Commission website.

    The Trilateral Commission was co-founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, also Bilderberger attendees.  The Trilateral Commission grew from the thesis in Brzezinski’s 1970 piece Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era that a coordinated policy among developed nations was necessary in order to counter global instability erupting from increasing economic inequality. He wrote in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard that it would be difficult to get a consensus on these issues “except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”

    Naomi Klein calls it “the shock doctrine”—an induced disaster forcing austerity measures on sovereign nations.  In desperation, they would come to heel, relinquishing the sovereign right of governments to an unelected body of technocrats.  And that is what the ESM seems to achieve.

    Rockefeller notoriously wrote in his 2002 autobiography, “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will.  If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

    Implementing the Shock Doctrine

    In another bankers’ coup last November, former Goldman Sachs executive Mario Draghi replaced Jean-Claude Trichet as head of the European Central Bank.  The European Stability Mechanism quickly followed.  It was a permanent rescue facility intended to replace certain temporary facilities as soon as the member states had ratified it, slated to occur by July 1, 2012.  The ESM came to an initial vote in January 2012, when it was passed in the dead of night with barely a mention in the press.

    The recent modifications were also agreed to in the dead of night, ostensibly because Italy and Spain were afflicted with onerously high interest rates.  But there are other ways to bring down interest rates on sovereign debt besides forcing whole countries into open-ended pacts to bail out private banks for unlimited sums in perpetuity, in the hope that the banks might bail the governments out in return.

    The U.S. 2012 budget deficit is significantly worse than either Italy’s or Spain’s, yet somehow the U.S. has managed to keep interest rates on its debt at record lows.  How has it pulled this off?

    One theory is that JPMorgan’s $57 trillion in interest rate swaps have something to do with it.  Another explanation, however, is that the Fed has simply stepped in as lender of last resort and bought up any debt not sold at the low rate set by the Treasury, using “quantitative easing” (money created on a computer screen).  Between December 2008 and June 2011, the Fed bought a whopping $2.3 trillion of U.S. bonds in two rounds of quantitative easing.  Why can’t the European Central Bank do the same thing?  The answer is that there are rules against it, but rules are just arbitrary agreements.  They can be changed by agreement—and often have been, to save the banks.

    As the cynic quoted in The Economist article above observed, the bond-buying mechanism for countries under the ESM will be little different from the existing system.  Mario Monti said the plan will support government bond prices only in countries that comply with fiscal targets, and that it will act as an incentive for governments to follow virtuous policies.  That means avoiding deficits, even if it requires further austerity measures and selling of assets.  On the public level, that could mean national treasures like the Acropolis.  On the private level, The New York Times reported Friday that some desperate out-of-work Europeans were going so far as to sell their kidneys to pay household bills. The shock doctrine, it seems, has come to the doorsteps of privileged Westerners.

    The German diplomats negotiating the ESM did leave open some escape hatches, including a request by Germany’s highest court to the country’s president not to sign the treaties into law until a legal review can be completed.  At least 12,000 complaints are expected to be filed with the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the ESM and the fiscal pact. The legal review could well conclude that the ESM illegally hijacks taxpayer funds for private bank profit.

    It is one thing to pool national resources to bail out other sovereign governments, quite another to write a blank check to bail out the profligate private banks that precipitated the global downturn.  Europe has a strong tradition of publicly-owned banks.  If the people must bear the costs, the people should own the banks and reap the benefits.

    Ellen Brown
    Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. She is president of the Public Banking Institute, http://PublicBankingInstitute.org

    , and has websites at http://WebofDebt.com and http://EllenBrown.com.

    VI. Public Comment: Discussion Limited to Meeting Agenda Items and Previous NIAC Studies Show citation box

    VII. Closing Remarks Show citation box

    Dated: June 25, 2012.

    Nancy Wong,

    Designated Federal Officer for the NIAC.

    [FR Doc. 2012-16143 Filed 6-29-12; 8:45 am]

    BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P

    Document Detail


    Document ID: 2009-0036902
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 11/5/2009 4:36:44 PM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 6
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    AGREEMENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    ARMAN, T W HUTCHENS, JOHN F

    Transparent Feds Unveil DHS; Appalled Civilian Agencies Examine Networks

    Plan Continuous Robed Monitoring Plan

    Connect with Others

    Whether you’re a resident seeking information about the Firewise Communities Program, a member of a recognized Firewise community or a professional involved in fire safety, sharing your experiences is an important part of being “firewise.”



    Whamcloud for exascale research

    Pushing to the limit

    Whether you plan to swim at a pool, the beach, or a lake or river, know how to stay safe in the water.

    Drowning is the fifth leading cause of unintentional injury death in the U.S., and many of these victims are children under the age of 15. Review some tips to help you and your family stay safe in the water.

    Find additional information about water safety:

    Blind vs. Target

    Web Site Navigation – Web masters and managers now have a lot at stake. It is crucial they know how to apply the Section 508 standards to the sites they oversee. What is accessibility all about? What are the standards? Requiring your Web masters and project managers to be knowledgeable in Section 508 will save you millions of dollars in the event of a lawsuit.


    people with disabilities continue to be employed at much lower levels than people without disabilities/the general population.

    Not only do people with disabilities have a significantly higher unemployment rate than the general population, they also have a much lower labor force participation rate. According to the most recent data from the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (April 2012), people with disabilities had a 20.3% labor force participation rate compared to 69.1% for their non-disabled peers, and people with disabilities had an unemployment rate of 12.5% compared to 7.6% for their non-disabled peers. For minorities with disabilities, these disparities are even greater. This represents a significant loss of willing and able talent to the American workforce, a loss of income for people without jobs, and an economic loss to the American economy.

    Challenge Summary:

    Your challenge is to use publicly available information, tools, resources, and employment data to build tools that promote the employment of people with disabilities.

    Each submission should achieve at least one of the following goals:

    • Promote Recruitment Resources for Employers:
      These features should provide recruitment resources for employers to identify individuals with disabilities to hire by using tools such as Career One-Stops Centers, state Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, employment networks, educational institutions and programs, non-profit organizations, and private recruitment resources.
    • Develop Job Training and Skill-Building Tools for Job Seekers:
      These features should include vocational and workforce training resources, apprenticeship, internship, and mentorship resources, resume tips, as well as resources and tools related to “soft skills” (e.g., interview skills, etc.).
    • Facilitate Employment-Related Transportation Options:
      These features should use publically available resources to expand individuals with disabilities access to and knowledge of accessible employment-related transportation options.
    • Expand Web and Information Communication Technology (ICT) Accessibility:
      These features should use publicly available tools regarding website and ICT accessibility that will help employers improve their systems to be accessible to applicants with disabilities, as well as current employees.

    In addition, submissions should:

    • be creative, innovative, and easy to use;
    • provide access to important data and resources;
    • attract users with different skill sets and language preferences;
    • beaccessible (e.g.,compatibleand interoperablewith assistive technology commonly used by individuals with disabilities, such as screen reading and speech recognition software) - *see also rule 9 re: 508 compliance
    • consider partnerships that will ensure sustainability of the app; and
    • be targeted towards a variety of audiences including students, teachers, career counselors, workforce professionals, and women working or seeking work at all levels in a variety of salaried and hourly jobs.

    Submissions should be creative and innovative, offering the public easy access to important data and resources that meet the stated goals of this challenge. Successful apps could take many different forms, such as: interactive and informative games, social or professional networks, or data visualization.

    Submissions may be designed for internet browsers, smartphones, feature phones, or as native Windows or Macintosh applications.

     Additionally, submissions should consider partnerships that will ensure sustainability of the app, and should also consider means to attract users with different skill sets and language preferences.

    Partners: Social Security Administration and Department of Education


    RESURRECTION OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINERS

    The Best Day Ever

    RETURN OF THE TRUE CRUSADER

    Prevenciónes de Emancipacion

    Cabacera del Rio Buenaventura ex jure naturæ status quo ante bellum

    URGENT AND IMMEDIATE EXPEDITED RELIEF

    as Mike and Chantell Sackett can attest, the status quo is already unacceptable.

    The common law is the Will of Mankind issuing from the Life of the People

    Improving the security and resilience of our nation's drinking water and wastewater infrastructures is vital to ensure the provision of clean and safe water to all in the United States. Significant actions are underway to assess and reduce consequences, threats, and vulnerabilities to potential terrorist attacks; to plan for and practice response to natural disasters, emergencies, and incidents; and to develop new security technologies to detect and monitor contaminants and prevent security breaches. Learn more about water security.




    TCUP STEMS TIDE  



    Press Release 12-113
    Predators Have Outsized Influence Over Habitats

    "Securing these sectors will require a prudent and realistic investment in risk management by building the skills and capabilities to accomplish three goals: 1) maintain continuity of function in the face of chronic disturbances 2) develop the means for graceful degradation of function when placed under severe stress and 3) sustain the ability to quickly recover to a desired level of functionality when mitigation measures are overwhelmed. The vast U.S. transportation network cannot be fully inoculated from man-made and natural disasters. By baking-in resilience we can create more robust critical infrastructure platforms that will support our economic and national security imperatives for years to come."


    July 25, 2012, 9:24 a.m. EDT

    AIG is now TARP’s biggest holding

    By Steve Goldstein, MarketWatch

    WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Taxpayers are still on the hook for over $30 billion worth of American International Group’s bailout, the watchdog for the nation’s financial bailout program said Wednesday.

    The special inspector general to the Troubled Asset Relief Program said the New York insurer is now the largest TARP investment.

    AIG 30.15, -0.37, -1.21%
    AIG over a decade

    AIG was bailed out, initially to the tune of $161 billion, after racking up hundreds of billions of dollars in losses by guaranteeing soured mortgage-backed securities through credit-default swaps without setting aside enough money to pay for them.

    Since the bailout, AIG’s balance sheet has been pared to $441.4 billion of liabilities with $105 billion in equity at the end of 2011, compared to $952.2 billion in liabilities with $95.8 billion in assets. AIG also has sold off a host of foreign assets, notably AIA HK:1299 -0.37%  and Alico.

    AIG’s financial products division has cuts its credit-default swap portfolio from $2 trillion in net notional value in 2008 to $168 billion by the end of the first quarter. “The size of AIGFP’s trading book is greatly diminished, but it may come as a surprise to some that any of AIGFP still exists at all,” the report said.

    AIG is likely to come under Federal Reserve regulatory oversight once the Financial Stability Oversight Council names which non-banks are “systemically important” to the financial system.

    In a statement, the Treasury said AIG has taken significant action working with it and the Federal Reserve “to restructure, reduce risk and streamline its operations to focus on its core insurance business.”

    For its part, AIG said it would “welcome additional regulatory oversight” and noted that total government support has dropped by 83%, or $152 billion. AIG remains committed to “making America whole, plus a profit,” a spokesman said in an email.

    More broadly, the TARP program, after expenditures of $416.1 billion, is now projected to lose somewhere between $32 billion to $70 billion for the taxpayer, with $109.1 billion owed as of June 30.

    While 203 banks and credit unions and two automakers have paid back all of their shares, there are still 325 banks in the capital purchase program and another 82 banks and credit unions in the community development capital initiative, in addition to TARP holdings in AIG, General Motors GM -1.16%  and Ally Financial.

    The inspector general also wrote extensively about bank fraud, including the arrest of the CEO of one TARP applicant, the Bank of the Commonwealth in Virginia, which was the eighth-largest bank failure of 2011. Some bank executives turned to fraud instead of admitting to losses during the real-estate downturn, the report said, and the availability of TARP loans was a way “to play the float in concealing past due loans as bankers waited for a market upturn.”

    Some fraud schemes include “extend and pretend” schemes that extend the due date of a payment, changing loan terms and creating new loans to bring delinquent loans current. Fraudulent construction draws, bank-financed sales of bank-owned property or loans, roundtrip transactions creating illusion of capital infusions and “delay and pray” schemes are other fraudulent schemes, the inspector general said.

    Steve Goldstein is MarketWatch's Washington bureau chief.


    The United States will maintain and protect such water rights as have vested and accrued by priority of possession, and by which those rights are primarily regulated.


    NOVA ALBION

    "There is no part of earth here to be taken up, wherein there is not some probable show of gold or silver." -Francis Petty's account of Sir Francis Drake's voyage to the pacific coast during the historic circumnavigation of the globe aboard the "hind", and Drake's claiming these lands for England, in 1579.


    Obama wants cheaper pennies and nickels

    @CNNMoney February 21, 2012: 12:35 PM ET
    Treasury is looking at changing the mix of metals used to make pennies and nickels in a cost-savings effort.

    Treasury is looking at changing the mix of metals used to make pennies and nickels in a cost-savings effort.

    (Maybe recycled oats? -ed.)

    p.s. even cheaper after its been through the horse.

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The U.S. Mint is facing a problem -- especially during these penny-pinching times. It turns out it costs more to make pennies and nickels than the coins are worth.

    And because of that, the Obama administration this week asked Congress for permission to change the mix of metal that goes to make pennies and nickels, an expensive recipe that has remained unchanged for more than 30 years.

    To be precise, it cost 2.4 cents to make one penny in 2011 and about 11.2 cents for each nickel.

    Given the number of coins that the mint produces -- 4.3 billion pennies and 914 million nickels last year alone, those costs add up pretty quickly: a little more than $100 million for each coin.

    But even though Treasury has been studying new metals since 2010, it has yet to come up with a workable mix that would definitely be cheaper, and it has no details yet as to what metals should be used or how much it would save to do so.

    Even if a cheaper metal can be used, it might not take the cost of a penny down to less than a penny.

    Just the administrative cost of minting 4.3 billion pennies costs almost a half-cent per coin by itself, leaving precious little room to make a penny for less than a cent, no matter the raw material used.

    Funny money? 11 local currencies

    The raw material cost of the metals used in a current penny is only about 0.6 cents per coin, according to prices quoted on the London Metal Exchange, and a breakdown of a penny's composition from the mint. The mint paid 1.1 cents on average for the metal used in a penny in 2011, but that is the cost of ready-to-stamp blanks from the supplier, not raw material traded on commodity markets.

    There have been times in recent years when a run-up in zinc and copper prices has taken the raw material value of a penny above one cent.

    That's the case for a nickel today. Its more expensive metal mix means the raw materials in each are worth almost 6 cents per coin, based on current market prices. (States eye silver and gold currencies)

    Despite popular belief, since 1982 pennies have only been copper plated, not copper through and through. Much less expensive zinc makes up 97.5% of the mass of a penny, the rest is a copper coating.

    Nickels actually have much more copper in them -- 75% copper and 25% nickel. It's the same mix they have always had except for the World War II years, when silver and manganese replaced the nickel and some of the copper. (see correction below)

    The mint did make steel pennies for one year -- in 1943 -- when copper was needed for the war effort. And steel might be a cheaper alternative this time. Steel is roughly one-quarter the price of zinc on the London Metal Exchange.

    Treasury had already made a cost-saving move in December when it stopped making dollar coins.

    Check commodity prices

    With 1.4 billion surplus presidential dollar coins sitting in bank vaults waiting to be circulated, and American consumers showing little appetite to start using the coins, Treasury estimates the halt in production of the coins will save about $50 million a year.

    Treasury spokesman Matt Anderson said Treasury has the authority to stop making the dollar coins on its own, but it can't change the mix of metals in pennies without permission.

    As for the suggestion of some that the penny be abandoned altogether, Anderson said only "that is not a proposal we have put forward."

    Related Articles
    States seek currencies of silver and gold

    WORLDWIDE POCKETS, GLOBAL CHANGE

    certain dangerous diet deficiencies

    A penny for your thoughts?

    Suppose humanity is confronted with a fundamental choice: nutrition; or Bank Peonage and the federal government's infernal revenue slavery to fiat currency (neo-commi-capitalism)?

    You have to choose. What will the future be?

    The choice is simple, and concerns equitable distribution of the strategic minerals copper and zinc; valuable industrial resources and elements from which most coins are made;  that are essential dietary nutrients: the choice is between maintaining the world’s  capitalist/socialist/banker’s government status quo of hegemony and claimed ownership controlling the commerce and economics of possession and priority by the issue of coin & currency & credit to regulate the use of these minerals for their numismatic and industrial applications; versus an alternative world view of sustainable  sharing of these resources as essential nutritional minerals; agricultural resources to which by the implications of Judeo-Christian morals and ethical principles all humanity shares a natural and god-given right. How will you choose? 

    Congress was originally understood to have no power to make anything legal tender outside of federal territories, under Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17 and Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 2, but in 1868 a Supreme Court packed by Pres. Ulysses S. Grant, in the Legal Tender Cases, allowed Congress to make paper currency issued by the U.S. Treasury, backed by gold, legal tender on state territory, a precedent that remains controversial to this day, when courts allow paper currency not backed by anything to be considered "legal tender".

    $50 note

    Seventh Amendment

    The only money amount in the Constitution or its amendments is in the Seventh Amendment:

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    In 1789 the "dollar" was a coin, the Spanish taler, containing 371.25 grains of pure silver, or 416 grains of silver of standard (coin grade) purity. A troy ounce, the standard measurement unit for precious metals, is 480 grains, so a "dollar" contains 0.7734 troy ounce of pure silver, and 20 such coins would weigh 17.3333 troy ounces and contain 15.46875 troy ounces of pure silver. One can use the Oanda Currency Converter below to find out what the current value of that amount of bulk silver would be in federal reserve notes. For example, on June 15, 2000, it would be about $87.71 in federal reserve notes. However, keep in mind that the world trading price for gold or silver is the bulk, wholesale price, for ingots, in minimum quantities of 400 troy ounces, and the trading is generally only a tranfer of title and not a physical delivery of the ingots, for which an additional transport charge may be made. As single coins it would have about twice that bulk value, so the constitutional threshold under the Eighth Amendment would be closer to $176 in federal reserve notes. That would be the minimum "value in controversy" that would preserve the right to trial by jury in a civil case.


    • Article I, Section 8 declares specifically what Congress can do (Section 9 makes some specific declarations of what they can't do); Section 10 declares specifically what the States cannot do. Included in there is that they can't print currency ("emit bills of credit"), that they can't coin money, AND that they can't "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". Now, that's pretty clear: if a State owes money to anyone, it can't "make a tender" (offer to pay the debt) to those entities in anything but gold or silver coin; and if the State is owed money, the State can't accept any tender made except if it is made in gold or silver coin.

      (For the understanding of this phrase "to make something a tender in payment of debt" see the original 1828 Webster's Dictionary - "TENDER: In law, an offer, either of money to pay a debt, or of service to be performed, in order to save a penalty or forfeiture which would be incurred by non-payment or non-performance; as the tender of rent due, or of the amount of a note or bond with interest. To constitute a legal tender, such money must be offered as the law prescribes; the offer of bank notes is not a legal tender.")

      To answer the second part of this question, Article I, Section 10 has not been amended. No matter what Congress does - and no matter whether or not they have violated the Constitution with our current monetary system - the Constitution remains very clear: No State is allowed to make or accept payments in anything but gold or silver coins. It's not up to the federal government to determine whether or not States can now disobey that direct prohibition, any more than it's up to the federal government to determine whether or not States can now disobey the direct prohibition on passing an ex post facto Law or granting any Title of Nobility. The Constitution says the State CANNOT do it - so the State must simply obey the Constitution, NO MATTER WHAT the federal government says or does. It is our duty as a State, and it is the duty of our State's elected officials, in keeping with their Oath before God, to pass laws that conform to the directives of the U.S. Constitution. Again, we can preface any question we may have, when possible, with this statement: "Since the U.S. Constitution requires every state to ONLY use gold and silver coins in payments to and by the State, then... [insert question here]". The key is to figure out HOW to do this, since we are required TO do this.

      So, in passing the State Constitutional Tender Act - or any other bill that would do something similar - the State would not be responding to any failing of the federal government; it would be acting in obedience to the U.S. Constitution, from which the State and federal governments derive their just powers.

    • How would the gold and silver be weighed at different banks yet in a standard fashion -- fair to the customer?
      Banks would have no need to weigh the gold and silver; the U.S. mint would have already done that for them, just as it has done for all other forms of legal tender. This is because this bill specifies that the gold and silver being talked about is "gold and silver coins minted by the United States" (Georgia Code Sections 7.9.2, 7.9.3, 50.37.2) which are very clear in what their weight and fineness are; and it specifies that the value of these coins for purposes of payment of State obligations is to be fixed by a standard measurement recognized worldwide (the London Fixed Price). The customer and the banks are completely protected in this bill, because the "gold and silver coins minted by the United States" required for use are already "legal tender" under 31 U.S.C. § 5112 and Pub. L. 89, 81, 79 Stat. 254, noted in the bill.
    • How will the State detect manipulated or counterfeit coins?
      Quite easily. Manipulated coins -- ones, for example, that have been clipped, shaved, or filed to remove some of their precious-metal contents -- as well as out-and-out counterfeits can be readily detected with inexpensive devices already commercially available, and commonly in use by dealers in precious metals. Moreover, most bad coins will probably be discovered by simple visual inspection alone.
    • Where would the banks keep the gold and silver they receive from depositors?
      The same place they always kept it in the past, before the introduction of unbacked Federal Reserve Notes: in their vaults. They still have those! Under the Constitutional Tender Act, banks and lending institutions chartered by the state, and any bank or lending institution serving as a depository for the state or any department or agency of the state, are required to simply add three types of accounts to they current FRN-based accounts they currently offer: Pre-1965 Silver accounts, Silver Eagle accounts, and Gold Eagle accounts. Those accounts are to be segregated from all other types of currency, and withdrawals must be made in the same currency as deposits, to avoid the possibility of monetization by the banks.
    • Is it really constitutional and otherwise legal for Georgia to use and require gold and silver coins for all transactions with the State?
      Absolutely. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To coin Money"; and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 provides that "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". Congress has authorized the coinage of silver and gold. See 31 U.S.C. §§ 5112(a)(1-7) (gold) and 5112(e) (silver). Congress has declared this coinage to be "legal tender." See 31 U.S.C. §§ 5103 and 5112(h).

      In fact, the Supreme Court has squarely held that Congress lacks any constitutional power to specify what the States shall use as "legal tender" or media of exchange in the exercise of their reserved sovereign functions. See Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71 (1869); and Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701 (1884). As the proposed legislation deals with Georgia's reserved sovereign functions, it comes within these decisions.

    • I have a Federal Reserve Note that says on it, "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE". Doesn't that mean that everyone has to use FRNs as money?
      Yes it does - unless the U.S. Constitution specifically says otherwise. Laws passed by Congress, such as legal tender laws, cannot contradict the Constitution. Article I, Section 10 states very clearly: "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." Therefore, if any State accepts or pays with - in other words, "tenders" - any other "Thing" (such as Federal Reserve Notes) except gold or silver coins, it is in violation of the Constitution. It's that simple.
    • Constitutional Tender Act
      The United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". This means that no State can make something besides gold or silver a "tender in payment" (which means they cannot "make something else an offer as payment") for any debts, which would include debts owed by and to the State. However, EVERY State in the United States of America HAS made some other "Thing" an offer as payment - they have by law declared that they will accept, and pay out, Federal Reserve Notes for any debts owed by or to them. Therefore, every State is in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Thus the need for the "Constitutional Tender Act" -- a bill template that can be introduced in every State legislature in the nation, returning each of them to adherence to the United States Constitution's actual legal tender provisions.


    California, as well as our neighboring States of Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado; by virtue of their position upon the continental edge of the North American tectonic plate and the Pacific plates subduction underneath it, have deposits of significant gold and silver resources recoverable by modern mining practices. Therefore, it is in the interest of the people of the United States, and our trading partners around the world, to restore the integrity of our currency and "the full faith and credit of the United States" by restoring the constitution, and the constitutional mandate of Article 1, Section 10: "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts".



    Iron Mountain and the Lost Confidence Mine initiate  "Save America's Forests"


    Iron Mountain Mines ( first located as the "Lost Confidence Mine" in 1880) was sold by it's original owner's Camden & Co. (Camden, Magee, and Sallee), in early 1894 to the Matheson Co. of London, who formed the Mountain Copper Co. Ltd. and discovered it's huge copper deposits.

    They were part of the Jardine Matheson empire, famous for the Opium Wars in China and the founders of Hong Kong, also the first private owners of the Rio Tinto Mine in Spain, they were affiliated with Cecil Rhodes and the Rothschilds syndicate, owned the New Jersey Refining Works, etc.


    Lords of Opium (Adapted from Amoy Magic--Guide to Xiamen)
    Photograph of opium smokers from Smith, 1908 He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition burns a picture to obtain the ashes. Chinese Proverb

    For over a century, Western nations trafficked in opium on a scale that dwarfs any modern Colombian multi billion dollar drug empire, yet today we Westerners know little about it.  We don't learn about it in high school history--or even college, for that matter.  I had an American professor in Xiamen tell me that he thought the war was fought to keep China from exporting opium. 

    Most Westerners by far opposed the trade.   Even the British opposed it.  The entire British parliament opposed the 2nd Opium War--and was dissolved.   In the 1880s, when the U.S. made it illegal for Americans to engage in the opium trade, a Chinese leader said, "This is the first time that I've seen a Christian nation act like a Christian country."  But the trafficking continued until, by the 1920s, fully half of Europe’s Asian profits derived from opium.   While only asmall minority benefited from the trade, that minority controlled the fate of half the world's population in China and India, and dictated Western policy as well.

    Just Say No? opium addict smoking pipe woodcut   China, not America, started the first “Just Say No!” anti-drug program. Chinese leaders appealed to our sense of morality and justice, and the “Way of Heaven.” The West responded with a “Just Say Yes!” campaign and two wars to implement it, and America’s ex-President Adams made our first complaint against China’s human rights by declaring that her refusal to import opium was a violation of ‘the rights of men and nations.’

    Before my quick overview of the Opium Wars, lets read "The Opium Den," from Reverend John Macgowan's "The Story of the Amoy Mission" (1889, p.180).





    Informing Decision Makers -- Linking Science to Water Management and Protection

    Law's Day de novo !

    Mine Camp.

    Rollback to 1862, when the chariot of the democratic government’s wheels of justice in motion are in a quagmire of uncertainty on the trail of constitutional safety.

    ("State troopers and mounted deputies bombarded 600 praying Negroes with tear gas today and then waded into them with clubs, whips and ropes, injuring scores. . . . The Negroes started out today to walk the 50 miles to Montgomery to protest to [Governor] Wallace the denial of Negro voting rights in Alabama"); Banner, Aid for Selma Negroes, N. Y. Times, Mar. 14, 1965, p. E11 ("We should remember March 7, 1965 as `Bloody Sunday in Selma.' It is now clear that the public officials and the police of Alabama are at war with those citizens who are Negroes and who are determined to exercise their rights under the Constitution of the United States").

    OFFICIAL MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE-


    Ultimate Arbiter is the People
    "it would be of little use to have laws so voluminous that they cannot be read or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." - James Madison

    “insufficiency of the present Confederation to the preservation of the Union.” publius

    On June 1, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was expected to appear at or send a representative to a hearing of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Oversight.

    No one from the EPA showed up for the hearing.

    “The EPA is absent”, said Environmental crusader Erin Brockovich, “We have 30,000 Superfund sites that aren’t cleaned,” she complains.

    “With the EPA shoving more policies down industry’s throat, you can’t get them to comply with what’s on the books,” she says of the agency’s pile-it-on approach to regulation. “You almost set them up into a position where they cannot comply.”

    “I’m not going to sit here and vilify industry,” she says. “I will not do it. I think they have an opportunity to do the right thing. I’m not going to blame it all on government either. But they have to admit their failures.”

    Conversations with government officials, she says, can be incredibly frustrating: “It’s like, my God, I feel like I’m talking to a 2-year-old.”

    Red-scare in Redbluff

    Tool of special interests and foreign corporations Earthjustice attorney Mike Sherwood took up the fight back then and managed to get the federally financed hybrid sportfish "winter-run chinook salmon" being listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.


    Articles and Tools

    EPA Source Water Protection Page

    Managing Watersheds in the Face of Climate Change, Presentation by Dr. Holly Hartmann, September 16, 2010 (13.4 MB PDF file)

    “Water, Climate Change and Forests: Watershed Stewardship for a Changing Climate,” USDA Forest Service, June 2010 (9.5 MB PDF file)

    “Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy & Action,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2010 (4.5 MB PDF file)

    “Healthy Headwaters Initiative,” Draft Concept Paper, Mike Anderson, November 2009

    “Using Forestry to Secure America’s Water Supply,” USDA Forest Service, January 2000

    “Managing the PNW Headwaters in a Changing Climate,” Brian Staab (20 MB PDF file)

    “Climate Change Impacts on Headwater Systems and Implications for Water Supply,” Jeremy Littell (17.5 MB PDF file)

     

    Pacific Institute Topics Publications Resources Press Center AboutUs Contact
    end of navigation section
    space
    space
    space

    space

    The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on
    the California Coast

    Sea-level rise california coastIn an analysis prepared for three California state agencies, the Pacific Institute estimates that 480,000 people; a wide range of critical infrastructure; vast areas of wetlands and other natural ecosystems; and nearly $100 billion in property along the California coast are at increased risk from flooding from a 1.4-meter sea-level rise – if no adaptation actions are taken.

    The Pacific Institute report, The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast, concludes that sea-level rise will inevitably change the character of the California coast, and that adaptation strategies must be evaluated, tested, and implemented if the risks identified in the report are to be reduced or avoided. Populations and critical infrastructure at risk are shown in detailed maps prepared by the Pacific Institute available online here.

    The report also explores how vulnerability to sea-level rise will be heightened among Californians who do not have a vehicle, do not speak English, or who live near hazardous waste facilities. Low-income households and communities of color are over-represented in these more vulnerable groups. 

    Funded by the California Energy Commission, California Department of Transportation, and the Ocean Protection Council, the report was authored by the Pacific Institute's Matthew Heberger, Heather Cooley, Pablo Herrera, Peter H. Gleick, and Eli Moore.

    Learn More


    Water Security Highlights



    CERCLA VIOLATES DUE PROCESS, AND IS “capable of repetition” while “evading review.”




    natural news

    Experts Give Governments Low Marks for Sustainable Development

    Nearly 77 percent of sustainability experts think a major catastrophe will have to occur for national governments to take action on sustainable development, according to survey released by GlobeScan and SustainAbility.

    Congressional hearing exposes EPA failure

    In this project, the EPA moved ahead arbitrarily to impose extremely costly rules and regulations, based on incomplete science, ignored the input of the communities involved, and violated due process rights

    Thank you for contacting the White House.

    President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible Administration in history.  That begins with taking comments and questions from you, the American people, through our website.

    Fish-friendly project; people? Not so nice.

    Full Committee Hearing - Examining Priorities and Effectiveness of the Nation’s Science Policies

    2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 | Jun 20, 2012 10:00am

    Witnesses

    Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

    questions over the due diligence, open process, and scientific basis for the Agency’s action

    Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH)

    The day when we stop calling them “environmentalists” and simply the communists that they are.

    JOINT SUPREME

    Marxist-controlled EPA

    JUDICIAL REVIEW -- JOINT SUPREME COURTS DIRECT REVIEW -- DISTRICT COURT DECISION -UNCONSTITUTIONAL 'CERCLA' STATUTE

    writ of proclamation ad capias utlugatum, pro falso clamore suo;

    Grassroots Campaign
    Word
    Word
    The Ultimate Grassroots Campaign
    With marijuana legalization initiatives on the ballots in several swing states, the only thing that could stop highly motivated, organized and punctual pot smokers from voting Obama is a "Planet Earth" marathon.

     

     

     

    From:

    gsapubs-mailer@alerts.stanford.edu

    To:

    <john@ironmountainmine.com>

     

    Revengeo

    Home

    Featured Volume

    Archive

    GSA Publications

    E-Mail Alerts

    Contact Us


    Joint litigation: ENRD and NAAG have jointly developed:

    Joint State/Federal Environmental Enforcement Guideline

    REAGAN UNDERGROUND

    “The continued exercise of a franchise, without right, is a continuously renewed usurpation on which a new cause of action arises each day.”


    In a continuing nuisance action, a new cause of action accrues every day until the interference comes to an end. Wilshire (1993) at 744. A plaintiff may bring successive continuing nuisance actions as long as the harmful interference continues. Id. Because a new action arises every day that the nuisance continues, the three year statute of limitations begins running on that new claim each day. Therefore, the real affect of the statute of limitations on a continuing nuisance action is the extent of damages available. Remedies are limited to injunctive relief to abate the nuisance or an action for damages that accrued during the nuisance limitations period, or both. Prospective damages are unavailable. Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth., (Cal. 1985) 705 P.2d 886, 869.

    Pollution cases, however, present peculiar problems in applying traditional nuisance doctrines. Often they do not fit easily into the continuing-use/permanent-encroachment dichotomy because the harmful effects of the pollution may continue beyond the termination of the activity that gave rise to them. The Mangini court offered one test to assist in the application of nuisance law in an environmental case. Other courts have used other tests to classify a nuisance.

                            1. Mangini Test

     

    In 1996, the California Supreme Court, in deciding an environmental contamination case, observed that Plaintiff's land may be subject to a continuing nuisance even though defendant's offensive conduct ended years ago. Mangini III (1996) 12 Cal. 4th at 1103. That is because the "continuing" nature of the nuisance refers to the continuing damage caused by the offensive condition, not to the acts causing the offensive condition to occur. Id., at 1223. In Mangini, the court found that “abatable” means that the nuisance can be remedied “at a reasonable cost by reasonable means.Id. Under this test, a nuisance is considered “permanent” if it is not abatable at a reasonable cost by reasonable means. It is “continuing” if it is abatable at a reasonable cost by reasonable means. In considering the reasonableness of the cost, courts have weighed the cost of the remediation against the detriment to the plaintiff from a failure to remediate. Beck Dev. Co. (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4th at 1222 (finding that the cost of remediation greatly outweighed the benefit to plaintiff in performing the remediation). This can be done by comparing the cost of the remediation to the loss in property value of the plaintiff’s property. Id. Reasonableness can include the consideration of monetary expense, burden on the public, and cost of remediation versus the value of the land. Id. at 1221-1222. The issue of reasonableness is a question of fact to be decided by a properly instructed jury. Starrh & Starrh Cotton Growers v. Aera Energy LLC (2007) 153 Cal. App. 4th 583, 602. The following list provides some examples of have the Mangini test has been applied in a variety of environmental cases:

                            Permanent: The court found that an underground, migrating plume of toxic waste constituted a permanent nuisance because plaintiff did not know the full extent of the contamination or the expected cleanup costs. Therefore, it could not be abated at a reasonable cost by reasonable means. Mangini III (1996) 12 Cal. 4th at 1103.

     

                            Permanent: By special verdict, a jury found that it was “unknown” whether oil spilled on the ground that had allegedly migrated downhill was abatable at a reasonable cost by reasonable means. The court found that the nuisance was “permanent” because the evidence did not show that the contamination reasonably could be abated. McCoy v. Gustafson (2009) 180 Cal. App. 4th 56, 64

                            Permanent: An oil reservoir installed by a previous land owner was found to be a permanent nuisance under the “Reasonable Cost by Reasonable Means Test” because the only detriment to the plaintiff was his inability to develop the entire property for single-family residences. While this would be the highest yielding use of the property, the plaintiff had other options for the small portion of the property that did not meet residential standards. There was no evidence to establish that the buried oil was migrating to other properties or into public water supplies, or that it was otherwise injurious to the public. Therefore, plaintiff provided no evidence to assess the actual detriment suffered if abatement were denied. Beck Dev. Co. (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4th at 1222.

     

                            2. Other Tests

    Although the Mangini test is the most applicable to environmental nuisance cases and is generally applied by courts in environmental nuisance actions, this section will examine other tests that courts may consider in addition to the Mangini test in making a determination. These older tests are still relevant because some California courts do not simply pick one test. Rather, they take the stance that the determination of whether something is “abatable” is made on a case by case basis, taking “guidance from, but not straightjacket conformance with, earlier decisions.” Beck Dev. Co. (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4th at 1217.

                            a. Varying Impact Over Time

     

    Some courts have found that contamination may be shown to be a “continuing” nuisance by evidence that the contaminants continue to migrate through land and groundwater causing new and additional damage on a continuous basis. Beck Development Co. (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4th at 1218-1219. In Arcade Water Dist. v. United States (9th Cir. 1991) 940 F.2d 1265, plaintiff argued that chemical contamination of soils by an enterprise that ceased operations several years prior to the commencement of the suit was liable for a continuing nuisance on the basis that the contamination continued to leach into plaintiff’s well. Id. at 1268. It was this leaching of contaminants, not the operations of the facility, that was relevant in characterizing the nuisance. Id. The court found it sufficient that plaintiff submitted an affidavit that the contamination to their well may abate on its own over time absent the continuing contamination. Id. Therefore, the nuisance was abatable and was characterized by the court as a continuing nuisance.

    The Field-Escandon court found a buried sewer line to be a permanent nuisance after identifying the main feature of a continuing nuisance is that its impact may vary over time. Field-Escandon v. DeMann (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 228, 234. Relying on the Field-Escandon decision, the court found buried underground telephone lines to be a permanent nuisance because they were intended to be permanent structures and had caused long standing, unchanging damage. Spar v. Pac. Bell. (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1480, 1482. In Kafka v. Bozio (1923) 191 Cal. 746, defendant’s foundation wall shifted so that it projected into plaintiff’s premises after an earthquake. Defendant built a new building on this foundation wall, causing it to continually sink further onto plaintiff’s property. Although permanent structures, such as buildings, are generally found to be permanent nuisances, this court found the nuisance to be “continuing,” based on the fact that the condition was continually worsening and was maintained by the defendant. Id. Additionally, some courts have found that an insufficiency of evidence to assess the possibility of changes over time should be held against the plaintiff, not the defendant. Beck Dev. Co. (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4th at 1218.

                            b. Continuing-Use vs. Permanent Encroachment Test

     

    Some courts consider a more traditional, continuing-use test. This test examines the use of the property that causes the nuisance to determine whether the nuisance is abatable. Under this test, a nuisance is considered “permanent” if the “damages are not dependent upon any subsequent use of the property but are complete when the nuisance comes into existence.” Baker, (1985) 39 Cal. 3d at 868-869. A “continuing” nuisance is an ongoing or repeated disturbance, which discontinuing of an activity would terminate. Id. In Baker, plaintiff’s complaints about a neighboring airport causing noise, smoke, and vibrations from flights were found to be a continuing nuisance because the plaintiff was complaining about the activity of the neighbor, rather than an encroachment erected upon their land. The nuisance could have been abated by the discontinuance of the activity. Baker (Cal. 1985) 705 P.2d at 869-870. In applying this test, the court in Beck found that an oil reservoir installed by a previous landowner was found to be a permanent nuisance under the continuing-use test. The court based this decision on the fact that the plaintiff was “complaining of the location of a substance rather than ongoing activities of the defendant.” Beck Dev. Co. (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4th at 1218.

                            II. Statement of the Law: Strict Liability

     

    Strict liability for an ultrahazardous activity is subject to the same three-year statute of limitations for injury to real property. Code Civ. Proc., § 338(b); Wilshire, (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th at 743. This three-year statute of limitations is moderated by the same CERCLA discovery rule. Under this rule, subjective suspicion is not required. If a person becomes aware of facts which would make a reasonably prudent person suspicious, he or she has a duty to investigate further and is charged with knowledge of matters which would have been revealed by such an investigation. Mangini II (1991) 230 Cal. App. 3d at 1150.

    The court has found that even where a soil test did not reveal contamination, a plaintiff can be charged with knowledge if a reasonably prudent investigation would have revealed such contamination. Wilshire, (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th at 740 (finding the statute of limitations began running at the point the plaintiff should have discovered the contamination based on a reasonably prudent investigation, time-barring a claim for strict liability—ultrahazardous activity). Therefore, the statute of limitations for ultrahazardous activity commences once the plaintiff has presumptive knowledge of that activity. Id.


                            III. Conclusion

     

    Until a court clarifies the applicability of these tests in the context of environmental disputes, it is unclear how and when which test applies to determining whether the statute of limitations has expired. Furthermore, because the issue of “abatability” is largely factual, it may be inappropriate to ask the court to determine whether the claim is barred by the statute of limitations in a motion for summary judgment. Defendants are left rolling the dice in leaving a jury to decide whether the contaminated common law bars their opponents claims.

    Determining that EPA was wrong regardless of the legal standard that is applied, the Court invalidated EPA as “entirely disingenuous,”


    The Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning Approach Framework assists EPA regional offices, states, and local governments to develop voluntary storm and wastewater management plans and implement effective integrated approaches that will protect public health by reducing overflows from wastewater systems and pollution from stormwater.

    EPA ends segregation!

    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES FOR COMMUNITIES (TASC) (PRESOL)
    SOL: SOL-HQ-12-00004
    POC: Wanda Carrier,
    WEB: FBO.gov Permalink at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/EPA/OAM/HQ/SOL-HQ-12-00004/listing.html
    NAICS: 541620. The purpose of this synopsis is to notify potential offeror's of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Superfund Remediation Technology Innovation (OSTRI) requirement to provide Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC). This requirement will provide assistance services in the following areas: technical needs assessment, community advisory group/panel formation, meeting facilitation, technical document review and interpretation, presentations, training, workshop organizing and delivery, community educational materials and program analysis and support, project reports and community environmental job-training programs. The contractor will be required to perform Technical Assistance Services for Communities according to the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), in accordance with terms and conditions of the resulting contract. The draft (PWS) is posted at http://www.epa.gov/oamsrpod/ersc/TASC/index.htm. The Agency expects to finalize the (PWS) prior to release of the actual request for proposal. It is the Government's intent to award one Fixed Rate Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with cost reimbursable elements (i.e. other direct costs, travel, etc.) using a Total Small Business Set Aside. The anticipated period of performance includes a twenty four (24) month Base Period, one twelve (12) month Option Period, one twenty four (24) month Option Period and one twenty four (24) month Award Term, with a potential contract period of performance totaling eighty-four (84) months. The total dollar value of this procurement is estimated to be between $20- $25 million (inclusive of all contract years). The North American Industry Classification Standard (NAICS) code for this procurement is 541620, Environmental Consulting Services. The solicitation for this procurement is anticipated to be released on or about 15 days from the posting of the synopsis. Prospective offerors are hereby notified that Conflicts of Interest (COI) concerns are to be indentified and mitigation plans offered in response to the RFP. In addition, EPA will evaluate written responses to the solicitations. Offerors will be evaluated on factors which may include Technical Approach, Technical Capacity and Capability, Past Performance and Management Approach. This synopsis, amendments and other information related to this procurement as well as any subsequent procurement notifications will be posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, at: www.fbo.gov and the EPA's website, at: http://www.epa.gov/oamsrpod/ersc/TASC/index.htm. All interested parties should check these sites frequently for updates. The anticipated award date for this requirement is on or around September 28, 2012. Contract award will be made using a best value approach, with technical capability being of greater importance than cost or price. Regardless of the competitive nature of the award, the contract awarded must be technically acceptable and meet cost reasonableness standards. At this time phone calls related to this procurement are not being accepted. Please submit any questions or inquiries related to this notice via e-mail ONLY to Wanda Carrier at carrier.wanda@epa.gov and Nicole Hairston at hairston.nicole@epa.gov. Thank you for your interest.
    CITE: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=02d32b14071d10aeede3d2319098d980&tab=core&_cview=0
    Posted: 06/06/12
    SPONSOR: SRRPOD US Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: 3805R Washington DC 20460
    PUBLICATION DATE: June 8, 2012
    ISSUE: FBO-3849

    SUPREME COURT PLURALITY DECISION (JUSTICE SCALIA) ON FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTION

    The jurisdictional standard is determined by the terms of the act. In SWANCC, the Supreme Court determined that the act was clear and should be read as written to avoid the constitutional questions raised by a broad interpretation of the act. As written -- If we look at 1251(a), Congress declares that its purpose is to protect the integrity of the Nation's waters. It used that term, Nation's waters. And then in -- in 1251(a)(1), it says it will accomplish this by eliminating the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters, showing that it knows how to distinguish between all waters and navigable waters. And then in 1251(b), Congress says we will respect and defer to the States' primary responsibility to address local water pollution and to manage local land and water use. So the way that Congress intended to address this issue was to defer to the States to regulate pollutants upstream while Congress -- or while the Federal Government regulates downstream. That's a perfectly rational approach to this national problem. Congress determined that it would defer to the States instead of exercising any further power beyond its channels authority."

    Regulations as the Congress shall make." This power of Congress has rarely been exercised, except to refine the procedures for obtaining Court review of lower court decisions; over the years the trend has been for Congress to allow the Court maximum discretion in deciding whether to accept or reject a case. Of course, the very concept of Congress "allowing" the Court such discretion only reinforces that phrase in Section 2: ". . . supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The Court is still beholden to Congress as to what cases it may hear, and under what set of regulations that elected body of representatives drafts and approves. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power . It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature . This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body . The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.


     



    The raiser shall cease evils and wickedness, for thy commit falsehood, stranger.

    When you shall go, that the judgment might be all your shields gone.

    I will spread my net upon you, I will bring you down as the fowls of Heaven; I will chastise you, as your congregation has heard.

    For I know your manifold transgressions afflicting the just and poor in the gate from his right.

    Love the good and establish your judgment in the gate for perverting the balance of deceit.

    Ye are cursed with a curse, for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

    And I will rebuke the devourer for your sake.

    We shall return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serves God, and he that serves not.
    U.S. Land Managers want to neglect more of the nations lands at your expense!


    Senate transportation bill funds more federal government land grabs


    By Rebekah Rast — The U.S. Senate has approved of a $109 billion bill that provides two years of funding for transportation and transit projects around the country.

    The bill may or may not be taken up by the U.S. House Representatives depending on if they choose to write a separate House bill, but hopefully what will be left out of any final version is an amendment by Montana U.S. Sen. Max Baucus.  His amendment funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to the tune of $1.4 billion for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 — quite a jump from the $323 million it is currently receiving in FY 2012.

    Why does the LWCF need such a boost from Congress?

    This Fund helps purchase and protects lands across the country.  Evidently the line of thinking within the Senate is more U.S. lands are in need of being purchased and protected by the federal government.

    The federal government owns almost 650 million acres of land in the U.S. That’s about 30 percent of all the land area in the nation and includes national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.  In other words, it’s equivalent to 1 out of every 3 acres in the U.S. — 1 out of every 2 acres in the West, says Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT), a member on the Natural Resources Committee and ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

    And now the Senate thinks the government needs even more land.

    Chuck Cushman, executive director of the American Land Rights Association located in Washington State, has dedicated his life to stopping federal land grabs and limiting trust funds such as the LWCF.  He says this big boost of funds from the Senate endangers all land owners in or near federally protected lands.

    “Inholders, owners of private property within federally owned areas, will be threatened first,” Cushman warns.  “This is no Smokey the Bear coming in, this is heavy-handed, land-buying gangsters that don’t care how many landowners get hurt.”

    These massive land grabs have had proven negative impacts on job markets, economic development, education and tax revenues for those states that house these lands.

    For example, the state of Utah is already at a disadvantage when it comes to funding for its education system.  About two-thirds of the state, almost 70 percent, is owned by the federal government.  Though the federal government said much of this land would be sold upon the state achieving statehood and that 5 percent of the proceeds would go directly to fund education, it has yet to happen.

    With two-thirds of the land already swallowed by the federal government, Utah’s education revenue comes from the land it has left.  Of that land that is left, about only about 7 percent is designated as school trust land, Cody Stewart, legislative director for Rep. Bishop, told Americans for Limited Government (ALG) in a previous interview.  The rest of the land is at risk of falling into the hands of the federal government.

    Furthermore, other Western states face the dilemma of housing lands that are so protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and forestry laws that nothing can be done on them.

    The logging industry in Washington State is virtually gone. Because of protected forestry laws, small towns that survived off of the logging industry were choked out.

    “The forest service holds life or death over the timber industry,” says Don Todd, director of research for ALG. “They have leases that decide where to sell timber or whether or not a road can be built to get the timber out.”

    Another issue facing states like Washington, Oregon and California is the ESA.  Since 1990, the Northern spotted owl has been on the endangered species list.  This owl also contributed to the demise of the logging industry in all three states since the forest land where the owl lives wasn’t allowed to be touched.

    Some land the government owns is put to good use for people to enjoy, like the national parks.  But those parks come at a cost.  In 2010, it was announced that the National Park Service needed about $9.5 billion just to clear its backlog of the necessary improvements and repairs.  At a time when our existing national parks are suffering, does it make sense for the federal government to grab new lands?  How does the government expect to fund any of its new acquisitions?

    Likely the same way the government pays for everything else it acquires — with a printing press or an IOU.

    “If anything the federal government should be evaluating lands that could be sold back to the private sector rather than spending more money we don’t have to build federal land fiefdoms,” says Bill Wilson, president of ALG.

    Cushman reiterates his original warning, “There is no oversight here.  This is like handing a blank check over to the LWCF,” he says.

    Cushman and landowners across the country hope that in the U.S. House of Representatives’ transportation bill no such handout is given to the LWCF.

    “This takes huge amounts of land off the tax base for communities,” Cushman concludes.  “It does not create jobs nor does it lower the deficit.  I just don’t understand how the government owning more land helps anything.”

    Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) and NetRightDaily.com.  You can follow her on twitter at @RebekahRast.




    The United States owns over 30 percent of the nation’s surface lands

    Public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forests managed by the Forest Service are open to prospecting for so-called “hardrock” minerals under the General Mining Law of 1872.  Upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions, the prospector obtains exclusive rights as against all others.

    As the largest landowner in the arid West, where the public lands often are the upstream source of critical water supply, the United States may assert water rights under both the applicable water allocation regimes of State law, and the federal implied reservation doctrine. Under the McCarran Amendment, the United States has consented to be sued in State Courts for adjudications between it and the downstream appropriators.

    Of all the statutes which NRS addresses, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) gives rise to the greatest variety of litigation. NEPA, enacted in 1970, requires every federal agency to examine the environmental impacts of proposed major federal actions and to consider reasonable alternatives and cumulative impacts, sharing its analysis with the public for comment, before deciding on action. Because the substantive statute pursuant to which the agency is undertaking the action may provide broad discretionary protection to agency decision making, NEPA’s “procedural” requirements are often the principal, and in some cases the only available tool for dissatisfied citizens to challenge agency action in the courts.

    The Division's Natural Resources Section must defend all real property claims brought in the United States Court of Federal Claims arising under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    Executive Order No. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (issued February 11, 1994), instructs each Federal Agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission.” The Order directs the agencies to develop agency-wide environmental justice strategies as a core part of this obligation, and requires that the Department of Justice’s strategy address, "as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities" on minority and low-income communities by promoting the enforcement of health and environmental statutes in areas with minority and low-income populations; by ensuring greater public participation in decisions affecting human health and the environment; by improving research and data collection involving human health and the environment; and, by identifying differential patterns of consumption of natural resources. On September 30, 2011, the Department of Justice re-affirmed its Environmental Justice Strategy in light of a recently adopted Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice signed by the Department and multiple federal agencies in August 2011.


    The Supreme Court of the United States gave full recognition to the binding force of the local rules, regulations, usages and customs before the sanction of federal statutory enactment, and to the doctrine that they constitute the American common law of mines.

    Sparrow vs. Strong, 3 Wall. 97, decided in 1865.
    Jennison vs. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453, decided in 1878.

    DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. 577

    No.1 ACHISON v. PETERSON.

    (reported IN 20 Wallace, 507.)

    1  On the mineral lands of the public domain in the Pacific States and Territories, the doctrines of the common law, declaratory of the rights of riparian proprietors respecting the use of running waters, are inapplicable, or applicable only in a very limited extent, to the necessities of miners, and inadequate to their protection; their prior appropriation gives the better right to running waters to the extent, in quantity and quality, necessary for the uses to which the water is applied.

    2  What diminution of quantity, or deterioration in quality, will constitute an invasion of the rights of the first appropriator will depend upon the special circumstances of each case; and in controversies between him and parties subsequently claiming the water, the question for determination is whether his use and enjoyment of the water to the extent of the original appropriation have been impaired by the acts of the other parties.

    3  Whether, upon a petition or bill asserting that the prior rights of the first appropriator have been invaded, a court of equity will interfere to restrain the acts of the party complained of, will depend upon the character and extent of the injury alleged, whether it be irremediable in its nature, whether an action at law would afford adequate remedy, whether the parties are able to respond for the damages resulting from the injury, and other considerations which ordinarily govern a court of equity in the exercise of its preventive process of injunction.


    people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress....


    As James Madison stated, "That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism." James Madison, Property, in JAMES MADISON: WRITINGS 515, 516 (Jack N. Rakove ed., 1999).
    The prevalence of this approach at the time of the country's founding is reflected in the writings of the Founders, the Due Process Clause itself, and the Northwest Ordinance, adopted in 1787, which provided: "No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. . . ." Northwest Ordinance (1787),
    reproduced in 1 Melvin I. Urofsky & Paul Finkelman, DOCUMENTS OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL HISTORY 78 (2d ed. 2002).

    Thus, since 1215, Anglo-American law has prevented the government from interfering with property without first providing access to a "lawful judge or his equals or by the law of the land," by a "lawfull judgement," or "due course, and processe of law." The principle and language are ancient but still relevant. "However quaint some of these ancient authorities of our law may sound to our ears, the Twentieth Century has not so far progressed as to outmode their reasoning. We should not be less humane than were Englishmen in the centuries that preceded this Republic." Solesbee, 339 U.S. at 19 .
    It is well established that the use of the term "law of the land" represents an effort to reassert customary law, including procedural protections, in the place of arbitrary royal command. James W. Ely, Jr., The Oxymoron Reconsidered: Myth and Reality in the Origins of Substantive Due Process, 16 Const. Commentary 315, 320 (1999). See also Bernard Siegan, PROPERTY RIGHTS: FROM MAGNA CARTA TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 6-28 (2001).

    The question is whether Administrative Compliance Orders deprive a property owner of the use and enjoyment of his property without the property owner having had access to the "due course, and processe of law"? The answer is clearly "yes." Administrative Compliance Orders violate more than the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; they are repugnant to eight centuries of Anglo-American legal tradition and the constitution of the United States of America & State of California.
     
    As Petitioners have demonstrated, Administrative Compliance Orders deprive property owners of valuable property rights. The order here turns the Iron Mountain Mine property of Mr. T.W. Arman into a nature preserve and forbids him from excluding federal officials from the property.

    House Republicans say the EPA' philosophy of enforcement is “beyond the pale” and a reflection of a “petty, arbitrary and demagogic”Environmental Protection Agency under administrator Lisa Jackson and President Obama.

    “The EPA is not a conquering army, it does not wield dictatorial power, and it certainly was not granted the authority to crucify anyone,” the lawmakers told Jackson in a letter Friday concerning regional enforcement supervisor  Armendariz’s comments that “betray a vindictive culture that is driven by ideology more than it is by science.” The letter was signed by 26 congressmen, including the entire Republican House delegation from Texas.



    GENERAL INFORMATION
    ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL
    RESOURCES
     
    Leadership
    Ignacia S. Moreno
    Assistant Attorney General
    Contact
    Office of the Assistant Attorney General
    (202) 514-2701
    Official Biography
    Assistant Attorney General Ignacia S. Moreno
    Ignacia S. Moreno was nominated by President Barack Obama on June 8, 2009 to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Divisionat the United States Department of Justice. The United States Senate confirmed her nomination in a 93-0 vote on November 5, 2009. She was sworn in November 16, 2009 on the Division’s 100th Anniversary.

    Ms. Moreno is a leading practitioner in the field of environmental and natural resources law, with over two decades of experience in both the public and private sectors. She began her career at Hogan & Hartson LLP in Washington, D.C where she practiced with the firm’s environmental and litigation practice groups from 1990 to 1994. President Clinton appointed Ms. Moreno to the Department of Justice, where she served with distinction as Special Assistant (1994-1995), Counsel, and then Principal Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division (1995-2001).

    From 2001 to 2006, Ms. Moreno was Of Counsel and then Partner at Spriggs & Hollingsworth in Washington, D.C. where she specialized in environmental and mass tort litigation with an emphasis on science-based advocacy. From 2006 until her confirmation, she was Counsel, Corporate Environmental Programs, at the General Electric Company.



    The Bill of Rights limits government "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers."

    Federal judges may be impeached for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 8th para); the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” as against federal judges “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”; and the People are to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.(Federalist No.16, next to last para).  Federalist No. 49, 3rd para, says that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “...the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance against a [resurgent atavistic] despotism repugnant to the common law.


    “There was no evidence of legally significant contamination and … the government's claim of an imminent and substantial endangerment was factually baseless.” EPA cannot reasonably insist that “if a hazard was found, no matter how small, it had the right to do whatever it wanted...
    lost sheep

    ...there's no instance where we have recorded levels of heavy metal above the drinking water standard. EPA's first Iron Mountain Mine superfund project manager Tom Mix - 1985;


    On Earth Day, a few snags

    native medicines

    Narcokleptocracy

    A narcokleptocracy is a society ruled by "thieves" involved in the trade of narcotics.

    The term has its origin in a report prepared by a subcommittee of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.[13]

    puppet master puppet - Narcoleptolumpenfishnetocracy Security Dept.

    06/11/2012 04:35:56 PM EST

    9th Circuit Certifies Question On Drug Studies, Free Speech To Calif. High Court

    Posted by

    LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Daily Legal News

    PASEDENA, Calif. - A full Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 6 certified a question to the California Supreme Court, asking the state high court to address whether the distribution of studies related to drug costs violates free speech under the California Constitution Jerry Beeman and Pharmacy Services Inc., et al. v. Anthem Prescription Management, et al., Nos. 07-56692, 07-56693, 9th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11392). Full story on lexis.com

    06/11/2012 04:35:55 PM EST

    Federal Circuit Says Form 18 Standard Should Control In Patent Cases

    Posted by

    LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Daily Legal News

    WASHINGTON, D.C. - An Ohio federal judge erred in concluding that a patent plaintiff failed to adequately state a claim of direct infringement, a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 7; in the same ruling, the appellate panel endorsed the pleadings standard of Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure over U.S. Supreme Court precedents Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (550 U.S. 544 $(2007$)) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (556 U.S. 662 $(2009$)) (R+L Carriers Inc. v. DriverTech LLC et al., Nos. 2010-1493, -1494, -1495, -1496, 2011-1101, -1102, Fed. Cir.). Full story on lexis.com

    06/11/2012 04:35:54 PM EST

    High Court Agrees To Hear Appeal In Securities Suit Against Drug Maker

    Posted by

    LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Daily Legal News

    WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on June 11 agreed to hear an appeal of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling affirming a federal district court's grant of class certification in a securities class action lawsuit against a drug maker and others (Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Roger M. Perlmutter and George J. Morrow v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, U.S. Sup.).Full story on lexis.com

    Medical Marijuana Bill Passes Assembly

    New York Law Journal

    June 15, 2012

    The state Assembly passed a bill June 13 authorizing the medical use of marijuana - a measure the Senate has announced it will not consider.

    This article requires premium access

    This article requires premium access to The New York Law Journal. Please sign in or subscribe to read the full text.


    Expert Affidavit, EBTs, Presumption of Medical Necessity, Timing Issues

    New York Law Journal

    June 15, 2012

    certain dangerous diet deficiencies


    Office of Inspector General NTIA BTOP Audits and Oversight Support

    This opportunity is a Recovery and Reinvestment Act action
    Solicitation Number: GG000000-12-04019
    Agency: Department of Commerce
    Office: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
    Location: Acquisition Management Division
    • Print



    There is controversy over the California Department of Education's treatment of the missions in the Department's elementary curriculum; in the tradition of historical revisionism, it has been alleged that the curriculum "waters down" the harsh treatment of Native Americans. Modern anthropologists cite a cultural bias on the part of the missionaries that blinded them to the natives' plight and caused them to develop strong negative opinions of the California Indians.[117] European diseases that the California Native Americans had no immunity to caused a significant population reductions from the first encounter through the 19th century.

    (That old dilution excuse again)

    Father Junipero Sierra, California's first pusher.
    ^ Bean and Lawson, p. 37: "Serra's decision to plant tobacco at the missions was prompted by the fact that from San Diego to Monterey the natives invariably begged him for Spanish tobacco."


    'entrenchments of monastic despotism'.

    EPA builds Clean Water Act framework


    (Building inspection reveals true owner misled, unauthorized work done without plan and with no permit by unlicensed architect/ contractor with no bond or workers compensation, laborers without green cards,  shoddy makeshift construction overbilled; never finished. TRUE OWNER SAYS "FIRED!"

    Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny

    If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

    The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

    You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

    … there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court. — Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823

    This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

    For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny.

    … One single object … will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. — Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825


    IMMI Announces Invocation of the Mineral Deficiencies Act.

    Terror is in the Eye of the Beholder: Alberta’s Counterterrorism Unit to Protect Oil and Gas Industry

    In January, during the week before Canada’s federal hearing on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, the Harper government and Ethical Oil Institute launched an unprecedented attack on environmental organizations opposed to the pipeline and accelerated expansion of the tar sands. Resurrecting Cold War-style ‘terrorist’ rhetoric, conservative politicians like Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver referred to prominent environmental organizations as “radical groups” threatening “to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda” while using “funding from foreign special interests groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest.”

    The government and Ethical Oil singled out environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, ForestEthics, and the Pembina Institute, in an orchestrated effort to undermine the credibility of pipeline opponents and to cast doubt on their intentions for the Enbridge Pipeline hearings. 
     
    The rhetorical campaign against these alleged ‘environmental extremists’ moved from propaganda to policy last week when the RCMP announced the creation of a new counterterrorism unit in Alberta, designed to protect Canada’s energy infrastructure from so-called ‘security threats.’
     
    Counterterrorism in Alberta
     
    The unit, called the K Division of Canada’s Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET), is part of an expanding National Security Criminal Investigations Program designed to “prevent, detect, deny and respond to criminal threats to Canada’s national security,” according to an RCMP press release.  
     
    Alberta’s K Division is the only INSET unit created since the program’s initial groups were established in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the United States. The unit consists of RCMP officers, the Edmonton Police Services, the Calgary Police Services, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
     
    According to RCMP Assistant Commissioner Marianne Ryan, Criminal Operations Officer for the unit, “all law enforcement agencies in Alberta have an important role to play in preserving Canada’s national security.”  
     
    “The establishment of an INSET team will enable the RCMP and our policing partners in Alberta to work more collaboratively towards the detection of criminal activity in this province that has the potential to impact security,” she added.
     
    As the Globe and Mail reported on Wednesday, the RCMP would not say if the unit was created in response to specific threats or if it would focus its attention on specific portions of the province’s energy infrastructure.

    However Greg Cox, media relations for the RCMP in Ottawa, did tell the Globe and Mail that there is “no indication that the threat level is higher” in Alberta, adding, “as in any part of the country, we need to remain vigilant.”
     
    The RCMP states the creation of Alberta’s INSET was “prompted by factors such as a growing population, a strong economy supported by the province’s natural resources and the need to protect critical infrastructure.”
     
    The Creation of “Terror Identities”
     
    One month after the slanderous attacks against Canada’s environmental groups began in January, the Harper government released their new Counter-Terrorism Strategy which listed ‘environmentalism’ as a domestic terrorist concern. The Strategy, according to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, was intended to “promote an open discussion with Canadians on the threats we face.”  
     
    Yet members of the environmental community saw this as another strategic move to silence, discredit and threaten environmental voices.
     
    The report states that “low-level violence by domestic issue-based groups remains a reality in Canada. Such extremism tends to be based on grievances – real or perceived – revolving around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights, white supremacy, environmentalism and anti-capitalism.”
     
    Within the parameters of Canada’s new Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the kind of pipeline or tar sands development opposition the government faces can be labeled environmental extremism and thus considered a domestic terrorist threat. 
     
    This kind of draconian strategy is designed to not only suppress terrorism, according to sociologists Jeffrey Monaghan and Kevin Walby, but is equally designed to legitimize surveillance and suppression of social movements.  
     
    In a recently published article in the journal Policing and Society, Monaghan and Walby describe how the Canadian government has “blurred the categories of terrorism, extremism and activism” together under what they call an “aggregate threat matrix.”
     
    In their paper, entitled “Making Up ‘Terror Identities’”, the authors describe the production of categories under which the government identifies potential security threats. Analyzing 25 classified reports from Canadian policing and intelligence agencies, gained through Access to Information requests, they uncovered the emergence of a new class of domestic threat in the country: Multi Issue Extremism (MIE).  
     
    Moving to counteract MIE, the Canadian government has expanded their early terrorist concerns with “financial security and Al-Queda-inspired terror groups” to include “activist groups, indigenous groups, environmentalists and others who are publicly critical of government policy.”
     
    Monaghan and Walby suggest that the government’s increasing concern with MIE is responsible for transforming what constitutes a ‘perceived threat’ in the country, leading to “slippages and inconsistencies of threat categories.”

    For this reason, the government has created its own cause to cast the terrorism net wider than in previous times. 
     
    As Monaghan and Walby describe the process, once a group is identified as a ‘domestic security concern’ the government establishes special task forces or “intelligence clusters” (like INSET) that engage in the construction of “terror identities.” 
     
    By circulating information between agencies like the RCMP, CSIS, other government agencies and the mass media, these ‘clusters’ construct the perception of a threat, lending it a certain ‘facticity.’ Once the ‘terror identity’ gains currency it is short work for these agencies to justify “domestic spying campaigns that target grassroots social movements under the statutory responsibilities of Canadian law.”
     
    How much more clearly could the attack on Canada's environmental and First Nation groups be framed? 

    Surveillance of Tar Sands Opposition?
     
    The creation of Alberta’s counterterrorism unit is an anticipated step in this spy-and-suppress process, as Monaghan describes it.
     
    “It is very much in line with the trend of committing more and more national security and counter-terrorism resources without a corresponding basis in any kind of particular threats,” he told the Globe and Mail.
     
    Even RCMP Assistant Commissioner Gilles Michaud agrees that there is no particular threat to respond to, although, given the oil and gas boom in Alberta, “one would be led to believe that there is an increased threat to the infrastructure.” 
     
    “We are basically looking at any individuals or groups that pose a threat to critical infrastructure, to our economy, to our safety that is based on either religious, political or ideological goals,” he said.
     
    Michaud suggested the unit was not created to spy on those opposed to the tar sands or its supporting pipelines, telling the National Post that “there has to be violence attached to their activities in order for us to pay attention to them.”
     
    But he followed this statement by adding: “That being said, in our role of preventing these threats from occurring, it is important that intelligence is collected against the activities of groups before they become violent.”

    Image Credit: Kris Krug
     


    Utah Authorizes Use of Eminent Domain to Seize Federal Land

    Tuesday, April 6th, 2010 by Courtney LeBoeuf , Esq. On Saturday, March 27, 2010, Utah governor Gary Herbert signed into law a pair of bills authorizing the use of eminent domain to seize some of the federal government's most valuable land in the state. In Utah, where the U.S. government owns more than 60% of the land, such a move could see the state realize millions of dollars if it is successful. Supporters are hopeful that passage of the bills will trigger a flood of similar legislation throughout the West, an area where lawmakers claim that federal land ownership hinders economic development and restricts states' abilities to generate tax revenue to adequately fund public schools.  Attorneys for the state's legislators admit that another goal of the legislation is to spark a U.S. Supreme Court battle that they admit has little chance of success. Utah plans to target three areas, including the Kaiparowits plateau in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which is home to large coal reserves.  The state could also invoke eminent domain on parcels of land where Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last year scrapped 77 oil and gas leases around national parks and wild areas.

    Using the state to condemn Federal land At a ceremony for the bill signing, Governor Herbert urged the legislatures of all western states to follow Utah's lead.

    CONDEMNATION OF THE CHAPPIE-SHASTA OHVA, ADVERSE CLAIMS

    Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of flood plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. In accomplishing this objective, "each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains in carrying out its responsibilities" for the following actions:


    • acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities;
    • providing federally-undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements;
    • conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing activities.



    GF-ribbon-logo

    Lead dangers

    CLEVELAND, April 19 (UPI) -- The Environmental Protection Agency and state regulators knew of lead contamination in hundreds of U.S. towns but did not notify the residents.


    Scientists Predict Imminent Planetary Collapse

    06-07-2012

    University of California – Berkeley




    Global tipping point.

    A prestigious group of scientists from around the world is warning that population growth, widespread destruction of natural ecosystems and climate change may be driving Earth toward an irreversible change in the biosphere, a planet-wide tipping point that would have destructive consequences absent adequate preparation and mitigation.

    “It really will be a new world, biologically, at that point,” warns Anthony Barnosky, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of a review paper appearing in the June 7 issue of the journal Nature. “The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations.”

    The Nature paper, in which the scientists compare the biological impact of past incidences of global change with processes under way today and assess evidence for what the future holds, appears in an issue devoted to the environment in advance of the June 20-22 United Nations Rio+20 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

    The result of such a major shift in the biosphere would be mixed, Barnosky noted, with some plant and animal species disappearing, new mixes of remaining species, and major disruptions in terms of which agricultural crops can grow where.

    The paper by 22 internationally known scientists describes an urgent need for better predictive models that are based on a detailed understanding of how the biosphere reacted in the distant past to rapidly changing conditions, including climate and human population growth. In a related development, ground-breaking research to develop the reliable, detailed biological forecasts the paper is calling for is now underway at UC Berkeley. The endeavor, The Berkeley Initiative in Global Change Biology, or BiGCB, is a massive undertaking involving more than 100 UC Berkeley scientists from an extraordinary range of disciplines that already has received funding: a $2.5 million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and a $1.5 million grant from the Keck Foundation. The paper by Barnosky and others emerged from the first conference convened under the BiGCB’s auspices.

     

    How close is a global tipping point?

    The authors of the Nature review—biologists, ecologists, complex-systems theoreticians, geologists and paleontologists from the U.S., Canada, South America and Europe—argue that, although many warning signs are emerging, no one knows how close Earth is to a global tipping point, or if it is inevitable. The scientists urge focused research to identify early warning signs of a global transition and an acceleration of efforts to address the root causes.

    “We really do have to be thinking about these global scale tipping points, because even the parts of Earth we are not messing with directly could be prone to some very major changes,” Barnosky said. “And the root cause, ultimately, is human population growth and how many resources each one of us uses.”

    Coauthor Elizabeth Hadly from Stanford University said “we may already be past these tipping points in particular regions of the world. I just returned from a trip to the high Himalayas in Nepal, where I witnessed families fighting each other with machetes for wood—wood that they would burn to cook their food in one evening. In places where governments are lacking basic infrastructure, people fend for themselves, and biodiversity suffers. We desperately need global leadership for planet Earth.”

     

    (Rule #1-don’t stiff the doorman; the concierge’s on break, and the bellboys’ missing)

     

    The Nature paper, in which the scientists compare the biological impact of past incidences of global change with processes under way today and assess evidence for what the future holds, appears in an issue devoted to the environment in advance of the June 20-22 United Nations Rio+20 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

    The result of such a major shift in the biosphere would be mixed, Barnosky noted, with some plant and animal species disappearing, new mixes of remaining species, and major disruptions in terms of which agricultural crops can grow where.

    The paper by 22 internationally known scientists describes an urgent need for better predictive models that are based on a detailed understanding of how the biosphere reacted in the distant past to rapidly changing conditions, including climate and human population growth. In a related development, ground-breaking research to develop the reliable, detailed biological forecasts the paper is calling for is now underway at UC Berkeley. The endeavor, The Berkeley Initiative in Global Change Biology, or BiGCB, is a massive undertaking involving more than 100 UC Berkeley scientists from an extraordinary range of disciplines that already has received funding: a $2.5 million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and a $1.5 million grant from the Keck Foundation. The paper by Barnosky and others emerged from the first conference convened under the BiGCB’s auspices.

    “One key goal of the BiGCB is to understand how plants and animals responded to major shifts in the atmosphere, oceans, and climate in the past, so that scientists can improve their forecasts and policy makers can take the steps necessary to either mitigate or adapt to changes that may be inevitable,” Barnosky said. “Better predictive models will lead to better decisions in terms of protecting the natural resources future generations will rely on for quality of life and prosperity.” Climate change could also lead to global political instability, according to a U.S. Department of Defense study referred to in the Nature paper.

    “UC Berkeley is uniquely positioned to conduct this sort of complex, multi-disciplinary research,” said Graham Fleming, UC Berkeley’s vice chancellor for research. “Our world-class museums hold a treasure trove of biological specimens dating back many millennia that tell the story of how our planet has reacted to climate change in the past. That, combined with new technologies and data mining methods used by our distinguished faculty in a broad array of disciplines, will help us decipher the clues to the puzzle of how the biosphere will change as the result of the continued expansion of human activity on our planet.”

    One BiGCB project launched last month, with UC Berkeley scientists drilling into Northern California’s Clear Lake, one of the oldest lakes in the world with sediments dating back more than 120,000 years, to determine how past changes in California’s climate impacted local plant and animal populations.

    City of Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates, chair of the Bay Area Joint Policy Committee, said the BiGCB “is providing the type of research that policy makers urgently need as we work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare the Bay region to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. To take meaningful actions to protect our region, we first need to understand the serious global and local changes that threaten our natural resources and biodiversity.”

    “The Bay Area’s natural systems, which we often take for granted, are absolutely critical to the health and well-being of our people, our economy and the Bay Area’s quality of life,” added Bates.

    How close is a global tipping point?

    The authors of the Nature review—biologists, ecologists, complex-systems theoreticians, geologists and paleontologists from the U.S., Canada, South America and Europe—argue that, although many warning signs are emerging, no one knows how close Earth is to a global tipping point, or if it is inevitable. The scientists urge focused research to identify early warning signs of a global transition and an acceleration of efforts to address the root causes.

    “We really do have to be thinking about these global scale tipping points, because even the parts of Earth we are not messing with directly could be prone to some very major changes,” Barnosky said. “And the root cause, ultimately, is human population growth and how many resources each one of us uses.”

    Coauthor Elizabeth Hadly from Stanford University said “we may already be past these tipping points in particular regions of the world. I just returned from a trip to the high Himalayas in Nepal, where I witnessed families fighting each other with machetes for wood—wood that they would burn to cook their food in one evening. In places where governments are lacking basic infrastructure, people fend for themselves, and biodiversity suffers. We desperately need global leadership for planet Earth.”

    The authors note that studies of small-scale ecosystems show that once 50-90 percent of an area has been altered, the entire ecosystem tips irreversibly into a state far different from the original, in terms of the mix of plant and animal species and their interactions. This situation typically is accompanied by species extinctions and a loss of biodiversity.

    Currently, to support a population of 7 billion people, about 43 percent of Earth’s land surface has been converted to agricultural or urban use, with roads cutting through much of the remainder. The population is expected to rise to 9 billion by 2045; at that rate, current trends suggest that half Earth’s land surface will be disturbed by 2025. To Barnosky, this is disturbingly close to a global tipping point.

    “Can it really happen? Looking into the past tells us unequivocally that, yes, it can really happen. It has happened. The last glacial/interglacial transition 11,700 years ago was an example of that,” he said, noting that animal diversity still has not recovered from extinctions during that time. “I think that if we want to avoid the most unpleasant surprises, we want to stay away from that 50 percent mark.”

    Global change biology

    The paper emerged from a conference held at UC Berkeley in 2010 to discuss the idea of a global tipping point, and how to recognize and avoid it.

    Following that meeting, 22 of the attendees summarized available evidence of past global state-shifts, the current state of threats to the global environment, and what happened after past tipping points.

    They concluded that there is an urgent need for global cooperation to reduce world population growth and per-capita resource use, replace fossil fuels with sustainable sources, develop more efficient food production and distribution without taking over more land, and better manage the land and ocean areas not already dominated by humans as reservoirs of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

    “Ideally, we want to be able to predict what could be detrimental biological change in time to steer the boat to where we don’t get to those points,” Barnosky said. “My underlying philosophy is that we want to keep Earth, our life support system, at least as healthy as it is today, in terms of supporting humanity, and forecast when we are going in directions that would reduce our quality of life so that we can avoid that.”

    “My view is that humanity is at a crossroads now, where we have to make an active choice,” Barnosky said. “One choice is to acknowledge these issues and potential consequences and try to guide the future (in a way we want to). The other choice is just to throw up our hands and say, ‘Let’s just go on as usual and see what happens.’ My guess is, if we take that latter choice, yes, humanity is going to survive, but we are going to see some effects that will seriously degrade the quality of life for our children and grandchildren.”



    "I'm not asking anybody," said Eeyore. "I'm just telling everybody."

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ARTICLE 6, U.S. Constitution


    "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

    Hertado v. California, 110 US 516,


    "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,



    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."


    Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.



    There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946


     in Federalist No. 28 (7th para) that if the federal government invades the rights of the People, they can use the State government as the instrument of redress: ...in a confederacy   the people ... may be said to be ... the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general [federal] government will ... stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government.

    Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).

    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.


    "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. U.S. v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Brandeis.


    The Constitution doesn't use the phrase legal tender. It appears that the phrase itself was not coined until much later. Both a search of Noah Webster's 1824 Dictionary and Bouvier's 1854 Law Dictionary turned up nothing. However, the following definitions for Legal and Tender are taken from Bouvier's:

    LEGAL. That which is according to law. It is used in opposition to equitable, as the legal estate is, in the trustee, the equitable estate in the cestui que trust. Vide Powell on Mortg. Index, h. t.

    2. The party who has the legal title, has alone the right to seek a remedy for a wrong to his estate, in a court of law, though he may have no beneficial interest in it. The equitable owner, is he who has not the legal estate, but is entitled to the beneficial interest.

    3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

    4. When the trustee has a claim, he must enforce his right in a court of equity, for he cannot sue any one at law, in his own name; 1 East, 497; 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20; still less can he in such court sue his own trustee. 1 East, 497.

    TENDER, contracts, pleadings. A tender is an offer to do or perform an act which the party offering, is bound to perform to the party to whom the offer is made.

    2. A tender may be of money or of specific articles; these will be separately considered. §1. Of the lender of money. To make la valid tender the following requisites are necessary: 1. It must be made by a person capable of paying: for if it be made by a stranger without the consent of the debtor, it will be insufficient. Cro. Eliz. 48, 132; 2 M. & S. 86; Co. Lit. 206.

    3. - 2. It must be made to the creditor having capacity to receive it, or to his authorized agent. 1 Camp. 477; Dougl. 632; 5 Taunt. 307; S. C. 1 Marsh. 55; 6 Esp. 95; 3 T. R. 683; 14 Serg. & Rawle, 307; 1 Nev. & M. 398; S. C. 28 E. C. L. R. 324; 4 B. & C. 29 S. C. 10 E. C. L. R. 272; 3 C. & P. 453 S. C. 14 E. C. L. R. 386; 1 M. & W. 310; M. & M. 238; 1 Esp. R. 349 1 C. & P. 365

    4. - 3. The whole sum due must be offered, in the lawful coin of the United States, or foreign coin made current by law; 2 N. & M. 519; and the offer must be unqualified by any circumstance whatever. 2 T. R. 305; 1 Campb. 131; 3 Campb. 70; 6 Taunt. 336; 3 Esp. C. 91; Stark. Ev. pt. 4, page 1392, n. g; 4 Campb. 156; 2 Campb. 21; 1 M. & W. 310. But a tender in bank notes, if not objected to on that account, will be good. 3 T. R. 554; 2 B. & P. 526; 1 Leigh's N. P. c. 1, S. 20; 9 Pick. 539; see 2 Caines, 116; 13 Mass. 235; 4 N. H. Rep. 296; 10 Wheat 333. But in such case, the amount tendered must be what is due exactly, for a tender of a five dollar note, demanding change, would not be a good tender of four dollars. 3 Campb. R. 70; 6 Taunt. R. 336; 2 Esp. R. 710; 2 D. & R. 305; S. C. 16 E. C. L. R. 87. And a tender was held good when made by a check contained in a letter, requesting a receipt in return which the plaintiff sent back demanding a larger sum, without objecting to the nature of the tender. 8 D. P. C. 442. When stock is to be tendered, everything must be done by the debtor to enable him to transfer it, but it is not absolutely requisite that it should be transferred. Str. 504, 533, 579 .

    5. - 4. If a term had been stipulated in favor of a creditor, it must be expired; the offer should be made at the time agreed upon for the performance of the contract if made afterwards, it only goes in mitigation of damages, provided it be made before suit brought. 7 Taunt. 487; 8 East, R. 168; 5 Taunt. 240; 1 Saund. 33 a, note 2. The tender ought to be made before day-light is entirely gone. 7 Greenl. 31.

    6. - 5. The condition on which the debt was contracted must be fulfilled.

    7. - 6. The tender must be made at the place agreed upon for the payment, or, if there be no place appointed for that purpose, then to the creditor or his authorized agent. 8 John. 474; Lit. Sel. Cas. 132; Bac. Ab. h. t. c.

    8. When a tender has been properly made, it is a complete defence to the action but the benefit of a tender is lost, if the creditor afterwards demand the thing due from the debtor, and the latter refuse to pay it. Kirby, 293.

    9. - §2. Of the tender of specific articles. It is a rule that specific articles maybe tendered at some particular place, and not, like money, to the person of the creditor wherever found. When no place is expressly mentioned in the contract, the place of delivery is to be ascertained by the intent of the parties, to be collected from the nature of the case and its circumstances. If, for example, the contract is for delivery of goods from the seller to the buyer on demand, the former being the manufacturer of the goods or a dealer in them, no place being particularly named, the manufactory or store of the seller will be considered as the place intended, and a tender there will be sufficient. When the specific articles are at another place at the time of sale, that will be the place of delivery. 2 Greenl. Ev. §609 4 Wend. 377; 2 Applet. 325.

    10. When the goods are cumbrous, and the place of delivery is not designated, nor to be inferred from the circumstances, it is presumed that it was intended that they should be delivered at any place which the creditor might reasonably appoint; if the creditor refuses, or names an unreasonable place, the debtor may select a proper place, and having given notice to the creditor, deliver the goods there. 2 Kent, Comm. 507; 1 Greenl. 120; Chip. on Contr. 51 13 Wend. 95; 2 Greenl. Ev. §610. Vide, generally, 20 Vin., Ab. 177; Bac. Ab. h. t.; 1 Sell. 314; Com. Dig. Action upon the case upon Assumpsit, H 8-Condition, L 4 Pleader, 2 G 2-2 W, 28,49-3 K 23-3 M 36; Chipm, on Contr. 31, 74; Ayl. Pand. B. 4, t. 29; 7 Greenl. 31 Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

    Article 1. U.S. Constitution

    Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

    No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

    No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

    Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


    California journal of mines and geology, Volume 11

    Report of State Mineralogist, 1892, Page 46

    The Lost Confidence Mine is situated on Iron Mountain , near the summit of the range, 8 miles north of Shasta, at an elevation of 2,400 feet. The ore deposits occur in a body of porphyry of varying composition. A mile west of the mine slate replaces the porphyry, and extends west to the Gladstone Mine. An arm of the porphyry projects a little west of south, across the head of Whisky Creek, forming a V-shaped area.

    The porphyry in the gulches about Iron Mountain is undecomposed, exhibiting quarters with crystalline faces. A half mile above the mine the porphyry has a fluted or columnar cleavage, resembling the columnar structure often seen in basalt. The ore lies in a very fine quartz porphyry, which changes at times into a chloritic felsite or petrosilex. The chlorite is present in large scales, probably representing crushed crystals.

    A heavy iron gossan outcrops in great projecting masses just above the workings of the Lost Confidence Mine, on Slick Rock Creek, and extends up the mountain, forming its crest fully 1,000 feet above. This important mineralized belt extends about 10 miles northeasterly, across Spring and Boulder Creeks to Squaw Creek. A number of valuable silver mines are located on it. The Lost Confidence Mining Company owns about a mile of the deposit, beginning at Slick Rock Creek. One of the most interesting and valuable properties owned by this company is a body of pure hematite ore, covering about 40 acres. No development has yet been made, but every advantage exists for a great industry here. The iron is apparently inexhaustible, very pure, and with an inclined tramway built the Sacramento River could be cheaply place on the cars. The iron is separated from the silver vein by a dike of porphyry 300 feet wide. There are two ledges or deposits carrying silver, separated by a stratum of decomposed quartz porphyry 1 to 3 feet wide, and dipping to the northwest. The foot wall or silver vein is 10 to 30 feet thick. It consists of copper sulphurets, 80 to 150 ft. thick. It is worked for both gold and silver, containing them in the proportion of 10 silver to 1 gold. A large amount of native copper is saved every month by allowing the water which runs from the mine to pass through a flume several hundred feet long filled with scrap iron.

    California journal of mines and geology, Volume 12-13

    Report of State Mineralogist, 1894, Page 337

    Iron Mountain Mine. – It is 8 miles N.E. of Shasta, on Iron Mountain , and comprises 1 mile square of ground, including three claims. The course of the mineral body is N.E. and S.W. and it can be traced for over 2 miles. It is apparently the iron head or gossan cause by bevy mineral springs permeating the fissure and surrounding rocks. The mass has been cross-cut in places over 500 ft. without reaching its boundaries. As depth is reached, the ferruginous and cupriferous oxidized mass changes to massive sulphides, sometimes of a steely nature and hardness. Tunnels have been run in, on what is taken for one of the walls, a distance of 500 ft., and a series of parallel cross-cuts made every 50 ft.; some of these are several hundred feet in length, all within the ore belt. The works from the upper tunnel have been entirely honey-combed and the ore sent into the mill. Near the surface the ore carries iron, copper, silver, and gold, said to yield in the mill 40 oz. silver and $1 gold. As depth is attained the percentage of gold increases. The reduction works include a fine 20 stamp dry-crushing mill and Bruckner furnace, furnace, 12 amalgamating pans, and 6 settlers, with a capacity of 75 tons per day. Has lately changed owners.


    In 1925, IG Farben, Interessengemeinschaft Farben, (Association of Common Interests), became a powerful cartel of German chemical and pharmaceutical companies such as Bayer (the aspirin manufacturer), BASF, AGFA, and Hoechst (now known as Aventis.)


    bayer heroin

    send a sample, (from Stone St., go figure)

    § 2386. ...certain organizations

    Nonetheless the Rothschilds knew better than any other investors how to play safe. To a marked extent they did so by buying up vital minerals for which there was an assured market.

    "Mercury, gold, copper, lead, diamonds and oil: by 1900 the Rothschilds occupied a remarkable position in the world market for non-ferrous metals, precious stones and petroleum" [Ferguson op cit]

    After the "discovery:" of alluvial and diluvial diamonds in South Africa's Orange and Vaal rivers in 1867 - concentrated around the "rush" town (originally farm) of Kimberley - conflicts broke out over ownership of claims, and between the English and Boer mine-owners. The violence and discord threatened both access to, and supply of, what was undoubtedly the biggest single deposit of high class sparklers ever located. It mightily worried the London Rothschilds too. For they already had their agents in the field and had acquired the biggest single stake in the Anglo American Diamond Mining Company Ltd; using this (especially after 1882) as a vehicle for buying out smaller claim-holders in the area. [Wilson, op cit, page 303]

    The two biggest operators had emerged as Barney Barnato and Cecil Rhodes; the latter being the archetypal nineteenth century imperialist with a proclaimed aim to create "a British dominion from the Cape to Cairo."

    Rhodes approached the London Rothschilds in 1887 for investment backing, and they coughed up a million pound guarantee. Using this, Rhodes quickly swamped the opposition, purchasing the rival French Diamond Company) and establishing De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd (with Lord Nathaniel Rothschild on the board). Until the dawn of the twenty first century De Beers was to supply of eighty per cent of the world's gem diamonds.

    Rio Tinto and the Rothschilds had started connecting a hundred years earlier, when the Societe des Metaux, headed by the French banker Hyacinthe Secretan, began buying huge quantities of European copper, in order to fix the world price. Behind this rudimentary exercise in monopolisation were a number of European banks, including the London and Paris Rothschilds and their comradely British rival, Baring's [Charles E Harvey, "The Rio Tinto Company: An economic history of a leading international mining concern, 1973-1954", Alison Hodge, London, 1981, page 70.]. Rio Tinto was by then the most important copper miner in the Iberian peninsular (Spain and Portugal) - indeed the world. Whether or not the banks held key shares in the copper companies at this time is open to question. In any event, a proposal by investors to buy out the mining companies was abandoned. An attempt at a compromise was made in 1888, when Rio Tinto and the banks, including the Rothschilds, decided to establish a new joint venture copper marketing company in England. Rio Tinto's founder, Hugh Matheson, became the chair, while half the directors were appointed by the banks. This so-called "Secretan copper corner" also collapsed for reasons which are not clear [Harvey, op cit pages 72-73].

    But the financial dependence of Rio Tinto on the Rothschilds was becoming obvious. According to RTZ historian, Charles Harvey, in his assiduous history of the mining company's formative years: "The Rothschilds would seem from their involvement in various financial schemes to have become substantial shareholders in the Rio Tinto Company in the aftermath of the Secretan copper corner [A Rio Tiinto company] entry of 9 November 1905 indicates that their holding at that date amounted to 30.8 per cent of the Company's issued share capital" [Harvey ibid, footnote 73, page 110].

    The first world war had a damaging impact on Rio Tinto's profits as copper pyrites (and by-product sulphur) prices slumped . Demonstrating their financial clout over the company, in June 1920 the London and Paris Rothschilds met with the Rio Tinto board and insisted on a major reshuffle: the directors duly fell into line [Harvey, op cit, page 171}. "The extent to which…the Rothschilds directed Rio Tinto's development is difficult to determine" comments Harvey "…Nonetheless it seems certain that the directorate's outlook was considerably influenced through its association with these financiers" [Harvey, ibid, page 188]

    The growing mutual dependence of Rio Tinto and the Rothshild's became more obvious when the mining company moved into central Africa during the 1920s. The Rothschilds encouraged their British confreres to buy a major - and strategically invaluable - stake in the Northern Rhodesian (Zimbabwean) copper belt. They viewed the investment not just as a source of revenue but, says Harvey, " as a vehicle for capital accumulation in its own right" [Harvey, ibid, page 221]. By 1932, three outfits - collectively known as "the Rio Tinto Group" - controlled the biggest stake in what was potentially the world's richest copper field,. One was Rio Tinto itself, the second a company partly owned by Rio Tinto - and third came the Rothschilds. [Harvey, op cit, page 231].


    Pennies for the Guy

    Just how much of Rio Tinto did the Rothschilds continue to own during the heady fifties, sixties and early seventies - a period of enormous neo-colonial expansion for the world's most powerful mining company? We can only speculate. Though firmly from the French branch of the family Guy de Rothschild sat on the board of the London-based miner, while amassing his own mining interests into IMETAL by a stupendous process of acquisition (see below).

    In his 1985 autobiography, Guy claimed that, until the old Rio Tinto evolved into RTZ (Rio Tinto Zinc) in 1962, through its acquisition of Consolidated Zince in Australia, the Rothschilds held no less than half the shares of the British company. At an unspecified time, Anglo American (one of the Rothschild's partners in the Brinco confection) also acquired 10% of RTZ, through its London-based subsidiary, Charter Consolidated and a Rothschild sat on the Charter board.

    Certainly RTZ and the French Rothschilds connived closely to form the notorious "uranium cartel" in the early 1970s, in order to outflank the United States, then the prime supplier of the deadly metal. During US Congressional investigation of the cartel in 1975, one Congressman McDonald lambasted the Rothschilds in no uncertain terms:

    "As suggested by the fist clenching five arrows in the family crest, the Rothschilds of France and England have an interest in nearly every uranium mine in the world…The Rothschild presence is everything" [ US Congressional Record, Extension of Remarks, Washington DC 4/3/1975].`

    It is fair to conclude that the Bank (certainly the French arm) is no longer "everything" in the manifold manoeuvres of what is now the world's second largest mining company. In its latest Annual Report, Rio Tinto plc lists its twenty largest shareholders; between them controlling 32.47% of the company's share capital. All are "nominees" (ie investing on behalf of unnamed investors which could include themselves), led by the Bank of New York (7.63%), followed closely by Chase (7.58%) and with HSBC coming third (2.06%).

    Rio Tinto Ltd, the company's Australian arm, is 37.60% owned by Rio Tinto in London, with Chase Manhatten Nominees second (9.18%).
    Neither of the dual-listed companies are officially the beneficiaries of any important Rothschild stake. [Rio Tinto 2001: Annual Report and financial stat ements (according to US General Accounting principles), London and Melbourne, 2002, page 131].

    Nonetheless, during the 1980s and early 1990s Rothschild and Rio Tinto continued to do deals. The bank was associated with the mining company when Rio Tinto planned to purchase the huge Cerro Colorado copper project in Pinochset's Chile, through its subsidiary, Rio Algom. (The project was delayed and Rio Tinto late sold off Rio Algom ["Plunder!" page 137]). And Rio Tinto bought up 40% of the vast - and hugely rich - Neves Corvo copper mine in Portugal in 1984 from two IMETAL subsidiaries.

    But the nineties yielded nothing of the type and scale of investment brokered between the partners over the previous century. Two mining projects have brought the company and bank together recently (Lihir and Richards Bay) but these are relatively minor, conventional plays (see appendix). Rio Tinto and Rothschild do not seem to be currently wheeling and dealing in Australia, where the bank is concentrating its attention on the minerals sector

    It is certainly reasonable to suggest that Rothshild's newfound interest in the mining company Lepanto may be partly motivated by Rio Tinto's former hands-on involvement with the Philippine company in the same area (It would not be unreasonable to speculate that the two parties consulted beforehand). But this is probably less important than the fact that it is partly through their 120 year association with Rio Tinto that the Rothschilds have acquired an expertise in mine finance which is unrivalled.

    La rennassiance (et echecs) des Rothschilds francaises:
    The rise and fall of IMETAL

    Forty years ago De Rothschild Freres changed its role from that of a merchant bank to a financial conglomerate, greedy for investments in oil, mining, shipping, and real estate. In 1967 the Bank merged its family concerns with that of their other major company, the Compagnie du Nord (railway) [Wilson, op cit page 401].

    "If the 1960's really were 'swinging'" writes Derek Wilson, "no one swung with more vigour than the French Rothschilds. Not since the 1920s had they had so much disposable wealth. Not since the end of the last century had they wielded so much power". It was not only moneymaking which measurably advanced but also the Rothschilds political influence , especially with French prime minister Georges Pompidou.

    But, within living memory, the story had been very different. Nor, after nationalisation in the 1980s, has the earlier euphoria been regained.

    During the late 1930's the left-wing Popular Front government "robbed" the family of its extensive railway holdings. Adding insult to injury, in 1940 the anti-semitic, Nazi puppet Vichy government stripped the French Rothschilds of their citizenship, confiscated their fortunes and forcedthem into exile.

    They returned home after the war to recover their assets and some of their pre-war status . After re-establishing their business they began "cleaning up" in nickel by forming the Societe Metallurgique le Nickel (SLN) to further exploit the vast deposits in French-colonised New Caledonia. The family also built Penarroya - through its mines in Spain and France - into the leading European source of lead and zinc. In 1971, the family added Mokta, the Gabonese uranium miner, to their clutch of interests and, three years later, tied the three companies up in the huge IMETAL conglomerate.

    Six years later, IMETAL took over the steel products manufacturer Copperweld, marking an important Rothshild entrée into the USA; a Texas-based refinery followed [Roger Moody "The Gulliver File" op cit, page 425].

    While the good times of the '70s lasted, they were extremely profitable for the Rothschilds. Ranked in 1980 as thirty-eighth largest multinational in terms of annual sales, IMETAL was raking in more profits from its overseas operations than virtually any other global company ["The Gullvier File" op cit, page 426].

    But then the Mitterand government nationalised the Rothschild banking interests and IMETAL, along with SLN, began to slip out of the family's hands. A tortuous decade followed and, by 1990, the company had virtually withdrawn from mining.

    Guy de Rothschild in his 1985 autobiography, "The Whims of Fortune" asked himself: "What was the final balance of those hectic twenty years?"

    He answered: "Today I find it doubly sad to see Imetal, now government-controlled, staggering under the weight of the slump. All that remains for me is the remembrance of our efforts, our difficulties, our dreams" [Guy de Rothschild "The Whims of Fortune", Granada Publishing, Manchester, 1985]

    And it seems likely that any Rothschild aspirations, to regain influence over the French mining industry, will remain exactly that - dreams.

    Roger Moody, Nostromo Research, London, July 2003.

    Copyright: Nostromo Research and Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

    [This paper can be quoted from, provided acknowledgment is given to sources used. It may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission from the copyright holders].

    See also The Rothschild Files (3 August 2003)

    (Jardine/ Matheson archive. Minutes of the New Jersey Metal Refining Works Ltd. Minutes of board, annual and extraordinary general meetings of the New Jersey Metal Refining Works Ltd. The minutes begin with the first board meeting held at 3 Lombard Street, London, on 31 December 1892, and conclude with the final meeting of shareholders at the same address on 29 October 1897. The company is referred to as the 'The New Jersey Extraction Works, Limited' on the spine, and the first set of minutes explain that the property of this company was transferred to its successor, the New Jersey Metal Refining Works Ltd. The volume is labelled on the front cover 'New Jersey Metal Refining Co. Minutes 1892-7. (An interest of Matheson & Co.) Probably incorporated in the Mountain Copper Co.'.)

    (A) For the purposes of this section: “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the United States; “Organization” means any group, club, league, society, committee, association, political party, or combination of individuals, whether incorporated or otherwise, but such term shall not include any corporation, association, community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes; “Political activity” means any activity the purpose or aim of which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is the control by force or overthrow of the Government of the United States or a political subdivision thereof, or any State or political subdivision thereof; An organization is engaged in “civilian military activity” if: (1) it gives instruction to, or prescribes instruction for, its members in the use of firearms or other weapons or any substitute therefor, or military or naval science; or (2) it receives from any other organization or from any individual instruction in military or naval science; or (3) it engages in any military or naval maneuvers or activities; or (4) it engages, either with or without arms, in drills or parades of a military or naval character; or (5) it engages in any other form of organized activity which in the opinion of the Attorney General constitutes preparation for military action; An organization is “subject to foreign control” if: (a) it solicits or accepts financial contributions, loans, or support of any kind, directly or indirectly, from, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with, a foreign government or a political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or instrumentality of a foreign government or political subdivision thereof, or a political party in a foreign country, or an international political organization; or (b) its policies, or any of them, are determined by or at the suggestion of, or in collaboration with, a foreign government or political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or instrumentality of a foreign government or a political subdivision thereof, or a political party in a foreign country, or an international political organization. (B) (1) The following organizations shall be required to register with the Attorney General: Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in political activity; Every organization which engages both in civilian military activity and in political activity; Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in civilian military activity; and Every organization, the purpose or aim of which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is the establishment, control, conduct, seizure, or overthrow of a government or subdivision thereof by the use of force, violence, military measures, or threats of any one or more of the foregoing. Every such organization shall register by filing with the Attorney General, on such forms and in such detail as the Attorney General may by rules and regulations prescribe, a registration statement containing the information and documents prescribed in subsection (B)(3) and shall within thirty days after the expiration of each period of six months succeeding the filing of such registration statement, file with the Attorney General, on such forms and in such detail as the Attorney General may by rules and regulations prescribe, a supplemental statement containing such information and documents as may be necessary to make the information and documents previously filed under this section accurate and current with respect to such preceding six months' period. Every statement required to be filed by this section shall be subscribed, under oath, by all of the officers of the organization. (2) This section shall not require registration or the filing of any statement with the Attorney General by: (a) The armed forces of the United States; or (b) The organized militia or National Guard of any State, Territory, District, or possession of the United States; or (c) Any law-enforcement agency of the United States or of any Territory, District or possession thereof, or of any State or political subdivision of a State, or of any agency or instrumentality of one or more States; or (d) Any duly established diplomatic mission or consular office of a foreign government which is so recognized by the Department of State; or (e) Any nationally recognized organization of persons who are veterans of the armed forces of the United States, or affiliates of such organizations. (3) Every registration statement required to be filed by any organization shall contain the following information and documents: (a) The name and post-office address of the organization in the United States, and the names and addresses of all branches, chapters, and affiliates of such organization; (b) The name, address, and nationality of each officer, and of each person who performs the functions of an officer, of the organization, and of each branch, chapter, and affiliate of the organization; (c) The qualifications for membership in the organization; (d) The existing and proposed aims and purposes of the organization, and all the means by which these aims or purposes are being attained or are to be attained; (e) The address or addresses of meeting places of the organization, and of each branch, chapter, or affiliate of the organization, and the times of meetings; (f) The name and address of each person who has contributed any money, dues, property, or other thing of value to the organization or to any branch, chapter, or affiliate of the organization; (g) A detailed statement of the assets of the organization, and of each branch, chapter, and affiliate of the organization, the manner in which such assets were acquired, and a detailed statement of the liabilities and income of the organization and of each branch, chapter, and affiliate of the organization; (h) A detailed description of the activities of the organization, and of each chapter, branch, and affiliate of the organization; (i) A description of the uniforms, badges, insignia, or other means of identification prescribed by the organization, and worn or carried by its officers or members, or any of such officers or members; (j) A copy of each book, pamphlet, leaflet, or other publication or item of written, printed, or graphic matter issued or distributed directly or indirectly by the organization, or by any chapter, branch, or affiliate of the organization, or by any of the members of the organization under its authority or within its knowledge, together with the name of its author or authors and the name and address of the publisher; (k) A description of all firearms or other weapons owned by the organization, or by any chapter, branch, or affiliate of the organization, identified by the manufacturer's number thereon; (l) In case the organization is subject to foreign control, the manner in which it is so subject; (m) A copy of the charter, articles of association, constitution, bylaws, rules, regulations, agreements, resolutions, and all other instruments relating to the organization, powers, and purposes of the organization and to the powers of the officers of the organization and of each chapter, branch, and affiliate of the organization; and (n) Such other information and documents pertinent to the purposes of this section as the Attorney General may from time to time require. All statements filed under this section shall be public records and open to public examination and inspection at all reasonable hours under such rules and regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe. (C) The Attorney General is authorized at any time to make, amend, and rescind such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section, including rules and regulations governing the statements required to be filed. (D) Whoever violates any of the provisions of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Whoever in a statement filed pursuant to this section willfully makes any false statement or willfully omits to state any fact which is required to be stated, or which is necessary to make the statements made not misleading, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

    PERPETUATION OF CORNERS,

    TO  "See what the end will be"


    Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.


     -President Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address



    " The Act of 1866, Section 9, of which we quote in part, was a consequence of the state of things. It gives the possessor of a quartz lode a right of pre-emption, and it declares that the person who has acquired a right to the use of water, by priority of possession, shall be maintained and protected in the same, if such right is recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and decisions of Courts. The policy of this enactment—so far, at least, as it relates to agricultural districts —may be doubtful; but it is the law of the land, and the Courts must carry out what appears to be the intention of the legislature as therein expressed. And that, as indicated by the act, appears to be to grant to the owner of possessory rights to the use of water, under the local customs, laws, and decisions, the absolute right to such use. Under this law, when a possessory right to the use of water is claimed, whether or not such right exists, will be determined by reference to the local customs, laws, and decisions, and the question will be determined just as it would have been had it been raised between occupants before the title to the land had passed from the Government. When the right is thus ascertained, the statute has the force of confirming it to the person entitled under the local laws and decisions. the act is prospective in its operation, and cannot be construed so as to divest an estate granted before its passage. If it be admitted that Congress has the power to divest a vested right by giving a statute a retrospective operation, that interpretation will never be adopted without absolute necessity. see (Blanchard v. Sprague, 3 Sum. 535; Vansickle v. Haines, 7 Nev. 249.)



    Prior rights are not affected by provisions of Title. 5 or 42 U.S.C. 9601



    " If, when the superfund act was passed, the defendant had such a right, by priority of possession, as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, The Morrill Agricultural College Land Grant,  and the mining  act contemplates, upon the construction which must be given, and those rights are  confirmed in him, and he is entitled to protection as against anyone claiming, as riparian proprietors merely, or as the governments of the the United States and California together, through an act passed thereafter, and when the right had vested in the patentee before the act became a law, The statute is, in effect, invalid against such  patent, and is inoperative as an exception out of the estate granted by the patent of May 1st, 1862.


    As we have  interpreted the acts of Congress, and the operation of the patents issued before  the passage of that act is as we have stated, the case stands in this wise: The Governments' claims, by virtue of adverse enjoyment, falls to the ground. They cannot sustain their claims by force of the acts of Congress, because the  patents of May 1st, 1862 were made before the act was passed, and conveyed the premises absolutely, and vested with absolute rights, privileges, and immunities.


    We have been considering the questions of prescription and the acts of Congress separately, as it was desirable to determine the effect of the act, and of the patents upon these water rights. the governments, having taken the upper and lower premises, subject to such right as the defendant had acquired by priority of possession and prior to the the Act of Congress since 1866, he had also acquired a absolute right, as against the whole world, to divert and use the water in the same manner that he would have by virtue of prior appropriations, and this too would be a complete defense to this action, for the complainant's have given up their rights not to be infringed, either as proprietor of the upper or lower premises, or for any other exigency of government. It is, therefore, unnecessary to ascertain whether there has been, in fact, adverse use by defendant, as alleged the complainants."


    As the patent to land, when issued, relates back to the inception of title, i. e. the original entry and payment, who entered and paid for this land prior to the passage of the Act of 1866, has the land and the water upon it unaffected by that act.



    We propose to show : 1st. That it has the absolute and perfect title; 2d. That running water is an incident to or part of the soil over which it naturally flows ; 3d. That the right of the riparian proprietor does not depend upon the appropriation of the water by him to any special purpose, but that it is a right incident to his ownership in the land to have the water flow in its natural course and condition, subject only to those changes which may be occasioned by the uses of the proprietor; 4th. That the government patent conveys to Mr. T.W. Arman, and his heirs, successors, and assigns, forever, not only the land, but the streams naturally flowing through it; 5th. That the common law is the law of this State, and must prevail in this case, where the right to water is based upon the absolute ownership of the soil."

    " What diminution of quantity or deterioration in quality will constitute an invasion of the rights of the first appropriator will depend upon the special circumstances of each case, considered with reference to the uses to which the water is applied. A slight deterioration in quality might render the water unfit for drink or domestic purposes, whilst it would not sensibly impair its value for mining or irrigation. In all controversies, therefore, between him and parties subsequently claiming the water, the question for determination is necessarily whether his use and enjoyment of the water to the extent of his original appropriation have been impaired by the acts of the defendant.


    But whether, upon a petition or bill asserting that his prior rights have been thus invaded, a Court of Equity will interfere to restrain the acts of the party complained of, will depend upon the character and extent of the injury alleged, whether it be irremediable in its nature, whether an action at law would afford adequate remedy, whether the parties are able to respond for the damages resulting from the injury, and other considerations which ordinarily govern a Court of Equity in the exercise of its preventive process of injunction."

    " In the case of Tartar v. The Spring Creek Water and Mining Company, decided in 1855, the Supreme Court of California said: ' The current of decisions of this Court goes to establish that the policy of this State, as derived from her legislation, is to permit settlers in all capacities to occupy the public lands, and by such occupation to acquire the right of undisturbed enjoyment against all the world but the true owner. In evidence of this, acts have been passed to protect the possession of agricultural lands acquired by mere occupancy; to license miners; to provide for the recovery of mining claims; recognizing canals and ditches which were known to divert the water of streams from their natural channels for mining purposes; and others of like character. This policy has been extended equally to all pursuits, and no partiality for one over another has been evinced, except in the single case where the rights of the agriculturist are made to yield to those of the miner where gold is discovered in his land. The policy of the exception is obvious. Without it the entire gold region might have been inclosed in large tracts, under the pretense of agriculture and grazing, and eventually what would have sufficed as a rich bounty to many thousands would be reduced to the proprietorship of a few. Aside from this, the legislation and decisions have been uniform in awarding the right of peaceable enjoyment to the first occupant, either of the land or of anything incident to the land.'


    " Ever since that decision, it has been held, generally throughout the Pacific States and Territories, that the right to water by prior appropriation for any beneficial purpose is entitled to protection. Water is diverted to propel machinery in flour-mills and saw-mills, and to irrigate land for cultivation, as well as to enable miners to work their mining claims; and in all such cases the right of the first appropriator, exercised within reasonable limits, is respected and enforced. We say within reasonable limits, for this right to water, like the right by prior occupancy to mining ground or agricultural land, is not unrestricted. It must be exercised with reference to the general condition of the country and the necessities of the people, and not so as to deprive a whole neighborhood or community of its use, and vest an absolute monopoly in a single individual. The Act of Congress of 1866 recognizes the right to water by prior appropriation for agricultural and manufacturing purposes, as well as for mining."


    "It is very evident that Congress intended, although the language used is not happy, to recognize as valid the customary law with respect to the use of water, which had grown up among the occupants of the public land under the peculiar necessities of their condition; and that law may be shown by evidence of the local customs, or by the legislation of the State or Territory, or the decision of the Courts. The union of the three conditions in any particular case is not essential to the perfection of the right by priority ; and in case of conflict between a local custom and a statutory regulation, the latter, as of superior authority, must necessarily control."


    The United States will, therefore, under the ninth section, maintain and protect such water rights as have vested and accrued by priority of possession, and which at the time of such disposal are recognized and acknowledged by local customs, laws, and decisions of Courts, by which those rights are primarily regulated.

    Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well, at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"? -Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address


    (b)(1) COORDINATE – Coordinate with United States Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and each appropriate State water resources agency to ensure use of best available science.


    (b)(2) ASSESS – Work with the USGS and NOAA, and each appropriate State water resource agency to assess specific risks to the water supply of each major Reclamation river basin, including any risk relating to a change in snowpack, changes in the timing and quantity of runoff, changes in ground water recharge and discharge, and any increase in the demand for water as a result of increasing temperatures and the rate of reservoir evaporation.


    (b)(3) ANALYZE – Analyze the extent that the risks to water supply will impact water deliveries to the contractors of the Secretary of the Interior, hydroelectric power generation facilities, recreation at Reclamation facilities, fish and wildlife habitat, applicable species listed as an endangered, threatened, or candidate species, water quality issues, flow and water dependent ecological resiliency, and flood control management.


    (b)(4) DEVELOP STRATEGIES – Develop appropriate strategies to mitigate each impact of water supply changes in consultation with non-Federal participants. Strategies can relate to development of new water management, operating, or habitat restoration plans, water conservation, improved hydrologic models and other decision support systems, and ground water and surface water storage needs.


    (b)(5) MONITOR – Work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and applicable State water resource agencies to develop a monitoring plan to acquire and maintain water resources data to strengthen the understanding of water supply trends and to assist in each assessment and analysis conducted.

    "To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15. "

    "neither force nor will, but merely judgment" in striking down "all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution." - Alexander Hamilton - Federalist 78

    "There are just too many questions, and they are all too difficult, for the approach to result in anything other than judicial guesswork." - U.S.district Judge Wilkinson

    Tempus fugit



    Confirmation:


    "Implementing Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 120(h)"

    Emergency Declarations: 

    § 9503 (b) – Required Elements


    TITLE 42--High priority for drinking water supplies
    THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 103--
    Sec. 9618. ( CERCLA 118-- SUPERFUND)

    The intervention provision, section 113(i), allows “any person” to intervene when “such person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest.”

    36 Courts allowing polluter intervention have interpreted section 113(i) to be nearly identical to intervention as of right under Rule 24,37 which allows for intervention where

    (1) the motion is timely,

    (2) the intervenor has a “significantly protectable” interest in the litigation,

    (3) the disposition of the action may impair or impede the intervenor’s ability to protect that interest, and
    (4) the intervenor’s interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties.

    38 The only difference between Rule 24 and section 113(i) is that Rule
    24 places the burden of proving inadequacy of representation on the
    intervening party, while section 113(i) places the burden on the government to prove that they adequately represent the intervening party’s interest.

    39
    32. See id.
    33. 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1). In a CERCLA action, typically the government or a private entity cleans up a given site and then seeks “cost recovery” of its cleanup expenses. See supra note 26 and accompanying text. This should not be confused with the “right to contribution” conferred on PRPs by §113(f)(1), which allows a PRP to seek reimbursement from other PRPs when the first PRP paid more than their fair share to the government or private cleanup group in the form of cost recovery. See 42
    U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1).
    34. Id. § 9613(f)(1)–(2); Aerojet Gen. Corp., 606 F.3d at 1149.
    35. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry., 129 S. Ct. at 1881.
    36. 42 U.S.C § 9613(i). Congress added 113(i) as part of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) “[i]n response to concerns about the limited degree of public involvement in the selection of CERCLA remedies.” 2 JAMES T. O’REILLY, INTERVENTION IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, SUPERFUND & BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP § 22:16 (2009–10).
    37. See, e.g., Aerojet Gen. Corp., 606 F.3d at 1149.
    38. FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2).
    39. See Aerojet Gen. Corp., 606 F.3d at 1149.


    SOLICITOR, solicitator.] A person employed to follow and take care of suits depending in courts of equity. Solicitors are to be sworn and admitted by the judges, like unto attornies, before they shall practise in the common law courts; attornies may be admitted solicitors in the courts of equity, &c. a Geo. 2. c. 23. See Attorney.

    There is also a solicitor-general to the king, who is a great officer next to the attorney-general.

    STANDARD, from the Fr. estandart, $c. signum, vexillum.~] In the general signification, is an ensign in war. And it is used for the standing measure of the king, to the scantling whereof all the measures in the land are or ought to be framed by the clerks of markets, aulnagers, or other officers, according to Magna Carta and divers statutes. This is not without good reason called a standard, because it standeth constant and immoveable, having all measures coming towards it for their conformity : even soldiers in the field have their standard or colours for their direction in their march, &c. to repair to. Britton, c. 30. See Measure.

    There is a standard of money, directing what quantity of fine silver and gold, and how much allay, are to be contained in coin of old sterling, &c.; and standard of plate, and silver manufactures. 6 Geo. 1. c. 11. See Allay, Gold, Money, &c.

    STAND ARDUS. True standard, or legal weight or measure. Cartular. S. Edmund. MS. 268.

    Raise a flag for air quality awareness.

    Responses to Questions from the Webinar held on April 12, 2012 entitled
    “Implementing CERCLA Section 120(h)"
    1. Q: How to initiate formal condemnation/eminient domain proceedings on the
    Chappie/Shasta OHVA
    This question is beyond the scope of this webinar. GSA and EPA cannot give legal advice to other agencies. We recommend that you contact counsel at your agency to answer this question.

    DOJ, DHS officials discuss the 'how' of information sharing


    Failure-Resistant Systems (FRS)
    A Joint Initiative between NSF and SRC


    Program Solicitation
    NSF 12-556

    NSF Logo

    National Science Foundation

    Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering
    Division of Computing and Communication Foundations

    Directorate for Engineering
    Division of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems



    SRC        logo



    Semiconductor Research Corporation

    Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

    July 26, 2012


    Click here to send this e-mail to a friend! August 6, 2012


    Every three years, a powerful international gathering sponsored by five professional societies unites the greatest minds from the world of advanced materials and processing to exchange the latest developments.

    Your abstract is needed to build the technical program for The 8th Pacific Rim International Conference on Advanced Materials and Processing, set for August 4-9, 2013, at the Hilton Waikoloa Village, in Waikoloa, Hawaii.

    The technical program will feature compelling presentations on 15 symposia topics ranging from Advanced Materials Characterization and Evaluation and Biomaterials, Smart Materials, and Structures, to Materials for Energy and Solidification, Deformation, and Related Processing.

    Interested authors should peruse the symposia topics and submit abstracts through ProgramMaster by December 14, 2012.

    Hosted this year by TMS, the conference is jointly organized and sponsored by The Chinese Society for Metals (CSM), The Japan Institute of Metals (JIM), The Korean Institute of Metals (KIM), Materials Australia (MA), and The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS), who will organize PRICM-8.




    The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society | 184 Thorn Hill Road | Warrendale, PA 15086
    telephone: (724) 776-9000 | fax: (724) 776-3770 | tmsgeneral@tms.org



    Fifth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Denial of Motion to Intervene


    It is sufficient to conclude that the intervenors’ interests “may be” inadequately represented. See Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528.

    Federal Government Found Liable Under CERCLA

    On March 4, 2011, in Nu-West Mining Inc. v. United States, the district court for the District of Idaho determined that the United States’ oversight of waste disposal activities at historic mines sufficient to establish arranger liability.

    For the United States, a 'reversal of fortune'

    LOCATORS' RIGHT OF POSSESSION & ENJOYMENT OF SURFACE GROUND, & OF THE LODE.
    § 60. Locators' rights of possession and enjoyment.
    § 61. Status of lode-claims previously located.
    § 62. Patents for veins or lodes previously issued.
    5 63. Priority of location, importance of.
    § 82. Adverse occupation as against a patent.—
    § 83. The patent, what is granted.—
    § 84. Who may apply.—
    § 85. Evidence of ownership—Deraigning title—Identity of applicant

    § 207. Existing water rights obtained by patent not affected.—
    § 209. Recognition of doctrine of prior appropriation— Reasonable use.—

    Reversionary Interest

    A reversionary interest places a condition on the transferee's right to own and occupy the land. If the condition is violated, the property is returned to the original owner or the owner's successors. Each owner in the chain of title must comply with the conditions placed on the property. If the condition is violated the property can revert to the original owner, even if there have been several transfers in the chain of title.
    Siting Restrictions
    Siting restrictions control land use in areas subject to natural hazards, such as earthquakes, fires, or floods. Such restrictions are created through statutory authority to require that states implement and enforce certain land use controls as well as through local ordinances.
    Stakeholder
    Stakeholders include federal, state, and local officials, community organizations, property owners, and others having a personal interest or involvement, or having a monetary or commercial involvement in the real property which is to undergo an OE response action.

    Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization (SARA)

    Enacted in 1986, this legislation establishes standards for cleanup activities, requires federal facility compliance with CERCLA, and clarifies public involvement requirement


    This week, USDA released a report summarizing what they have learned from this stakeholder feedback. According to the report, key areas of common interest to all stakeholders included:

    Policy Stability. Stakeholders encouraged a greater long-term commitment at the Congressional and Departmental levels to biofuel energy policy so that uncertainty and risks in steady private sector investment could be avoided. Stakeholders were also strongly in favor of complementary legislation and regulation policies, rather than apparent opposing policies. There is a need for clear policy direction, common definitions, and fewer conflicting programmatic and regulatory policies.

    Market Development. Increasing consumer awareness and understanding of the benefits from bioenergy can help create demand pull and new markets. Addressing some of the misinformation regarding food and biofuel conflicts would benefit market development.

    Complete Economic Analysis. A cost-benefit study for biofuels focusing on energy security, environment, and economic development should be conducted. This analysis would facilitate further development of bioenergy.

    Additional Biomass Resources. Biomass for feedstock production can include sugar beets, industrial sweet potato, agricultural and industrial waste, fish waste, algae, municipal solid waste, agricultural waste from Tribal Lands, and other dedicated energy crops not included in the roadmap (e.g., guayule, and jojoba).

    Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Stakeholders expressed that not all CRP acreage is enrolled as non-productive or marginal lands. For productive lands: while there remains a strong commitment in preserving key conservation and wildlife goals of the CRP, there is room for allowing for penalty-free sustainable harvesting of energy biomass on a more than periodic basis.

    Cropping Approaches. Stakeholders urged more analysis on double cropping, intercropping, reserve cropping, and reclaimed land cropping opportunities.

    Local Energy.  Bioenergy policies should include a higher number of regionally-tailored approaches and receive federal attention that involves all of America and avoid energy markets dominated by single regions. Examples provided included smaller biorefinery facilities that could reduce the transportation distances of feedstocks and fuels to reduce transportation and delivery costs.

    Wood. Stakeholders from major forestry regions of the country believed that a greater recognition of the role of both existing and new woody resources is merited. Interest was strong in ensuring that wood residues are sustainably harvested, and that potential disruption of existing markets be considered. Purpose-grown wood could also be a major contributor in some regions, and significant potential exists for use of wood from forest health and fuel reduction treatments for energy purposes.

    Biomass for heat and power. Many stakeholders expressed support for a greater acknowledgement of solid biomass in replacing or displacing fossil fuels for heat and power. This creates additional and possibly competing demand for biomass.

    During the stakeholder workshops, organizers asked participants a series of questions regarding different aspects of biofuel production and use. Among these, they asked what issues might deter farmers from growing biofuel crops. Common responses included market risk and the need for guaranteed markets for the crops, the “food versus fuel” issue and environmental protection, management issues and concerns over long-term viability of the biofuels industry.

    Asked whether biofuels should be sustainable, about half said yes, with many others apparently unsure how to interpret the term “sustainable.” Asked to define it, most indicated it is the ability to maintain or increase levels of production/harvest for perpetuity. Several others defined it in terms of economic viability and others in terms of environmental quality.

    A widely accepted framework for sustainability in agricultural production involves the “triple bottom line” of being economically viable, environmentally sound and socially acceptable. Whether biofuel production can meet those criteria while growing at the rates specified in the RFS remain to be seen.



    Dysfunctional, co-dependent and functionally paralyzed


    EPA is functioning like an abused child

      • 

    Like an abused child too terrified to perform normal tasks, is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency too terrified to do its job?  The words I hear in the halls of the agency are, “They want to turn off the lights and lock the doors."

    Before I address who “they” are, some background. The EPA has a mission to protect human health and the environment mandated under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Superfund Act, and others. The creation of this agency and enabling legislation was a result of a century and a half of industrial progress without recognized consequence. It is EPA’s responsibility to protect more than 300 million Americans from the effects of poor water quality, unhealthy air and toxic chemicals. Failure to do so would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.

    At its conception, the EPA assumed authority of certain municipal and industrial processes heretofore unregulated or under-regulated. For example, the pesticide industry was required to comply with risk-based standards. This industry and others developed a pathological reaction to an increasingly popular belief in environmental health protection. Thus, a union of anti-regulatory profiteers and ideologues have persistently, and with almost unlimited funding, created a system to terrify the regulators of pollution, pharmaceuticals, tobacco and fossil fuels.

    With unprecedented access and affiliation they manipulated congressional budget allocations and agency oversight, and they formed abusive strategies which damaged and confused the EPA. Years of threats from lobbyists and their congressional minions have intimidated EPA managers, reduced funding, imposed draconian travel restrictions, called for “science-based” studies to delay the common sense implementation of best management practices. Rule writing “assistance” by regulated trade groups has psychologically turned the EPA into a “whipping boy.” The result has been to severely restrict the ability of the EPA to efficiently protect our health and the environment.

    Dysfunctional, co-dependent and functionally paralyzed describe some children who have been physically abused by their parent. These situations are made worse when the victim realizes those who are supposed to protect them will not. This is exactly what happened to the EPA under the George W. Bush Administration regarding global warming and pesticide regulation.

    I believe this is what might be happening to the EPA. Not only is it afraid to function, but when it does, it functions to please its abusers. The EPA needs to be protected and learn to trust. It must learn to behave properly and be accountable.

    In the first two years of the Obama administration, the EPA did develop confidence to perform its tasks, only to see congressional abusers start leering after the mid-term election in 2010 and reminding this vulnerable agency just who is in charge. Now is the time for the president, those in Congress who still believe in environmental protection and all Americans to demonstrate their faith and support for the EPA.  Or will we let the abusers quietly smile, lock the doors and turn out the lights?

    Professor Marc Lame teaches environmental management in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. He serves on the EPA's Federal Advisory Committee and is the former chair of Arizona’s Supreme Court’s Foster-care Review Board. The opinion expressed in this column is the writer's and not necessarily that of The Times.

    May 11, 2012

    POGO Investigator Testifies Before Congress on Inspector General Vacancies





    Jaketestify
    Right: POGO Investigator Jake Wiens, photo by House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    By DANA LIEBELSON

    When the President fails to nominate the watchdogs who expose government wrongdoing, how can Congress ensure that taxpayers are getting the oversight they deserve? That was the question legislators sought to answer yesterday morning at a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing.

    POGO Investigator Jake Wiens testified at the hearing (his very first congressional testimony—woo hoo!) on the importance of promptly nominating permanent Inspectors General (IGs). Wiens is the mastermind behind POGO’s new website “Where Are All the Watchdogs?” which tracks the number and length of IG vacancies.

    “POGO firmly believes that the effectiveness of an IG office can be diminished when that office does not have permanent leadership, especially when that vacancy exists for an extended period of time,” Wiens said in his opening statement.

    At present, 10 of the 73 Inspector General positions are vacant. Eight of these positions require nomination by President Obama. The longest vacancy is at the State Department, where the IG office has now been without permanent leadership for almost 1,600 days.

    “The president has had more than three years to make a recommendation…why hasn’t he made a decision on this? Aren’t there plenty of competent people that can do the job?” said Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), referring to the State Department vacancy. Burton is a former chairman for the House oversight committee.

    Current Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) pointed out that the hearing on IG vacancies was not held in order to reflect upon the Obama Administration— but to instead determine how best to ensure that future administrations nominate IGs in a prompt manner.

    “A robust group of IGs at federal agencies is the best way to prevent waste, fraud and abuse,” Rep. Issa said.

    Several of the representatives made a concerted effort to recognize the good work that acting IGs have done under President Obama. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) asked one of the witnesses, General Services Administration (GSA) IG Brian Miller—whose office recently cracked the GSA Las Vegas scandal—whether he treated acting or permanent IGs differently.

    “I give equal weight to both permanent and temporary IGs” Miller said. He told Rep. Maloney he believes he would have still been able to unearth the GSA scandal even if he had been an acting IG, instead of permanent. However, at the hearing, Miller also emphasized the importance of the vetting process for permanent IGs.

    “Finding and nominating the right person for the job is absolutely vital” Miller said. “IGs need time and experience on the job to develop.”

    POGO found in its latest investigation that:

    A permanent IG has the ability to set a long-term strategic plan for the office, including setting investigative and audit priorities. An acting official, on the other hand, is known by all OIG staff to be temporary, which one former IG has argued “can have a debilitating effect on [an] OIG, particularly over a lengthy period.” Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has echoed that sentiment, saying “Even the best acting inspector general lacks the standing to make lasting changes needed to improve his or her office.”

    Wiens, in reflecting upon the hearing, said that the issue isn’t about pitting permanent IGs against acting IGs, but instead determining whether “in that same position, a permanent IG could do a better job—I would make the case that the answer is yes.”

    Overall, Wiens said that he was pleased to see that the Representatives “took the issue of Inspector General vacancies seriously and focused on substance, not partisanship.”

    Dana Liebelson is POGO’s Beth Daley Impact Fellow.

     

    ENVIRONMENT

    EPA Official Felled by ‘Crucify’ Comment Skips House Hearing, Visits Sierra Club

    Updated: June 7, 2012 | 8:23 p.m.
    June 7, 2012 | 1:20 p.m.

    It’s not clear why Al Armendariz, recently removed from a top post at the Environmental Protection Agency for saying that the government should “crucify” bad actors in the energy industry, abruptly canceled plans to testify before a House panel on Wednesday.

    But it is clear that he was in Washington that day and met with someone—at the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest environmental organization.

    On Wednesday afternoon, when a reporter visited the Sierra Club’s Washington headquarters just a few blocks from Capitol Hill, Armendariz’s name was written on the sign-in sheet as having been the last person to visit the office. The visit apparently came only a few hours after Armendariz had infuriated Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee when he canceled his scheduled testimony on EPA enforcement issues without offering a reason.

    Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune told National Journal in an interview that he hadn’t met with Armendariz but that he knew the former regional administrator at EPA was going to be in town.

    “I knew we were going to be talking to him. I personally haven’t, but he’s been a long-time champion for public-health protections,” Brune said. “We expect him to have a long career in public health, so we’re happy to talk with him.” Brune said he didn’t know that Armendariz had canceled his planned appearance before the Energy and Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee.

    A lawyer representing Armendariz, Danny Onorato, did not respond to a request for comment. EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said that because the agency no longer employs Armendariz, EPA officials “did not advise him on whether or not to testify.” The Sierra Club also didn’t offer information about who there met with Armendariz.

    Congressional GOP leaders were fuming in reaction to the news.

    "The fact that Dr. Armendariz was just blocks away and still refused to testify at our hearing raises even more questions,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., said in a statement. “If he had time on his schedule to meet with the Sierra Club, it is even less clear why he was unable to fulfill his prior commitment to testify.”

    Upton and other Republican leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters to Onorato and EPA on Wednesday, asking why Armendariz canceled and requesting all communications between Armendariz and the agency about his invitation to testify.

    “Why, several weeks after he had agreed to testify, did he retain counsel and withdraw?” Upton said at the hearing on Wednesday, which went on without Armendariz. “The EPA did not make a witness available to appear alongside Dr. Armendariz today. Did the Obama administration urge him not to appear? ... Congress and the American people deserve answers about this administration’s policies and practices, and we intend to get them.”

    Armendariz resigned as EPA’s regional administrator for Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Mexico on April 30 after an uproar over his comment that EPA’s “general philosophy” with its enforcement policy should be to “crucify” oil and natural-gas companies.

    The comments were made in 2010 but only became public this spring when aides to Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member James Inhofe, R-Okla., discovered them in a YouTube video. After Inhofe turned the video into a national controversy over EPA’s enforcement strategy, it took less than a week—and an off-putting comment by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson—for Armendariz to resign.

    Inhofe speculated on Thursday that Armendariz was at the Sierra Club to seek new employment, although when he took the EPA post in 2009 Armendariz announced that during his government service he would only be taking a leave of absence from Southern Methodist University, where he was an environmental engineering professor. He is still listed as a faculty member at SMU.

    "Rather than testifying in the House and being accountable for carrying out the Obama-EPA's 'crucify them' agenda, it appears Mr. Armendariz may have had a job interview with the Sierra Club,” Inhofe said. “With such an impressive job-killing resume, it would be no surprise if the Sierra Club is recruiting him for their 'Beyond Gas' campaign designed to 'prevent any new gas plants from being built' and to end natural gas production in this country.”

    The Sierra Club did not respond with more information about his visit on Thursday and Armendariz’s lawyer did not respond to requests for comment throughout the day.

    Armendariz’s visit to the Sierra Club could be particularly galling to House Energy and Commerce Republicans, who just last week released a statement blasting the organization for what they purport is a “none of the above” energy campaign.

    The committee cited a Wall Street Journal editorial from last week that lambasted the Sierra Club for its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign to oppose further reliance on natural gas, which has traditionally been seen as a cleaner alternative to coal and oil. The group’s campaign, first reported in National Journal, criticizes natural gas as “dirty, dangerous, and run amok,” according to a recently launched website for the campaign.

    The House committee also cited examples of the Sierra Club's opposition to all types of energy, including renewable solar, wind, and nuclear power.

    Brune dismissed the Republicans’ attack as lacking credibility and said his group supports the vast majority of clean-energy power, including helping 160,000 solar installations get up and running around the country.

    “I’ll answer to just be polite,” Brune said. “It’s a clever line. It’s more political theater than anything else.”

    EPA punishes the innocent for green fuels fraud

    June 07, 2012 -- 8:00 PM

     

    Gas station signs announcing "Biodiesel" or "Contains ethanol" have become commonplace in America. We're vaguely aware that billions of gallons of such renewable fuel are now being blended into our finished gasoline and diesel fuels. This is the Renewable Fuel Standard at work, the EPA's byzantine invitation to fraud.

    The RFS program is Environmental Protection Agency's system to assure that the amount of renewable fuel being used in motor fuel meets the requirements of the law. Believe it or not, the EPA monitors every gallon of renewable fuel in our motor fuel with a unique serial number called a Renewable Identification Number, or RIN. The EPA does not assign the RIN, nor does it maintain a registry for these numbers. And that's where the horror story begins.

    Producers assign RINs -- credits that can be bought and sold like shares of stock. What's more, the EPA puts the burden on refiners and importers to ensure the credits they purchase are valid.

    What's to keep a dishonest producer from generating RINs in his computer without manufacturing any corresponding renewable fuel connected to those numbers? Nothing, evidently. Since last November, the EPA has accused three companies of selling RIN credits without producing any fuel to back up the credits. Clean Green Fuel of Baltimore sold more than 32 million possibly phony credits; Absolute Fuels of Lubbock, Texas, more than 48 million; and Green Diesel LLC of Houston, more than 60 million.

    Clean Green Fuel owner Rodney R. Hailey was charged with wire fraud, money laundering and violating the Clean Air Act. He allegedly netted at least $9 million, but his business "consisted solely of generating false RINs" and "marketing them to brokers and oil companies," Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein wrote in an indictment.

    What did Hailey do with his alleged ill-gotten gains? Federal agents seized a Gulfstream III jet ($2.5 million), along with 10 cars and trucks, including a Bentley Continental ($267,000), a Mercedes-Benz ($200,000), a 2011 Cadillac Escalade ($85,085), a couple of Ferraris, a Rolls-Royce and a Maserati. The affidavit also listed real estate holdings totaling more than $5.3 million.

    Absolute Fuels CEO Jeffrey Gunselman allegedly created fake credits worth approximately $62 million and used the money for similarly lavish living.

    Green Diesel of Houston received an EPA "notice of violation" -- a warning that legal action will be taken unless a problem is resolved -- for allegedly generating more than 60 million invalid biomass-based diesel RINs.

    To whom did they sell the allegedly fake RINs? Here is the real hitch. The EPA puts the burden on refiners and importers to do the due diligence -- sufficient investigation -- to ensure the RINs they buy are valid. The EPA is explicitly saying "buyer beware."

    A fuel industry insider said, "When folks do their own investigating, EPA will not tell us what their idea of acceptable due diligence looks like. There is no guarantee that what you consider to be due diligence will keep the agency from coming after you anyway."

    As of this week, the EPA has issued "notices of violation" to 30 companies that unknowingly bought fake RINs to comply with their production obligation. Charles T. Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, last week told a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, "EPA officials should have alerted members of my trade association when they suspected that some companies registered with the agency were producing fraudulent credits.

    "Penalizing refiners who unknowingly bought fraudulent RINs from sellers registered with EPA is unjust, irresponsible and bad policy because it punishes crime victims instead of criminals."

    The best solution is to eliminate this system entirely.

     

    Mining For The Right Copper Play

    June 6, 2012  |  about: SCCO, includes: COPX, CPER, CU, FCX

    As the global economy is on the edge of potentially another recession (depending on what happens in Europe) the idea of investing in copper right now might seem a bit misplaced, but being the contrarian that I am I feel that now with volatility in the market high and copper prices being beaten down now is the time to be digging deeper into this sector to find deals.

    When it comes to copper there are a lot of ways to go about playing the sector, ranging from a wide array of ETFs, stocks, and even the metal itself. Some of the more popular ETFs that many use to play the sector include United States Copper Index Fund (CPER), First Trust ISE Global Copper Index Fund (CU), and the Global X Copper Miners ETF (COPX). Even with all of these ETF options available I still find that the simplest and usually the most profitable way to capitalize on this sector is to simply find a beaten down stock that specializes in copper and buy them.

    The two more popular names out there in this sector are Freeport McMoran (FCX) and Southern Copper Corporation (SCCO). Freeport McMoran specializes in not just the exploration, mining, and production of copper, but also other metals such as gold, molybdenum, cobalt hydroxide, silver, and other minor metals, such as rhenium and magnetite. Southern Copper Corp. on the other hand is primarily focused on the exploration, mining, and production of copper, with a slight interest in some minor metals. Freeport McMoran has a market capitalization of $32 billion, while Southern Copper Corp. has a market cap of $25.3 billion.

    Being that both of these companies are fairly similar in both size and industry I felt that it might make sense to do a breakdown of the numbers to better understand each firm's fundamentals and overall financials. The below chart compares both companies against one another in areas that I typically like to examine prior to investing any initial capital.

     

    SCCO

    FCX

    2011 Net Income (Millions)

    $6,818.72

    $20,880

    Q1 2012 Net Income (Millions)

    $621.43

    $764

    P/E

    10.14

    8.43

    Current EPS

    2.94

    4.01

    Dividend Yield

    7.40%

    3.90%

    Price/Book

    5.5

    1.95

    Profit Margin (2012 Q1)

    34.38%

    21.69%

    Return on Equity (2012 Q1)

    58.73%

    19.29%

    From a pure valuation standpoint Freeport is the cheaper of the two stocks with a P/E of 8.43 compared to Southern Copper's 10.14. Freeport is also the cheaper of the two from a price to book valuation. When looking at the financial picture, Freeport had higher annual revenue in 2011. This trend also held true in this most recent quarter's numbers. Freeport posted revenue of $4.605 billion compared to Southern Copper's $1.806 billion.

    The one area where Southern Copper outperforms Freeport is in dividend yield. Now, I know that yield can be a misleading indicator and a lot of the time is the sign that the stock has gotten extremely beaten up, which has indirectly pushed the yield up. When looking back over the past three months at both stocks' performance I found that Freeport that Freeport has declined around 14.2% compared to Southern Copper which has only declined around 5.6%.

    Southern Copper historically has been known for paying an above average dividend to shareholders compared to that of Freeport. This yield seems very enticing, but before moving forward the question that should be asked is whether the dividend is sustainable. After examining the past several years of EPS compared to the company's dividend payout. Southern Copper has never paid out more in dividends then they brought in (with the exception for 2008, which makes sense). I will be the first to agree that the payout ratio for the dividend is quite high (around 85% to 90%), but considering the current revenue stream and margins I feel confident that they will continue to be able to pay a dividend in a range that is comparable to the current yield.

    When it comes to deciding which company to buy I feel that is more a personal investor/trader choice since one firm is more of a value play, while the other is more of an income play, in relative terms. In these types of situations I will usually lean toward the stock that pays a better dividend since I am always in search of yield.

    When it comes to buying one of these stocks I feel that there is still a great deal of uncertainty in the market, especially around the various outcomes in Europe, so I would be hesitant to just going in and buying any stocks out right at current prices. Instead I would suggest finding several entry point prices that seem compelling and sell some cash secured puts at those strike prices. Since I am more in favor of Southern Copper I will use them as my example for the type of trade I would suggest implementing.

    Southern Copper seems to have a decent amount of support at the $28 - $29 level, with sustained support at the $25 level. I would first suggest finding a contract month that seems appealing, I like the September Puts. I like September because it gives the seller plenty of time appreciation that is built into the price as well as allowing the recent volatility spikes to be factored into the put pricing. I would suggest selling the following puts: one $25 put for $1.00, two $28 puts for $2.00, and one $29 put for $2.30, all for the September contract month. This trade would obligate me to buy 400 shares of Southern Copper if at the time of September expiration all three put contracts were in the money. If that happened I would have a combined cost basis of $27.50. This of course does not factor in the "real" breakeven I would have from the credit I received from selling the puts in the first place. The total credit that I would receive for doing this trade would be $730 (excluding commissions). This credit would offset my purchase price by about 6.63%, creating a 'real' breakeven price of $25.67.

    I think it is also important to mention that in this trade there might be a situation where only one or two of the puts expire in the money. In this case the seller would get to keep the premiums from the puts that did not expire in the money, which would help further off set the "real" purchase price of the stock that was put to the to the seller.

    This trade also assumes that the seller would want to potentially own 400 shares of Southern Copper (or Freeport in a comparable trade). This trade can be modified in a wide variety of ways to fit each individual's needs. I have the $28 strike weighted heavier because in the past year that price point seems to be the support level for the stock, so I am more bullish on buying at that level.

    On a more macro level, I feel confident that Europe will find a resolution to its problems which should help calm global markets. I also believe that once that happens China will implement a rate cut to help stimulate its slowing economy, which would be a bullish sign for copper prices and help push up stocks like Freeport McMoran and Southern Copper Corp. Whether that happens or not the above mentioned trade is an easy way to capitalize on either situation, while we wait to see how this will all play out.

    Disclosure: I am long SCCO.

    This article is tagged with: Investing for Income, Income Investing Strategy, Basic Materials, Copper, United States

     

    Reliance on Mineral Imports Threatens National Security

    COMPREHENSIVE NULLIFICATION:

    ANNULMENT, DEFORCEMENT AND DEBARMENT FOR INEFFICIENT AND IRRATIONAL USE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, OVERREACHING ABUSE OF OFFICE, ABUSE OF RESOURCES, INTRUSIONS OF THE PEOPLE'S SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY & STATES RIGHTS, NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION TO GUARANTEES OF PROTECTED RIGHTS, LIBERTY, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREEDOMS, LOCAL RULE, AND THE RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE . RESTRICTIONS OF USURPATION; FOR CONSPIRACY TO IMPOSE PHARMACEUTICAL DICTATORSHIP, MEDICINAL TYRANNY, PIRACY BY A DESPOTIC INTRUSION UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

    SLAVERY AND PEONAGE ABOLISHED.

    The Latest Threat to "old time Yankee government"

    “It's an unfunded mandate, and it's ridiculous,” said Gardner Mayor Mark P. Hawke, whose city was fined $60,000 by the EPA in 2008 for failure to comply with requirements for “municipal separate storm sewer systems,” or “MS4” hitting our citizens where it hurts the most.

    OMB directs agencies to use evidence-based budgeting

    The White House wants agency budgets to be based on evidence showing programs actually work.

    City of Renton Wins Landmark Case Against United States

    Federal Government, Bonneville Power Administration required to comply with local requirements; Renton may receive up to $30,000 in past due storm water fees.

    Breaking News: Hydro Currents

    Pre-emininent Domain Pre-emption

      New report examines two-year progress of local hydropower initiative

    Proprietary Occupation of vacant neglected abandoned ag. land. Declaration of Adverse Possession and Inverse Condemnation Protection. Emergency Urgent and Immediate CERCLA Superfund groundwater analysis for pesticide chemical residue pathways. Headwaters of the Lost Wetlands of the Ygnacio Valley Creek Watershed, Home Base Riparian Observatory Imminent Hazard, collapsing concrete platform requires restricted access to public for repairs of critical infrastructure: Highest & Best Use Expert and Highest Resident Authority under oath or affirmation.  fka Serenescapes.

    Critical Infrastructure Priority of Local Rule Appropriation; abandoned agricultural/ arboricultural land, attached watershed irrigation critical infrastructure, (25hp Flowboy Pump Stations at the former Dupont Chemicals Pesticides Testing Grounds, Mitchell Rd. Walnut Creek, locally known as “Hood’s Shady Woods”, aka “Forest of Lost Confidence”. Contra Costa Canal Zone (the "Whistlin’ Dixie Ravine" precinct), Civic Arts District Resident Fire & Water Safety Warden,  Headwaters of the Mt. Diablo Valley Walnut Creek Watershed, adjoining  the campus of the Joint Genome Institute (JGI), U.S. Dept. of Energy, California,  U.S.A.

    SAVE THE "FORESTS OF LOST CONFIDENCE", RESTORE FIRE PROTECTION AND IRRIGATION.

    prescriptive easement, small - LOW -MICRO hydropower project, Shadeland Falls, CC Canal Zone.

    The code enacts in clear statutory language the prevailing law of appropriation. The Title of the Civil Code is ‘Water Rights.’ The first section of that title-section 1410 of the code-declares: ‘The right to the use of running water, flowing in a river or stream, or down a canyon or ravine, may be acquired by appropriation.’


    THE MIGHTY POUR 'HI' LOW-HEAD HYDRO BIO-GEOTHERMO-NANOTECHNO-EXPOINFO




    Walnut Creek watershed, largest in Contra Costa County, may get formal oversight

    Updated:   07/13/2012 08:01:12 PM PDT

    The largest watershed in Contra Costa County has no formal group advocating for its protection or improvement, but that may be about to change.

    Backed already by several groups, including the city that bears its name, the Walnut Creek Watershed Council is getting closer to becoming a reality.

    The Walnut Creek watershed encompasses more than 150 square miles. It includes portions of Walnut Creek, Concord, Lafayette, Martinez, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, Danville and Moraga. Other affected agencies include the East Bay Regional Park District and Mt. Diablo State Park.

    The council's primary focus will be to support a healthy and sustainable Walnut Creek watershed.

    "Clean water is the end result," said Lesley Hunt, president of Friends of the Creeks. "Anything else that goes on in the watershed, it's a means to an end."

    Leaders from various cities, districts, agencies and environmental groups have been working to create the Walnut Creek Watershed Council for the past eight months -- an effort that has been tried before and failed. Last week, the Walnut Creek City Council formally supported the voluntary, nonregulatory group, the first city to do so. Save Mount Diablo, Friends of the Creeks and the Muir Heritage Land Trust have agreed to join in. The county board of supervisors is set to vote July 24 on participating in the council. If the board is supportive, it will authorize the county flood control district to provide staff, time, meeting venues and maps.

    This council is necessary to bring together everybody who affects, and is affected by, the watershed, said Mitch Avalon, deputy public works director for the county.

    "From a flood control district, we look at things from a watershed perspective, as where a city looks at it just from their jurisdiction," he said.

    Because watersheds don't follow city boundaries, officials say it's important to join together for things such as creek

    cleanups, public education, spearheading projects and applying for grants.

    The goal of reducing trash and creating cleaner creeks is providing an impetus to form the watershed council. The stormwater permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board requires agencies to reduce trash by 70 percent by 2017 and 100 percent by 2022. That's a tall order, not just for cities but for the flood control district, which owns 22 miles of creeks and channels within the watershed.

    "The trash is coming through our facilities," Avalon said. "So we need to work together to coordinate that with all agencies so that we are not duplicating efforts, and we learn from each other."

    Cleanup and infrastructure projects from individual cities could enjoy the support of the new council and therefore more easily attain grants, said Walnut Creek Mayor Bob Simmons.

    "There is a huge value, in my estimation, to have the ability to coordinate regionally in cleanups, particularly where streams cross boundaries, but that trash and the waste just continues to go downstream," he said.

    But ultimately, even if the watershed council is voluntary, it will require some funding. That likely means each participating agency contributing dues, said Avalon, who doesn't know how much they would be.

    That cost was the reason Walnut Creek Councilman Gary Skrel voted against his city getting involved. There are major challenges finding the money to meet increasingly strict federal and state water quality regulations, Skrel said at a July 3 City Council meeting.

    "I am having a hard time of how to justify taking money out of something that we know does not have sufficient funding to perform the mandates that we are required to perform," Skrel said.

    Walnut Creek did allocate about $10,000 a year -- in staff time -- to the watershed council.

    Leaders argue that working together could help cut down on those costs if grants are awarded.

    To get the council started off, and perhaps to entice others to join, a watershed inventory will be done to outline the state of the creeks and streams within the watershed. This will allow cities and agencies to know where their portion of the watershed stands, Avalon said. The flood control district and the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee each granted $10,000 for the inventory.

    Contact Elisabeth Nardi at 925-952-2617. Follow her at Twitter.com/enardi10.



    Executive Order 11001, SEC. 3. Health Functions.
    With respect to emergency health services, as defined above, and in consonance with national civil defense plans, programs and operations of the Department of Defense under Executive Order No. 10952, the Secretary shall: (a) National program guidance. Develop plans and issue guidance designed to utilize to the maximum extent the existing civilian health resources of the Federal Government, and with their active participation, assistance, and consent, the health resources of the States and local political subdivisions thereof, and of other civilian organizations and agencies concerned with the health of the population, under all conditions of national emergency. Maintain relations with health professions and institutions to foster mutual understanding of Federal emergency plans which affect health activities.

    (b) Professional training. Develop and direct a nationwide program to train health manpower both in professional and technical occupational content and in civil defense knowledge and skills. Develop and distribute health education material for inclusion in the curricula of schools, colleges, professional schools, government schools, and other educational facilities throughout the United States. Develop and distribute civil defense information relative to health services to States, voluntary agencies and professional groups.

    (c) Emergency water supply. Prepare plans to assure the provision of usable public water supplies for essential community uses in an emergency. This shall include inventorying existing supplies, developing new sources, performing research, setting standards, and planning distribution. In carrying on these activities, the Department shall have primary responsibility but will make maximum use of the resources and competence of State and local authorities and of other Federal agencies.

    request for assistance for development of local government site remediation programs . Resident coordinator - John Hutchens, 925-878-9167
    SALE OF AIRCRAFT FOR WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION PURPOSES Pub. L. 104-307, Oct. 14, 1996, 110 Stat. 3811, as amended by Pub. L. 106-65, div. A, title X, Sec. 1067(23), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 775; Pub. L. 106-398, Sec. 1 [[div. A], title III, Sec. 388], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-89; Pub. L. 107-314, div. A, title X, Sec. 1062(k), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2651, known as the Wildfire Suppression and Aircraft Transfer Act of 1996, authorized the Secretary of Defense, during the period beginning on Oct. 1, 1996, and ending on Sept. 30, 2005, to sell the aircraft and aircraft parts that were determined by the Secretary to be excess to the needs of the Department of Defense and acceptable for commercial sale to persons or entities that contracted with the Federal Government for the delivery of fire retardant by air in order to suppress wildfire.
    -STATUTE-
          (a) The Secretary of Defense, under regulations prescribed by
        him, may sell to State and local law enforcement, firefighting,
        homeland security, and emergency management agencies, at fair
        market value, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles of a caliber not
        exceeding .30, ammunition for such firearms, gas masks, personal
        protective equipment, and other appropriate equipment which (1) are
        suitable for use by such agencies in carrying out law enforcement,
        firefighting, homeland security, and emergency management
        activities, and (2) have been determined to be surplus property
        under subtitle I of title 40 and division C (except sections 3302,
        3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41.
          (b) Such surplus military equipment shall not be sold under the
        provisions of this section to a State or local law enforcement,
        firefighting, homeland security, or emergency management agency
        unless request therefor is made by such agency, in such form and
        manner as the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe, and such
        request, with respect to the type and amount of equipment so
        requested, is certified as being necessary and suitable for the
        operation of such agency by the Governor (or such State official as
        he may designate) of the State in which such agency is located.
        Equipment sold to a State or local law enforcement, firefighting,
        homeland security, or emergency management agency under this
        section shall not exceed, in quantity, the amount requested and
        certified for such agency and shall be for the exclusive use of
        such agency. Such equipment may not be sold, or otherwise
        transferred, by such agency to any individual or public or private
        organization or agency.
    
    -SOURCE-
        (Added Pub. L. 90-500, title IV, Sec. 403(a) Sept. 20, 1968, 82
        Stat. 851; amended Pub. L. 96-513, title V, Sec. 511(85), Dec. 12,
        1980, 94 Stat. 2927; Pub. L. 107-217, Sec. 3(b)(10), Aug. 21, 2002,
        116 Stat. 1296; Pub. L. 111-350, Sec. 5(b)(42), Jan. 4, 2011, 124
        Stat. 3846; Pub. L. 111-383, div. A, title X, Sec. 1072(a)-(c)(1),
        Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4366.)
    
    
    -MISC1-
                                    AMENDMENTS                            
          2011 - Pub. L. 111-383, Sec. 1072(c)(1), substituted "Surplus
        military equipment: sale to State and local law enforcement,
        firefighting, homeland security, and emergency management agencies"
        for "Surplus military equipment: sale to State and local law
        enforcement and firefighting agencies" in section catchline.
          Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111-383, Sec. 1072(a)(1), (b), substituted
        "State and local law enforcement, firefighting, homeland security,
        and emergency management agencies" for "State and local law
        enforcement and firefighting agencies", "personal protective
        equipment, and other appropriate equipment" for "and protective
        body armor", and "in carrying out law enforcement, firefighting,
        homeland security, and emergency management activities" for "in
        carrying out law enforcement and firefighting activities".
          Pub. L. 111-350 substituted "division C (except sections 3302,
        3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41" for
        "title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
        of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.)".
          Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111-383, Sec. 1072(a)(2), substituted "State
        or local law enforcement, firefighting, homeland security, or
        emergency management agency" for "State or local law enforcement or
        firefighting agency" in two places.
          2002 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107-217 inserted "subtitle I of title
        40 and title III of" before "the Federal Property and
        Administrative Services Act of 1949" and substituted "(41 U.S.C.
        251 et seq.)" for "(40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.)".
          1980 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96-513 substituted "under" for
        "pursuant to", and "(40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.)" for "(68 Stat. 377),
        as amended".
    
                         EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1980 AMENDMENT                 
          Amendment by Pub. L. 96-513 effective Dec. 12, 1980, see section
        701(b)(3) of Pub. L. 96-513, set out as a note under section 101 of
        this title.
    
        COMMERCIAL SALE OF SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION AND SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION
        COMPONENTS IN EXCESS OF MILITARY REQUIREMENTS, AND FIRED CARTRIDGE
                                       CASES
          Pub. L. 111-383, div. A, title III, Sec. 346, Jan. 7, 2011, 124
        Stat. 4191, as amended by Pub. L. 112-81, div. A, title III, Sec.
        361, Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1377, provided that:
          "(a) Commercial Sale of Small Arms Ammunition, Small [Arms]
        Ammunition Components, and Fired Cartridge Cases. - Small arms
        ammunition and small [arms] ammunition components which are in
        excess of military requirements, and intact fired small arms
        cartridge cases shall be made available for commercial sale. Such
        small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition components, and intact
        fired cartridge cases shall not be demilitarized, destroyed, or
        disposed of, unless in excess of commercial demands or certified by
        the Secretary of Defense as unserviceable or unsafe. This provision
        shall not apply to ammunition, ammunition components, or fired
        cartridge cases stored or expended outside the continental United
        States (OCONUS).
          "(b) Deadline for Guidance. - Not later than 90 days after the
        date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
        Fiscal Year 2012 [Dec. 31, 2011], the Secretary of Defense shall
        issue guidance to ensure compliance with subsection (a). Not later
        than 15 days after issuing such guidance, the Secretary shall
        submit to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed
        Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
        Representatives] a letter of compliance providing notice of such
        guidance.
          "(c) Preference. - No small arms ammunition or small arms
        ammunition components in excess of military requirements, or fired
        small arms cartridge cases may be made available for commercial
        sale under this section before such ammunition and ammunition
        components are offered for transfer or purchase, as authorized by
        law, to another Federal department or agency or for sale to State
        and local law enforcement, firefighting, homeland security, and
        emergency management agencies pursuant to section 2576 of title 10,
        United States Code, as amended by this Act.
          "(d) Sales Controls. - All small arms ammunition and small arms
        ammunition components, and fired small arms cartridge cases made
        available for commercial sale under this section shall be subject
        to all explosives safety and trade security controls in effect at
        the time of sale.
          "(e) Definitions. - In this section:
            "(1) Small arms ammunition. - The term 'small arms ammunition'
          means ammunition or ordnance for firearms up to and including .50
          caliber and for shotguns.
            "(2) Small arms ammunition components. - The term 'small arms
          ammunition components' means components, parts, accessories, and
          attachments associated with small arms ammunition.
            "(3) Fired cartridge cases. - The term 'fired cartridge cases'
          means expended small arms cartridge cases (ESACC)."

    Local law enforcement looking more and more like small armies rather than partners of the people



    occupational & recreational substance users exposures
    national mineral deficiencies

    "Justice must move fast on leaks"

    - The heads of the House and Senate

    “Enemy Dependency”

    By Mark Thompson | @MarkThompson_DC |


    David Rothkopf, editor-at-large over at Foreign Policy magazine, sounds off on what he sees as America’s true vulnerability early in the 21st Century:

    Since the end of the Cold War, America has been on a relentless search for enemies. I don’t mean a search in the sense of ferreting them out and defeating them. I mean that America seems to have a visceral need for them. Many in the United States have a rampant, untreated case of enemy dependency. Politicians love enemies because bashing them helps stir up public sentiment and distract attention from problems at home. The defense industry loves enemies because enemies help them make money. Pundits and their publications love enemies because enemies sell papers and lead eyeballs to cable-news food fights.

    Rothkopf suggests it’s the inner fiscal and political rot – more than any external foe – that threatens the U.S. Amid the impasse over the budget, with sequestration looming, he may have a point.


    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, 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

    curse the 9th Circuit

    Castrated Forest Service Shorted out,  Rapped for Using


    Climate Change Status Quo

    Warrant Trusts & Tunney© Shelters

    The “Undergubernators” safe room

    Freeminers Underground Characterization  Assessments vaporize intrusive paths


    WIZLSBLWRS (WHEW!)

    Cyberwar Threats and Critical Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

    Federal Register | Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory ... inner fiscal and political rot

    Extension of lifetime of critical infrastructure based on monitoring ...Grind Back Into Action - Mining ...
    Look Here! Hearing looks at Cyber Threats...Stay Tuned...

    Pitch for Sustaining the Capacity to Observe Humanity


    Supreme Court rationalizing government inconvenience to devise constitutional violation and liberty invasion
    priests

    Stunning Rebuke To EPA Enforcement Practice

    Decision Rejects Decades of Lower Court Precedent

    In a stunning rebuke to decades of EPA practice, the United States Supreme Court on March 21, 2012 changed the way many of our federal environmental laws will be enforced. The Court unanimously rejected decades of EPA practice, and overturned lower court precedent, by declaring that recipients of EPA compliance orders under the Clean Water Act have the right to immediately challenge the issuance of these orders in court. This ruling, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al, will substantially reduce EPA's reliance on such orders and likely require the agency to engage with the regulated community in a more cooperative fashion. It can be expected that this change in course will be seen not only in matters under the Clean Water Act, but possibly under many of the other major federal environmental programs, including the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery Act ("CERCLA").

    Immediate Challenge To EPA Environmental Compliance Order

    On March 21, 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that a compliance order issued under the Clean Water Act ("the Act") constitutes a "final agency action" and that recipients of these orders may immediately file suit challenging such orders under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). The decision repudiates the position of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") that the targets of such orders must wait until EPA decides to enforce the order before seeking judicial review.

    The ruling not only means that recipients of compliance orders can seek judicial review immediately, it will also cause the EPA to develop more robust enforcement cases before issuing compliance orders so that such orders are able to withstand judicial scrutiny. The implications of this ruling will also likely reach into other administrative contexts (both environmental and otherwise) and enable regulated entities to challenge regulatory actions sooner.


    Policy Rider to Halt EPA Clean Water Act Guidance Survives Floor Vote
    June 10, 2012

    A policy rider that would bar the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing their guidance on Clean Water Act Jurisdiction survived an amendment offered by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.). The amendment would have stripped the provision out of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. The Moran Amendment failed by a vote of 152-237. The original rider was introduced by Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.) during the Committee markup and passed by a vote of 29-20. As an Appropriations rider, this provision is only able to de-fund implementation of the Guidance for one year.

    AGC continues to push legislation that would put a permanent halt to this guidance in both the House and the Senate. The Energy and Water Appropriations legislation passed the House yesterday by a vote of 255-165.

    For more information, please contact Scott Berry at (703) 837-5321 or berrys@agc.org


    Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation

    Systems Science  (SYS)

    CONTACTS

    Name Email Phone Room
    Christina  L. Bloebaum cbloebau@nsf.gov (703) 292-8611  545  

    PROGRAM GUIDELINES

    Apply to PD 12-8085 as follows:

    For full proposals submitted via FastLane: standard Grant Proposal Guidelines apply.
    For full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide; A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide)

    A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), NSF 11-1, was issued on October 1, 2010 and is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 18, 2011. Please be advised that the guidelines contained in NSF 11-1 apply to proposals submitted in response to this program description. Among the significant changes are revisions to the requirements regarding cost sharing and data management. Detailed information about these changes is available in NSF 11-1 and at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/papp/papp11_1/progdesc.jsp.

    Fulfilling the Promise of Earth Day (continued)

    Prescriptive Easements, Time Of Occupancy Required: California, 5 years

    "Happy trails" are still private property

    Protecting Water at the Source

    Troubled Waters, a new Environmental Working Group report released today (April 12), examines the water pollution caused by farm runoff in the upper Midwest and demonstrates that treating the problem after the fact is increasingly expensive, difficult and, if current trends continue, ultimately unsustainable. Because most farm operations are exempt from the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and states have little authority to compel farmers to control water contamination, the burden of cleaning up agricultural pollution in drinking water falls mostly on municipal treatment systems -- and the taxpayers who pay for them.

    "We need to determine how our 'built' water systems and our governance systems can be made more reliable, resilient and sustainable," Tim Killeen, NSF Geosciences assist. dir.
    "This type of research is key to determining what needs to be done to ensure sustainability." says Tom Torgersen, NSF lead program director
    "Eeyore, what are you doing there?" said Rabbit.
    "I'll give you three guesses, Rabbit. Digging holes in the ground? Wrong. Leaping from branch to branch of a young oak tree? Wrong. Waiting for somebody to help me out of the river? Right. Give Rabbit time, and he'll always get the answer."
    "But, Eeyore," said Pooh in distress, "what can we - I mean, how shall we - do you think if we -"
    "Yes," said Eeyore. "One of those would be just the thing. Thank you, Pooh."
    "Oh, Eeyore, you are wet!" said Piglet, feeling him.
    Eeyore shook himself, and asked somebody to explain to Piglet what happened when you had been inside a river for quite a long time. He turned around angrily on the others and said "Everybody crowds round so in this Forest. There's no Space. I never saw a more Spreading lot of animals in my life, and in all the wrong places."eeyore's thistly hideaway
    other eeyore & pooh sites
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINESO 1990-0018344LAND SURVEY5/2/1990

        RELOCATION OF THE THISTLE LODE CLAIM

    Accession Nr: 848679     Document Type: Serial Patent     State: California     Issue Date: 2/13/1922     Cancelled: No

     
     
     
     
    Names On Document   Miscellaneous Information
    PatenteeIRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO
      Land Office: Sacramento
      US Reservations: Yes
      Mineral Reservations: No
      Tribe: ---
      Militia: ---
      State In Favor Of: ---
      Authority: July 26, 1866: Mineral Patent-Lode (14 Stat. 251)
    Military Rank: ---   General Remarks: Flat Creek Mining District
     
    Document Numbers   Survey Information
    Document Nr: 013351   Total Acres: 20.659
    Misc. Doc. Nr: ---   Survey Date: ---
    BLM Serial Nr: CAS 0013351   Geographic Name: Thistle Lode Claim
    Indian Allot. Nr: ---   Metes/Bounds: Yes
     
    Land Descriptions
    Map State Meridian Twp - Rng Aliquots Section Survey # County
    Show land description on map CA Mount Diablo 032N - 006W   2 5438 Shasta
    Show land description on map CA Mount Diablo 032N - 006W   3 5438 Shasta

    Economist Llewellyn Rockwell has written, "Private property is the real human right, and the foundation of all freedom. If a church can't own its building, there can be no freedom of religion. If a newspaper can't own its newsprint, there can be no freedom of the press. If there is no private land there can be no freedom of speech."

    The subject of wetlands protection has offered the federal government a pretext for an unprecedented assault upon private property. Congressman Don Young (R-AK) has cogently summarized the issue:

    "There are those in this country who in the name of environmental protection would seek to destroy the right to use your own land. At best these extremists tend to believe that our traditional notions of private property are old-fashioned throwbacks to our capitalist past that have outlived their usefulness. At worst they believe that all resources are to be shared by the masses and that they should be "managed" by the government for the benefit of all. If anyone can understand the practical difference between the central government managing the land for the collective benefit of the masses as Karl Marx suggests -- or for the collective benefit of the "environment" -- please explain it to me. I see no real difference."

    The word Minnesota comes from the Dakota name for the Minnesota River : Mnisota . The root mni (also spelled mini or minne ) means, "water". Mnisota can be translated as sky-tinted water or somewhat clouded water .

    Township of Minnesota; Parts in 32 and 33N, 5 and 6W of Mount Diablo meridian "LAND OF SKY BLUE WATER"


    June 14, 2012

    Farmers Seek to Stop the Flood of Regulations

    For more information on Newsline, contact: Johnna Miller, Director of Media Development, American Farm Bureau Federation johnnam@fb.org

     
    Farmers and ranchers are trying to stop an effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate waterways that Congress never intended them to regulate. AFBF Grassroots and Advocacy Director Cody Lyon explains the situation in this report from AFBF’s Johnna Miller.
    Miller:The American Farm Bureau believes the Environmental Protection Agency is trying to improperly change the Clean Water Act. That law gives the EPA the power to write rules to protect navigable waters, literally waterways where you can float a boat. But EPA is seeking to take the word “navigable” out of that law, which would allow them to regulate even a roadside ditch that only holds water for a few hours after a big rainstorm. American Farm Bureau Grassroots and Advocacy Director Cody Lyon says they’re doing that through what is called a “guidance document.”
    Lyon:The biggest concern, there’s uncertainty with how this guidance document can be implemented. This could be interpreted many different ways around the country or even many different ways within a state. For 40 years the Clean Water Act has done a great job. The problem is the guidance document goes beyond congressional intent and they’re also ignoring the Supreme Court precedents that have determined the definition of “navigable.”
    Miller:And Lyon says this would cause big problems for the nation’s farmers and ranchers, because it could make it necessary for them to get a permit for everything from ditches and cattle ponds.
    Lyon:Farmers and ranchers fear that a farm pond or ditch or even if rain just happens to fall for four hours that technically, by the way this guidance document is written, it could now fall under EPA permitting regulations. We’re talking thousands, tens of thousands of dollars.
    Miller:So Farm Bureau is asking farmers and ranchers to get the word out to their congressional representatives about how hard this rule could hit them.
    Lyon:Anything dealing with livestock operations, anything dealing with application of pest management tools, anything dealing with wetlands, ground water, run off, storm water. You could start having a flood of regulations that start coming in just from this one guidance document. We’re trying to make sure we stop this flood of regulations at the very beginning before it starts getting out of control.
    Miller:Johnna Miller, Washington.
    Miller:We have two extra actualities with AFBF Grassroots and Advocacy Director Cody Lyon. In the first extra actuality Lyon explains the Farm Bureau campaign to “Stop the Flood of Regulations.” The cut runs 32 seconds, in 3-2-1.
    Lyon:We need to have a big push the rest of this year to stop a proposed EPA guidance document. The guidance document essentially removes the word “navigable” from enforcement purposes. A guidance document is supposed to be a non-binding policy document for field offices on how to implement current law and current policies. What the proposed guidance document does now is essentially remove the word “navigable” which can then increase regulations and permitting for farmers and ranchers. The guidance document is now trying to change the law rather than implement what is current law.
    Miller:In the second extra actuality Lyon explains why the EPA’s efforts to change the Clean Water Act are a big problem. The cut runs 9 seconds, in 3-2-1.
    Lyon:It just goes way beyond what current law, rules and regulations are now and we need to make sure that farmers and ranchers are not hurt by this process.
    Miller:Newsline is updated Mondays and Thursdays by 5pm Eastern time. Thank you for listening.


    Try Composting!


    Removal of organic matter in waste water is a major part of the waste water treatment system.  Too much organic matter in water is detrimental to water quality.  Organic matter must be decomposed (or broken down) and this process is oxygen intensive. The oxygen that is taken from water and used to break down organic material is supposed to supply the organisms and plants in the water. Without oxygen, the natural habitat of the water suffers and causes a noticeable decrease in water quality.

    Although it is nearly impossible prevent all organic matter from entering the water system, it is possible to decrease the amount of organic material people discharge into water. Instead of throwing food scraps, yard clippings, and other biodegradable waste into the trash or drain, they can be disposed of through composting.

    Composting is simple; anyone with a plastic bin and a patio or yard can set one up! Through composting, people can dispose of organic waste, such as old fruit and weeds, and convert it into soil. This soil can be used as garden or lawn fertilizer. Compost bins can be purchased at garden stores or they can be made out of plastic bins.

    How to Make a Compost Bin

    -        Take a medium or large sized plastic bin with secure cover

    -        Drill holes around it to allow air to flow into it

    -        Place it in a well-ventilated area

    -        Add soil and other organic wastes

    The contents within the bin will need to be mixed every few days. It can be mixed with a shovel or simply by rolling it on its side. To maintain an efficient composting rate, the contents of the bin must be balanced. Half of the contents should be green (i.e. yard clippings) and the other half should be brown (i.e. wood chips) to keep equal amounts of nitrogen and carbon in the system.  It is important to maintain this balance and mix the bin because it prevents odors.

    Visit the following website to learn more about composting.

    http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/compost-how-to-make-it-bins-piles-and-more.html


    Tuxedo's 'Mulch Mountain' cited in Sterling Forest fish kill

    11:42 PM, Apr. 19, 2012

    TUXEDO — The state Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a notice of noncompliance against a town-owned mulch facility that is believed to have caused the sudden die-off of fish in Sterling Forest State Park last month.

    The notice, which was issued April 13 by the DEC’s Region 3 office, said facility violates the Clean Water Act and has caused damage to natural resources, including a series of waterways that feed the Ramapo River.

    The DEC claims that Tuxedo town officials have failed to make progress on a previous consent order signed in October 2011 to work to get the facility into compliance with state regulations.

    “We think they can make their operations much smaller,” said Wendy Rosenbach, a spokeswoman for the department. “The mulch pile has gotten so large at this point.”

    Known colloquially as “Mulch Mountain” for its more than 50-foot piles of wood chips, the facility at 984 Long Meadow Road has notched numerous environmental violations since it opened in 2006.

    The facility is operated by the Perfect Cut Tree Service in Pomona.

    In 2010, the DEC fined the town $60,000 for failing to control leachate, or the liquid that drains or leaches from a landfill. The town has since paid about $25,000, the DEC said.

    On March 13, the DEC conducted water testing at the nearby Four Corners Pond after hundreds of large-mouthed bass, bluegill and carp washed up dead overnight.

    The fish kill is believed to have been caused when water runoff from the mulch pile seeped into the pond and depleted oxygen levels.

    Rosenbach said the DEC has continued to work with Tuxedo to get into compliance. Town officials have several weeks to address the environmental concerns, but could face a fine of up to $40,000 if the changes are not made.

    Tuxedo Supervisor Peter Dolan did not return a request for comment.

    New York state set aside more than 15,000 acres of Sterling Forest in the late 1990s. The forest is a major source of drinking water for New Jersey, a contributor to Rockland County’s drinking water and home to diverse wildlife.

    Park Service Broadens Sacred Tribal Area of Shasta Bally Towers

      
    1
    Whiskeytown National Recreation Area is finalizing the Environmental Assessment that will guide the future management of wireless communication facilities by non-National Park Service entities on the summit of Shasta Bally. After several meetings with Redding Rancheria tribal leaders and the National Park Service (NPS) regarding potential impacts and mitigation measures from the continued operation of the towers and people visiting the summit, the NPS has revised the area of potential effect for this project to include the entire Shasta Bally Mountain.
    Working closely with the tribe, the National Park Service redefined the area that is considered sacred to Wintu people. The effort will ensure that the continued operation of the communications facilities under NPS right-of-way permits and the delineation of the visitor parking areas and trail system at the summit will not adversely affect any traditional uses or sacred sites on the mountain.





    June 2, 2012

    Obama's war on whistleblowers includes not appointing inspectors general

    Project on Government Oversight - Offices of Inspectors General serve as independent watchdogs within federal agencies and are essential to a well-functioning federal government. They conduct audits and investigations that identify wasteful government practices, fraud by individuals and government contractors, and other sorts of government misconduct, even including torture. Congress and the public rely on OIG reports to hold agencies and individuals accountable for wrongdoing, identify a need for legislation, and evaluate the effectiveness of government programs and policies. Unfortunately, many OIGs across the government do not have permanent leadership.

    Here's a list of how long inspector general posts have been left vacant:

     


    Troubled by EPA - Broad Concern

    EPA issues more than 1,000 administrative compliance orders annually, use its enforcement authority to intimidate citizens into compliance,”

    “internally, it’s same old, same old.” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)



    06/14/2012 04:20:55 PM EST

    Court Rejects Expert's Generality-Based Conjecture, Finds No Causation Evidence

    Posted by

    LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Daily Legal News

    SAN FRANCISCO - A California appeals court on June 13 rejected an expert's conclusion that a man suffered exposure to asbestos, finding that it constituted conjecture based on generalities and that the man had not demonstrated causation (John Casey and Patricia Casey v. Perini Corp., No. A131881, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4). Full story on lexis.com



    Climate Science Change Status

    Users Security Experts

    The importance of the QAPP is defined in the May 2000, EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs and states:
    The QAPP is a critical planning document for any environmental data operation since it documents how environmental data operations are planned, implemented, documented, and assessed during the life cycle of a program, project, or task. The ultimate success of an environmental program or project depends on the adequacy and sufficiency of the quality of the environmental data collected and used in decision-making. This may depend significantly on the adequacy of the QAPP and its effective implementation.
    The EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs also explains that the QAPP describes the experimental design or data collection design for the project, including as appropriate the types and numbers of samples required, the design of the sampling network, sampling locations and frequencies, sample matrices, measurement parameters of interest, and the rationale for the design.


      U-say: Elevation Training Mask is a patent-pending "Resistance Training Device". We say: How, Hi

    "if the Fed said 'Jump,' AIG would say 'How high?'"
    U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer at Thursday's hearing in Manhattan to John Kiernan, a lawyer representing the New York Fed

    NEW YORK, July 26 (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve Bank of New York on Thursday told a federal judge it acted lawfully in bailing out American International Group Inc during the 2008 financial crisis, and should not face a $25 billion lawsuit by the insurer's former chief executive, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg.

    Greenberg's case, brought on behalf of his company Starr International Co, accused the New York Fed of wasting more than $60 billion of AIG and taxpayer funds in a "backdoor bailout" that let "favored" trading partners, such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc, be repaid in full and freed from legal liability.

    Starr, which once held a 12 percent stake in AIG, also said the bank circumvented the law by allowing the U.S. Treasury to take a nearly 80 percent stake in the New York-based insurer without a vote by existing shareholders who would be diluted.

    But John Kiernan, a lawyer representing the New York Fed, told U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer at Thursday's hearing in Manhattan that AIG had not been "acting under the thumb" of the bank, including when it accepted an initial $85 billion credit line at a 14.5 percent interest rate.

    Gutting Clean Water Management Trust

    Homeland Security (DHS) announced the establishment of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) by notice published in the Federal Register Notice (71 FR 14930-14933) dated March 24, 2006

    CIPAC Membership: CIPAC Membership may include:

    (i) Critical Infrastructure owner and/or operator members of an SCC;

    Stalwart partners

    "The EPA and Administrator Jackson have been stalwart partners with cities across the nation as we work to build a more competitive and more sustainable America. In the 40 years since the passage of the Clean Water Act, they continue to collaborate with cities and municipalities to create the green infrastructure that will be a foundation for our nation's growth for decades to come."

    The "Stalwarts" were a faction of the United States Republican Party toward the end of the 19th century.

    Led by Roscoe Conkling-also known as, "Lord Roscoe"-Stalwarts were sometimes called Conklingites. Other notable Stalwarts include Chester A. Arthur and Thomas C. Platt, who were in favor of Ulysses S. Grant, the eighteenth President of the United States (1869–1877), running for a third term. They were the "traditional" Republicans who opposed Rutherford B. Hayes' civil service reform. They were pitted against the "Half-Breeds" (moderates) for control of the Republican Party. The only real issue between Stalwarts and Half-Breeds was patronage. The Half-Breeds worked to get civil service reform, and finally created the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. Stalwarts also favored traditional machine politics.[1]

    During the Republican national convention in 1880, the Half-Breeds advocated the candidacy of James Blaine of Maine for President. A stalemate ensued between Half-breeds and Stalwarts, and a compromise was struck to nominate a decent, unabrasive man: James Garfield. Additionally, Chester Arthur, former collector for the port of New York, was chosen to be his running mate to satisfy the Stalwarts.

    Chester A. Arthur, sympathetic to the Stalwart cause, was the vice president for James A. Garfield. He became president upon Garfield's death on September 19, 1881, due to being shot by the self-proclaimed "Stalwart of the Stalwarts," Charles J. Guiteau on July 2, 1881. Arthur helped to create civil service reforms in his term in part because he felt that he had to follow up Garfield's work.


    Overturning state statute and 15 years of precedent, last year’s budget dramatically reduced the biennial appropriation to the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, cutting the program’s funding from the $100 million to $11.25 million for both FY2011-12 and FY2012-13.  This represents an 89% cut from the levels previously required by statute and annually appropriated to the program every year since FY1999-2000.

    "Buried No Longer: Confronting America's Water Infrastructure Challenge,"

    the unknown american's, the peoples party!

    (UA's PP) underground, uncounted, etc.

    THE REPUBLIC'S BEST PROTECTION FOR

    THE VAST MAJORITY OF SUGGESTIONS.



    Iron Mountain    During the 1890s when Mountain Copper Company owned Iron Mountain Mine, a company town named Iron Mountain was located on the mountain.  It was perched on the mountainside near the mine shafts and included a one-story, 7-room cottage with two large brick fireplaces and a wide porch all around for the manager, three superintendent houses containing four or five bedrooms, a two-story, 16-room staff quarters' building a large mess and entertainment hall complete with dining room and kitchen, canteen, billiard room and music room, a hospital, approximately 25 family cottages, and two 16-room bunkhouses for the single men employees.  Also on the property was a tennis court, a football field, and the Iron Mountain Post Office.  In 1897, a fire destroyed many of the buildings.  In 1922, the mine was abandoned but continued to operate intermittently until as late as 1963 when all mining operations ceased.

    Matheson  Matheson was established as a direct result of Iron Mountain Mine and served as the railroad terminus for the mine.  A Southern Pacific Railroad siding operated at Matheson until 1951.  Ore was hauled from the mine to this siding.  In 1921, the rail line was replaced by the Iron Mountain Tramway (aerial).  In 1953, the tramway was extended one additional mile from Matheson to Keswick.  It operated intermittently into the 1970s.  Remnants of it still exist.

    The Matheson Post Office was established in 1922 and operated until 1962.  Matheson Road exists off of Iron Mountain Road and is near the Chappie-Shasta OHV area.

    The following excerpts are taken from the Iron Mountain Mine entry out of the book titled The Dictionary of Early Shasta County History by Dottie Smith

    "...Originally worked as a gold mine, later silver, until the true wealth of the mine was discovered to be copper, iron, and sulphur...Discovered in the early 1860s by Charles Camden and William Magee. James Sallee became a 3rd partner when he discovered a silver vein. In 1884, Camden, Magee, and Sallee leased the mine to a Honolulu company who soon returned the property and equipment back to them. Camden, Magee, and Sallee again operated until 1894 when they sold to Mountain Copper Co. Ltd. who built (the next year) a smelter at Keswick and the Iron Mountain Railway, a 3-ft. gauge mountain mining railroad which connected the mine with the Keswick smelter and Southern Pacific tracks at Keswick. In 1898, 221,895 tons of ore were extracted from the mine. The smelter contained two blast furnaces and 80 open-roasting stalls where ore was heap roasted or burned in the open air to reduce the sulphur content, sometimes burning 350,000 tons at a time. Prior to the arrival of electricity, the smelter furnaces and train engines were fueled with wood supplied by a 75-man woodcutting crew who cut down almost all the trees between Keswick and Copley and with 20,000 cords floated downriver from the Flatwoods area by Buick & Wengler. Hydroelectric power arrived in 1901 via the Volta Powerhouse owned by Keswick Electric Power Company to operate the smelter furnaces. Water was pumped 4500 ft. from the Sacramento River through a 16" pipe near the mouth of Spring Creek with the help of a Corliss-Hamilton engine and a cornish plunger pump. The smelter became a major health and environmental hazard because it released huge volumes of poisonous sulphurous dioxide gasses into the air killing most of the vegetation it came in contact with. The company made little attempts to prevent the spread of the poisonous gasses resulting in Superior Court lawsuits which closed the smelter by court order in 1907. The company built a new smelter at Martinez, and in 1920, a 2½ mile ore-hauling aerial tramway from the Hornet Mine to another railroad siding at Matheson and began shipping ore via the railroad to the Martinez smelter for processing. A company town was perched on the hillside near the mine shafts and included a one-story, 7-room cottage with two large brick fireplaces and wide porch all around for the manager, three superintendent's houses containing 4 or 5 rooms, a 2-story, 16-room staff quarters' building, a large mess and entertainment hall which included a dining room and kitchen, canteen, billiard room, and music room, about 25 family cottages, and two 16-room bunkhouses for men. Also on the property was a tennis court and football field. In 1897 a fire destroyed the silver mill, a sawmill, all the stores, the office, the assay department, hospital, the mess and entertainment hall, plus a number of small buildings. But mining resumed and buildings were reconstructed. In 1922 the mine was abandoned. Reopened periodically until 1927. Gossan was extensively mined for gold from 1931 until 1941. Reforestation attempted after World War II when 2.6 million seedlings were planted but the acidic soil and slope instability rendered the project a failure. Underground mining ceased in 1956 and open-pit mining was undertaken at Brick Flat. All mining operations ceased in 1963. Sold to Stauffer Chemical Co. in 1967 who sold to Iron Mountains Inc. in 1976. Placed on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Priority List and/or the Top 10 Hazardous Site List in 1983 making it eligible as a Superfund cleanup site. Mine holdings include the Complex, Hornet, Lost Confidence, Mattie, No. 8, Old Mine, Brick Flat, and Richmond Mines (Brick Flat, Hornet and Richmond Mines were pyrite mines). The mine was responsible for the creation of the communities of Iron Mountain, Keswick, Matheson, and Taylor. Total copper output was +342,000,000 lbs. making it largest Shasta County producer. Major modifications and changes currently underway to make the mine environmentally safe. Mine was important to Shasta County's economy for 70 years."

    Ore Reserves

    Using the results of assays and information developed during drilling, drifting and mining of the various segments of the Iron Mountain ore body, geological ore reserves were developed for both the massive sulfide and disseminated ores by Mountain Copper Company. Reserves of the gossan ore were developed through the cooperation between engineers of Mountain Copper Company and Stauffer Chemical Company. Subsequent checks of these reserve figures have been made by Southwestern Engineering Company and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. In addition, various Mountain Copper Company internal checks are evident. The result of the calculations and checks is the general agreement that there presently exists at Iron Mountain Mine roughly 12,000,000 tons of proven sulfide ore with minimum average grades of 1% copper, 2% zinc, 0.02 gold and 1.5 oz. silver. Probable gossan ore is estimated at 3,000,000 tons. The combined proven geological reserves amount to 15,050,000 tons of proven sulfide and gossan ore contained within an area of roughly 300 acres. These reserves represent tonnages presently remaining in the Hornet, Mattil, Richmond Extension and the unmined Brick Flat ore bodies. No recent reserve figures have been developed for the three magnetite bodies. Remaining in place tonnages for the Old Mine, Number 8, Confidence-Complex, Camden , busy Bee, Lone Star and Okosh massive sulfide bodies are listed in various data and reports received from Iron Mountain Mines. However, no reserve calculations for these deposits are available as backup. Limited backup assay data are available for the Camden and Okosh bodies. According to this information average copper grades for the Camden and Okosh are 1.01 percent and 3.43 percent respectively. No overall averages are readily available for the Old Mine, Number 8 and Confidence-Complex but general extension of adjacent data indicates average grades may approach one percent.

    Tons of proven sulfide ore in place: 14,183,000; probable reserves 1,050,000

    Tons of proven gossan in place 3,050,000; probable reserves 3,795,000

    Grand Total in place 17,233,000; probable reserves 4,845,000

    During 1950 and 1951, a 1,798 exploration drill hole was put down by the U.S.G.S. in the vicinity of a syncline on the southeast side of the Iron Mountain mine. Located at the approximate mine coordinates 2900 north, 3650 east passed through numerous rhyolite intervals of Balaklala formation throughout its entire length. Intermittent, broad to narrow bands of disseminated sulfides were present throughout the drill hole with some intervals containing slightly greater than one percent copper. Kaiser Engineers, 1981

    Balance of Trade:

    The proposal forecasts the elimination of imports of at least 50,000 tons of metals annually, resulting in a net adjustment to the current trade deficit of over $150 million dollars annually.

    Current market and employment impact

    The proposal is estimated to create approx. 1200 direct jobs and 800 indirect jobs.

    Cautionary Disclosure: This is "forward-looking information about prospective results of operations, financial position or cash flows that is based on assumptions about future economic conditions and courses of action and that is not presented in the format of a historical balance sheet, income statement or cash flow statement ." Examples of financial outlooks include expected revenues, net income, earnings per share and R&D spending. Material facts have not been verified. Actual results may vary. These results are highly speculative. Readers should establish their own reasonable basis for these assumptions. Verbum Sap.



    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

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

    Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list

    (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)

    Factors Leading to Failures in Predicting Post-Mine Water

    Quality and Acid Mine Drainage 

    In the report comparing predicted and actual water

    quality at hard rock mines (Kuipers et al. 2006), the

    authors identified two types of characterization failures

    that led to differences between predicted water quality as

    speculated in EIS documents and the actual water quality

    either during or after mining began. The two characterization

    failure types were: 1) insufficient or inaccurate characterization

    of the hydrology, and 2) insufficient or inaccurate geochemical

    characterization of the proposed mine. Inaccurate pre-mining

    characterization and interpretation can, therefore, result in a

    failure to recognize or predict water quality impacts. The

    authors reported primary causes of hydrologic characterization

    failures as follows: overestimations of dilution, lack of hydrological

    characterization, overestimations of discharge volumes, and

    underestimations of storm size. The primary causes of

    geochemical characterization failures were identified as:

    lack of adequate geochemical characterization, in terms of sample

    representativeness and sample adequacy.

    In the 25 case study mines, the authors identified mitigation failures

    with the following primary causes: mitigation measures were not

    identified or they were inadequate, or not implemented; waste rock

    mixing and segregation was not effective, liners leaked, tailings

    were spilled, or embankments failed, and land application

    discharge was not effective. The authors provided a table

    summarizing these failures (Table 1) for the 25 case study mines.

    Table 1. Water Quality Predictions Failure Modes, Root Causes

    and Examples from Case Study Mines (Kuipers et.al, 2006).


    Failure Mode
    Root Cause
    Examples
    Hydrologic Characterization
    Lack of hydrologic characterization
    Royal Mountain King, CA; Black Pine, MT
    Dilution overestimated
    Greens Creek, AK; Jerritt Canyon, NV
    Amount of discharge underestimated
    Mineral Hill, MT
    Size of storms underestimated
    Zortman and Landusky, MT
    Geochemical Characterization
    Lack of adequate geochemical characterization
    Jamestown, CA; Royal Mountain King, CA; Grouse Creek, ID; Black Pine, MT
    Sample size and/or representation
    Greens Creek, AK; McLaughlin, CA; Thompson Creek, ID; Golden Sunlight, MT; Mineral Hill, MT; Zortman and Landusky, MT; Jerritt Canyon, NV
    Mitigation
    Mitigation not identified, inadequate, or not installed
    Bagdad, AZ; Royal Mountain King, CA; Grouse Creek, ID
    Waste rock mixing and segregation not effective
    Greens Creek, AK; McLaughlin, CA; Thompson Creek, ID; Jerritt Canyon, NV
    Liner leak, embankment failure or tailings spill
    Jamestown, CA; Golden Sunlight, MT; Mineral Hill, MT; Stillwater, MT; Florida Canyon, NV; Jerritt Canyon, NV; Lone Tree, NV; Rochester, NV
    Land application ineffective
    Beal Mountain, MT 
    Acid Mine Drainage and Effects on Fish Health and Ecology: A Review 

    For:
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office,
    Anchorage, Alaska, 99501
    Prepared by:
    Reclamation Research Group, LLC, Bozeman, Montana
    June 2008
    Suggested Citation: Jennings, S.R., Neuman, D.R. and Blicker, P.S. (2008). “Acid Mine Drainage and Effects on Fish Health and Ecology: A Review”. Reclamation Research Group Publication, Bozeman, MT.
    ii

    iii
    Table of Contents 
    Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1 
    Acid Mine Drainage Overview ........................................................................................... 1 
    Chemistry of Acid Rock Drainage .................................................................................. 1 
    Acid Mine Drainage ........................................................................................................ 3 
    Effect of Acid Mine Drainage on Aquatic Resources ........................................................ 5 
    Major Environmental Incidents Caused by Acid Mine Drainage ....................................... 7 
    Prediction of Acid Mine Drainage ...................................................................................... 7 
    Assessment of Acid Rock Drainage and Metals Release ................................................. 11 
    Water Quality and Acid Mine Drainage: Pre-mine Predictions and Post-mine Comparisons ....... 13 
    Factors Leading to Failures in Predicting Post-Mine Water Quality and Acid Mine Drainage .....14 
    Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage .................................................................................... 16 
    Recommendations for Acidic Drainage Minimization ..................................................... 16 
    Summary ........................................................................................................................... 19 
    References and Literature Cited ........................................................................................ 20

    EPA Agents Visit Man For Sending Email

    deja vu

    CHAPTER 21E—PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES PROTECTION AND OVERSIGHT

    § 2000ee. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

    Partnership Advisory Council

    The CIPAC represents a partnership between government and critical infrastructure/key resource (CIKR) owners and operators and provides a forum in which they can engage in a broad spectrum of activities to support and coordinate critical infrastructure protection.

    Sector Joint Plenary Meeting Information

     

    required plaintiffs to provide the Court — within four months — sworn expert affidavits establishing the identity of the hazardous substances plaintiffs alleged caused their harm (both general and specific causation).  With this expedited schedule, plaintiffs scrambled but failed to satisfy Judge Frick.  The expert did no more than opine that further investigation was necessary and offered no opinion as to whether the alleged exposures were a contributing factor to anyone’s injuries or illnesses. Judge Frick thus dismissed the complaints for failing to comply with her order.  The best part?  This dismissal was before discovery of defendants began. Hopefully, this decision will not be a lone ranger.
    the ke-mo sah-bee for defendants
    Chief says 'how'

    HOW RELEASE HOSTAGE; GUARD SAFE CONDUCT, VISAS,  PASSPORTS, LICENSES TO CHIEF?

    How Joint Brief, joint relief brief Common Facts?

    How Taken Status for Indigent? No further Briefs Movant Prisoner on Concise Joint Relief Appeal Application

    How Join in Brief Joint relief? Pertinent significant joint relief authority.

    How Cover Brief Joint; in forma pauperis; unrepresented parties? Front the appellee’s, red; front an intervenor's or amicus curiae's, green; front disposed supplemental brief tan.

    How Brief Joint Supreme Direct? Judicial Review Serving extraordinary and compelling circumstances.

    How to join joint party? Party who wants to refer joint Brief directly

    How No further Briefs Appeal? Consolidated and Joint Briefing Applicability Supplemental brief joint relief Authorities

    How Court has overlooked or misunderstood Joint brief relief

    How Joint brief relief sundry climate changes? Changes in legal or factual circumstances changes merits brief joint relief clarification or brief joint relief reconsideration, watershed change, sea change.

    How brief Joint Relief Requested? If the Court does not grant requested Joint relief or grants the Joint relief only in part, the Court ordinarily will provide brief joint at reasonable interval.

    How spaced joint relief? Effective and expeditious joint brief relief administration proportionally spaced brief relief potential set forth discharge decedent administration on its behalf in support of safeguarding justice joint competency mission support brief joint relief substantial need brief joint relief diligence

    How Cross appellees disfavor Joint relief? Mission Advisory; statutory pertinence forth verbatim

    How brief Joint relief Effective Disability? Motion for extension of time brief joint relief size enlarged sanction brief joint relief imposed particularly with respect to record sanctions Length of joint Opening Briefs or brief joint relief Motions to Expedite or Ensure Effective brief joint relief; Discharge Preventing and Invidious Discrimination brief joint relief, brief joint relief enhancing public understanding, and brief joint relief enhancing public confidence in judiciary joint relief fairness and fair joint promptness and brief joint safeguarding.

    Desired level of chronic disturbance risk graceful degradation ability measured realistic severe stress functionality prudent mitigation investment.

     

    No Basis Record Ref. (Not to mention all other existing available jurisdictional grounds).

    URGENT JOINT RELIEF; IMMEDIATE JOINT RELIEF; EMERGENCY JOINT RELIEF; INDIGENCY JOINT RELIEF; EXPEDITED JOINT RELIEF; PRIORITY JOINT RELIEF; GOOD CAUSE JOINT RELIEF; -JUST CAUSED JOINT RELIEF; INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION JOINT RELIEF; CLASSES ENTITLED JOINT RELIEF

    certain dangerous diet deficiencies

    "Securing these sectors will require a prudent and realistic investment in risk management by building the skills and capabilities to accomplish three goals: 1) maintain continuity of function in the face of chronic disturbances 2) develop the means for graceful degradation of function when placed under severe stress and 3) sustain the ability to quickly recover to a desired level of functionality when mitigation measures are overwhelmed. "


    45. 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.)

    46. The United States holding, as they do, with reference to the public property in the minerals only the position 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.)

     211. If a party enters upon a mining claim bona fide, under color of title, as under a deed or lease, the possession of part as against any one but the true owner or prior occupant is the possession of the entire claim described by the paper; and this, though the paper did not convey title. A third person could not invade the possession of the party taking it under such circumstances, and set up, as against him, outstanding title in a stranger with which he had no connection. (Attwood v Fricott, 17 Cal. 37.) Cited 38 Cal 487; 73 Cal. 543; 89 Cal. 315.

    216. As to the extent of a miner’s possession where he enters under a written claim or color of title, his possession, except as against the true owner or prior occupant, is good to the extent of the whole limits described in the paper, though the possession be only of a part of the claim.. ( English v. Johnson, 17 Cal. 107.)

     

     

     

    No Controlling Law or Relevant Rule Silent Master Title Prayer Chief of CERCLA Prize; Challenge Federal to Constitutions; Gubernator Rules Application: Performance based act practiced sanctions certain former court appropriate compliance reference directions

     

    Maritime attachment and garnishment, actions in rem, possessory, petitory and partition actions and limitation of liability attorney & expert fees Master Appointment Powers

    Rectifying Reciprocating Discipline Initiation Local Rules Suspensions

    Pre-decedent Precedent Personal Presentation Petition; nonwillful failure procedure authority

    Parochial Vertex et Apex Curia Regis Canon law logicpath suijuritri gentelfdboopublius

    auto-initiation of multi-disciplinary science based existing cross validating authorities

    other precision based personnel misconduct proceedings Under Equal Access to Justice Act Application of Petition for Panel disposal disposition involving legal and factual issue of unique interest or substantial public importance following reversal or remand by SCOTUS

     

    Interlocutory Appeal of Right for Certain

    Within the Admiralty & Within the Patent

    Infringement Case

    28 U.S.C. 1333, Bill of Lading Admiralty extension;

    28 U.S.C. § 1337 : US Code - Section 1337: Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in controversy, costs

     

    The judgment of a trial court is either final in its disposition of all the claims of all the parties to an action, or it is interlocutory in nature.

     

    An interlocutory appeal (or interim appeal), in the law of civil procedure, is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. Most jurisdictions generally prohibit such appeals, requiring parties to wait until the trial has concluded before they challenge any of the decisions made by the judge during that trial. However, many jurisdictions make an exception for decisions that are particularly prejudicial to the rights of one of the parties. For example, if a party is asserting some form of immunity from suit, or is claiming that the court completely lacks personal jurisdiction over them, then it is recognized that being forced to wait for the conclusion of the trial would violate their right not to be subjected to a trial at all.

     

    The Supreme Court of the United States delineated the test for the availability of interlocutory appeals, called the collateral order doctrine, for United States federal courts in the case of Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495 (1989), holding that under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 1291) such an appeal would be permitted only if:

    1. the outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue;
    2. the matter appealed was collateral to the merits; and
    3. the matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal were not allowed.

    03/11/2010  10 
    2 pg, 28.89 KB Filed order (MARY M. SCHROEDER and EDWARD LEAVY): The court has received and reviewed the response to this court's order to show cause.

    The jurisdictional issue does not appear suitable for summary disposition.

     

    Rule 9. Pleading Special Matters

    (a) Capacity or Authority to Sue; Legal Existence.

    (1) In General. Except when required to show that the court has jurisdiction, a pleading need not allege:

    (A) a party's capacity to sue or be sued;

    (B) a party's authority to sue or be sued in a representative capacity; or

    (C) the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party.

     [2]  Benedicts on Admiralty
     [3]  Title: 46: U. S. A. Codes, Appendix, Chapter 20 §§ 742-749,
     [4]  Leonard Tesoro, M.D.
     [5]  Title: 49: U. S. Codes, Chapter 147 § 14706, [6]  Title 49 U. S. Codes, Chapter 801 § 80113
     [7]  Title 49 U. S. Codes, Chapter 801 §: 80116.
     [8]  Title 46 U. S. A. Appendix, Ch. 19-A § 740.
     [9]  Title  28  U. S. codes § 1605
     [10]  Title: 46: U. S. Codes Chapter: 22:§: 781.

     

    (2) Raising Those Issues. To raise any of those issues, a party must do so by a specific denial, which must state any supporting facts that are peculiarly within the party's knowledge.

    (b) Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.

    (c) Conditions Precedent. In pleading conditions precedent, it suffices to allege generally that all conditions precedent have occurred or been performed. But when denying that a condition precedent has occurred or been performed, a party must do so with particularity.

    (d) Official Document or Act. In pleading an official document or official act, it suffices to allege that the document was legally issued or the act legally done.

    (e) Judgment. In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or a board or officer, it suffices to plead the judgment or decision without showing jurisdiction to render it.

    (f) Time and Place. An allegation of time or place is material when testing the sufficiency of a pleading.

    (g) Special Damages. If an item of special damage is claimed, it must be specifically stated.

    (h) Admiralty or Maritime Claim.

    (1) How Designated. If a claim for relief is within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction and also within the court's subject-matter jurisdiction on some other ground, the pleading may designate the claim as an admiralty or maritime claim for purposes of Rules 14(c), 38(e), and 82 and the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. A claim cognizable only in the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction is an admiralty or maritime claim for those purposes, whether or not so designated.

    (2) Designation for Appeal. A case that includes an admiralty or maritime claim within this subdivision (h) is an admiralty case within 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(3).

    Notes

    (As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Dec. 4, 1967, eff. July 1, 1968; Mar. 30, 1970, eff. July 1, 1970; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 11, 1997, eff. Dec. 1, 1997; Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)

    Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1937

    Note to Subdivision (a). Compare [former] Equity Rule 25 (Bill of Complaint—Contents) requiring disability to be stated; Utah Rev.Stat.Ann. (1933) §104–13–15, enumerating a number of situations where a general averment of capacity is sufficient. For provisions governing averment of incorporation, see 2 Minn.Stat. (Mason, 1927) §9271; N.Y.R.C.P. (1937) Rule 93; 2 N.D.Comp.Laws Ann. (1913) §7981 et seq.

    Note to Subdivision (b). See English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice, 1937) O. 19, r. 22.

    Note to Subdivision (c). The codes generally have this or a similar provision. See English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice, 1937) O. 19, r. 14; 2 Minn.Stat. (Mason, 1927) §9273; N.Y.R.C.P. (1937) Rule 92; 2 N.D.Comp.Laws Ann. (1913) §7461; 2 Wash.Rev.Stat.Ann. (Remington, 1932) §288.

    Note to Subdivision (e). The rule expands the usual code provisions on pleading a judgment by including judgments or decisions of administrative tribunals and foreign courts. Compare Ark.Civ.Code (Crawford, 1934) §141; 2 Minn.Stat. (Mason, 1927) §9269; N.Y.R.C.P. (1937) Rule 95; 2 Wash.Rev.Stat.Ann. (Remington, 1932) §287.

    Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1966 Amendment

    Certain distinctive features of the admiralty practice must be preserved for what are now suits in admiralty. This raises the question: After unification, when a single form of action is established, how will the counterpart of the present suit in admiralty be identifiable? In part the question is easily answered. Some claims for relief can only be suits in admiralty, either because the admiralty jurisdiction is exclusive or because no nonmaritime ground of federal jurisdiction exists. Many claims, however, are cognizable by the district courts whether asserted in admiralty or in a civil action, assuming the existence of a nonmaritime ground of jurisdiction. Thus at present the pleader has power to determine procedural consequences by the way in which he exercises the classic privilege given by the saving-to-suitors clause (28 U.S.C. §1333) or by equivalent statutory provisions. For example, a longshoreman's claim for personal injuries suffered by reason of the unseaworthiness of a vessel may be asserted in a suit in admiralty or, if diversity of citizenship exists, in a civil action. One of the important procedural consequences is that in the civil action either party may demand a jury trial, while in the suit in admiralty there is no right to jury trial except as provided by statute.

     

     

    TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1333

    Prev | Next

    § 1333. Admiralty, maritime and prize cases

    The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:

    (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

    (2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.

     

     

    It is no part of the purpose of unification to inject a right to jury trial into those admiralty cases in which that right is not provided by statute. Similarly as will be more specifically noted below, there is no disposition to change the present law as to interlocutory appeals in admiralty, or as to the venue of suits in admiralty; and, of course, there is no disposition to inject into the civil practice as it now is the distinctively maritime remedies (maritime attachment and garnishment, actions in rem, possessory, petitory and partition actions and limitation of liability). The unified rules must therefore provide some device for preserving the present power of the pleader to determine whether these historically maritime procedures shall be applicable to his claim or not; the pleader must be afforded some means of designating his claim as the counterpart of the present suit in admiralty, where its character as such is not clear.

    The problem is different from the similar one concerning the identification of claims that were formerly suits in equity. While that problem is not free from complexities, it is broadly true that the modern counterpart of the suit in equity is distinguishable from the former action at law by the character of the relief sought. This mode of identification is possible in only a limited category of admiralty cases. In large numbers of cases the relief sought in admiralty is simple money damages, indistinguishable from the remedy afforded by the common law. This is true, for example, in the case of the longshoreman's action for personal injuries stated above. After unification has abolished the distinction between civil actions and suits in admiralty, the complaint in such an action would be almost completely ambiguous as to the pleader's intentions regarding the procedure invoked. The allegation of diversity of citizenship might be regarded as a clue indicating an intention to proceed as at present under the saving-to-suitors clause; but this, too, would be ambiguous if there were also reference to the admiralty jurisdiction, and the pleader ought not be required to forego mention of all available jurisdictional grounds.

    Other methods of solving the problem were carefully explored, but the Advisory Committee concluded that the preferable solution is to allow the pleader who now has power to determine procedural consequences by filing a suit in admiralty to exercise that power under unification, for the limited instances in which procedural differences will remain, by a simple statement in his pleading to the effect that the claim is an admiralty or maritime claim.

    The choice made by the pleader in identifying or in failing to identify his claim as an admiralty or maritime claim is not an irrevocable election. The rule provides that the amendment of a pleading to add or withdraw an identifying statement is subject to the principles of Rule 15.

    Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1968 Amendment

    The amendment eliminates the reference to Rule 73 which is to be abrogated and transfers to Rule 9(h) the substance of Subsection (h) of Rule 73 which preserved the right to an interlocutory appeal in admiralty cases which is provided by 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(3).

    Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1970 Amendment

    The reference to Rule 26(a) is deleted, in light of the transfer of that subdivision to Rule 30(a) and the elimination of the de bene esse procedure therefrom. See the Advisory Committee's note to Rule 30(a).

    Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment

    The amendment is technical. No substantive change is intended.

    Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1997 Amendment

    Section 1292(a)(3) of the Judicial Code provides for appeal from “[i]nterlocutory decrees of * * * district courts * * * determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.”

    Rule 9(h) was added in 1966 with the unification of civil and admiralty procedure. Civil Rule 73(h) was amended at the same time to provide that the §1292(a)(3) reference “to admiralty cases shall be construed to mean admiralty and maritime claims within the meaning of Rule 9(h).” This provision was transferred to Rule 9(h) when the Appellate Rules were adopted.

    A single case can include both admiralty or maritime claims and nonadmiralty claims or parties. This combination reveals an ambiguity in the statement in present Rule 9(h) that an admiralty “claim” is an admiralty “case.” An order “determining the rights and liabilities of the parties” within the meaning of §1292(a)(3) may resolve only a nonadmiralty claim, or may simultaneously resolve interdependent admiralty and nonadmiralty claims. Can appeal be taken as to the nonadmiralty matter, because it is part of a case that includes an admiralty claim, or is appeal limited to the admiralty claim?

    The courts of appeals have not achieved full uniformity in applying the §1292(a)(3) requirement that an order “determin[e] the rights and liabilities of the parties.” It is common to assert that the statute should be construed narrowly, under the general policy that exceptions to the final judgment rule should be construed narrowly. This policy would suggest that the ambiguity should be resolved by limiting the interlocutory appeal right to orders that determine the rights and liabilities of the parties to an admiralty claim.

    A broader view is chosen by this amendment for two reasons. The statute applies to admiralty “cases,” and may itself provide for appeal from an order that disposes of a nonadmiralty claim that is joined in a single case with an admiralty claim. Although a rule of court may help to clarify and implement a statutory grant of jurisdiction, the line is not always clear between permissible implementation and impermissible withdrawal of jurisdiction. In addition, so long as an order truly disposes of the rights and liabilities of the parties within the meaning of §1292(a)(3), it may prove important to permit appeal as to the nonadmiralty claim. Disposition of the nonadmiralty claim, for example, may make it unnecessary to consider the admiralty claim and have the same effect on the case and parties as disposition of the admiralty claim. Or the admiralty and nonadmiralty claims may be interdependent. An illustration is provided by Roco Carriers, Ltd. v. M/V Nurnberg Express, 899 F.2d 1292 (2d Cir. 1990). Claims for losses of ocean shipments were made against two defendants, one subject to admiralty jurisdiction and the other not. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the admiralty defendant and against the nonadmiralty defendant. The nonadmiralty defendant's appeal was accepted, with the explanation that the determination of its liability was “integrally linked with the determination of non-liability” of the admiralty defendant, and that “section 1292(a)(3) is not limited to admiralty claims; instead, it refers to admiralty cases.” 899 F.2d at 1297. The advantages of permitting appeal by the nonadmiralty defendant would be particularly clear if the plaintiff had appealed the summary judgment in favor of the admiralty defendant.

    It must be emphasized that this amendment does not rest on any particular assumptions as to the meaning of the §1292(a)(3) provision that limits interlocutory appeal to orders that determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. It simply reflects the conclusion that so long as the case involves an admiralty claim and an order otherwise meets statutory requirements, the opportunity to appeal should not turn on the circumstance that the order does—or does not—dispose of an admiralty claim. No attempt is made to invoke the authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. §1292(e) to provide by rule for appeal of an interlocutory decision that is not otherwise provided for by other subsections of §1292.

    GAP Report on Rule 9(h). No changes have been made in the published proposal.

    Committee Notes on Rules—2006 Amendment

    Rule 9(h) is amended to conform to the changed title of the Supplemental Rules.

    Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment

    The language of Rule 9 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.

    Rule 15 governs pleading amendments of its own force. The former redundant statement that Rule 15 governs an amendment that adds or withdraws a Rule 9(h) designation as an admiralty or maritime claim is deleted. The elimination of paragraph (2) means that “(3)” will be redesignated as “(2)” in Style Rule 9(h).

     

     

    FRAP 4. Appeal as of Right - When Taken (C)

    An appeal from an order granting or denying an application for a writ of error coram nobis is an appeal in a civil case for purposes of Rule 4(a).

     

    FRAP 4. Appeal as of Right - When Taken

    Appeal in a Civil Case.

     

    Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Ninth Circuit Rules, and, following certain rules, Circuit Advisory Committee Notes. The committee's role in assisting the Court is more fully defined by 9th Cir. R. 47-2.

     

    Clerk’s office personnel are authorized by Circuit Rule 27‑7 to act on certain procedural motions (see Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Rule 27-7, infra); are authorized by FRAP 42(b) to handle stipulations for dismissal; and are authorized by Circuit Rule 42-1 to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute.

     

    Circuit Rule 27-2. Motions for Stays Pending Appeal

    If a district court stays an order or judgment to permit application to the Court of Appeals for a stay pending appeal, an application for such stay shall be filed in the Court of Appeals within 7 days after issuance of the district court’s stay. (Rev. 12/1/09)

     

    Cross Reference:

    Circuit Rule 27-3. Emergency and Urgent Motions

    FRAP 8. Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal

     

    Circuit Rule 27-3. Emergency and Urgent Motions

    (a)

    Emergency Motions

    If a movant certifies that to avoid irreparable harm relief is needed in less than 21 days, the motion shall be governed by the following requirements:

    (1)

    before filing the motion, the movant shall make every practicable effort to notify the Clerk and opposing counsel, and to serve the motion, at the earliest possible time.

    (2)

    the motion shall be filed electronically or, if proceeding pro se or if counsel is exempt from using the Appellate ECF system, by paper with the Clerk in San Francisco. (Rev. 12/1/09)

    (3)

    Any motion under this Rule shall have a cover page bearing the legend “Emergency Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3” and the caption of the case.

    A certificate of counsel for the movant, entitled “Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate,” shall follow the cover page and shall contain:

    (i)

    The telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and office addresses of the attorneys for the parties; (Rev. 12/1/09)

     

    (ii)

    Facts showing the existence and nature of the claimed emergency; and





    (iii)

    When and how counsel for the other parties were notified and whether they have been served with the motion; or, if not notified and served, why that was not done.

    (4)

    If the relief sought in the motion was available in the district court, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel or agency, the motion shall state whether all grounds advanced in support thereof in this Court were submitted to the district court, panel or agency, and, if not, why the motion should not be remanded or denied. (Rev. 12/1/09)

    (b)

    Urgent Motions

    If a movant certifies that to avoid irreparable harm, action is needed by a specific date or event but not within 21 days as in (a) above, the motion shall be governed by the following requirements.

    (1)

    before filing the motion, the movant shall notify opposing counsel and serve the motion at the earliest possible time;

    (2)

    the movant shall file the motion electronically or, if proceeding pro se or if counsel is exempt from using the Appellate ECF system, by paper with the Clerk in San Francisco; (Rev. 12/1/09)

    (3)

    any motion under this section shall have a cover page bearing the legend “Urgent Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3(b),” the caption of the case, and a statement immediately below the title of the motion that states the date or event by which action is necessary;

    (4)

    if the relief sought in the motion was available in the district court, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel or agency, the motion shall state whether all grounds advanced in support thereof in this Court were submitted to the district court, panel or agency, and if not, why the motion should not be remanded or denied.

    The motion shall otherwise comport with FRAP 27. (New 7/1/00)

    Cross Reference: (New 7/1/00)

    FRAP 8. Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal

    FRAP 25. Filing and Service

    Circuit Rule 27-5. Emergency Motions for Stay of Execution of Sentence of Death

     

    Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Rule 27-3

    (1)

    Procedures for Motions. When an emergency motion is filed with the Clerk in San Francisco, it is immediately referred to the motions attorney unit. A motions attorney will contact the lead judge of the motions panel, or, if he or she is unavailable, the second judge and then the third judge of the motions panel. (See Advisory Committee Note to Rule 27-1.) That judge then may either grant temporary relief or convene the motions panel (usually by telephone) to decide the motion. (Rev. 12/1/09)

    (2)

    Emergency Telephone Number. The clerk’s office provides 24-hour telephone service for calls placed to the main clerk’s office number, (415) 355‑8000. Messages left at times other than regular office hours are recorded and monitored on a regular basis by the motions attorneys.

    Messages should be left only with regard to matters of extreme urgency that must be handled by the Court before the next business day. Callers should make clear the nature of the emergency and the reasons why next‑business‑day treatment is not sufficient.

    (3)

    Appropriate Application of Rule. The provisions of Circuit Rule 27-3 are intended to be employed in instances where the absence of a response from the Court by a date certain would result in irreparable or significant harm to a party, e.g., a motion to reinstate an immigration petition where petitioner faces imminent removal or to stay enforcement of a district court order. The provisions of the rule are not intended for application to requests for procedural relief, e.g., a motion for an extension of time to file a brief.

    Cross Reference:

    Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Rule 31-2.2

    Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Rule 32-2

     

     

    IRON MOUNTAIN HAZARD ASSISTANCE REMEDIATION DIRECTORATE

    2 billion tons building stone to dam the Golden Gate

    NEPA Blanket Purchase Agreement

    ***** UNDER SCHEDULE 899, SPECIAL ITEM NUMBER 899-1*****

    The Contractor, as an Independent Contractor and not as an agent of the Government, shall furnish the necessary personnel, services, facilities, equipment and materials, unless otherwise provided by the contract, to provide National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documentation to consist of a Project Management Plan, Environmental Assessments (EAs), and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) in accordance with the Statement of Work, and specific installation sites identified on applicable Orders.

    A Multiple Award GSA Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) will be established against which Firm-Fixed Priced Orders may be placed. The Government intends to award THREE (3) BPAs from this solicitation. Resultant Firm-Fixed Price Orders shall be competed among all Contractors.

    Please see http://aec.army.mil/usaec/business/index.html  for more information on the NEPA Blanket Purchase Agreement Renewal.

    This service is provided to you at no charge by US Army Environmental Command .

    The rule of law is a legal maxim according to which no one is immune to the law . The phrase has been used since the 17th century, but the concept can be traced to ancient Greece. Aristotle gave it as, "law should govern". In Roman Law , a sovereign is personally immune ( legibus solutus ), but people with grievances may sue the treasury. [ 2 ]

    One way to be free from the rule of law is by denying that an enactment has the necessary attributes of law. The rule of law has therefore been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion" [ 3 ] giving rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings". [ 4 ] A dichotomy can be identified between two principal conceptions of the rule of law: a formalist or "thin" and a substantive or "thick" definition of the rule of law. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. [ 5 ]

    The rule of law also encompasses the idea that the law should consist of general principles and not make special exceptions of particular groups, individuals or residents of particular regions etc.

    U--RESTRUCTURE/DEVELOP ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTING COURSE CTC 423 FOR THE NAVAL FACILITIES COMMAND ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS LINE (EBL) (SRCSGT)
    SOL: N62583ENVCONT
    DUE: 083012
    POC: Eric Ford, (805) 982-5570, Eric.L.Ford2@navy.mil; Elizabeth Corder, (805) 982-4012, Elizabeth.Corder@navy.mil.
    WEB: FBO.gov Permalink at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/NAVFAC/N47408/N62583ENVCONT/listing.html 


    NAICS: 541620. This Sources Sought announcement is intended to be used as a market research for SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS, under NAICS Code 541620, for a potential Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NAVFAC ESC), Port Hueneme, CA is seeking qualified sources to restructure/develop and possibly teach Environmental Contracting Course CTC 423. The contractor shall have a thorough understanding of the Naval Facilities Command Environmental Business Line (EBL) and the EBL acquisition strategy with a understanding to match type of work to be performed with the most effective type of contract vehicles. This work includes, but is not limited to, the restructure/development of an environmental focused contract course including course manual, presentations and detailing methods of instruction for class activities, assignments and exams. The firm must demonstrate capabilities of methods of instruction such: as analyzing case studies, conducting lectures, facilitating discussions and classroom exercises. A general understanding the NAVY Environmental Business line acquisition strategy and process, environmental contracting selection process, performance based contracting, public and private environmental contracts contrasts and comparisons, performance work statement and statement of objectives, Environmental Contracts and Multiple Award contracts, Contract performance management and a understanding of current environmental federal laws and regulations is necessary. Prior experience working with environmental contracts such as A & E, Fixed Price, Multiple Award (MACs), CLEAN, RAC, BAA, and Cost Reimbursement, and Performance Based contracts is necessary. Contractor shall also have an understanding of the award fee process from the government's perspective. Contractor shall have capability to travel twice a year to various parts of the country dependent on where need for courses are greatest. If adequate responses are not received from 8(a), HUBZone, or Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business (SDVOSB), the acquisition may be solicited as Small Business Set-Aside. All information received shall be used by the Navy to facilitate the decision making process. Since this is a Sources Sought announcement; no debrief, evaluation letters, and/or results shall be issued to participants. No reimbursement shall be made for any costs associated with providing information in response to this announcement or any follow-up information requests. This notice shall not be construed as a commitment by the Government for any purpose other than the market research. Respondents shall not be notified with the results of the research. All data in response to this Sources Sought Synopsis marked or designated as corporate or proprietary information will be fully protected from release outside the Government. After review of the responses, and if the Government plans to proceed with the acquisition, a solicitation announcement will be published on Navy Electronic Commerce Online (NECO) and Federal Business Opportunities (Fed Biz Ops). No telephone calls shall be accepted requesting a bid package or solicitation. There is no bid package or solicitation at this time. In order to protect the integrity of any future procurement, if any, that may arise from this announcement, the information regarding the technical point of contact shall not be provided, and appointments for presentations will not be made. All firms possessing the capability to accomplish this requirement are invited to submit a description of their qualifications clearly demonstrating their expertise, experience, relevant past performance, and capabilities to perform the requirements. The submittal shall not exceed seven (7) total pages and must include: (1) company name, address, and point of contact; (2) CAGE code and DUNS number; (3) statement of relevant qualifications; and (4) a statement identifying your business size standards relative to the above NAICS code. Please RESPOND TO THIS SOURCE SOUGHT ANNOUNCEMENT BY 30 AUGUST AT 1500 PACIFIC TIME, to Department of the Navy Specialty Center Acquisitions, NAVFAC SCAN, 1100 23rd Avenue, Building 1100, Port Hueneme, California 93043-4301 Attn: Elizabeth Corder. You may also email your response to elizabeth.corder@navy.mil and eric.l.ford2@navy.mil. Responses received after the deadline or without the required information shall be considered unacceptable and will not be considered. NOTE 1: All Contractors receiving a federal contract award must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at the following website: https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. NOTE 2: All solicitations for NAVFAC SCAN listed on the NECO website (www.neco.navy.mil) begin with N62583.


    CITE: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b7cea6dcd660394cd9f1f9c4c07ecc0a&tab=core&_cview=0
    Posted: 08/21/12
    SPONSOR: Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, NAVFAC Specialty Center Acquisitions, NAVFAC 1100 23rd Ave Bldg 1100 Port Hueneme, CA
    PUBLICATION DATE: August 23, 2012
    ISSUE: FBO-3925

    Mega-tsunami: Wave of Destruction
    BBC Two 9.30pm 12 October 2000
    Revisited: BBC Four 7pm 24 May 2003


    Mega-tsunami En español / In Spanish

    Scattered across the world’s oceans are a handful of rare geological time-bombs. Once unleashed they create an extraordinary phenomenon, a gigantic tidal wave, far bigger than any normal tsunami, able to cross oceans and ravage countries on the other side of the world. Only recently have scientists realised the next episode is likely to begin at the Canary Islands, off North Africa, where a wall of water will one day be created which will race across the entire Atlantic ocean at the speed of a jet airliner to devastate the east coast of the United States. America will have been struck by a mega-tsunami.Back in 1953 two geologists travelled to a remote bay in Alaska looking for oil. They gradually realised that in the past the bay had been struck by huge waves, and wondered what could have possibly caused them. Five years later, they got their answer. In 1958 there was a landslide, in which a towering cliff collapsed into the bay, creating a wave half a kilometre high, higher than any skyscraper on Earth. The true destructive potential of landslide-generated tsunami, which scientists named "Mega-tsunami", suddenly began to be appreciated. If a modest-sized landslide in Alaska could create a wave of this size, what havoc could a really huge landslide cause?Scientists now realise that the greatest danger comes from large volcanic islands, which are particularly prone to these massive landslides. Geologists began to look for evidence of past landslides on the sea bed, and what they saw astonished them. The sea floor around Hawaii, for instance, was covered with the remains of millions of years’ worth of ancient landslides, colossal in size.But huge landslides and the mega-tsunami that they cause are extremely rare - the last one happened 4,000 years ago on the island of Réunion. The growing concern is that the ideal conditions for just such a landslide - and consequent mega-tsunami - now exist on the island of La Palma in the Canaries. In 1949 the southern volcano on the island erupted. During the eruption an enormous crack appeared across one side of the volcano, as the western half slipped a few metres towards the Atlantic before stopping in its tracks. Although the volcano presents no danger while it is quiescent, scientists believe the western flank will give way completely during some future eruption on the summit of the volcano. In other words, any time in the next few thousand years a huge section of southern La Palma, weighing 500 thousand million tonnes, will fall into the Atlantic ocean.What will happen when the volcano on La Palma collapses? Scientists predict that it will generate a wave that will be almost inconceivably destructive, far bigger than anything ever witnessed in modern times. It will surge across the entire Atlantic in a matter of hours, engulfing the whole US east coast, sweeping away everything in its path up to 20km inland. Boston would be hit first, followed by New York, then all the way down the coast to Miami and the Caribbean.

    Mega-tsunami: La ola de la destrucción (In Spanish)

    Tsunami: Anatomy of a Disaster

    Further information

    Mega-tsunami: Questions and Answers

    Transcript

    Anatomy of a Tsunami

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tsunami/anatomy.html

    -

    More about Cumbre Vieja

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/3852052.html?page=2

    Cumbre Vieja, the most active volcano in the Canary Islands, lurches as a violent earthquake wracks its upper slopes. A third of the mountain breaks away and plunges into the Atlantic Ocean, pushing up a dome of water nearly 3000 ft. high. They don’t yet know it, but tens of millions of Americans from Key West, Fla., to South Lubec, Maine, have just 9 hours to escape with their lives.

    The collapse of Cumbre Vieja unleashes a train of enormous waves traveling at jetliner speed. The first slam into nearby islands, then the African mainland. By the time they reach the East Coast of North America, the waves are up to 80 ft. high, and in low-lying areas, sweep several miles inland.

    tsunami-east-2

    The tsunami’s potential range of destruction 9 hours after the collapse of Cumbre Vieja.

    tsunami-hx-atlantic

    One can see that a tsunami hitting the east coast of America is quite possible.

    Expert: In Case Of Massive Tsunami Long Island Would Be Doomed

    Evacuation Would Be Nightmare, But Technology Would Assist


    Claims Water Authorities Inconsistent; Initiates Information Inundation

    Waves Threat of Tsunami Rip Tide Drowning

    drinking water supplies of 117 million Americans not protected under current


    Strategic Foresight Initiative (SFI) Community Members;


     

    As the summertime approaches, the SFI team is continuing its robust outreach effort engaging the emergency management community in 1) creating awareness around SFI and the identified 15 strategic needs, and 2) exploring how the community has been utilizing these findings to inform planning and decision making processes.  We are specifically interested in identifying anecdotal information on programs or projects that you may currently be engaged in that link to the SFI strategic needs. The SFI team is also continuing to engage FEMA components in exploring how current programs and initiatives meet the strategic needs.

     

    As we mentioned in our last newsletter, we are scheduling a Webinar/Conference Call for Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 1:00pm EST. to discuss and explore the strategic needs classified as “Essential Capabilities,” to include the following:

     

    1.       Develop emergency management capabilities to address dynamic and unprecedented shifts in local and regional population characteristics and migratory flows.

    2.       Practice omni-directional knowledge sharing

    3.       Infuse emergency management principles and life skills across the entire educational experience to empower individuals to assume more responsibility.  

    4.       Build a shared vision for the emergency management of the future and a culture that embraces forward thinking to anticipate emerging challenges and develops appropriate plans and contingencies.

    5.       Leverage volunteer capabilities across all emergency management phases.  

     

    Ms. Regina Moran, Director Youth Preparedness Programs at FEMA and Mr. Albert H. Fluman from the Emergency Management Institute (EMI) will share how their programs and initiatives contribute to meeting some of the identified strategic needs.  As part of the conference call, the SFI team will provide a brief overview of the above outlined strategic needs and invite participants to share anecdotal information about how their programs/initiatives are meeting these needs, as well as any challenges and solutions identified when implementing actions to meet the strategic needs.

    To access the Webinar on June 5, please follow the following guidelines:

    ·         To access the webinar, please go to: https://fema.connectsolutions.com/sfi-essential-capabilities/

    ·         Please test the software on your computer before the training date at: https://demo.connectsolutions.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm . You do not need any special adobe connect software, but you will need to make sure you have flash and ActiveX installed on your computer. You should be prompted to install ActiveX as soon as you pull up the adobe connect site. The installation process should only take a few minutes.

    ·         When you are on the Adobe Connect homepage, please select "Sign in as Guest" and enter your first and last name. 

    ·         We will be using a conference call to communicate with participants during the webinar.  Please call: 1-800-320-4330 and enter PIN 350912.  Please note that due to the high number of participants we will ask that you mute your phone during the webinar.

    ·         You can post questions to the presenters using Adobe Connect’s chat functionality.  We will moderate the Q&A portion of the webinar by calling on individuals to elaborate on their questions/ideas posted under the chat window.

     

    Ongoing Engagement Opportunities:

    1) Engage in the SFI online dialogue through Idea Scale (www.fema.ideascale.com ).

    2) Join one of our upcoming interactive presentations or conference call (see list below).

    3) Share how you have applied SFI’s key findings (strategic needs) in your planning or operations, as well as any challenges you have experienced in applying these findings.

     

    Upcoming SFI Presentations:

    Tuesday, June 5 – SFI Conference Call (see details above)

    Wednesday, June 6 – Emergency Management Higher Education Conference, Emmitsburg, MD

    Sunday, July 15 – Natural Hazards Center, Annual Workshop, Broomfield, CO

    Monday, July 23 – Building Resilience through Public Private Partnership conference, Colorado Springs, CO

     

    We appreciate your continued support and involvement with SFI.  As always, please feel free to contact the SFI Team with questions, comments, or concerns.

     

    Thank you,

     

    Tim Baden

    Director, FEMA Strategic Planning and Analysis Division

     

    SFI Website:  http://www.fema.gov/about/programs/oppa/strategic_foresight_initiative.shtm

    SFI Articles on the FEMA Blog:

    “Preparing for the Future of Emergency Management”

    http://blog.fema.gov/2011/05/preparing-for-future-of-emergency.html

    “Trends & Info: Preparing for the Future of Emergency Management”

    http://blog.fema.gov/2011/05/trends-info-preparing-for-future-of.html

    “Foresight and Prediction: Preparing for the Future of Emergency Management” http://blog.fema.gov/2011/07/foresight-and-prediction-preparing-for.html

    “Importance of Thinking Global & Acting Local in Emergency Management” http://blog.fema.gov/2011/09/importance-of-thinking-global-acting.html

     


    DE-FOA-0000687: Energy Innovation Hub - Critical Materials

    The purpose of this FOA is to fund a Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub to reduce materials criticality and prevent criticality of new materials that are essential for energy technologies. The Critical Materials Hub will coordinate Research and Development across the entire materials lifecycle. Research and Development will combine basic and applied research with engineering to accelerate scientific discovery utilizing highly collaborative teams across multiple scientific and engineering disciplines. The initial award period is for five years. The Hub will be funded up to a total of $20 million in the first year; up to $10 million of those funds can be devoted to infrastructure start-up for the Hub, including building renovation (but not new construction), lease arrangements, equipment, and instrumentation. It is anticipated that the Hub will be funded up to $25 million per year for Hub operations in the final four years of the initial award period, pending Congressional appropriations.

    Agency Partnerships for

    High Water Mark Campaigns

    New Initiative could help with CRS Credit for Outreach Projects

    As CRS communities know, floods are the most common and costly natural disasters in the country, yet more Americans could benefit from taking steps to prevent flood damage and make themselves more resilient in the face of a flood disaster. FEMA and eight other federal agencies are working to promote community disaster resiliency by beginning an initiative to offer local officials outreach materials to bring flood risk awareness into the spotlight. Together, FEMA and its partners are developing a high water mark awareness initiative to help communities showcase their local history of flooding and encourage residents to take action. The initiative, “Know Your Line: Be Flood Aware,” supports local officials in posting—in prominent places throughout their communities—signs that show the high water

    levels from previous or projected floods. Communities are encouraged to hold prominent

    events to announce their participation in the initiative and the start of their awareness

    campaigns. These events would provide a natural launching point for follow-up activities to remind residents and local businesses of their flood risk and to prompt individual action.

    Such activities could receive CRS credit as part of a community’s outreach projects under

    CRS Activity 330.

    “It Won’t Happen Here”

    Over the life of a typical 30-year mortgage, homes and businesses in high-risk areas have a 26% or greater chance of being flooded—that’s a full two-and-a-half times more likely than a fire.1 But residents and businesses often take few, if any, steps to protect themselves from these potentially life-changing events, opting instead to trust that “it won’t happen here.”

    Local officials in CRS communities understand that flooding not only CAN happen in their community, it likely already HAS. Whether your community experienced a severe flood a century ago or just this spring, using high water mark signs to showcase the flood’s dramatic outcome can be a powerful testimony to the reality of local floods. The signs are also daily reminders to residents and businesses to be aware of the risk and take appropriate action before the next flood.

    Posting high water mark signs themselves, however, is just the beginning. The Know Your Line initiative will help communities develop ongoing communication

    efforts to bolster local flood risk communication plans and encourage flood risk reduction over time.

    Agencies Supporting the

    “Know Your Line” Initiative

    ● Federal Emergency Management

    Agency

    ● National Oceanic and Atmospheric

    Administration

    ● National Park Service

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

    U.S. Department of Agriculture

    U.S. Department of Housing and

    Urban Development

    U.S. Environmental Protection

    Agency

    U.S. Geological Survey

    U.S. Small Business Administration

     



    Now offering invitation for proposals for the development of 500,000 acres
    new land on the shores of
    Lago Buenaventura

    DAM THE GOLDEN GATE                                      DYKE

    Scientists looked back in time--in the geologic record--to see the future
    Press Release 12-051

    Global Sea Level Likely to Rise as Much as 70 Feet in Future Generations

    Back to article | Note about images

    Map of the world showing                                          areas in red inundated by a                                          future sea level rise of six                                          meters.

    Earth with a sea level rise of six meters. Imagine a possible future rise of 70 feet.

    Credit: NASA


    Even if humankind manages to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)--as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends--future generations will likely have to deal with a completely different world.

    One with sea levels 40 to 70 feet higher than at present, according to research results published this week in the journal Geology.

    RIP

    Isthmus of Arman
    Isthmus of Arman

    News From the Field
    Rising Oceans--Too Late to Turn the Tide?
    Email this page

    July 14, 2011


    Melting ice sheets contributed much more to rising sea levels than thermal expansion of warming ocean waters during the Last Interglacial Period, a team led by scientists at the University of Arizona has found. The results further suggest that ocean levels continue to rise long after warming of the atmosphere levels off. Full Story

    Source
    University of Arizona

    We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

    The Nyberg Battle Flag of the Three Percent

    The Nyberg Battle Flag of the Three Percent
    This time we are ALL Davidians. This time, we are all Jews, Kulaks, "counter-revolutionists" and "enemies of the state."

    "When Democracy Becomes Tyranny

    "When Democracy Becomes Tyranny
    I STILL get to vote."

    Contact us

    You may email Mike Vanderboegh at GeorgeMason1776ATaol DOT com.

    "Progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress."

    I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave. -- H.L. Mencken

    Abraham Lincoln and Agriculture

    Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln

    True to his roots as a frontier farm boy, President Abraham Lincoln signed agricultural legislation that expanded and transformed American farming, including such significant reforms as the creation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Homestead Act, and the establishment of the Land Grant agricultural university system. Read more about Lincoln's agricultural legacy.


    USDA 150 Years (1862-2012) Lincoln Legislation

    In a three month span in 1862, Lincoln signed into law three important pieces of legislation that would have a profound and lasting impact on U.S. agriculture and society.

    An Act to Establish a Department of Agriculture - Established the Department's basic mission "to acquire and diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of the word."

    Homestead Act - Stimulated Western migration by offering qualified individuals 160 acres of public land for settlement and cultivation.

    Morrill Land Grant College Act - Provided public lands to U.S. states and territories for the establishment of colleges specializing in agricultural research and instruction.

    In addition to these acts directly related to agriculture, Lincoln was also responsible for legislation that related indirectly to agriculture.

    Pacific Railway Act - Provided Federal government support for the building of the first transcontinental railroad, which was completed on May 10, 1869.

    Emancipation Proclamation - Proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states then in rebellion (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas).


    Lincoln's address at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery, November 19, 1863, source: Library of Congress Lincoln's Views on Agriculture

    In Lincoln's own words:

    Lincoln's Milwaukee Speech

    This speech to the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society on September 30, 1859 is Lincoln's only extended public address on agriculture. He highlighted the national importance of agriculture as well as the need for innovation and labor reforms.

    Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Agriculture. (PDF | 11MB) Edwards, Everett Eugene and U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Washington, D.C., United States Department of Agriculture, 1937. NAL call no. 1.9 Ec7Wa.

    A collection of observations on agriculture by Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, collected for the 75th anniversary of the creation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Lincoln's section begins on page 77 and includes his Milwaukee speech, excerpts from his first and second annual messages to Congress, and the agricultural laws of 1862: Act Establishing the Department of Agriculture, Homestead Act, and the Land Grant College [Morrill] Act.

    Lincoln's Papers and Other Selected Resources

    In the words of others:

    "Lincoln's Attitude Toward Farm Problems". (PDF | 1.3MB) Edwards, Everett Eugene. 1931. 4 pages. Given as a radio talk, then published in Agricultural Library Notes, Volume 6, Number 2, February 1931, and revised into this statement. NAL Special Collections, Everett Eugene Edwards Papers. NAL call no. 1.9 Ec752Li.

    Describes Lincoln's childhood in pioneer farming to provide some context for his later statements and opinions about agriculture that culminated in his approval of the three 1862 agricultural acts. Numerous references provided.

    Lincoln’s view of agriculture--1859 (with some projections by Hopkins--1909) : an address read before the University of Illinois Assembly, Morrow Hall, Lincoln week, 1909 (PDF | 1MB). Hopkins, Cyril G. Urbana, Ill., 1909. NAL call no. 30.4 H772.

    Hopkins quotes extensively from Lincoln's Milwaukee speech and expresses his concerns over the present state of U.S. agriculture and practices that are leading to land ruin.

    "Lincoln and Agriculture." Ross, Earle D. Agricultural History, vol. 3(2): pages 51-66, 1929. NAL call no. 30.98 Ag8.

    Ross describes Lincoln's early exposure to aspects of agriculture and how the political climate in the early 1860s influenced the development and early days of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including the passage of the Homestead and Morrill Acts. The numerous references throughout may be of use to the historical researcher.

    "Lincoln and Agriculture." (PDF | 630KB) Stine, Oscar Clemen. 1930. NAL Special Collections, Everett Eugene Edwards Papers. NAL call no. HD1771.5.E48.

    Radio talk presented by O.C. Stine of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics on 12 February 1930. Describes Lincoln's early life as an influence on his willingness to listen to farmers' interests when he was a politician, first in Illinois and then as President.

    Lincoln and his family Lincoln's Early Life

    Born in Kentucky in 1809, Lincoln grew up mostly in Indiana, then moved to Illinois. In his adult life, he married and had four children, was a captain in the Black Hawk War, spent eight years in the Illinois legislature, and acted as an Illinois circuit court lawyer before being elected President in 1861. Find out more about Lincoln's life.


    Abraham Lincoln, head-and-shoulders portrait, source: Library of Congress Portraits of Lincoln

    It is no trouble to imagine what Abraham Lincoln looked like--a wealth of pictures and drawings of Lincoln exist. Institutions like the Library of Congress maintain collections of images of Lincoln and his family, his homes, and items related to his life and death.


    Abraham Lincoln, sixteenth president of the United States, source: Library of Congress Lincoln as President

    Lincoln is best known for being the 16th President of the U.S. (1861-1865) when he guided the nation through the Civil War, and the assassination that prematurely ended his second term as President. Learn more about Lincoln's presidency.


    Tractor and silo Agriculture in Lincoln's Time

    From the country's founding, farming and farm culture have shaped the image of the U.S. as a nation of hardworking, independent, creative people. In the 21st century the U.S. continues to be a leading agricultural producer, but the nature and scope of American farming have changed considerably since Lincoln's time when almost half the population worked in agriculture.


    National Agricultural Library Lincoln and the National Agricultural Library

    In 1863, the first annual report of the new Department of Agriculture recommended the creation of an agricultural library to support the Department's mission of collecting and distributing agricultural information to the American people. This vision was fulfilled by the establishment of the National Agricultural Library. Lincoln's role in the creation of USDA is commemorated in the Abraham Lincoln Building which houses the Library today.


    Last Modified: May-09-2012



    RESOLUTION

    Recognizing the importance of the property rights granted by the United States Constitution; affirming the duty of each Member of this body to support and defend such rights; and asserting that no public body should unlawfully obtain the property of any citizen of the United States for the benefit of another private citizen or corporation.

    Whereas there is no greater expression of freedom and liberty than the defense of the God-given right of an individual to hold, possess, and use private property;

    Whereas John Locke, the great political philosopher lauded by so many of the Founders of this Nation, stated, `the preservation of property [is the reason] for which men enter into society' and that `no [government] hath a right to take their [property], or any part of it, without their own consent, for this would be in effect to leave them no property at all.';

    Whereas William Blackstone, whose lectures shaped and helped inspire the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and primal laws of America, wrote: `So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.';

    Whereas Samuel Adams, the political writer, statesman, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, declared that our rights included: `First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them.';

    Whereas John Adams, diplomat, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States, firmly proclaimed: `The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.' and that `Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.';

    Whereas John Adams also affirmed: `Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.';

    Whereas James Madison, author of the Constitution, and President of the United States, announced: `Government is instituted to protect property. . . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.';

    Whereas John Dickinson, signer of the Constitution, stated: `Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds: (1) that we cannot be happy without being free; (2) that we cannot be free, without being secure in our property; (3) that we cannot be secure in our property, if, without our consent, others may, as by right, take it away.';

    Whereas Thomas Jefferson, the mind behind the Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States, wrote: `The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.' and `The first foundations of the social compact would be broken up were we definitely to refuse to its members the protection of their persons and property while in their lawful pursuits.';

    Whereas Thomas Jefferson also affirmed: `Charged with the care of the general interest of the nation, and among these with the preservation of their lands from intrusion, I exercised, on their behalf, a right given by nature to all men, individual or associated, that of rescuing their own property wrongfully taken.';

    Whereas Noah Webster, the `Father of American Scholarship and Education', stated: `It is admitted that all men have an equal right to the enjoyment of their life, property and personal security; and it is the duty as it is the object, of government to protect every man in this enjoyment.';

    Whereas John Jay opined: `No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.'; and

    Whereas Fisher Ames, framer of the Bill of Rights and Massachusetts Representative to the first four Congresses, said: `The chief duty and care of all governments is to protect the rights of property.': Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That--

    (1) these ideals did motivate and continue to justify the drafting of article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution, which states that it is the responsibility of Congress `to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries', and the writing of the 5th amendment to our Constitution, which clearly states: `No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.';

    (2) since every Member of this body has sworn or affirmed to both support and defend the entire Constitution and `to bear true faith and allegiance to the same', any act not in accordance with that oath is both a betrayal of the United States Constitution and a violation of Federal law; and

    (3) in the constant pursuit of a more perfect union, all citizens of the United States should remain secure in the possession of private property, and no court, legislature, or executive shall, by predatory law or tyrannical force, obtain the property of any citizen of the United States for the benefit of another private citizen or corporation.

    The term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community. 1 The words ‘‘or the Indian tribe’’ were inserted after the words ‘‘State Government’’ in the previous version of this sentence, but the same law also removed the sentence containing those words and replaced it with this new sentence which does not contain the words ‘‘State Government’’. See sections 107(d)(2) and 207(c)(2)(D) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.

    in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, the President shall by rule promulgate amendments to the hazard ranking system in effect on September 1, 1984. Such amendments shall assure, to the maximum extent feasible, that the hazard ranking system accurately assesses the relative degree of risk to human health and the environment posed by sites and facilities subject to review.

    Article 15. Vested Rights Determination
    Section 3950. Purpose of Regulations.
    No person who has obtained a vested right to conduct surface mining operations prior to January 1, 1976 shall be required to secure a permit pursuant to Section 2770 of the Public Resources Code. Any person claiming a vested right to conduct surface mining operations in a jurisdiction where the State Mining and Geology Board (the Board) is lead agency pursuant to section 2774.4 of the Public Resources Code must establish such claim in a public proceeding under this article. In such a proceeding the Claimant shall assume the burden of proof.
    NOTE
    Authority: Sections 2755 and 2775, Public Resources Code. Reference: Calvert v. County of Yuba, (2007) 145 Cal. App. 4th 613.
    Section 3951 Vested Right(s) - Definition.
    A “vested right” is the right to conduct a legal nonconforming use of real property if that right existed lawfully before a zoning or other land use restriction became effective and the use is not in conformity with that restriction when it continues thereafter. A vested mining right, in the surface mining context, may include but shall not be limited to: the area of mine operations, the depth of mine operations, the nature of mining activity, the nature of material extracted, and the quantity of material available for extraction.
    A person shall be deemed to have a vested right or rights to conduct surface mining operations if, prior to January 1, 1976, the person has, in good faith and in reliance upon a permit or other authorization, if the permit or other authorization was required, diligently commenced
    surface mining operations and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary for the surface mining operations. Expenses incurred in obtaining the enactment of an ordinance in relation to a particular operation or the issuance of a permit shall not be deemed liabilities for work or materials. 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.
    NOTE
    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.

    “When the well is dry, we learn the worth of water.”
             -Benjamin Franklin

    "That Accounts for a Good Deal," said Eeyore gloomily. "It Explains Everything. No Wonder."
    "You must have left it somewhere," said Winnie the Pooh.
    "Somebody must have taken it," said Eeyore. "How Like Them," he added, after a long silence.

    Criticism Rains Down Over Cloud Data Centers

    by Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com | May 3, 2012
    Knowledge has always been power, but how that information is stored has emerged as one of the most challenging issues facing the evolution of technology. Full Article
    TOPNEWS


    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180)

    "The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken


    'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe


    “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” -- Voltaire


    Lord Salisbury: "No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe soldiers, nothing is safe."


    Bertrand Russell knew about consensus: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”


    There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts. - Duc de La Rochefoucauld, French writer and moralist (1613-1680)

    "In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy". (Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland). No prizes for guessing how global warming skepticism is normally responded to.


    "Almost all professors of the arts and sciences are egregiously conceited, and derive their happiness from their conceit" -- Erasmus


    "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." -- Thomas H. Huxley


    “Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” -- John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001


    'The closer science looks at the real world processes involved in climate regulation the more absurd the IPCC's computer driven fairy tale appears. Instead of blithely modeling climate based on hunches and suppositions, climate scientists would be better off abandoning their ivory towers and actually measuring what happens in the real world.' -- Doug L Hoffman


    Time was, people warning the world "Repent - the end is nigh!" were snickered at as fruitcakes. Now they own the media and run the schools.

    Do you want to know what is really extreme?  The creation of the Department of Education, after surviving almost 200 years without it.  Since the DOE was created, the cost of college tuition has increased over 439% adjusted for inflation!  The rate of increase is almost exactly commensurate with the rate of growth of DOE subsidization.  As you can see from this chart, the government-induced housing bubble pales in comparison to the government-induced Big Education bubble.

    US News and World Report

    "One of the sources of the Fascist movement is the desire to avoid a too-rational and too-comfortable world" -- George Orwell, 1943 in Can Socialists Be Happy?

    Storm Shelters Old and New - Still a Good Idea

    When Don Wood built his storm shelter 25 years ago, he didn’t know how often he’d have to use it. As it turned out, Wood and his family sought protection in that shelter through several windstorms and a few tornadoes during those 25 years. After tornadoes ripped through southern Indiana in early March 2012, anyone pondering whether or not to install or build a storm shelter, or perhaps “harden” an existing basement against future extreme wind storms, might consider Wood’s experience and advice.

    Wood’s home doesn’t have a basement, so the entrance to his storm shelter is just a few steps beyond the back door. Access to the shelter is through a trap door in his deck, and then down a short flight of stairs to an inward-opening steel door. The shelter itself is an 8-foot by 12-foot by 8-foot-high concrete enclosure. The walls are 8-inch-thick concrete-filled concrete blocks, and the roof a 12-inch-thick slab of reinforced (with rebar) concrete. The shelter rests on a 6-inch-thick concrete slab. Wood estimates that it could be built today for $6,000; the cost would be greater if it were built by a contractor/builder.

    Jeremy Shireman decided to incorporate a dedicated storm shelter in the basement of his new home. Shireman’s storm shelter will occupy the space below the front porch of his home, and the concrete floor of the porch will serve as the roof of the shelter. Because the walls of the shelter were poured at the same time as the rest of his home’s foundation, Shireman estimates the cost for the storm shelter was approximately $2,000. Shireman considers the cost of his storm shelter as an investment that will provide safety and protection for his family.

    NOTE: It is recommended that your local fire department, local emergency management agency (EMA), and other relevant local officials be given the location of your storm shelter. That information can be vital in post-disaster recovery efforts. In the event that debris is surrounding or on top of your shelter, this will allow officials to check on it to make sure any occupants are not trapped inside.

    For additional information visit:

    1.) FEMA Safe Room Resources website at http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/saferoom/sr_resources.shtm

    2.) FEMA P-320, "Taking Shelter from the Storm: Building a Safe Room for Your Home or Small Business" (2008) http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/saferoom/fema320.shtm

    3) FEMA P_361, "Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Room" (2008) http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/saferoom/fema361.shtm

    Don't panic – yet... Our expert guide to the coming storm
    K-12 schools and community colleges would be hit hardest

    State Courts Weather the Storm

    By Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the State of New York
    More than anything else, what makes this country great is our commitment to the rule of law and our protection of the liberties enshrined in our state and federal constitutions. It is that promise of liberty and freedom - that singular dedication to the rule of law that applies equally to each and every person in this country regardless of their standing in life - that sets us apart and extends our capacity to grow and excel. To live up to that promise, we must have an independent and impartial judiciary, adequately funded and co-equal to the other branches of government.

    Subject:
     Earth Month Tip of the Day: Wait for the storm to pass.
     From:
    To:

    Today's environmental tip: Wait for the storm to pass! Don't fertilize before a rain storm. Your fertilizer

    - along with your money - can just wash off your lawn and down the storm drain. Fertilizer runoff can pollute rivers, lakes, and bays, and cause problems in recreational areas or fishing grounds. Check the weather forecast before you head out, and wait for the storm to pass.

    More information: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/greenscapes/owners.htm
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

    en español: ¡Deje que pase la tormenta! No abone antes de una lluvia fuerte. Su fertilizante y su dinero se escurrirán con la lluvia y se irán por el alcantarillado. Las escorrentías de fertilizantes contaminan ríos, lagos, y bahías y ocasionan problemas en áreas de recreo y áreas de pesca. Verifique el pronóstico del tiempo antes de salir y deje que pase la tormenta.

    Más información: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/greenscapes/pubs/owner-sp.pdf
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

    Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.  http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips.htm   

    Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Safe Rooms.

    IMMI Safety and Compliance Office Public announcement concerning  shelters at satellite  re-locations. “The whole point of mitigation is that you plan prior to some disaster happening. You can’t put a price tag on someone being swept away when you could have done something to prevent it. Compared to that, the cost of a shelter is a drop in the bucket.”

    http://www.fema.gov/mitigationbp/brief.do?mitssId=9251

    Quakertown a winner in water conservation challenge


    Posted: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:00 am | Updated: 9:15 am, Mon May 14, 2012.

    Quakertown is one of 12 towns to win a national water conservation challenge.

    The Upper Bucks community has been recognized because its residents signed an online pledge in April to reduce their water usage.

    The pledge was part of the 2012 National Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation, which encouraged people across the country to save water and energy and reduce pollution.

    The program was sponsored by Toyota and the Wyland Foundation, a California-based nonprofit organization that teaches students around the country about the oceans, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water.

    Between March 30 and April 30, people were asked to sign the pledge “to change their behavior at home, in their yard and around their town,” said Steve Creech, executive director of the Wyland Foundation.

    Enough residents with Quakertown ZIP Codes of 18951 signed up to make the community one of the 12 winning cities, joining such places as Madison, Wis., Toms River, N.J., and Laguna Beach, Calif.

    Quakertown ranked first in the 30,001- to 100,000-resident category.

    Pledge by oath or affirmation?

    Confirmation?


    Privacy and civil liberties groups have expressed alarm with overreaching cyber-security measures, like the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA), which the House passed last month. The broad coalition of advocacy groups warned:

    CISPA creates an exception to all privacy laws to permit companies to share our information with each other and with the government in the name of cybersecurity. Although a carefully-crafted information sharing program that strictly limits the information to be shared and includes robust privacy safeguards could be an effective approach to cybersecurity, CISPA lacks such protections for individual rights.

    If the Bush-era National Security Agency (NSA) warrantless spying scandal - which according to recent whistleblowers' disclosures is far from resolved - it should be that privacy cannot be an afterthought then privacy telecom companies and the government decide to "team-up" for our own "security."

    Considering what we've learned in just the past few months, Americans should be more than wary of partnerships between internet service providers and government. NSA whistleblower disclosures of late signify the danger in allowing telecoms to hand our private information to the government in secret without court oversight.

    Disclosures over the past few weeks included:

    •  The first public description of Stellar Wind, the NSA’s massive domestic spying program, which has the capacity to intercept trillions of domestic electronic communications of Americans, including e-mails, phone calls, and internet activities.
    • That Stellar Wind gave the NSA warrantless access to telecommunications companies’ massive domestic and international billing records, amounting to an estimated “over a billion and a half calls a day.”
    • That “…after 9/11, all the wraps came off for NSA, and they decided to – between the White House and NSA and CIA – they decided to eliminate the protections on U.S. citizens and collect on, domestically. So they started collecting from a commercial – the one commercial company that I know of that participated provided over 300 – probably, on the average, about 320 million records of communication of a U.S. citizen to a U.S. citizen inside this country.” . . .
    • That since 9/11, the NSA has intercepted an estimated “between 15 and 20 trillion” electronic transactions.
    • That the scope of Stellar Wind is much larger than what was previously publicly known “Binney says Stellar Wind was far larger than has been publicly disclosed and included not just eavesdropping on domestic phone calls but the inspection of domestic email.”
    • That the patriotic-sounding “Terrorist Surveillance Program” was used as a cover for Stellar Wind: “But it was grouped with Stellar Wind and some other programs, so that they could give cover to it, talk about some programs, say they’re talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, but it was basically a group of programs, some of which they did not want to talk about.”

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.


    First Evaluation of the Clean Water Act's Effects“ "We wanted to assume that the Clean Water Act was working". “Fortunately for us, we have the data"...the ocean responds and cleans itself. The system is resilient " said Sergio Sañudo-Wilhelmy,  professor of Biological and Earth sciences at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. who led the research team, attributing the cleaner water to sewage treatment regulations that were part of the Clean Water Act of 1972
    insider

    11/15/2011  37  Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN and STEPHEN S. TROTT) The motion by John F. Hutchens to appear ex parte and to intervene is denied. No motions for reconsideration, rehearing or clarification of this denial shall be entertained. Appellant T.W. Arman’s request to file a late, oversized opening brief is denied. Appellant T.W. Arman shall file an opening brief that complies with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Ninth Circuit Rules within 30 days after the date of this order. Failure to comply with this order will result in the automatic dismissal of this petition for review by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The answering brief is due 30 days after service of the opening brief and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. [7965922] (KKW)
    12/16/2011  38  Filed Appellant T. W. Arman motion for name clearing hearing on premises or congress assembled absolute order * high appellation. [8005256] (MT)
    12/16/2011  39  Filed Appellant T. W. Arman original mandamus, prayers and application for prohibition and quo warranto, (for rest of text see document). Served on 12/15/2011. [8006039] (MT)
    01/09/2012  40  Filed order (WILLIAM C. CANBY, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and RICHARD A. PAEZ) Appellant T.W. Arman’s “motion for name clearing hearing” is denied. To the extent that motion also requests injunctive relief, it is also denied. Appellant/petitioner T.W. Arman has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied. No motions for reconsideration, rehearing or clarification of these denials shall be entertained. Appellant T.W. Arman shall be given one final opportunity to file an opening brief that complies with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Ninth Circuit Rules. This opening brief is due within 30 days after the date of this order. Failure to comply with this order will result in the automatic dismissal of this petition for review by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The answering brief is due 30 days after service of the opening brief and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Any motions and responses thereto filed after the date of this order, other than motions related to the filing of the briefs, shall be referred to the panel that will hear the merits of this appeal for whatever consideration the panel deems appropriate. [8024749] (KKW)

    Freedom of Information Act

    To make a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, please send us your request in writing to the contact addressed below.

    FOIA Contact:

    Sarah Lu
    FOIA Coordinator
    Department of Justice
    Environment and Natural Resources Division
    Law and Policy Section
    P.O. Box 7415, Ben Franklin Station
    Washington, DC 20044
    (202) 514-0424Fax: (202) 514-4231
    E-mail:  FOIARouting.enrd@usdoj.gov

    Rule 35(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which permits the Court of Appeals to hear an appeal for the first time with all circuit judges empanelled when "necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions."

    “you make examples out of people who are not complying"

    Chapter II.
    Statutory Provisions and Guidelines
    of the Antitrust Division
    A.
    Statutes Enforced by the Antitrust Division
    .........................................
    II-3
    1.
    Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7
    .......................................
    II-3
    2.
    Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8-11
    .........................................
    II-4
    3.
    Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27
    .............................................
    II-4
    4.
    Antitrust Civil Process Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1311-14
    ...............................
    II-7
    5.
    International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6201-12
    . . . .
    II-7
    6.
    Miscellaneous
    ............................................................
    II-8
    B.
    Statutes Used in Criminal Antitrust Investigations and Prosecutions
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    II-9
    1.
    Offenses that Arise from Conduct Accompanying a Sherman Act Violation
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    II-9
    a.
    Conspiracy; Aiding and Abetting
    ........................................
    II-9
    b.
    Fraud
    ..............................................................
    II-9
    c.
    Money Laundering
    ..................................................
    II-10
    d.
    Tax Offenses
    .......................................................
    II-10
    2.
    Offenses Involving the Integrity of the Investigative Process
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    II-10
    a.
    Obstruction
    ........................................................
    II-10
    b.
    Perjury and False Statements
    ..........................................
    II-11
    c.
    Criminal Contempt
    ..................................................
    II-11
    3.
    Procedural Statutes
    .......................................................
    II-12
    4.
    Statutes of Limitation
    .....................................................
    II-12
    5.
    Victim and Witness Rights
    .................................................
    II-13
    a.
    Attorney General Guidelines
    ..........................................
    II-13
    b.
    Statutes Governing Victims’ Rights and Services for Victims
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    II-13
    6.
    Sentencing.
    ............................................................
    II-13
    a.
    General Provisions
    ..................................................
    II-14
    b.
    Probation
    ..........................................................
    II-15
    c.
    Fines
    .............................................................
    II-15
    d.
    Imprisonment
    ......................................................
    II-16
    e.
    Restitution
    .........................................................
    II-16
    f.
    Miscellaneous
    ......................................................
    II-17
    C.
    Statutes Affecting the Competition Advocacy of the Antitrust Division
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    II-17
    1.
    Statutory Antitrust Immunities
    .............................................
    II-17
    a.
    Agricultural Immunities .
    ............................................
    II-17
    b.
    Export Trade Immunities
    .............................................
    II-18
    c.
    Insurance Immunities
    ................................................
    II-19
    d.
    Labor Immunities
    ...................................................
    II-19
    e.
    Fishing Immunities
    ..................................................
    II-20
    f.
    Defense Preparedness
    ...............................................
    II-20
    g.
    Newspaper Joint Operating Arrangements
    ...............................
    II-20
    h.
    Professional Sports .
    ................................................
    II-20
    i.
    Small Business Joint Ventures .
    .......................................
    II-20
    j. Local Governments
    .................................................
    II-21
    2.
    Statutes Relating to the Regulated Industries Activities of the Antitrust Division
    .. . . . .
    II-21
    a.
    Banking
    ..........................................................
    II-22
    b.
    Communications
    ...................................................
    II-24
    c.
    Foreign Trade .
    ....................................................
    II-25
    d.
    Energy
    ...........................................................
    II-26
    e.
    Transportation
    .....................................................
    II-28
    3.
    Statutes Relating to Joint Research and Development, Production, and Standards
    Development.
    ..........................................................
    II-29
    D.
    Antitrust Division Guidelines
    ...................................................
    II-30
    1.
    Merger Guidelines
    .......................................................
    II-30
    2.
    Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property
    .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    II-31
    3.
    Antitrust Enforcement Guidelines for International Operations
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    II-31
    4.
    Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy and Analytical Principles Relating to
    Health Care and Antitrust
    ..................................................
    II-31
    Antitrust Division Manual, Fourth Edition II-2




    Applicability of parens patriae actions Clayton Act § 5 (Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C. § 16 Judgments

    1. Offenses that Arise from Conduct Accompanying a Sherman Act Violation
    a. Conspiracy; Aiding and Abetting
    18 U.S.C. § 2
    Principals [aiding and abetting]
    18 U.S.C. § 371
    Conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States
    18 U.S.C. § 1349
    Attempt and conspiracy [mail and wire fraud]
    b. Fraud
    18 U.S.C. § 201
    Bribery of public officials and witnesses
    18 U.S.C. § 666
    Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds
    18 U.S.C. § 1001
    Statements or entries generally [false statements]
    18 U.S.C. § 1341
    Frauds and swindles [mail fraud]
    Antitrust Division Manual, Fourth Edition II-9
    18 U.S.C. § 1343
    Fraud by wire, radio, or television [wire fraud]
    c.
    Money Laundering
    18 U.S.C. § 1952
    Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprise
    18 U.S.C. § 1956
    Laundering of monetary instruments
    18 U.S.C. § 1957
    Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity
    d.
    Tax Offenses
    26 U.S.C. § 7201
    Attempt to evade or defeat tax
    26 U.S.C. § 7206
    Fraud and false statements
    2.
    Offenses Involving the Integrity of the Investigative Process
    a.
    Obstruction
    18 U.S.C. § 1503
    Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
    Antitrust Division Manual, Fourth Edition II-10
    18 U.S.C. § 1505
    Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees. This statute is used when there is obstruction of proceedings under the Antitrust Civil Process Act.
    18 U.S.C. § 1509
    Obstruction of court orders
    18 U.S.C. § 1510
    Obstruction of criminal investigations
    18 U.S.C. § 1512
    Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
    18 U.S.C. § 1519
    Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
    b.
    Perjury and False Statements
    18 U.S.C. § 1621
    Perjury generally
    18 U.S.C. § 1622
    Subornation of perjury
    18 U.S.C. § 1623
    False declarations before grand jury or court
    c.
    Criminal Contempt
    18 U.S.C. § 402
    Contempts constituting crimes
    Antitrust Division Manual, Fourth Edition II-11
    18 U.S.C. § 3691
    Jury trial of criminal contempts Fed. R. Crim. P. 42
    Criminal contempt
    3.
    Procedural Statutes
    18 U.S.C. § 3143
    Release or detention of a defendant pending sentence or appeal
    Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174
    Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses
    Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500
    18 U.S.C. §§ 6001-6005
    Immunity of witnesses

    zealous enforcement

    “It is kind of like how the Romans used to conquer villages in the Mediterranean – they’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them,” Mr. Armendariz says on the tape. “Then that little town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

    He goes on: “And so, you make examples out of people who are, in this case, not complying with the law. You find people who are not complying with the law and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them. There’s a deterrent effect there. And companies that are smart see that. They don’t want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up. And that won’t happen unless you have somebody out there making examples of people.”

    a “heavy burden of justification”

    Cabacera del Rio Buenaventura ex jure naturæ status quo ante bellum

    OFFICIAL MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

    “The continued exercise of a franchise, without right, is a continuously renewed usurpation on which a new cause of action arises each day.”
    People v. Jefferds, 126 Cal., 296. (The language of the court in the last citation.),

    People v. Stanford, 77 Cal., 360, 377; People v. Reclamation District, 50 Pac. Rep., 1068;


    “It is insisted, however, that the owner of property is entitled to a reasonable compensation for its use, even though it be clothed with a public interest, and that what is reasonable is a judicial and not a legislative question.” Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113


    The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear... property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA  issued compliance orders demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. the owner did not do the EPA’s bidding, and the EPA sued the previous owners, (all fortune 500 companies,) essentially terminating the lawful purchase of the Iron Mountain Mines property ten years earlier; and holding all hostage that they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the new owners want their day in court to show that their property  does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Even when  the EPA sued, we are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to perfect its CERCLA lien. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the billions and the sun turned into a red giant.
    In a nation that values due process, equal protection, and above all private property, such treatment is unthinkable and unconscionable.


    In the memory of virtue when it is present, people imitate it, and they long for it when it has gone;


    A "modest measure of relief“ from the "hopelessly indeterminate” scope of “waters of the United States”  - Justice Alito

    The government has a “heavy burden of justification” - Justice Kennedy


    Legion of E.P.A.'s ‘Crucifying’ Polluters enforcement policy


    EPA Pilate program; (Employees must wash hands before returning to work.) Eelyomercinarius Publius Americanus?

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
    And when Pilate saw that nothing availed, but that there was an increasing clamor, he took water, washing his hands before the crowds and he said, “I am free from the blood of this righteous man. Know that.”


    Deuteronomy 21:6 Then all the elders of the town nearest the body shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley,
    Matthew 26:5 "But not during the Feast," they said, "or there may be a riot among the people."
    Matthew 27:4 "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."
    Matthew 27:19 While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him."
    Matthew 27:23 "Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
    Blood Contrary Disturbance Hands Innocent Multitude Murder Righteous Riot  Threatening Tumult Washed Water


    haec manus inimica tyrannus
    Green: Politics

    A high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency official has apologized for remarks he made to subordinates suggesting that the agency “crucify” some violators of pollution laws to deter others.

    subject

    Whistleblower – ‘Essentially Suicide’ to Stand Up to JPMorgan Chase Bank
    Today

    Summary: A whistleblower who tried to report fraud internally at JPMorgan Chase was fired and ostracized, after word got out. She called her decision to report fraud “essentially suicide.” Her family had been living off her salary and faces a number of financial hardships now.

    GAP’s Corporate & Financial Accountability program represents several notable bank whistleblowers. GAP client Eileen Foster, who attempted to expose pervasive fraud at Countrywide and Bank of America, won the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling last month.


    Summary: A whistleblower who tried to report fraud internally at JPMorgan Chase was fired and ostracized, after word got out. She called her decision to report fraud “essentially suicide.” Her family had been living off her salary and faces a number of financial hardships now.

    GAP’s Corporate & Financial Accountability program represents several notable bank whistleblowers. GAP client Eileen Foster, who attempted to expose pervasive fraud at Countrywide and Bank of America,
    won the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling last month.

    Key Quote: Her fate is far from unusual. "Employees get fired all the time for blowing the whistle," said Dana Gold, a senior fellow at the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit organization that advocates for whistleblowers. "We see it so much," Gold said. "It's a predictable phenomenon."

    To help compensate for such risks, 2010's Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law offers incentives to sweeten the pot for some whistleblowers. While Gold and other employee advocates applaud the new provisions, neither Almonte nor any of the hundreds of other whistleblowers who have filed complaints under the new program have received a payout for their information. Instead these informants, who have risked their careers, wait to learn whether they will receive millions in government awards or nothing.


    Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer: NSA Whistleblowers Warn of Secret Spying Programs That Can Target Anyone
    May 7, 2012

    Summary
    : National Security Agency whistleblowers and GAP clients William Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe, and Thomas Drake appeared on Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer to talk the expanding surveillance state and their respective decisions to blow the whistle. They have also made appearances on Democracy Now! and the Glenn Beck Show in recent weeks.


    James Bamford: State Department and WikiLeaks ‘Alice in Wonderland’
    May 7, 2012

    Summary
    : State Department whistleblower and GAP client Peter Van Buren asked James Bamford, a prominent national security journalist, and Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman, about the Obama administration’s assertion that WikiLeaks documents – despite being available online to the world – remain “classified.” The video of the response is embedded in this post.


    Federal Times: Lawmakers Scrutinize Conference Spending by IRS, NOAA
    May 4, 2012

    Summary
    : Since the General Services Administration's excessive spending spree at a federal conference, Congress is increasing its scrutiny of other federal conferences.


    The New York Times: Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist
    April 21, 2012

    Summary
    : A conservative nonprofit, American Legislative Exchange Council, has come under heavy criticism for appearing to be nothing more than a business-backed group that opposes 'false claims' legislation – laws that often incentivize whistleblowers to report wrongdoing and fraud against the state. In Ohio, for instance, a false claims bill was reworked to accommodate some of ALEC’s concerns. Now, Common Cause, a political watchdog group and GAP coalition member, has filed a complaint against ALEC, accusing them of violating their tax-exempt status by lobbying state legislators.

    Related Article: Bloomberg News


    The New York Times: These Islands Aren’t Just a Shelter from Taxes
    May 5, 2012

    Summary
    : This op-ed argues that tax laws should be reformed in an effort to prevent money laundering and tax fraud through the use of island ‘tax shelters.’ The author specifically refers to whistleblowers as one of the only ways to combat this kind of tax evasion.


    Huffington Post: Whistleblower Workers Face Deportation Despite Obama Administration Policy
    May 7, 2012

    Summary
    : Immigrant workers who speak out face a kind of retaliation that isn’t used against US-born workers – deportation. The Obama administration has said the Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices would protect immigrant whistleblowers, but this has not happened in practice.


    Irish Times: Official Secrets Act to Protect Sensitive Data
    Today

    Summary
    : In response to new whistleblower protection legislation, Irish lawmakers are expected to amend the Official Secrets Act to prevent “highly sensitive and secret” information being disclosed.

    empowered by Salsa

    "Roadmap to Achieving a Lean Workforce,"
    on Thursday, May 17 at 2:00p.m. Join Kronos Industry Principal Beth Berndt as she highlights how companies are sustaining gains and improving operations using Lean Labor techniques. She'll provide insight into best practices for identifying labor-related waste and applying the proven principles of Lean thinking to workforces across the energy industry.

    The fourth in our four-part Operational Excellence Webinar Series, this one-hour event will help you to:

    • Learn how to apply Lean techniques to the workforce
    • Start thinking about your labor and operations in new and innovative ways
    • Identify the most common types of labor-related waste
    • Understand how workforce management solutions can enhance continuous improvement strategies
     
    AWOL Inspector Generals

    Why Is the Government Missing So Many Internal Watchdogs?

    Ten government agencies are missing top investigating officials to root out waste and fraud. As the House Oversight Committee holds a hearing on the vacancies, Daniel Stone reports on the shortfall.

    Washington is a city known for allegations of waste and fraud. Mere mention of the government’s impropriety can get people elected. At most federal agencies, that oversight falls to an inspector general, a position appointed by the president with full independence to investigate complaints and root out abuse.

    But for more than four years, the Department of State has been without a top watchdog. The agency, which oversees millions in foreign contracts and America’s often shadowy diplomacy efforts, hasn’t had an executive in its oversight office since the Bush administration. And employees there don’t know why.

    “You’ll have to ask the White House because we really have no idea,” says Doug Welty, a spokesman for the inspector general’s office at the State Department. The office has received no word from top administration officials about filling the top vacancy—to have contact about an appointee would be improper, Welty says—and has been functioning decently over the past few years, ramping up investigations and increasing its staff.

    Nine other agencies lack top watchdogs as well, including the Departments of Interior and Labor, both of which have been without full-time inspectors general since early 2009. The Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the source of hefty overseas spending often away from the public eye, hasn’t had an inspector general for over a year. And the Pentagon, which handles billions in contracts and covert war policy, has lacked a top oversight official since December.

    The White House says it is working diligently to find the best people to fill the vacancies, and that it takes time to find qualified, interested people who can pass through Congress. “The administration is firmly committed to strong inspectors general, and we are working diligently to identify the best candidates to fill these unique posts,” Eric Schultz, an administration spokesman, tells The Daily Beast.

    GSA Hearing

    Left to right: Government Services Administration Inspector General Brian Miller, former GSA Administrator Martha Johnson, GSA Regional Commissioner Jeff Neely, GSA Chief of Staff Michael Robertson and GSA Deputy Commissioner David Foley testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on April 16. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

    Congress hasn’t been pleased with the administration’s foot dragging, even though two nominees—for the Department of Homeland Security and the Corporation for National and Community Service—are being considered by the Senate. The House Oversight Committee is investigating the matter, beginning with a hearing on Thursday on Capitol Hill. Rep. Darrell Issa, the panel’s chairman, says vacancies “send the wrong message” about the government’s commitment to self policing. Last April, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen held a hearing on State’s oversight, focusing on complaints by some whistleblowers that the inspector general’s office was unprepared to take their grievances.

    The work of inspectors general often makes it to the public, frequently through journalists. Last year, after a series of unflattering reports on Recovery Act spending for renewable-energy projects, a Newsweek report sought answers from the White House. Evidence that Government Services Administration officials had overspent on extravagant travel and conferences, all on the taxpayers’ dime, was initially discovered by the agency’s internal investigator.

    “When you have someone in a temporary role, it can be a crippling position for an inspector-general office.”

    Many inspector general offices with a missing chief say their oversight efforts run smoothly and efficiently, despite the vacancies. Several officials in these offices who declined to be identified pointed out that the number of probes they conduct has increased and that oversight has never been stronger.

    The Project on Government Oversight, a government watchdog nonprofit that initially looked into the matter, isn’t swayed. “When you have someone in a temporary role, it can be a crippling position for an inspector-general office,” says Jake Wiens, an investigator with POGO who will testify before lawmakers on Thursday. Only official appointees have full autonomy, he says.

    Filling inspector-general vacancies has taken a long time for most administrations, primarily because the person selected is the agency’s first and last stop to identify fraud. Many inspectors general have no term limits, as well. Still, POGO researchers point out that Obama is the second slowest president in history to appoint official oversight chiefs at federal agencies. The first was Ronald Reagan.

    NOAA Accountability?

    U.S. Sen. Scott Brown Wednesday faulted NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco for overseeing an agency without accountability.

    In a letter to Commerce Secretary John Bryson, Brown asked the Commerce chief to review and report on two new instances of unexplained actions — the brief solicitation for a “magician” to preside at a leadership conference, and a mass meeting of agency lawyers at a hotel in Philadelphia, a two hour ride from NOAA’s Silver Spring, Md., headquarters.

    “NOAA’s continued disregard for being efficient and effective stewards of taxpayer dollars illustrates the rampant culture of waste at this agency, which has been fostered by Administrator Lubchenco’s failure to punish obvious misconduct,” Brown wrote. “NOAA’s decision to seek an outside magician is just another troubling example.

    “It has already been documented that Administrator Lubchenco previously retained an employee who made 80 percent of the agency’s law enforcement files disappear in a ‘shredding party’ during an Inspector General investigation. This is the same well-paid NOAA employee who supported the purchase of a $300,000 luxury fishing boat, despite warnings from a NOAA procurement lawyer.”

    Racketeering Charge Against BofA and MERS

    Posted by Larry Doyle on May 10, 2012 5:32 AM |


    Did Wall Street Violate the Racketeering Act?

    Believing that the activity did likely rise to a level of racketeering, I recommended that attorneys general should pursue institutions involved in these fraudulent and abusive practices with a RICO action.

    Well, it appears that somebody is now doing just that with specific focus on  activities that transpired at Bank of America and MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System).

    American Banker highlights this specific case and much more in writing, Will R-I-C-O Spell Relief for B Of A Mortgage Borrowers?,

     

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    May 16, 2012

     

    EPA Announces NAS’ Review of IRIS Assessment Development Process

     

    WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) will conduct a comprehensive review of the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program’s assessment development process. The IRIS program helps EPA protect Americans’ health and the environment by conducting health assessments of over 550 chemicals that may be present in our environment.  

     

    In April 2011, NAS recommended several ways to improve the development of IRIS assessments. EPA has embraced these recommendations and is implementing them using a phased approach. Future draft IRIS assessments released for public comment and peer review will demonstrate the progress EPA has made in implementing NAS recommendations.

     

    “EPA is committed to a strong and robust IRIS program,” said Lek Kadeli, acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “This program plays a significant role in protecting the health of our country’s citizens and the environment in which they live. We welcome the NAS’ review of the IRIS assessment development process and look forward to working with them to continue to strengthen the program.”

     

    NAS will conduct a review of the IRIS assessment development process and the changes that are currently being made or planned by EPA in response to NAS’ April 2011 recommendations. NAS will also review current methods for weight of evidence analyses and recommend approaches for weighing scientific evidence for chemical hazard identification.

     

    EPA’s IRIS program provides health profiles of chemicals to which the public may be exposed from releases to air, water, and land and through the use and disposal of chemicals. IRIS assessments inform EPA rulemakings, and the release of final IRIS assessments is consistent with EPA’s ongoing efforts to improve Americans’ health and protect the environment.

     

    More information about IRIS: http://www.epa.gov/iris

    Crosscutting/NSF-wide

    Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability NSF-Wide Investment  (SEES)  Crosscutting Programs  NSF Wide Programs

    SEES Mission Statement

    To advance science, engineering, and education to inform the societal actions needed for environmental and economic sustainability and sustainable human well-being.

    CONTACTS

    For general inquiries about SEES related activities: nsf-sees-info@nsf.gov

    For program or discipline-specific questions, please see the full list of contacts at: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/sees/sees_contacts.jsp

    SYNOPSIS

    Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) is a portfolio of activities that highlights NSF's unique role in helping society address the challenge(s) of achieving sustainability. 

    SEES Portolio of Programs:

    Arctic SEESDynamics of Coupled Natural & Human Systems(CNH) SEES Fellows
    Climate Change Education Partnerships Ocean Acidifcation Sustainable Energy Pathways (SEP)
    Dimensions of Biodiversity Partnerships for International Research & Education (PIRE)Sustainability Research Networks (SRN)
    Decadal & Regional Climate Prediction Using Earth System Models (EaSM) Research Coordination Networks (RCN)Water Sustainability and Climate (WSC)

     










    Iron Mountain Mines Institute Department of Environmental Sustainability (DOES)

    Senators call for EPA inquiry into lead

    Dig deeper

    Courtney Warner Crowell, a Merkley spokeswoman, said the senator wants families living near contaminated areas to be notified and hopes that state and federal agencies will partner to clean them up.

    In a statement, the EPA said it "shares the Senators' concern for protecting Americans' health. EPA is currently reviewing USA Today's sampling data and case studies and has already begun evaluating a number of the sites on the list to determine if they pose a risk to the surrounding communities - we will continue to work with states and local partners to evaluate those sites."

    Green group files FOIA lawsuit seeking details about White House EPA meetings

    The Environmental Integrity Project filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Tuesday seeking details about dozens of White House meetings with interest groups to discuss Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

    The non-profit group, which advocates for the enforcement of environmental rules, filed the lawsuit after receiving no response from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to a January FOIA request seeking more details on the meetings.


    Media Advisory 12-014
    National Research Council Sustainability Symposium Features National Science Foundation Leaders

    NSF-sponsored "Science, Innovation, and Partnerships for Sustainability" event to take place May 16-18

    Dam-raising moving at snail's pace;

    News From the Field
    Increasing Speed Gives New Insight

    The Bill of Rights limits government "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers."

    Federal judges may be impeached for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 8th para); the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” as against federal judges “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”; and the People are to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.(Federalist No.16, next to last para).  Federalist No. 49, 3rd para, says that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “...the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance against a [resurgent atavistic] despotism repugnant to the common law.

    Where landowners fence or post "no trespassing" signs on their property or otherwise indicate unmistakably that entry is not allowed, their "expectation that their privacy rights will be respected and that they will be free from unwanted intrusions is reasonable".

    Id. at 491, 593 N.E.2d at 1338, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 930. Rejecting the Oliver court's assumption that law-abiding citizens would have no legitimate reason to hide anything on open property and consequently a property owner would have no reasonable objection to an unauthorized search of posted land, the court instead relied on New York's tradition of tolerance. Id. at 488, 593 N.E.2d at 1337, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 929. Accordingly, the court reasoned, because society is not a conforming one, even law-abiding citizens may have good reasons for wishing privacy for their activities. Id. at 488-89, 593 N.E.2d at 1337, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 929; see also Oliver, 466 U.S. at 192 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (discussing various ways in which privately owned woods and fields are used that society would recognize as reasonably deserving privacy, including walks, agricultural business, and worshipping).

    U.S. CONST. amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment provides:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s discussion of restitution in Great West Life & Annuity Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002), where the Court noted that not all relief “falling under the rubric of restitution was available in equity.” Id. at 212. Based on the analysis set forth in Knudson, the Second Circuit seriously questioned whether the restitution provided by section 107(a) is equitable, rather than legal, in nature. Unfortunately, the court determined that it did not have to decide the Seventh Amendment issue because it concluded that even if plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on their CERCLA claims, the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the trial record.

    Thus, it is a safe assumption that in the future, the issue of a party’s right to a jury trial in CERCLA litigation will be raised by litigants in section 107 lawsuits.

    This case is also brought under the Federal Tort Claim Act for malicious prosecution by agents and agency of the federal government. The claim for relief is governed by the underlying State Law of the State of California, where the malicious prosecution continues.

    Rather than finding agency and department conduct and testimony supportive of a finding for the existence of probable cause, this court must find the agencies testimony, conduct and documentation illustrative of a deliberate pattern of disregard for oaths taken, falsehoods of the matters involved, wholly lacking in intellectual honesty, and exhibiting a deliberate intent to mislead all involved, particularly the courts with whom their prosecutors worked and who were relying upon their investigation and technical expertise in order to evaluate this case. Agents and officers of the EPA and DOJ have displayed the very worst example of abuse and misuse of the power and trust bestowed upon a governmental agency, and brought great shame upon the administration, legislature, and judiciary which had entrusted them with that power, responsibility, and authority.

    See e.g., Cox v. Braden, supra.

    The bulk of these violations relate to false and potentially fraudulent reporting of water pollution levels.

    Congress declared that public participation is a priority of the Clean Water Act:

    "Public participation in the development, revision, and enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan, or program established by the administrator or any State under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the administrator and the States. The administrator, in cooperation with the States, shall develop and publish regulations specifying minimum guidelines for participation in such processes."

    33 U.S.C. 1251(e). Federal courts have indicated that an interested citizen's not being permitted to so intervene is a "Factor casting doubt upon the ‘diligence’ of the enforcement efforts". See, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Sup. 470 (D.S.C. 1995).

    Usurpations in the civil and canon law are called intrusions ; and such intruders, having not any right, shall submit, or be excommunicated and deprived, &c by Boniface's Const. Gibs. Codex, 817. For usurpations of advowsons, see Advowson, III. As to usurpations of franchises, see Corporation, Quo Warranto - 

    "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice" - U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)

    state courts may exercise their sovereign powers when interpreting state statutes or the state constitution, provided no rights guaranteed citizens under the United States Constitution are curtailed. Id. States may supplement or expand the provisions of the Constitution so long as no conflict arises.

    Id.; see also Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) (holding that states may recognize individual liberties broader than those conferred by Constitution); Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 (1967) (recognizing state's right to impose more restrictive standards regarding searches and seizures than required under Constitution).

    Determining that EPA was wrong regardless of the legal standard that is applied, the Court invalidated EPA as “entirely disingenuous,”

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. - Preamble to The Bill of Rights

    What Part of 'Make No Law' Don't You Understand?

    NULLIFICATION OF CERCLA FOR REPUGNANCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONS,

    IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACT BY AN EX POST FACTO BILL OF ATTAINDER FOR A CRIME OF INFAMY VOID FOR VAGUENESS & ILLEGITIMATE ANIMUS.

    STRIKE THE CONSENT DECREE, VOID AND VACATE, REMISSION, REVERSION,

    DETINUE SUR BAILMENT - TROVER. QUANTUM DAMNIFICATUS REMEDY DEMANDED

    CONDEMNATION OF THE CHAPPIE-SHASTA OHVA, ON MERITS - ADVERSE CLAIMS

    All premises having been duly considered, Relator now moves these honorable Courts, on behalf of the People of the United States of America State of California as THE PEOPLE'S SERJEANT-AT-LAW  attorneys general and THE PEOPLE'S SOLICITOR-AT-LAW Inspectors General:

    QUANTUM DAMNIFICATUS QUARE IMPEDIT

    The name of a writ directed by the king to the sheriff, by which he is required to command certain persons by name to permit him, the king, to present a fit person to a certain church, which is void, and which belongs to his gift, and of which the said defendants hinder the king, as it is said, and unless, etc. then to summon, etc. the defendants so that they be and appear, etc. GRANT US OUR PEACE.

    Congress has the right to make any law that is ‘necessary and proper’ for the execution of its enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18).

    LIQUIDATE AIG, CLAWBACK TARP, OPEN THE MINT.

    Commission of the Hazard And Remediation Directorate

    /s/ T.W. Arman, owner of Iron Mountain and Arman Mines Ministry Arboretum, Gales & Stannaries

    I, T.W. Arman, hereby state that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to matters which are

    herein stated on my own information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

    Date:_July 27, 2010

    Verified affidavits: /s/ T.W. Arman

      IRON MOUNTAIN MINE SUPERFUND SITE, LANDLORD


    Verified affidavits: /s/ John F. Hutchens, COMMISSIONER AD HOC & AD LITEM

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE SUPERFUND SITE, TENANT-IN-CHIEF; SERJEANT-AT-LAW

    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.

    We challenge not only the EPA’s authority & jurisdiction to regulate our  land & water, whether under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Clean-up, and Liability Act, (CERCLA), or any combination of those or other pieces of legislation; but also, at this post-enforcement stage, it's motives and intentions, the legitimacy of the terms and conditions of the compliance orders, unilateral administrative orders, endangerment findings, settlements & trusts.

    "where landowners fence or post "no trespassing" signs on their property or otherwise indicate unmistakably that entry is not allowed, their "expectation that their privacy rights will be respected and that they will be free from unwanted intrusions is reasonable".

    Shallow Murky Jurisdictional Waters over your head?

    Try Standing 

    "Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1884); Exparte Rhodes, 202 Ala. 68 71.

    "no one shall be personally bound until he has had his day in court," Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is fairly administered. (12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect.573, p.269.) 

    Although this court's mandatory jurisdiction has been minimized through legislation such as the Judge's Bill of 1925[8] and the 1976 repeal of most of the Three Judge District Court Act,[9] Congress has identified a narrow group of cases that merit the immediate and mandatory attention of this Court. Section 1252 is such a direct appeal provision.

    When a party has a right to pursue a direct appeal to this Court under § 1252, the normal route for appellate review is blocked, and a court of appeals is without jurisdiction. Donovan v. Richland County Assn. for Retarded Citizens, supra, at 389-390. Thus, the consequence of an erroneous choice of forum can be to preclude any court's review, because by the time a party discovers its error, appeal to the correct forum may be untimely. To avoid that consequence, litigants ought to be able to apply a clear test to determine whether, as an exception to the general rule of appellate review, they must perfect an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Such a test, of course, must be crafted "with precision and with fidelity to the terms by which Congress has expressed its wishes" in the jurisdictional statute. Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206, 212 (1968)

    When the "literal requirements of § 1252 are satisfied," only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. Williams v. Zbaraz, 448 U.S. 358, 366 (1980); see also INS v. Chadha, (1983) ("express requisites for an appeal under § 1252 . . . have been met"). Section 1252 establishes four prerequisites for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court: the order appealed from must issue from an enumerated court; the United States or an agency or officer must be a party; the proceeding must be civil; and the order must hold an Act of Congress unconstitutional. Those prerequisites are met in the present case.

    Congress chose to "recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States . . . to plan the development and use.. . of land and water resources . . . ." 33 U. S.C. §1251(b).

    The courts require "substantial evidence" in support of a jurisdictional determination. See FPL, 287 F.3d at 1159-60.

    Congress justified imposing mandatory jurisdiction on the Supreme Court because of the need for certainty and uniformity in federal government when an Act may have been declared unconstitutional. It is significant that the first paragraph of section 1252 authorizes a direct appeal to this court only in civil actions "to which the United States or any of its agencies, or any officer or employee thereof, . . . is a party";

    The Senate Report emphasized that the "decision on the constitutional question may affect the public at large, may be in respect of matters which by the Constitution are entrusted to the care of the Nation, and concerning which the Nation owes a duty to all the citizens of securing to them their common rights." S. Rep. No. 996, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1937)

    Although remedial aspects of a case are important, the touchstone of direct appeal under § 1252 is not a party's or our own judgment of the significance of a decision. We exercise that judgment under our discretion to grant certiorari in any civil or criminal case before, as well as after, rendition of judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1); Supreme Court Rule 18. In § 1252, Congress mandated direct review not simply for decisions with impact, but rather for decisions whose impact was predicated upon a potentially incorrect exercise of judicial review. See, supra, nn. 15-16.

    To articulate a test to resolve the present dispute and to provide guidance for litigants and courts in future cases, we begin with the language and structure of the statute itself.

    Any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory or final judgment, decree or order of any court of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam and the District Court of the Virgin Islands and any court of record of Puerto Rico, holding any Act of congress unconstitutional in any civil action, suit, or proceeding to which the United States or any of its agencies, or any officer or employee thereof, as such officer or employee, is a party.
    A party who has received notice of appeal under this section shall take any subsequent appeal or cross appeal to the Supreme Court. All appeals or cross appeals taken to other courts prior to such notice shall be treated as taken directly to the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1252

    "Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all the rights which our Constitution guarantees." Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573, 584; 44 NW 579, 582-583 (1889).

    To maintain a claim that EPA has “unreasonably delayed” its duties under CERCLA, the court held that plaintiffs may continue to press their claims under another statute, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), but must do so in another court.  The court stated, “plaintiffs may bring an APA claim in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit alleging EPA unreasonably delayed in promulgating the financial responsibility regulations required under Section 108(b).”   Id . at 6.  Unless and until such a litigation is brought and decided, the timeline for financial assurance requirements under CERCLA will remain unclear.

    EPA routinely issues orders beyond its statutory authority. CERCLA review provisions on their face constitute a coercive regime violating due process. EPA issues orders where no emergency exists, obstructs judicial review by delaying its discretionary certificates of completion, and controls and manipulates the record of decision. EPA routinely delays certifications of completion in order to thwart judicial review.

    Improved Nutrition
    A healthy, productive life requires adequate nutrition. However, two billion people in the world, including nearly 200 million children under 5 years, suffer from undernutrition and its permanent consequences on health, well being, and economic capacity and growth. Undernutrition in the first 1,000 days of a child’s life can cause irreversible stunting and mental impairment. Poor communities in developing countries bear a disproportionate amount of this burden. Through Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative, the United States supports country-owned programs to address the root causes of undernutrition and improve the future potential of millions of people. This includes helping countries build the technical capacity to manage nutrition programs over the long term. As part of its commitment to Feed the Future, the U.S. also supports the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, which focuses on collaboration, results, harmonized multi-sector approaches, and the critical 1,000 days from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday. The 1,000 Days partnership supports SUN by increasing advocacy and programming within this window of opportunity. Read the Feed the Future nutrition fact sheet (pdf, 135kb) for more information.

    If it be admitted that Congress has the power to divest a vested right by giving a statute a retrospective operation, that interpretation will never be adopted without absolute necessity. see (Blanchard v. Sprague, 3 Sum. 535; Vansickle v. Haines, 7 Nev. 249.)

    "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." - Article 1, Section 9, United States Constitution

    No legislature, State or Federal, may pass a Bill of Attainder. See U.S. Const. Art. I, §§ 9-10. F.O.P. Lodge No. 121 v. City of Hobart , 864 F.2d 551, 556 (7th Cir., 1988)

    A bill of attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both.

    In this form the power of the legislature over the lives and fortunes of individuals is expressly restrained...

    Fletcher v. Peck , 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87, 138, 3 L.Ed. 162,178 (1810

    ...In 1810 , Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the Court in Fletcher v. Peck , 6 Cranch 87, 138, stated that "[a] bill of attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both." This means, of course, that what were known at common law as bills of pains and penalties are outlawed by the Bill of Attainder Clause. The Court's pronouncement therefore served notice that the Bill of Attainder Clause was not to be given a narrow historical reading (which would exclude bills of pains and penalties), but was instead to be read in light of the evil the Framers had sought to bar: Legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups. See also Ogden v. Sauders , 12 Wheat. 213, 286. United States v. Brown , 381 U.S. 437, 447 (1964

    A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts a punishment without a judicial trial.

    If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pain and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties. In these cases the legislative body, in addition to its legitimate functions, exercises the powers and office of judge; it assumes, in the language of the text books, judicial magistracy; it pronounces upon the guilt of the party, without any of the forms or safeguards of trial; it determines the sufficiency of the proofs produced, whether conformable to the rules of evidence or otherwise; and it fixes the degree of punishment in accordance with its own notions of the enormity of the offense.

    "Bills of this sort," says Mr. Justice Story, "have been most usually passed in England in times of rebellion, or gross subserviency to the Crown, or of violent political excitement; periods in which all nations are most liable (as well the free as the enslaved) to forget their duties, and to trample upon the rights and liberties of others." Story, Com. § 1344. Cummings v Missouri , (1867) 71 U.S. 277, 323

    ...On the same day the Cummings case was decided, the Court, in Ex parte Garland , 4 Wall, 333, also held invalid on the same grounds an Act of Congress which required attorneys practicing before this court to take a similar oath. Neither of these cases has ever been overruled. They stand for the proposition that legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial are either bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution....

    Those who wrote our Constitution well knew the danger inherent in special legislative acts which take away the life, liberty, or property of particular named persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment. They intended to safeguard the people of this country from punishment without trial by duly constituted courts. See Duncan v. Kahanamoku , 327 U.S. 304. And even the courts to which this important function was entrusted were commanded to stay their hands until and unless certain tested safeguards were observed. An accused in court must be tried by an impartial jury [emphasis added], has a right to be represented by counsel, he must be clearly informed of the charge against him, the law which he is charged with violating must have been passed before he committed the act charged, he must be confronted by the witnesses against him, he must not be compelled to incriminate himself, he cannot twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense, and even after conviction no cruel and unusual punishment can be inflicted upon him. See Chambers v. Florida , 309 U.S. 227, 235-238. When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, our ancestors had ample reason to know that legislative trials and punishments were too dangerous to liberty to exist in the nation of free men they envisioned. And so they proscribed bills of attainder... United States v. Lovett , 328 U.S. 303, 315-319 (1946

    The District Court held that § 12(f) falls within the category of congressional actions that Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, of the Constitution bars by providing that "[N]o Bill of Attainder...shall be passed." A bill of attainder was most recently described by this court as "a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial." Nixon v. Administrator of General Services , 433 U.S. 425, 468 (1977); see United States v. O'Brien , 391 U.S. 367, 383, n. 30 (1968); United States v. Lovett , 328 U.S. 303, 315 (1946). Appellants argue that § 12(f) does not satisfy any of these three requirements, i.e., specification of the affected persons, punishment, and lack of a judicial trial. [We agree with appellants that the statute does not single out an identifiable group that the denial of Title IV aid does not constitute punishment. Appellants also argue that § 12(f) does not dispense with a judicial trial, noting that a hearing is provided in the event of disagreement between the applicant and the Secretary about whether the applicant has registered, §12(f)(4), and that the decision made at that hearing is subject to judicial review. Appellants' argument is meritless. Congress has not provided a judicial trial to those affected by the statute [emphasis added]. Selective Service v. Minn. Public Int. Research Group , 468 U.S. 841, 846, 847 (1983).]

    Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1965

    Those terms "law of the land" do not mean merely an act of the general assembly. If they did, every restriction upon the legislative authority would be at once abrogated. For what more can the citizen suffer than to be "taken, imprisoned, deprived of his freehold, liberties, and privileges, be outlawed, exiled, and destroyed, and be deprived of his property, his liberty, and his life," without crime? Yet all this may he may suffer if an act of the assembly simply denouncing those penalties upon particular persons, or a particular class of persons, be in itself a law of the land within the sense of the constitution; for what is, in that sense, the law of the land, must be duly observed by all, and upheld and enforced by the courts.

    In reference to the infliction of punishment and divesting of the rights of property, it has been repeatedly held in this state, and it is believed in every other of the union, that there are limitations upon the legislative power, notwithstanding those words; and that the clause itself means that such legislative acts as profess in themselves directly to punish persons, or to deprive the citizen of his property, without trial before the judicial tribunals, and a decision upon the matter of right, as determined by the laws under which it is vested, according to the course, mode, and usages of the common law, as derived from our forefathers, are not effectually "laws of the land," for those purposes. Hoke v. Henderson , 25 Am. Dec. 677, 688, 689 (1833) Supreme Court of North Carolina

    "...While property kept in violation of law which is incapable of lawful use and declared to be a nuisance per se may be forfeited without a trial by jury under the police power, it does not follow that property ordinarily used for lawful purposes - innocent property - may be forfeited without a trial by jury where an issue of fact is joined as to whether the property was being used for an unlawful purpose or is to be taken from innocent owner. There is no general constitutional right to a jury trial in actions for the seizure and forfeiture of contraband articles. But property is not contraband or a public nuisance merely because it was instrumental in the commission of a public offense.

    "[5] It is argued that this proceeding for the forfeiture of property used in violation of law is a special proceeding, equitable in nature... The right to a trial by jury cannot be avoided by merely calling an action a special proceeding or equitable in nature. If that could be done, the Legislature, by providing new remedies and new judgments and decrees in form equitable, could in all cases dispense with jury trials, and thus entirely defeat the provision of the Constitution. The legislature cannot convert a legal right into an equitable one so as to infringe upon the right of trial by jury. The provision of the Constitution does not permit the legislature to confer on the courts the power of trying according to the course of chancery any question which has always been triable according to the course of the common law by a jury. If the action has to deal with ordinary common-law rights cognizable in courts of law, it is to that extent an action at law. In determining whether the action was one triable by a jury at common law, the court is not bound by the form of the action but rather by the nature of the rights involved and the facts of the particular case - the gist of the action. A jury trial must be granted where the gist of the action is legal, where the action is in reality cognizable at law...

    "[6]... The constitutional right of trial by jury is not to be narrowly construed. It is not limited strictly to those cases in which it existed before the adoption of the Constitution but is extended to cases of like nature as may afterwards arise. It embraces cases of the same class thereafter arising. At common law, prior to the adoption of the Constitution, a party against whom the forfeiture of property used in violation of law (then a carriage, wagon, horse or mule, now usually an automobile), was sought to be enforced was entitled to a trial by jury. Consequently such rights exists now. The introduction of a new subject into a class renders it amenable to its general rules, not to its exceptions.

    "[7] There were petty offenses against statutes or municipal ordinances which were not triable by jury at the time the Constitution was adopted. As to them, the right of trial by jury has never existed; and, hence they were triable without a jury when the Constitution was adopted; they are now triable without a jury. Blackstone gives a number of illustrations. In none of the illustrations given by Blackstone was the power sanctioned or upheld to enforce, in a summary proceeding, without a jury, the forfeiture of property which may be, and ordinarily is, used for lawful purposes...

    "[8] We conclude that this forfeiture proceeding by the State is the type of action which was cognizable in a common-law court, and triable by a jury in the Court of Exchequer, according to the course of the common law; that trial by jury was recognized as a right in the trial of actions for the forfeiture or property seized because used in violation of law at common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of California, and that appellant had a constitutional right to a trial by jury of the issues of fact in this case.

    "[9] The denial of a trial by jury to one constitutionally entitled thereto constitutes a miscarriage of justice and requires a reversal of the judgment. (Cowlin v. Pringle , 46 Cal.App.2d 472, 476 [116 P.2d 109].)" People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe , 37 C.2d 283, 299, 300 (1951

    "A decision is arbitrary or capricious when it is not supported by evidence or when there is no reasonable justification for the decision." Canty v. Board of Education, City of New York , 312 F. Sup. 254, 256 [5] (S.D.N.Y., 1970)

    "[3]... While the plaintiff in a personal-capacity suit need not establish a connection to governmental "policy or custom," Officials sued in their personal capacities, unlike those sued in their official capacities, may assert personal immunity defense such as objectively reasonable reliance on existing law. Id ., at 166-167, 105 S.Ct., at 3105-3106." Hafer v. Melo, 113 S.Ct. 358, 362 (1991

    "This Court has long assumed that actions to recover land, like actions for damages to a person or property, are action at law triable to a jury. In Whitehead v. Shattuck , 138 U.S. 146, 151, for example, we recognized that 'it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to state any general rule which would determine, in all cases, what should be deemed a suit in equity as distinguished from an action at law...; but this may be said, that, where an action is simply for the recovery and possession of specific real or personal property, or for recovery of a money judgment, the action is one at law." "The distinction between 'title to and possession of property, of course, was well recognized at common law. But however relevant it was for certain purposes, it had no bearing on the right to jury trial. The various forms of action which the common law developed for the recovery of real property were also actions at law in which trial by jury was afforded." Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U.S. 363

    The Phrase 'common law' found in this clause, is used in contradistinction to equity, and admiralty, and maritime jurisprudence. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Peter 433, 447 (1830)

    If the common law can try the cause and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction. Ramsey v. Allegrie, 25 U.S. (12 Wheaton) 611, 631 (1827

    A complaint may not be dismissed on motion if it states some sort of claim, baseless though it may prove to be and inartistically as the complaint may be drawn. This is particularly true where the plaintiff is not represented by counsel. Brooks v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 91 F. Supp. 101 (1950

    "A person may not have actual knowledge of certain facts, but if he has knowledge of sufficient facts to cause a reasonably prudent person of ordinary intelligence to make inquiry, the law will impute knowledge of those facts which may be easily ascertained by reasonable inquiry. When the law imputes knowledge, it has the same legal effect as though there was actual knowledge." Dolch v Ramsey, 57 C.A.2d 99, 105 [2] (1943

    "The Trial of all Crimes [emphasis added], except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury." Article 3, Section 2, United States Constitution

    "... Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Constitution, Amendment 5

    " In all criminal prosecutions [emphasis added], the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." U.S. Constitution, Amendment 6

    Case 2:91-cv-00768-JAM-JFM Document 1276 Filed 01/16/2009 Page 31 of 32

    III. PROCEDURAL BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION
    A. Local Rule Permits Reconsideration

    Local Rule 230(j) permits an application for reconsideration of any motion that was granted or denied in whole or on part based upon facts or “circumstances” that did not exist or were not known at the time of the original motion.

    B. Case Law Permits Reconsideration

    “A district court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders prior to the entry of judgment . . ..” Smith v. Massachusetts (2005) 543 US 462, 475, 125 S.Ct. 1129,

    1139. The court’s inherent power extends to prior rulings in the same litigation, including those by a different judge. Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (7th Cir. 2006) 466 F3d 570, 572; Local Rule

    230(j). A party may seek reconsideration of the ruling on a summary judgment motion. Taylor v. napp (9th Cir. 1989) 871 F2d 803, 805. An intervening change in the controlling law is a proper basis for reconsideration. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc. (9th Cir. 1993) 5 F3d 1255, 1266; Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop (9th Cir. 2000) 229 F3d 877, 890.

    In appropriate circumstances, a court may award (partial) summary judgment to a non-moving party, provided the moving party knows this and has an opportunity to respond. Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Connett (9th Cir. 1982) 685 F2d 309, 311. See also The Rutter Group, FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE

    BEFORE TRIAL, § 14:328 (court may grant motion for opposing party without need for cross-motion).

    Plaintiffs are on notice, and in fact Plaintiffs noted this possibility in their original Reply memorandum. Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum dated June 2, 2002 at p. 18, fn. 18.
    IV. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

    The United States and the State of California moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. They sought an order of this Court that Defendants were jointly and severally liable for the cost of their response costs. In opposition, Defendants submitted extensive evidence and

    argued (i) that they should not be liable at all, and (ii) if found liable, that liability should not be joint and several, but should be apportioned because their responsibility was “divisible” based upon

    chronological, volumetric and geographic considerations. For convenience we attach as Exhibit B hereto a copy of the Brief in support of the Opposition. The relevant section begins at page 19. The

    evidentiary record to which it cites is voluminous and is in the records of this Court.

    In a single short paragraph at the end of the Order Judge Levi denied what he called the “divisibility of harm defense.” In so doing, he stated: “[g]iven the nature of the pollution at the site, it would be difficult to identify distinct harms.” (Both emphases added) (Order, Ex. A hereto, p.4).

    He suggested that IMMI’s and Arman’s divisibility arguments, since they did not purport to divide up the contamination itself into distinct harms, would have to be presented in the second stage of a contribution proceeding. Ibid. He did not analyze whether there was a “reasonable basis” for

    apportionment.

     

    SUPERFUND: STATUS OF EPA'S EFFORTS TO IMPROVE ITS MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF SPECIAL ACCOUNTS
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.
    GAO-12-109, 40 pp, 18 Jan 2012

     

    Under the Superfund program, EPA has the authority to enter into agreements with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for the PRPs to conduct a cleanup at a hazardous waste site, or to compel PRPs to do so. EPA can also conduct cleanups itself and then seek reimbursement. EPA is authorized to retain and use funds received from settlements with PRPs in interest-earning, site-specific special accounts within the Trust Fund. These accounts provide resources in addition to annual appropriations to clean up sites. The number of accounts grew slowly until 1995, when EPA encouraged their greater use. After 1995, their number and dollar value increased. EPA headquarters is responsible for overseeing its regions' management of special accounts. As of October 2010, of the $1.9 billion funds that EPA had obligated for Superfund cleanup expenses, $1.6 billion had been disbursed. In two reports issued in 2006 and 2009, EPA's Inspector General made recommendations to EPA to better manage these accounts. As requested, this report examines the (1) status (i.e., balances, locations, and recent and planned uses) of Superfund special accounts, and (2) extent to which EPA's headquarters and regions have implemented processes and policies to improve the monitoring and management of these accounts. GAO analyzed EPA Superfund program data, guidance, and strategies, and interviewed EPA officials. This report makes no recommendations. GAO provided a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment, and EPA provided technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-109

    BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SITE ASSESSMENT, SITE REMEDIATION, AND GREENER CLEANUPS: PARTICIPANT MANUAL
    U.S. EPA, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.
    CERCLA Education Center, 284 pp, Nov 2011

    Best management practices (BMPs) help environmental practitioners manage risk, minimize decision uncertainties, achieve consensus among stakeholders, maximize system efficiencies, lower project costs, and ultimately facilitate progress toward site closure. BMPs encompass strategies, tools, and technologies that can be used at every phase of site cleanup, from initial planning to site closure. They can reduce cost, schedule, and uncertainty by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of remedial strategies and monitoring activities that make up environmental site cleanup. In this manual, the site assessment BMPs indicate strategies for making site assessments more scientifically defensible, resource-effective, adaptive to changing project needs, and responsive to stakeholder concerns. Applied to new or active projects, the BMPs can be used to reduce data collection costs, expedite project schedules, enhance stakeholder communication, and improve project and site decision quality. The manual presents specific remedial approaches and BMPs for common redevelopment scenarios, such as gasoline stations, dry cleaners in urban renewal areas, former manufacturing facilities, metal recycling and salvage yards, mining areas, railroad yards, and waterfront development on historic fill. Additionally, EPA advocates applying the following five core elements for environmental footprint assessments as BMPs during the cleanup process: minimizing total energy use and maximizing the use of renewable energy; minimizing emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases; minimizing water use and impacts to water resources; protecting land and ecosystems; and reducing, reusing, and recycling material and waste.
    http://www.brownfieldstsc.org/psbmp/BMPs_ParticipantManual_Nov2011_2.pdf


    DoJ data is less than complete and somewhat distorted. Not only are criminal fines in False Claims Act cases not counted, but neither are those portions of federal settlements allocated to the states in Medicaid cases.  Finally, we have small cases that are simply not booked at all because of poor reporting to Main Justice by various U.S. Attorneys offices. 

    The TAF Education Fund keeps a detailed running tabulation of False Claims Act settlements.

    FCA Recoveries Total Over $34 Billion
    Total False Claims Act recoveries (Federal and State) since the 1986 amendments now total over $34 billion.

    To put this into perspective, the $34 billion recovered from fraud-feasors to date represents a stack of $100 bills more than 34 miles high.

    In the health care arena, the U.S. Government is recovering $15 back for every $1 invested in False Claims Act health care investigations and prosecutions.
     






    Senate Report 111-010 - FRAUD ENFORCEMENT AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2009


    Sec. 1. Short title

    This section provides that the legislation may be cited as the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (FERA).

    Sec. 2(a) and 2(b). Definition of financial institution expanded to include mortgage lending businesses and mortgage brokers

    At the height of the subprime lending era, independent mortgage companies--those that are not depository institutions or their subsidiaries or holding company affiliates--made nearly half of the higher-priced, first-lien mortgages in America. The loans originated by these private mortgage companies were not generally covered by current Federal fraud statutes, such as the bank fraud and bank bribery statutes. As a result, these Federal fraud statutes need to be updated by expanding the definition of `financial institution' to include mortgage lending businesses.

    The recent financial crisis has further demonstrated how fraudulent mortgages can affect the health of the banking system and the overall economy. Those who engage in frauds on mortgage lending businesses should be held to the same standards that apply to traditional financial institutions, given the impact of these businesses on federally-insured and federally-regulated institutions.

    This section amends the definition of a `financial institution' in Title 18 of the United States Code to include a `mortgage lending business,' which is defined as `an organization * * * which finances or refinances any debt secured by an interest in real estate, including private mortgage companies and any subsidiaries' whose activities affect interstate or foreign commerce. The definition also includes `any person or entity that makes in whole or in part a federally-regulated mortgage loan as defined in 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2602(1).'

    These new definitions for `financial institution' and `mortgage lending business' (18 U.S.C. Sec. 20, 27) will ensure that private mortgage brokers and companies are held fully accountable under Federal fraud laws, particularly where they are dealing in federally-regulated or federally-insured mortgages. For example, the bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1344, prohibits defrauding `a financial institution,' and the amendment to this definition would extend the bank fraud statute beyond traditional banks and financial institutions to private mortgage companies. This definition of `financial institution' would also apply to the following criminal provisions: 18 U.S.C. 215 (financial institution bribery); 18 U.S.C. 225 (continuing financial crimes enterprise); 18 U.S.C. 1005 (false statement/entry/record for financial institution); and 18 U.S.C. 1344 (bank/financial institution fraud). The new definition would also provide for enhanced penalties for mail and wire fraud affecting a financial institution, including a mortgage lending business, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1343.

    Expanding the term `financial institution' to include mortgage lending businesses would also strengthen penalties for mortgage frauds and the civil forfeiture in mortgage fraud cases. It would extend the statute of limitations in investigations of mortgage fraud cases to be consistent with bank fraud investigations.

    This definition of `financial institution' would not apply to the Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) that banks and other financial institutions are required to file, as `financial institution' is defined separately under the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5312(a)(2).

    Sec. 2(c). False statements and appraisals by mortgage brokers and agents in loan applications

    This section would amend the false statements in mortgage applications statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1014) to make it a crime to make a materially false statement or to willfully overvalue a property in order to influence any action by a mortgage lending business. The current offense only applies to Federal agencies, banks, and credit associations and does not extend to private mortgage lending businesses, even if they are handling federally-regulated or federally-insured mortgages. Similar to expanding the definition of `financial institution' in Sections 2(a) and 2(b), this provision would ensure that private mortgage brokers and companies are held fully

    accountable under this Federal fraud provision. This is a particularly important offense as it specifically relates to false appraisal fraud, which has been a particularly problematic type of mortgage fraud during the recent financial crisis.

    Sec. 2(d). Major fraud against the government amended to include economic relief and Troubled Asset Relief Program funds

    This section would amend the Federal major fraud statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1031) to include `any grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance or other form of Federal assistance, including through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, an economic stimulus, recovery or rescue plan provided by the Government, or the Government's purchase of any preferred stock in a company.' This amendment will make sure that Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction to use one of their most potent fraud statutes to protect the Government assistance provided during the current economic crisis, including money from the TARP and circumstances where the Government purchased preferred stock in companies to provide economic relief. These amendments, however, only apply to major frauds against the Government, where the value of the contract or services is more than $1,000,000.

    Sec. 2(e). Amending securities fraud statute to include commodities fraud

    This section would amend the Federal securities fraud statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1348) to include commodities fraud, in addition to securities fraud. Currently, the securities fraud statute does not reach frauds involving options or futures, which include some of the derivatives and other financial products that contributed substantially to the current financial collapse.

    Sec. 2(f). Amending the money laundering statute to include the proceeds for specified unlawful activity

    This section would amend the criminal money laundering statutes (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956, 1957) to make clear that the proceeds of specified unlawful activity include the gross receipts of the illegal activity, not just the profits from the illegal activity. The money laundering statutes make it an offense to conduct financial transactions involving the `proceeds' of a crime (referred to as `specified unlawful activity' in the statutes). These statutes, however, do not define the term `proceeds,' and the term has been left to definition by the courts. For 22 years, since the money laundering statutes were enacted in 1986, most courts have construed `proceeds' to mean `gross receipts' and not `net profits' of illegal activity, which was consistent with the original intent of Congress. In United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020 (2008), however, the Supreme Court in a four-justice plurality suggested that the term `proceeds' was `ambiguous' and as a result, under the rule of lenity the Court gave the term a narrower meaning. In this decision, the Court mistakenly limited the term `proceeds' to the `profits' of a crime, not its receipts.

    As a result, the Supreme Court's decision has limited the money laundering statutes to only profitable crimes, and permits criminal defendants to reduce their culpability for money laundering by deducting the costs of their criminal conduct. For example, if a fraudulent mortgage broker intentionally overvalued the fair market value of a home for purposes of a mortgage, that broker could only be charged for money laundering related to any fees or potential profit made in the fraudulent transaction, not based on the full value of the house. Furthermore, an executive who committed securities fraud could not be charged with money laundering, if the fraud did not result in a profit, even though there was a fully completed financial transaction using money stolen by fraud. This decision is contrary to the intent of Congress in passing the money laundering statutes and weakens one of Federal Government primary tools used to recover the proceeds of illegal activity, including mortgage, securities, and other financial frauds.

    Sec. 2(g). Making the international money laundering statute apply to tax evasion

    This section would amend the international money laundering provision in the Federal money laundering statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956(a)(2)) to make it a crime for individuals to transport or transfer money in and out of the United States to evade taxes.

    Sec. 3. Funding for investigators and prosecutors for mortgage fraud, securities fraud, and cases involving federal economic assistance

    The economic crisis has revealed an epidemic of fraud related to the mortgage crisis and the resulting corporate collapses. The FBI and other Federal agencies will soon be overwhelmed with new cases. In the past year, the Treasury Department has received more than 62,000 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) from banks alleging mortgage fraud. The number of mortgage fraud SARs has gone up nearly tenfold in the last six years, and doubled even in the last three years. Currently, however, the FBI has fewer than 250 agents assigned to investigate these mortgage fraud allegations, even though the number of FBI investigations has doubled in the past three years, with the expectation that it will grow further in the coming months and years. Investigators and agents at the Inspector General's Office for Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Postal Inspector Service have seen a similar rise in their investigations of mortgage and other corporate frauds. In addition, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, traditionally one of the Nation's bulwarks against white collar fraud, has consistently lost funding and support over the years and needs substantial support in these times of economic crisis. The resources included in this bill will help the Justice Department, the FBI, and other investigative agencies responsible for enforcing mortgage and securities fraud hold accountable those responsible for contributing to this economic crisis, as well as protecting the resources being spent to stabilize the banking system and rebuild our economy.

    This section authorizes appropriations of $165 million a year to the Attorney General for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to be allocated to the FBI ($75 million in 2010 and $65 million in 2011), U.S. Attorney's offices ($50 million), and Criminal, Civil, and Tax Divisions of the Justice Department ($40 million). This section also authorizes additional appropriations for the Postal Inspection Service ($30 million), the Inspector General for HUD ($30 million), and the U.S. Secret Service ($20 million). This section provides that the money authorized may only be used for fighting mortgage, securities, and other financial institution frauds, and frauds against Federal assistance and relief programs, as well as for recovering funds lost to those frauds, and the Justice Department, in consultation with the other agencies and departments, would have to certify that these funds were used for those purposes, after expended.

    Sec. 4. Clarifications to the False Claims Act to reflect the original intent of the law

    In response to the economic crisis, the Federal Government has obligated and expended more than $1 trillion in an effort to stabilize our banking system and rebuild our economy. These

    funds are often dispensed through contracts with non-governmental entities, going to general contractors and subcontractors working for the Government. Protecting these funds from fraud and abuse must be among our highest priorities as we move forward with these necessary actions.

    One of the most successful tools for combating waste and abuse in Government spending has been the False Claims Act (FCA), which is an extraordinary civil enforcement tool used to recover funds lost to fraud and abuse. The effectiveness of the FCA has recently been undermined by court decisions limiting the scope of the law and allowing subcontractors and non-governmental entities to escape responsibility for proven frauds. In order to respond to these decisions, certain provisions of the FCA must be corrected and clarified in order to protect the Federal assistance and relief funds expended in response to our current economic crisis.

    This section amends the FCA to clarify and correct erroneous interpretations of the law that were decided in Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 128 S. Ct. 2123 (2008), and United States ex. rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp, 380 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 2

    [Footnote] In Allison Engine, the Supreme Court held that Section 3729(a)(2) of the FCA requires the Government to prove that `a defendant must intend that the Government itself pay the claim,' for there to be a violation. 128 S. Ct. at 2128. As a result, even when a subcontractor in a large Government contract knowingly submits a false claim to general contractor and gets paid with Government funds, there can be no liability unless the subcontractor intended to defraud the Federal Government, not just their general contractor. This is contrary to Congress's original intent in passing the law and creates a new element in a FCA claim and a new defense for any subcontractor that are inconsistent with the purpose and language of the statute. Similarly, in Totten, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that liability under the FCA can only attach if the claim is `presented to an officer or employee of the Government before liability can attach.' 380 F. 3d at 490. Known as the `presentment clause,' the D.C. Circuit interpreted this clause to limit recovery for frauds committed by a Government contractor when the funds are expended by a Government grantee, such as Amtrak. The Totten decision, like the Allison Engine decision, runs contrary to the clear language and congressional intent of the FCA by exempting subcontractors who knowingly submit false claims to general contractors and are paid with Government funds.

    [Footnote 2: The provisions in Section 4 were drawn, in significant part, from the Committee's previous work on S. 2041, the False Claims Act Corrections Act of 2008, in the 110th Congress. S. 2041 was favorably reported from Committee and a detailed Committee report was filed on S. 2041 outlining the conflicting interpretations and providing significant background on why the Committee chose to make the amendments contained in the bill. The Committee feels that the report to S. 2041, S. Rpt. 110-507, should be read as a complement to this report due to a number of similar changes contained in S. 386.]

    As the bill makes a number of changes to the liability provisions compared to the current statute, this report will outline the new clarifications to the law by topic.

    A. Fraud against government contractors and grantees

    Following the decision in Totten a number of courts have held that the FCA does not reach false claims that are (1) presented to Government grantees and contractors, and (2) paid with Government grant or contract funds. 3

    [Footnote] These cases are representative of the types of frauds the FCA was intended to reach when it was amended in 1986. This section of the bill clarifies that liability under section 3729(a) attaches whenever a person knowingly makes a false claim to obtain money or property, any part of which is provided by the Government without regard to whether the wrongdoer deals directly with the Federal Government; with an agent acting on the Government's behalf; or with a third party contractor, grantee, or other recipient of such money or property. The bill explicitly excludes from liability requests or demands for money or property that the Government has paid to an individual as compensation for Federal employment or has received as an income subsidy, such as Social Security benefits.

    [Footnote 3: 380 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see, e.g. United States, ex rel., Atkins v. McInteer, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (N.D. Ala. 2004), aff'd on other grounds, 470 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2006); United States, ex rel., Rafizadeh v. Continental Common, Inc., 2006 WL 980676 (E.D. La. April 10, 2006); United States v. City of Houston, 2006 WL 2382327 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2006); United States, ex rel., Rutz v. Village of River Forest, 2007 WL 3231439 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2007); United States, ex rel., Arnold v. CMC Engineering, 2007 WL 442237 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2007).]

    As some defendants have argued that Totten and Atkins restrict FCA liability from attaching to Medicaid claims, the bill clarifies the position taken by the Committee in 1986 that the FCA reaches all false claims submitted to State administered Medicaid programs. By removing the offending language from section 3729(a)(1), which requires a false claim be presented to `an officer or employee of the Government, or to a member of the Armed Forces,' the bill clarifies that direct presentment is not required for liability to attach. This is consistent with the intent of Congress in amending the definition of `claim' in the 1986 amendments to include `any request or demand * * * for money or property which is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient if the United States Government provides any portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded, or if the Government will reimburse such contractor, grantee, or other recipient for any portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded.' 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3729(c) (2000). 4

    [Footnote]

    [Footnote 4: See also S. Rpt. No. 99-345, at 5282-5301 (providing section-by-section analysis explaining that a false claim includes claims submitted to grantees and contractors if the payment ultimately results in a loss to the Government).]

    This section differs also addresses the Supreme Court's decision in Allison Engine, 128 S. Ct. 2123 (2008). In Allison Engine, the Court held that the FCA contained an intent requirement in sections 3729(a)(2) and (a)(3) that had not previously been required to prove for FCA liability to attach. The Allison Engine decision created a significant question about the scope and applicability of the FCA to certain false claims, effectively limiting FCA coverage for some Government programs and funds. As a result, defendants across the country have cited Allison Engine in seeking dismissal of certain FCA cases claiming that the FCA no longer applies to Government programs traditionally covered. Further, one court has even gone as far as dismissing a case sua sponte. 5

    [Footnote]

    [Footnote 5: See United States v. Russell T. Hawley, et al., No. C06-4087-MWB (N.D. Iowa).]

    To correct the Allison Engine decision, S. 386 contains three specific changes to existing section 3729(a)(2) and (a)(3). In section 3729(a)(2) the words `to get' were removed striking the language the Supreme Court found created an intent requirement for false claims liability under that section. In place of this language, the Committee inserted the words `material to' a false or fraudulent claim. Further, the language `paid or approved by the Government' was removed to address both the decision in Allison Engine, and to prevent a new `presentment' requirement from being read into the section. Finally, the new term `material' is defined later in the section to mean `having a natural tendency to influence, or being capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or property.' This definition is consistent with the Supreme Court definition, as well as other courts interpreting the term as applied to the FCA. 6

    [Footnote]

    [Footnote 6: See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16 (1999); United States v. Bourseau, 531 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rogan, 517 F.3d 449, 452 (7th Cir. 2008); United States ex rel. Bahrani v. Conagra, Inc., 465 F.3d 1189, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006); United States ex rel. A+ Homecare, Inc. v. Medshares Mgmt. Group, Inc., 400 F.3d 428, 446 (6th Cir. 2005); United States ex rel. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 352 F.3d 908, 913, 916-917 (4th Cir. 2003); United States ex rel. Cantekin v. University of Pittsburgh, 192 F.3d 402, 415-416 (3d Cir. 1999).]

    The other change responding to Allison Engine is in current section 3729(a)(3). While this section includes further modifications discussed below, the words `defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid' were removed to specifically address the intent requirement read into the section by the Court in Allison Engine. As a result, the provision now just extends FCA liability to those who conspire to commit a violation of any substantive section of 3729(a).

    B. Fraud against funds administered by the United States

    The Committee included provisions in the bill to address a recent decision involving funds administered by the U.S. Government during the reconstruction of Iraq. In United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, a district court set aside a jury award finding that Iraqi funds administered by the U.S. Government on behalf of the Iraqi people were not U.S. Government funds within the scope of the FCA. 376 F. Supp. 2d 617 (E.D. Va. 2006). The Committee believes this result is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the FCA.

    When the U.S. Government elects to invest its resources in administering funds belonging to another entity, or providing property to another entity, it does so because use of such investments for their designated purposes will further the interest of the United States. 7

    [Footnote] False claims made against Government-administered funds harm the ultimate goals and U.S. interests and reflect negatively on the United States. The FCA should extend to these administered funds to ensure that the bad acts of contractors do not harm the foreign policy goals or other objectives of the Government. Accordingly, this bill includes a clarification to the definition of the term `claim' in new Section 3729(b)(2)(A) and attaches FCA liability to knowingly false requests or demands for money and property from the U.S. Government, without regard to whether the United States holds title to the funds under its administration.

    [Footnote 7: See, e.g., United States ex rel. Haynes v. CMC Electronics, Inc., 297 F.Supp.2d 734 (D.N.J. 2003) (discussing sales of equipment to foreign governments under the Arms Export Control Act).]

    C. Conspiracy

    As noted above, the current FCA contains a provision that subjects those who knowingly conspire to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid. Some courts have interpreted this provision narrowly. 8

    [Footnote] The current FCA conspiracy provision does not explicitly impose liability on those who conspire to violate other provisions of the FCA, such as delivery of less Government property than that promised or making false statements to conceal an obligation to pay money to the Government. See 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3729(a)(4-6) (2000). Because of the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the application of the conspiracy provision, the bill amends current section 3729(a)(3) to clarify that conspiracy liability can arise whenever a person conspires to violate any of the provisions in Section 3729 imposing FCA liability.

    [Footnote 8: See, e.g., United States ex rel. Huangyan Import & Export Corp. v. Nature's Farm Products, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 993 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (holding that section 3729(a)(3) does not extend to conspiracies to violate section 3729(a)(7)).]

    D. Wrongful possession, custody or control of government property

    Section 3729(a)(4) of the FCA has remained unchanged since enactment of the FCA in 1863. This provision establishes FCA liability upon an individual that has `possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the Government, and, intending to defraud the Government or willfully to conceal the property, delivers, or causes to be delivered, less property than the amount for which the person receives a certificate of receipt.' 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3729(a)(4)(2000). This section allows the Government to recover losses that are incurred because of conversion of Government assets. However, because this section has remained unchanged from the original act that was drafted in 1863, the archaic language has made recoveries under a conversion theory contingent upon the individual receiving an actual receipt for the property. The new section, renumbered as Section 3729(a)(1)(D) in the bill, updates this provision by retaining the core conversion principle while redrafting it in a more straightforward manner and removing the receipt requirement. Where knowing conversion of Government property occurs, it should make no difference whether the person receives a valid receipt from the Government.

    E. `Reverse' false claims

    Section 3729(a)(7) of the FCA currently imposes liability on any person who `knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.' 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3729(a)(7)(2000). This provision is commonly referred to as creating `reverse' false claims liability because it is designed to cover Government money or property that is knowingly retained by a person even though they have no right to it. This provision is similar to the liability established under 3729(a)(2) for making `false records or statements to get false or fraudulent claims paid or approved.' 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(2)(2000). However, the provision does not capture conduct described in 3729(a)(1), which imposes liability for actions to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation directly to the Government. This legislation closes this loophole and incorporates an analogous provision to 3729(a)(1) for `reverse' false claims liability.

    Further, this legislation addresses current confusion among courts that have developed conflicting definitions of the term `obligation' in Section 3729(a)(7). 9

    [Footnote] The term `obligation' is now defined under new Section 3729(b)(3) and includes fixed and contingent duties owed to the Government--including fixed liquidated obligations such as judgments, and fixed, unliquidated obligations such as tariffs on imported goods. 10

    [Footnote] It is also noteworthy to restate that while the new definition of `obligation' expressly includes contingent, non-fixed obligations, the Committee supports the position of the Department of Justice that current section 3729(a)(7) `speaks of an `obligation,' not a `fixed obligation.' 11

    [Footnote] By including contingent obligations such as, `implied contractual, quasi-contractual, grantor-grantee, licensor-licensee, fee-based, or similar relationship,' this new section reflects the Committee's view, held since the passage of the 1986 Amendments, 12

    [Footnote] that an `obligation' arises across the spectrum of possibilities from the fixed amount debt obligation where all particulars are defined 13

    [Footnote] to the instance where there is a relationship between the Government and a person that `results in a duty to pay the Government money, whether or not the amount owed is yet fixed.' 14

    [Footnote]

    [Footnote 9: See, e.g., United States ex rel. Prawer & Co. v. Verrill & Dana, 946 F. Supp. 87, 93-95 (D. Me. 1996) (discussing the definition of `obligation' at length); Am. Textile Mfr's Inst., Inc. v. The Limited, Inc., 190 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 1999) (discussing definition of `obligation').]

    [Footnote 10: The new definition of the term `obligation' in S. 386 does not include specific reference to `customs duties for mismarking country of origin,' which was a singular type of obligation referred to in S. 2041. The Committee originally included this language in S. 2041 in response to the decision in American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. The Limited, Inc. where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals narrowly defined the term `obligation' to apply reverse false claims to only fixed obligations and dismissing a claim for false statements made by importers to avoid paying customs duties. See 190 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 1999). After subsequent discussion with the Department of Justice, the Committee decided to remove the `customs duties' language in S. 386, as the Committee believes that customs duties clearly fall within the new definition of the term `obligation' absent an express reference and any such specific language would be unnecessary.]

    [Footnote 11: Brief for United States at 23, United States v. Bourseau No. 06-56741, 06-56743 (9th Cir. July 14, 2008).]

    [Footnote 12: See S. Rpt. No. 99-345 at 5283.]

    [Footnote 13: See, e.g., Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. The Limited, Inc., 190 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v. Q Int'l Courier, Inc., 131 F.3d 770 (8th Cir. 1997).]

    [Footnote 14: Brief for United States at 24, United States v. Bourseau No. 06-56741, 06-56743 (9th Cir. July 14, 2008) (citing United States ex rel. Bahrani v. Conagra, Inc., 465 F.3d 1189, 1201 (10th Cir. 2006), mot. for reh'g pending, (10th Cir. 2007)); United States v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 195 F.3d 1234, 1237-38 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc).]

    The Committee also notes that the reverse false claims provision and amendments to that provision do not include any new language that would incorporate or should otherwise be construed to include a presentment requirement. This is consistent with various court decisions that have held that the current reverse false claims provision does not contain a presentment requirement. 15

    [Footnote]

    [Footnote 15: See, e.g., United States ex rel. Bahrani, 465 F.3d 1189, 1208 (10th Cir. 2006); United States ex rel. Koch v. Koch Indus., 57 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1144 (N.D. Okla. 1999).]

    The new definition of `obligation' includes an express statement that an obligation under the FCA includes `the retention of an overpayment.' The Department of Justice supported the inclusion of this provision and provided technical advice that the proper place to include overpayments was in the definition of obligation. 16

    [Footnote] This new definition will be useful to prevent Government contractors and others who receive money from the Government incrementally based upon cost estimates from retaining any Government money that is overpaid during the estimate process. Thus, the violation of the FCA for receiving an overpayment may occur once an overpayment is knowingly and improperly retained, without notice to the Government about the overpayment. The Committee also recognizes that there are various statutory and regulatory schemes in Federal contracting that allow for the reconciliation of cost reports that may permit an unknowing, unintentional retention of an overpayment. The Committee does not intend this language to create liability for a simple retention of an overpayment that is permitted by a statutory or regulatory process for reconciliation, provided the receipt of the overpayment is not based upon any willful act of a recipient to increase the payments from the Government when the recipient is not entitled to such Government money or property. Moreover, any action or scheme created to intentionally defraud the Government by receiving overpayments, even if within the statutory or regulatory window for reconciliation, is not intended to be protected by this provision. Accordingly, any knowing and improper retention of an overpayment beyond or following the final submission of payment as required by statute or regulation--including relevant statutory or regulatory periods designated to reconcile cost reports, but excluding administrative and judicial appeals--would be actionable under this provision.

    [Footnote 16: Letter from Brian Benczkowski, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, to Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Appendix 3 (Feb. 21, 2008).]

    S. 386 also includes the term `statutory' to the definition of `obligation'. This term was included to ensure that duties created by a statutory authority that may not be an express or implied contract or other relation are included as these statutory relationships confer a duty upon the recipient of Government funds regardless of the existence of a contract.

    Technology Innovation News Survey

    Entries for March 16-31, 2012

    Market/Commercialization Information
    SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM PHASE I SOLICITATION FY-2013
    National Science Foundation (NSF) Funding Opportunity 12-548, 21 Mar 2012

    NSF has formulated broad solicitation topics for SBIR that conform to the high-technology investment sector's interests: 1) Biological and Chemical Technologies, 2) Education Applications, 3) Electronics, Information and Communication Technologies, and 4) Nanotechnology, Advanced Materials, and Manufacturing. Several environmental areas are identified under Biological and Chemical Technologies.
    ET1, Environmental Pollution Mitigation and Waste Treatment: Applications include microbial contamination sensing and control, removal of toxic compounds for human and animal safety, novel bioremediation technologies, water treatment (municipal wastewater and drinking water), air pollution mitigation to remove gaseous pollutants and particulates, pathogen and toxin diagnostics, and energy-efficient novel municipal and industrial waste recycle and reuse technologies. In addition, methods to reduce the use of chemical pesticides and approaches that develop biodegradable replacements for existing non-biodegradable pesticides sensors for environmental monitoring will be considered.
    ET2, Bioenergy: Proposed projects might include novel approaches to biomass conversion to energy; novel methods to generate energy from marine, plant, algal, and microbial bio-energy sources; microbial fuel cells; hydrogen production; and methods for distributed bio-energy production. NSF has posted detailed descriptions of the areas of particular interest within these topics on line: www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12548/nsf12548.htm
    Proposals submitted outside the window of May 19, 2012 - June 19, 2012, will be returned without review. Approximately 100 awards are anticipated, with estimated total program funding of $15 million. www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=156933

    Department of Justice Seal - Department of Justice Action Center


    Genocide: the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]

    forcibly transferring children


    of the group to another group."[3].

    CHIEF OF AN ALIENATION ON THE WARPATH

    GOVERNMENT AGENTS IN DISARRAY & CONFUSION BLAME EACH OTHER AS THEY SCATTER LIKE COCKROACHES

    (SORRY COCKROACHES, NOTHING PERSONAL)

    undercurrents


    Heavy criticism

    behavioral addiction

    GENOCIDE; CIVIL WAR; CRIMES OF ATTRITION; CRIMES OF HOSTIS HUMANI GENERIS; MURDEROUS ATROCITIES; FALSE CLAIMS OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY; IMPOSING WAR POWERS & DESPOTIC TYRANNY BY FRAUD; AIDING & ABETTING MURDERERS; WAR CRIMES; HIGH CRIMES; GRAVE CRIMES; CRIMES OF PLUNDER, PILLAGE, & SLAVERY;

    PERPETRATING AN ENDLESS LITANY OF CRIMES AND DECEPTIONS AND FALSE CLAIMS  LIKE TWO FACED PEDDLERS OF SNAKE OILS CRAFTING FAKE CURE-ALL AND MAGIC POTIONS FOR LULLING THE PEOPLE WITH EMPTY PROMISES OF JUSTICE AND FALSE ASSURANCES OF PROTECTION FOR THEIR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AND GUARANTEES OF THEIR FREEDOM AND THEIR PROPERTY AND THEIR LIBERTIES WHEN BY THE ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AGENTS AND MULTITUDES OF CONSPIRACIES AND DECEITS AND DUPLICITY IN A BRAZEN FICTION OF A DUTY TO SUPPOSE THEIR TRUSTWORTHINESS AND HONOR WHILE THEY  LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR THE MOST DESPOTIC TYRANNY AND VICIOUSLY ABUSIVE REGIME EVER TO SAP THE SPIRIT OF HUMANITY IN THE NAME OF CONQUEST AND EMPIRE WHILE CLOAKED IN THE DISGUISE OF PROGRESS AND PATRIOTISM; AND WHEN IN TRUTH IT IS TO AID AND ABET THE CONSOLIDATION OF POWER AND HEGEMONY OF THE MERCHANT CLASS AND THEIR ONGOING COLLUSION WITH OLD WORLD BANKERS AND THE LAST VESTIGES OF THE EUROPEAN NOBILITY AND THEIR MERCANTILE MONEYCHANGERS WHO HAVE ALWAYS DESPISED THE COMMON PEOPLE AND HAVE SOUGHT BY EVERY MEANS  TO UNDERMINE THEIR HARD WON FREEDOMS AND WHO HAVE ENDEAVORED BY EVERY SUBTERFUGE AND INTRIGUE KNOWN TO MAN TO RE-ENSLAVE THE PEOPLE WITH THE CHAINS OF SERFDOM AND BONDS OF SERVITUDE TO FEED THEIR BOUNDLESS GREED AND THEIR EVERY WHIM OF SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT AND SELFISH PLEASURE IN THEIR ENDLESS QUEST FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF PROPERTY AND THE HOARDING OF WEALTH  BEYOND ANY JUSTIFIABLE NEED AND ALL MUCH TO THE GREAT SUFFERING AND DESPAIR AND POVERTY OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.

    NULLIFICATION, DEBARMENT, DEFORCEMENT, ABOLITION, EXCOMMUNICATION, AND NULL-ELECTION ON FALSE CLAIMS OF "ULTRA VIRES" POWERS BY THE EXECUTIVE'S ADMINISTRATION AND THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT USURPING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE WITH TERRORIST THREATS AND FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS INTRUDING INTO CONGRESS TO IMPOSE IMPROPER & UNCONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR A GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING UNDER THE GUISE OF THE "HOMELAND SECURITY" DEPARTMENT &  IMPOSING A GOVERNMENT CARTEL OF LAWYERS IN COLLUSION WITH BANKERS & FINANCIAL TRUSTS IN A MONOPOLY CONSPIRACY TO ROB THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THEIR LAND, HOMES, AND BUSINESSES BY MANIPULATING CURRENCY & CREDIT TO PERPETUATE MILITARY & INDUSTRIAL RACKETEERING BY A CORRUPT FASCIST REGIME & FOR ENSLAVING THE PEOPLE WITH A WORTHLESS PAPER MONEY TO INSTITUTE AND ENSHRINE IT'S DICTATORSHIP OF PEONAGE AND INDENTURED SERVITUDE AND BONDAGE AND  FEUDALISM AND PERPETUAL SLAVERY AND PIRACY IN ANTITRUST OF A COERCIVE MONOPOLY FRAUD AND EPIC EXTORTION CONSPIRACY OF THE "TOO BIG TO FAIL" DOCTRINE UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC.

    Homeland Security spies on the Occupy movement

    From RT:

    The Occupy Wall Street movement has been under attack by politicians and even the media. Although the attempts to discredit the movement have failed, new information has surfaced claiming the Department of Homeland Security is working with local law enforcement to conduct massive surveillance. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director for the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, joins us to analyze what DHS hopes to uncover.

    NSA whistleblowers: Government spying on every single American

    Published: 25 July, 2012, 01:55
    Edited: 25 July, 2012, 18:41

    Reuters/Jason Reed

    Reuters/Jason Reed

    TAGS: USA, Security


    The TSA, DHS and countless other security agencies have been established to keep America safe from terrorist attacks in post-9/11 America. How far beyond that does the feds’ reach really go, though?

    The attacks September 11, 2001, were instrumental in enabling the US government to establish counterterrorism agencies to prevent future tragedies. Some officials say that they haven’t stopped there, though, and are spying on everyone in America — all in the name of national security.

    Testimonies delivered in recent weeks by former employees of the National Security Agency suggest that the US government is granting itself surveillance powers far beyond what most Americans consider the proper role of the federal government.

    In an interview broadcast on Current TV’s “Viewpoint” program on Monday, former NSA Technical Director William Binney commented on the government’s policy of blanket surveillance, alongside colleagues Thomas Drake and Kirk Wiebe, the agency's respective former Senior Official and Senior Analyst.

    The interview comes on the heels of a series of speeches given by Binney, who has quickly become better known for his whistleblowing than his work with the NSA. In their latest appearance this week, though, the three former staffers suggested that America’s spy program is much more dangerous than it seems.

    In an interview with “Viewpoint” host Eliot Spitzer, Drake said there was a “key decision made shortly after 9/11, which began to rapidly turn the United States of America into the equivalent of a foreign nation for dragnet blanket electronic surveillance.”

    These powers have previously defended by claims of national security necessity, but Drake says that it doesn’t stop there. He warns that the government is giving itself the power to gather intel on every American that could be used in future prosecutions unrelated to terrorism.

    “When you open up the Pandora’s Box of just getting access to incredible amounts of data, for people that have no reason to be put under suspicion, no reason to have done anything wrong, and just collect all that for potential future use or even current use, it opens up a real danger — and to what else what they could use that data for, particularly when it’s all being hidden behind the mantle of national security,” Drake said.

    Although Drake’s accusations seem astounding, they corroborate allegations made by Binney only a week earlier. Speaking at the Hackers On Planet Earth conference in New York City earlier this month, Binney addressed a room of thousands about the NSA’s domestic spying efforts. But in a candid interview with journalist Geoff Shively during HOPE, the ex-NSA official candidly revealed the full extent of the surveillance program.

    “Domestically, they're pulling together all the data about virtually every U.S. citizen in the country and assembling that information, building communities that you have relationships with, and knowledge about you; what your activities are; what you're doing. So the government is accumulating that kind of information about every individual person and it's a very dangerous process,” Binney said.

    Drake and Binney’s statements follow the revelation that law enforcement officers collected cell phone records on 1.3 million Americans in 2011. More news articles are emerging every day suggesting that the surveillance of Americans — off-the-radar and under wraps — is growing at an exponential rate.


    DHS Prepares Civil Unrest

    By Susanne Posel
    theintelhub.com
    July 28, 2012

    Surveillance drones have a new mission. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) they will be used for “public safety”.

    Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the DHS, told a House Committee meeting on Homeland Security that the more than 30,000 drones that will be deployed into American skies are just arbitrarily watching out for US citizens.

    Napolitano stated: “With respect to Science and Technology, that directorate, we do have a funded project, I think it’s in California, looking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety [matter] or disaster, such as a forest fire, and how they could give us better information.”

    Secretly, DHS have been taking bid for contractors who can install “aerial remote sensing” which uses light detection and ranging (LIDAR) that would be part of the unmanned drone missions within domestic US territory.

    “DHS believes these airborne images are essential for homeland defense missions, such as planning for National Special Security Events (Super Bowls or a national political conventions come to mind); enhancing border, port and airport security; as well as performing critical infrastructure inventories and assessments” and has spent over $50 million to employ contractors, as well as processors for images and dissemination throughout the DHS.

    Coincidentally, the Federal Protective Service (FPS) has been given the responsibility to protecting federally owned property while preparing for civilian led riots expected in the near future.

    Part of the preparatory measures was an order of 150 sets of riot gear that was requested to be filled exponentially – within 15 days.

    The items requested were:

    •    147 “Upper Body and Shoulder Protection” which are brand name or equal to “Centurion Soft Shell Riot Control System (CPX2500)”
    •    152 “Thigh-Groin Protector” brand name or equivalent to “Centurion TPX200”
    •    156 “Forearm Protectors” brand name or equivalent to “Centurion (FP100)”
    •    147 units of “Hard Shell Shin Guards” brand name or equivalent to “Centurion (TS70)”
    •    147 carry bags brand name or equivalent to Exotech (E4), 147 tactical gloves brand name or equivalent to “Damascus (DMZ333)”
    •    147 riot helmets brand name or equivalent to “MaxPro (TR1000)”

    The FPS is anticipating that police or military wearing the gear would encounter “blunt force trauma” to the upper torso, as well as potential beatings with “blunt objects”. To compliment these outfits, are required riot helmets with “tactical face shield” equipped with “liquid seals”.

    In addition, the US military are ready to assist with local law enforcement “if called upon”.

    Five hundred military police and dogs will be allocated on civilian matters, as reported by mainstream media (MSM) have included the reallocation of hundreds of military police officers being trained to “assist local authorities” in investigation, crime scene and case building.

    These same soliders were just stationed in combat areas like Afghantistan.

    Meanwhile, the TSA have been patrolling trains stations and bus terminals in California.

    According to one whistleblower:



    “We’re doing patrols in the parking lot with dogs, we’re even going as far out to the train station because the train station is connected to the airport here and we have guys walking around the train station, walking around the rental cars, we’re inspecting cars coming into the parking garage, I mean we’ve fully expanded – we’re no longer just at the gate and just at the security checkpoint.”

    The preparations that DHS and FPS are making for civil unrest may be tied to Article 15 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This part allows foreign troops (preferably NATO forces) to offer assistance in implementing the ATT.

    As the ATT does not specify an adherence to the 2nd Amendment, but rather make vague definitions of who can own a gun, what type of gun and for what purpose, the Constitutional rights we take for granted now will be stripped from us once the ATT is signed.

    To downplay the severity of our American right to bear arms against tyrannical dictators foreign and domestic, President Obama stated at a National Urban League meeting that:

    “We recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

    Richard Schrade, attorney and member of the Libertarian National Committee commented on the 2nd Amendment: “The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government. Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution.

    Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”

    Wayne LaPierre, vice president of the NRA, has called out Obama as being part of “conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep. All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term.”

    LaPierre states that upon re-election, Obama will be “busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom, erase the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the US Constitution.”

    Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism. Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporately funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.


    In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.  ~ James Madison, Speech before Constitutional Convention (6/29/1787).


    TREASON!
    Page 125 STAT. 1917]]
    
                (3) Expedited review.--The regulations issued under this 
            subsection shall define the term ``expedited review'' for the 
            purposes of paragraph (1)(C).
    
        (b) Standards of Judicial Review.--Section 60119(a) is amended by 
    adding at the end the following new paragraph:
        ``(3) <<NOTE: Applicability.>>  A judicial review of agency action 
    under this section shall apply the standards of review established in 
    section 706 of title 5.''.
    SEC. 21. GAS AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID GATHERING LINES.






    Collaboration:

    “An Occurrence at Spring Creek Bridge


    John F. Hutchens opened his first sole proprietorship in California on January 1, 1982. Calling it “Hutchens Hydroponics & Organics”, its stated purpose was to develop and market safe and affordable essential trace minerals rich organic fertilizers.
     
    On January 28, 2008, Joint Venturers T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens met with EPA site manager Rick Sugarek and EPA Counsel John Lyons to review and discuss EPA concerns regarding the workplan for recycling the mineral rich sludge produced by the Iron Mountain AMD treatment. The EPA stated that it had no objections to the proposed use of the sludge for a mineral supplement to fertilizers, the EPA stated that as long as the workplan did not interfere with their treatment regime, we were free to proceed with the proposal. However, EPA regulations “derived from” rule require the sludge to be treated as “acutely toxic hazard waste”, and the sludge bears all the stigma of association with Iron Mountain Mines and the alleged “fish kills” as well as the stigma of CERCLA superfund waste and the attendant implication of potential liabilities, thus making it  impossible to sell or even transport the material legally off the property.

     John F. Hutchens disregarded those rules and between 2008 and 2010 took home over 1200 lbs. of the mineral sludge for research and testing.

     Concluding from his comprehensive testing that there was no legitimate reason for the failure of EPA to lift the regulatory designation of the mineral sludge, John F. Hutchens applied over 1000 lbs. of the mineral sludge to his lawn and garden and numerous potted plants at his garden nursery (he is a California landscape contractor for over 20 years) at his Orinda, California home. The testing confirmed that the mineral sludge from Iron Mountain Mines AMD treatment is an excellent source for essential minerals calcium, sulfur, iron, zinc, copper, magnesium, molybdenum, manganese, and is below statutory levels of arsenic, mercury, or other elements that would preclude its use as a trace minerals fertilizer source. The EPA continued to wage its war against Arman and Hutchens and stonewalled every effort to rectify the situation, leaving Arman to survive as best he could harvesting firewood from the remnants of his forest decimated by wild fires of May, 2008, and destroying John F. Hutchens ability to provide for his family or himself.

      Petitioner Hutchens was ultimately evicted from his residence of 12 years in Orinda, and he reported to the Contra Costa County health department the application of Iron Mountain Mines mineral sludge to the lawn and garden of the premises. The health department investigated and performed testing of the soil to determine if a hazard existed.

     Finding that no hazardous substances in the soil exist above naturally occurring background levels, the Contra Costa County health department declined to make the property part of the Iron Mountain Mines superfund site, thus allowing the landlord to rent the property to a new tenant, and without necessitating any disclosure concerning the probability of “potential” exposure to the heavy metals from Iron Mountain Mines.

    . The EPA, in concert with their contractor AIG, have restricted John F. Hutchens from the Iron Mountain Mines property (without any court order) since March, 2010.

     Joint Ventures T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens consider these facts to be prima facie evidence of the safety and efficacy of the proposed recycling and use of Iron Mountain Mines mineral sludge as a fertilizer source of essential trace elements and its use for restoring the mineral content of land depleted of minerals by human agricultural activities, but the governments have refused to acknowledge any of these facts or relent in any way from their prosecution of Iron Mountain Mines or their persecution of T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens.

     Deputy Attorney General for California Margarita Padilla has carried on a personal vendetta against Hutchens for the last three years, even contacting his business associates and clients (he is also a California General Building Contractor) to intimidate them and ruin his businesses, and falsely accused Hutchens of making threats of violence against agents of the government and her personally to destroy Hutchens credibility and reputation and prevent or discredit further revelations of the government’s crimes and madness.

     Having failed to get the EPA Inspector General, (three visits and 2 days of formal deposition), Homeland Security, (two surprise visits at his residence), the FBI, (a visit from the Redding field office, a visit from the Sacramento field office, and a visit from the Oakland field office), an inquiry by the Secret Service, and 3 visits from the U.S. Marshal from the Eastern District Court in Sacramento) to stop Hutchens from exposing the government frauds, Padilla on October 28, 2011 personally swore before the Eastern District Court of Sacramento allegations of threats to her and government personnel to obtain a search warrant of petitioner Hutchens emails and an official request for an indictment.

     On December 28, 2011, (the 2 month period for the government to obtain an indictment by a Grand Jury against Hutchens having expired),  the Sacramento Bee published its article about the Hutchens and Arman joint venture entitled “Colorful Character Brings Twist to Iron Mountain Mines Case”.

     

     The litigation with EPA has languished in the courts, most recently the Ninth Circuit has had nothing to say since its refusal for a hearing requested by the petitioners in January, 2012, and ignoring the rising mountain of evidence vindicating T.W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines and implicating the EPA and DOJ with their State confederates of a conspiracy of extortion and racketeering and fraud to deny T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens their right to contract and their very means of providing an income for themselves and their families or even a means for their very survival.


    Iron Mountain Mines has accumulated over 500,000 tons of this especially zinc and copper rich mineral sludge, (the EPA sued T.W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines for alleged zinc and copper contamination of storm water runoff and alleged endangerment of juvenile sport fish salmon during a drought when the natural dilution water of the Sacramento River is sequestered by Shasta dam.) About 100,000 tons has accumulated since the commencement of the Hutchens and Arman joint venture.

     

    During this 5 year period the World Health Organization estimates that over 2 million children worldwide have died just from zinc deficiencies in their diet.

     

     How much longer will the American people tolerate this murderous crime and these criminals?

    Applicability of parens patriae actions to Clayton Act § 5 (Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C. § 16 Judgments

    The state court in Alameda County, California, out of obvious gender bias and apparently as a punishment of John  F. Hutchens for not being able to make timely child support payments, have granted his 6 year old son’s mother a restraining order and denied him due process for a hearing to restore to him his sons joint custody and visitation, whom he has not seen or spoken to since December 2nd, 2011.


     John Francis Hutchens, Starved and beaten and broke and broken-hearted, (but not broken), has been reduced to the bare existence of a primitive savage. He  struggles for his daily survival, abandoned by everyone, with only a tent to sleep in within a thicket upon a vacant lot owned by the City of Walnut Creek, California, next to the Joint Genome Institute of the Departments of Energy and the Interior alongside the Contra Costa canal, a tributary to what is left of the Walnut Creek and the San Francisco Bay. The canal and the "Creek" are constructed ravines of concrete manufactured by the Corp. of Engineers to drain these former wetlands and prevent the natural flooding that previously occurred in these areas that are now suburban communities, they are barren concrete culverts , fish-less and overflowing with frogs, posted "no trespassing" and  fenced off to  enforce the prohibition of fishing or swimming.  He receives food stamps and rides a red “Giant Chinook” brand bicycle  to the local Starbucks to update this website.


     In addition to being a UC Berkeley International Studies trained Systems Analyst, Computer Programmer, Data Manager & Data Communications Specialist, a California Landscape & General building Contractor and Landscape Maintenance Pest Control Operator, John F. Hutchens is the inventor of “Pahomaki” (a Hopi word for “Earth Blessing”) brand of corn gluten based slow release nitrogen fertilizer, and inventor of  the “Arman Wall System”, the first testable seismically sustainable  prescriptive construction method utilizing lightweight high-performance cement composites and other existing and approved construction materials free of forest products to provide the first comprehensive safe and affordable fire resistant, rot & termite proof, mold free building system for residential, institutional, and commercial construction, and for safe rooms and storm shelters.


    Rules for D.C.

    Just in case anyone needs any more surprises, liberal hypocrisy has again been unearthed in -- of all places -- Washington, D.C.!

    Last August, the Army Corps of Engineers denied the District of Columbia a permit as part of a $1.5-billion Southwest Waterfront redevelopment project to begin constructing high-rise, luxury townhouses, a yacht club, and other buildings on piers in and on the Washington Channel -- a congressionally designated navigable water of the United States.

    The Corps stated that under existing law, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), it was required "to regulate construction activities and discharges of dredged and/or fill material in navigable waters."   

    Based on its CWA concerns and adverse impact on marine navigation, the Corps stated that "[a]t this time, the Corps does not have the administrative authority to approve the project as proposed without specific Congressional action to dissolve the federal interest."

    Not to fear: Senate Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) quickly sailed to D.C.'s rescue.  He reported H.R. 2297 (a bill originally sponsored by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-D.C.] in the House) out of his committee and amended it on the Senate floor without objection to remove the Corps' authority over the Washington Channel.  Like a shot, the Senate then passed the bill by voice vote and sent it back to the House as amended to rescue D.C.'s $1.5-billion project. 

    Interestingly, all of this occurred quietly on a single day -- March 29, 2012 -- just eight days after the Supreme Court released its opinion in Sackett v. EPA, a case epitomizing arrogant exertion of police power by federal bureaucrats against innocent American citizens.  Here's what happened to the Sacketts -- in contrast to how Congress is treating D.C.

    Several years ago, Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased a half-acre lot in a built-out residential development near Priest Lake, Idaho to build a three-bedroom retirement home.  Local authorities had zoned their lot for residential construction and provided a sewer hookup.

    Having obtained all required local building permits, the Sacketts in the spring of 2007 employed contractors, who began moving earth and putting down gravel to prepare the site.  However, the Sacketts quickly received a Compliance Order from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demanding that they stop construction.  The EPA ruled, without prior notice, that the homebuilding site was a wetland and that the Sacketts had violated section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) by illegally dumping "fill materials" into wetlands under the EPA's jurisdiction. 

    Somehow, the EPA had found that moving earth around in a residential neighborhood on dry land remote from any "navigable waters" involved "the discharge of a pollutant" (i.e., clean fill dirt and gravel) into the "navigable waters" of the United States.

    It got worse.  The Sacketts soon discovered that there was nowhere they could go to challenge the EPA's Compliance Order without incurring costs and delays suited to a major industrial enterprise, or inviting bankrupting fines and even criminal penalties of up to $75,000 a day.

    The EPA demanded not only that the Sacketts immediately cease construction of their home, but that they finance costly restoration work: remove all fill material, replant, and do anything else required to restore the property to its prior condition.  After that, they would have to endure a three-year monitoring period during which they had to leave their residential land entirely untouched.

    The Sacketts first sought a hearing before the EPA, but the agency ignored them.  The couple then filed suit in federal court -- only to have the District Court grant the EPA's motion to dismiss the case.  The Sacketts ultimately had to take their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  There, they won when the Supreme Court ruled on March 21 that they were entitled to at least challenge the EPA's Compliance Order by returning to the federal District Court in Idaho, where they can point out that building a home on dry land in a built-out residential subdivision does not involve any discharge into the navigable waters of the United States. 

    Back in D.C., the EPA has the authority to apply the same aggressive CWA enforcement powers against the $1.5-billion waterfront development project, but it has not raised a whimper even though that project involves building townhouses not near or beside, but actually out over congressionally designated navigable waters.  D.C.'s government also raises millions of dollars each year by charging shoppers five cents for every plastic shopping bag -- ostensibly to keep the bags from entering nearby rivers and waters, including the Washington Channel itself.

    So, on the one hand, we have D.C. wanting to build luxury high-rise residences, a yacht club, and multi-purpose buildings on piers out over the waters of an 80-year-old congressionally authorized Federal Navigation Project, and the U.S. Congress speeds to the rescue to strip the Army Corps of Engineers of its authority to delay the project -- despite the real potential for water pollution.

    On the other hand, when average private citizens such as the Sacketts want to build a modest, single-family house on dry land that does not border navigable waters, they have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to claim their right as Americans to have their day in court just to challenge the EPA's absurd contention that their homebuilding effort will pollute the navigable waters of the United States.

    Congress may have wised up last week when it pulled this D.C. rescue bill from the Suspension Calendar, which is used to pass "non-controversial" legislation.  Unfortunately, it was pulled not because of the hypocrisy in how the federal government enforces the Clean Water Act against Americans trying to build a family home compared to the government's treatment of large corporations and cities trying to build luxury high-rise townhouse on piers actually out over the water, but because Congress is concerned that the bill as modified by the Senate may constitute an "earmark" for D.C. in violation of the House's ban on earmarks.

    Earmark or not, doesn't every American who has been or will be bullied by the EPA and the federal government, as the Sacketts have been, deserve to have Congress ride to his or her rescue as well?

    Susan A. Carleson is chairman and president of the American Civil Rights Union, which filed two amicus briefs in support of the Sacketts in the Supreme Court.


    blow to EPA’s authority


    New Obama Order Requires Agencies To Assess Rules' Cumulative Effects

    President Obama has issued an executive order requiring EPA and other agencies to assess the cumulative economic impacts of existing rules that are selected for review under the administration's ongoing burden-reduction effort and to prioritize reforms to reduce those burdens, a stronger requirement than past suggestions but one that appears to fall short of critics' calls to assess the cumulative effects of new rules, such as pending EPA rules for the electricity sector.


    Will the courts kill the EPA’s climate rules? (Washington Post)
    EPA Air Rules Head to Court (WSJ)
    Previewing a VERY Big Week for Environmental Law in the Courts (Legal Planet)
    Appeals Court to Hear Arguments over EPA Carbon Rules This Week (inside climate news)


    Open Door To Superfund Due Process Suit

    The Supreme Court may be more inclined to consider whether the Superfund law unconstitutionally bars pre-enforcement judicial review in the wake of its recent unanimous holding that Clean Water Act (CWA) compliance orders are subject to pre-enforcement judicial review on statutory grounds, legal observers say.

    1,106 DOE JGI Unique Users

    Principal Investigators (PIs), Co-PIs, collaborators, Eukaryotic annotators in FY2011.

    Unique users are counted once, even though an individual may have several projects/roles.

    The JGI Project Management Office (PMO) manages all relationships with the JGI User community, working directly with JGI collaborators to ensure that projects remain on schedule and offer the best quality and efficiencies, from proposal initiation and project planning to project close-out.

    Find out more about PMO

    User Programs

    Community Sequencing Program

    The CSP is JGI's proposal-based user program designed to bring high-throughput sequencing to the scientific community at large. Members of the national laboratory community are welcome to submit proposals as well as researchers elsewhere.

    Technology Development Pilot Program (TDP)

    To complement the CSP, the Technology Development Program (TDP) was designed to provide users with early access to nascent technologies at the JGI and in close collaboration with onsite scientists. Projects supported through the TDP are expected to use groundbreaking methods that are currently emerging (and not offered through the CSP program) to address questions of immediate DOE mission relevance. High-risk/high-reward projects exploring the very limits of current technology in the context of cutting-edge scientific questions are encouraged.

    Visiting Scientist Program

    The DOE Joint Genome Institute Visiting Scientist Program (VSP) provides an opportunity for faculty-level scientists who are seeking to build upon their line of scientific inquiry by leveraging JGI experimental, computational, and personnel resources for genomic research and sequence-based science. Projects include de novo generation of genome data, assistance in interpreting and/or building on an existing data set, or the refining of new technology (e.g., single-cell genomics; metagenomics, etc.). Length of stay depends on complexity of the project being considered and availability of data and other resources. Investigators, post docs, and graduate students participating in approved JGI User Projects are also invited to apply for on-site access to JGI resources and capabilities.

    For more information contact, Jim Bristow, JGI Deputy Director for Science Programs: jbristow@lbl.gov.

    International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups

    The ICBG Program aims to integrate improvement of human health through drug discovery, creation of incentives for conservation of biodiversity, and promotion of scientific research and sustainable economic activity that focuses on environment, health, equity and democracy. Currently, eight groups have received awards from the ICBG, which is funded by several agencies, including NIH, DOE, NSF, USDA and NOAA. The JGI supports these groups by providing next-generation sequencing and analysis capabilities, up to 600 Gb of Illumina (short-read) data. Proposals from any of these eight groups can be submitted at any time using the web-based Work Initiation Process (WIP) form and should include proposal title, description, justification, sequence utilization and DOE mission relevance. Proposals will continue to be accepted until the sequencing allocation is met. Before commitment to any sequencing project, a technical review will be carried out by JGI.

    Low Dose Radiation Research Program

    DOE's Low Dose Radiation Research Program encourages mission-relevant sequencing proposals that involve re-sequencing by the JGI of genomic regions for which an existing reference sequence is known and available, or ChIP-seq sequencing for epigenomic analyses. For details of the Low Dose Program research mission interests, see the Program website at http://lowdose.energy.gov/. De novo sequencing of entire genomes will not be supported. A scientific peer review will be carried out under the aegis of the JGI and final determinations of mission relevance will be made by the Low Dose Program Manager at DOE Headquarters. Projects requesting Sanger sequencing will not be considered. Before commitment to any sequencing project, a required technical review will be carried out by JGI.

    A letter of intent (LOI), informing us that you plan to submit a proposal for consideration in the next round, must be sent to JGI before the submission of a proposal. The LOI should be submitted using the web-based Work Initiation Process (WIP) form and should include proposal title, description, justification, sequence utilization, community interest and DOE mission relevance. The LOI helps us to plan for review and allows us to help you with the details of your proposal. Submitters whose letters of intent are approved will receive further instructions via email.

    MyJGI: Information for Collaborators

    The MyJGI site offers Information about submitting samples; JGI policies regarding finishing, publication, and data release; and sequencing protocols. If you are planning to send samples to JGI, you can use the Collaborator Sample Information tab to submit the required information. To review the status of your projects, use the Collaborator Status Reporter tab.

    Fellow in Genomics


    5. Victim and Witness Rights
    a. Attorney General Guidelines
    The Attorney General, in conformance with the requirements of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Crime Control Act of 1990, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Victims Rights Clarification Act of 1997, and the Justice for All Act of 2004, has promulgated Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance (AG Guidelines) to establish procedures to be followed by the federal criminal justice system in responding to the needs of crime victims and witnesses. The AG Guidelines serve as a primary resource for Department of Justice agencies, including the Antitrust Division, in the treatment and protection of victims and witnesses of federal crimes under these acts. In addition, the Division has published a Victim Witness Handbook.
    b. Statutes Governing Victims’ Rights and Services for Victims
    18 U.S.C. § 3771
    Crime victims’ rights
    42 U.S.C. § 10607
    Services to victims
    3. Statutes Relating to Joint Research and Development, Production, and Standards Development
    National Cooperative Research and Production Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 4301-06. The National Cooperative Research and Production Act (NCRPA) clarifies the substantive application of the U.S. antitrust laws to joint research and development (R&D) activities, joint production activities and, since it was amended by the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-237, 118 Stat. 661 (2004), conduct by a qualifying standards development organization (SDO) while engaged in a standards development activity. Originally drafted to encourage research and development by providing a special antitrust regime for joint R&D ventures, the NCRPA requires U.S. courts to judge the competitive effects of a challenged joint R&D or production venture, or standards development activity engaged in by a qualifying SDO, in properly defined relevant markets and under a rule-of-reason standard. The statute specifies that the conduct “shall be judged on the basis of its reasonableness, taking into account all relevant factors affecting competition, including, but not limited to, effects on competition in properly defined, relevant research, development, product, process, and service markets.” 15 U.S.C. § 4302.
    The NCRPA also establishes a voluntary procedure pursuant to which the Attorney General and the FTC may be notified of a joint R&D or production venture or a standards development activity engaged in by a qualifying SDO. The statute limits the monetary relief that may be obtained in private civil suits against the participants in a notified joint venture or against a qualifying SDO to actual rather than treble damages, if the challenged conduct is covered by the statute and within the scope of the notification. With respect to joint production ventures, the National Cooperative Production Amendments of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-42, 107 Stat. 117, 119 (1993), provide that the benefits of the limitation on recoverable damages for claims resulting from conduct within the scope of a notification are not available unless (1) the principal facilities for the production
    Antitrust Division Manual, Fourth Edition II-29
    are located within the United States or its territories, and (2) “each person who controls any party to such venture (including such party itself) is a United States person, or a foreign person from a country whose law accords antitrust treatment no less favorable to United States persons than to such country’s domestic persons with respect to participation in joint ventures for production.” 15 U.S.C. § 4306 (2).
    The National Cooperative Production Amendments of 1993 also exclude from the act’s coverage, and thus leave subject to the ordinary applicability of the antitrust laws, using existing facilities for the production of a product, process, or service by a joint venture unless such use involves the production of a new product or technology.
    D. Antitrust Division Guidelines
    Several official sets of guidelines have been issued by the Antitrust Division. In addition to the guidelines described below, the Division also issued non-price vertical restraint guidelines in 1985, but those guidelines no longer reflect Division policy.

    The Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, hearings before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, on S. 782 ... and S. 1088 ... pursuant to S. Res. 56, Section 4, March 15, 16, and April 5, 1973


    NSF 12-076

    Dear Colleague Letter - Supplemental Opportunity for Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) Community College Research Teams (Phase II-CC)

    Date: May 14, 2012

    To: NSF Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) Grantees
    From: Grace Wang,
    Division Director Division of Industrial Innovation and Partnerships (IIP)

    Katherine Jean Denniston, Acting Division Director
    Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE)

    The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs in the Division of Industrial Innovation and Partnerships (IIP), in collaboration with the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) invite all active SBIR/STTR Phase II grantees to participate in a supplemental funding opportunity. The supplements for research teams are intended to foster partnerships between Community Colleges (CCs), which educate large numbers of underrepresented students, and the small business community. NSF is seeking to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in both academic and small business research by encouraging careers in science and engineering.


    "It's snowing still," said Eeyore gloomily.
    "So it is."
    "And freezing."
    "Is it?"
    "Yes," said Eeyore. "However," he said, brightening up a little, "we haven't had an earthquake lately."


    Tunney Shelters© Safe Rooms; everybody should have one.

    Potomac tops list of endangered US rivers

    Polluters Agree to Pay for 100 Years of Damage
         (CN) - Bayer CropScience and Pharmacia, a division of Pfizer, have agreed to pay $4.25 million to settle environmental claims at the toxic Industri-plex Superfund site in Woburn, Mass.
         The Department of Justice announced the settlement Thursday, the same day it and Massachusetts filed separate federal complaints that asked the companies to cover environmental damages caused by over a century of contamination from the site.

    May 15, 2012
    Day of Celebration - Washington, DC

    The year 1862 marks the founding of two types of institutions that touch the lives of people across the United States and the world every single day: public universities and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Public and land-grant universities and the USDA partner with communities to put research into action in the areas of agriculture and food, health care, sustainable living, urban and rural revitalization, and education. This Festival program will bring these partnerships to life through demonstrations, discussions, and hands-on activities. Visit www.festival.si.edu for more information.

    True to his roots as a frontier farm boy, on May 15, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation to create the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Over the next two months - in the midst of the Civil War - he signed additional legislation that expanded and transformed American farming, including the Homestead Act, and the establishment of the Land Grant agricultural university system.


    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    May 16, 2012

     

    EPA Launches Competition for College Students to Develop Innovative Approaches to Stormwater Management

     

    WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is launching a new design competition called the Campus RainWorks Challenge to encourage student teams on college and university campuses across the country to develop innovative approaches to stormwater management. Stormwater is a major cause of water pollution in urban areas in the U.S., impacting the health of people across the country as well as tens of thousands of miles of rivers, streams, and coastal shorelines, and hundreds of thousands of acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. The competition will help raise awareness of green design and planning approaches at colleges and universities, and train the next generation of landscape architects, planners, and engineers in green infrastructure principles and design.

     

    Student teams, working with a faculty advisor, will submit design plans for a proposed green infrastructure project for their campus. Registration for the Campus RainWorks Challenge opens September 4, and entries must be submitted by December 14, 2012 for consideration. Winning entries will be selected by EPA and announced in April 2013. Winning teams will earn a cash prize of $1,500 - $2,500, as well as $8,000 - $11,000 in funds for their faculty advisor to conduct research on green infrastructure. In 2013, EPA plans to expand Campus RainWorks by inviting students to design and complete a demonstration project assessing innovative green infrastructure approaches on their campus.

     

    “Reducing stormwater pollution requires innovative approaches and America’s college students are incredibly creative and talented,” said Nancy Stoner, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water. “The Campus RainWorks Challenge will engage students across the country in tackling one of the toughest challenges to clean water and show them the opportunities in environmental careers.”

     

    EPA is encouraging the use of green infrastructure as a solution to help manage stormwater runoff. Green Infrastructure uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage stormwater runoff at its source and provide other community benefits, including economic development.. Green infrastructure is increasingly being used to supplement or substitute for single-purpose “gray” infrastructure investments such as pipes, and ponds. The Campus RainWorks Challenge will help encourage the use of green infrastructure projects on college and university campuses to manage stormwater discharges.

     

    More information on the Campus RainWorks Challenge:

    http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/crw_challenge.cfm Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall apply in any State, unless such State provides by law for its nonapplicability in such State.

    MyJGI: Information for Collaborators

    March 22, 2012
    Pulp NonFiction: Fungal Analysis Reveals Clues for Targeted Biomass Deconstruction. Without fungi and microbes to break down dead trees and leaf litter in nature, the forest floor might look like a scene from TV's "Hoarders." Among the fungi being studied by the DOE JGI are species that can selectively break down the cell wall components cellulose and lignin - the number one and two most abundant biopolymers on Earth.  more...

    Susannah Tringe, DOE JGI Metagenome Program head, takes us to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to gather samples of microbial communities living in the wetlands to determine their role in how carbon is stored or released.


    jgi

    TechStream, Science Today, Start-up Tomorrow , Cover of 10-Year Strategic Vision

    Forging the Future - JGI is seeking community input in planning its evolution as a User Facility over the next 10 years. (forge needed)

    vacation for microbes at waterpark

    Taking the Cryo-Plunge

      all are warm with divine radium and must have lots of fun in them. -John Muir
    Birgit Luef (left) and Luis R. Comolli (right) prepare cryogenic TEM samples using headlamp lights inside Iron Mountain Mine, near Redding, CA.

    Birgit Luef (left) and Luis R. Comolli (right) prepare cryogenic TEM samples  inside Iron Mountain Mine

    Luef demonstrating the Cryo-Plunger. Set up on a camera tripod, it weighs only 4 kg. It is designed for ease of operation in the field.

    Birgit Luef demonstrating the Cryo-Plunger. Set up on a camera tripod, it weighs only 4 kg. It is designed for ease of operation in the field.


    A device for flash-freezing microbes destined for an electron microscope.  The job of the Cryo-Plunger is to freeze, in a split second, a tiny specimen driven into a bath of liquid ethane (-183 °C). It freezes the suspensions and films of microbes within an extremely thin slab of “vitreous ice” — water frozen so quickly no crystals form — as if it were encased in glass. Recently  Berkeley Lab inventors of the portable Cryo-Plunger, discovered how this portable equipment could transform the way environmental microbiology is done at Iron Mountain Mines. It turns out that freezing your samples in vitreous ice is absolutely essential if you want to study them in a Cryogenic Transmission Electron Microscope (CryoTEM). These are expensive, incredibly sophisticated instruments that use electron beams instead of light and can resolve images 1,000 times smaller than the most powerful optical microscopes.
    Built by a Berkeley Lab team led by Luis R. Comolli, the device has been tested for nearly two years. Machined from aluminum tubing and standing 28-inches tall, it is opening up new possibilities – giving environmental field microbiologists for the first time full access to the extraordinary power of electron microscopy. Comolli and Birgit Luef, a UC Berkeley postdoc, have taken the Cryo-Plunger into Iron Mountain Mine to flash-freeze samples of Mr. T.W. Arman's Iron Mountain Mines family of extremophile archaea and bacteria. This is the only way to get samples of these organisms that cannot be cultured in the laboratory.

    Birgit Luef’s microscopy work complements that of her mentor, Jillian Banfield. The acclaimed Berkeley Lab scientist and UC Berkeley professor has used gene scans to discover remarkable new species of microorganisms that thrive in the mine. With CryoTEM, detailed images of these novel organisms can be correlated with the genomics. Thanks to the Cryo-Plunger, samples from a variety of remote or extreme environments, such as mines, volcanic craters, and hot springs, now can be preserved and brought to the lab for CryoTEM study. “The sample preparation method is critical,” Banfield told me. “To my knowledge, no other research teams in the world are doing this.”

    For the study of microorganisms,  CryoTEMs reveal the structures not only of bacteria and viruses, but even of the molecular machinery that operates inside them. Without flash-freezing, however, the benefits of such precision imaging are lost on samples taken from remote sites. Like a flash camera, the freezing process also captures these microbes in the instant of their interactions with their natural environment, at the moment they absorb nutrients, respire, replicate, or simply coexist and interact with other organisms  in an ecosystem — a moment impossible to recreate with cultured bugs back at the lab. In fact, only a small minority of microbes can be kept alive and cultured for flash-freezing outside their natural environs. As for the rest, the delicate traits and features of microorganisms can be destroyed when they are collected, stored, and transported. As such, CryoTEM has been largely out-of-reach for environmental microbiologists.

    The Cryo-Plunger is changing this. Comolli, who works with a state-of-the-art CryoTEM at Berkeley Lab, showed me how the plunger works. “We designed this to minimize the tasks done by the user,” he said.  In the simplest terms, it’s a spring-powered piston. It grips a sample, and plunges it into a bath of liquid ethane, which has heat-sucking properties perfectly suited for flash freezing. The business end of this device wields a standard laboratory tweezers that grips a tiny ring (TEM grid) at the tip. A thin film of water loaded with living specimens is deposited onto the TEM grid. Excess liquid sample is wicked off with a piece of filter paper. The trigger at the top of the plunger is pressed, and in an instant the tweezers-tip and grid are immersed in a thimbleful of very, very cold liquid. Plexiglass splatter guards keep the process safe. Conveniently, the thimble rests in a cup-sized vat of liquid nitrogen, which not only keeps the liquid ethane cold, but serves as a freezer to store up to 16 vitreous-ice samples. Eventually, they’ll be transferred into a thermos of more liquid nitrogen for the journey back to the lab.

    Microbial ecologist Luef has used the Cryo-Plunger to take more than 500 samples from another remote Superfund site, in Rifle, Colorado. Uranium-contaminated groundwater is being treated there with acetate, which stimulates bacteria that convert soluble uranium into an insoluble form. This chemical process, the microbial “reduction” of metals, is of great interest to researchers looking for better ways to clean-up toxic sites. Under the Cryo-TEM, her flash-frozen samples showed a species of Geobacter covered with aggregates of nano-sized particles of iron, which further tests will show were either waste-products of the bacterium, or its source of energy. “It could be as if the bacterium carries around its own oxygen tanks, only this bug is breathing iron,” said Luef.


    (Three-dimensional Cryo-TEM reconstruction of a bacterium (probably Geobacter) preserved using the Cryo-Plunger at a Superfund site in Rifle, CO. The bacterium is covered with nano-aggregates of iron attached to the cell surface.)

    Until the Portable Cryo-Plunger came along, field microbiologists typically would have to settle for electron microscope images of bugs that were already compromised. The more remote and extreme the environment, the harder it is to preserve a useful sample. As a result, “You simply couldn’t do it with extremophiles,” said Roseann Csencsits, manager of Berkeley Lab’s TEM facility in LBNL’s building 1. With the Portable Cryo-Plunger in hand, however, a new chapter in microbiology is being written. As Comolli put it, “We have seen stuff that no one has seen before.”


    Technology Development Program (TDP)

    • Provides JGI users with early access to nascent technologies and in close collaboration with onsite scientists to address questions of DOE mission relevance.
    • High-impact projects exploring the very limits of current technology.

    Go here for MORE about the TDP

    Informatics Systems

    JGI Genome Portal logoJGI publishes all its sequenced genomes on its Genome Portal. Here you can download sequence files, BLAST against a particular genome, and view annotations. Advanced tools, including genome, GO, KEGG, and KOG browsers, are available for eukaryotes. JGI's Genome Browser lets you browse through JGI-predicted genes, view sequences, and study detailed alignments with nucleotide and amino acid sequences from relevant sequence databases.

    JGI Mycocosm thumb The JGI Mycocosm web-portal provides data access, visualization, and analysis tools for comparative genomics of fungi. Mycocosm enables users to navigate across sequenced fungal genomes, and to conduct comparative and genome-centric analyses of fungi and community annotation.
    The Integrated Microbial Genomes (IMG) system serves as a community resource for comparative analysis and annotation of all publicly available genomes from three domains of life, in a uniquely integrated context. IMG with Microbiome Samples (IMG/M) provides tools for analyzing the functional capability of microbial communities based on their metagenome sequence, in the context of reference isolate genomes included from the IMG system. IMG Education Site (IMG/EDU) provides training and teaching support for genome analysis applied to the annotation of microbial genomes. IMG Expert Review (IMG/ER) provides support to individual scientists or groups of scientists for functional annotation and curation of microbial genomes of interest, usually prior to their release to Genbank. Additionally, IMG with Microbiome Samples Expert Review (IMG/M-ER), and IMG for the Human Microbiome Project (IMG-HMP).
    VISTAVISTA is a comprehensive suite of programs and databases for comparative analysis of genomic sequences. There are two ways of using VISTA - you can submit your own sequences and alignments for analysis (VISTA servers) or examine pre-computed whole-genome alignments of different species. Group lead, Inna Dubchak The Phytozome project organizes the proteomes of green plants into gene families defined at nodes on the green plant evolutionary tree. You can study the evolutionary history of a gene of interest from one of the included proteomes or place a gene from a different plant in the most appropriate gene family. Alternatively, you can BLAST search and browse the genomes of any of the included green plants. Phytozome makes it easy to move back and forth between organism-centric and gene family-centric views.
    GENEPRIMPGenePRIMP (Gene PRediction IMprovement Pipeline) is a pipeline that consists of a series of computational units that identify erroneous gene calls and missed genes and correct a subset of the identified defective features. The input to GenePRIMP needs to be a file of gene calls in GenBank or EMBL format. As its output, GenePRIMP generates reports of identified gene prediction anomalies. FAMESFAMeS provides access to simulated datasets and aims to facilitate standardized benchmarking of tools for metagenomic analysis. To evaluate methods currently used to process metagenomic sequences, simulated datasets of varying complexity were constructed by combining sequencing reads randomly selected from 113 isolate genomes. These datasets were designed to model real metagenomes in terms of complexity and phylogenetic composition.
    "Gap Resolution" software (available for academic use): Gap Resolution was developed by DOE Joint Genome Institute to improve Newbler genome assemblies by automating the closure of sequence gaps caused by repetitive regions in the DNA. If you are interested in acquiring this software, please contact degilbert@lbl.gov "Polisher" (available for academic use): Polisher is a software package designed to facilitate the error correction of an assembled genome using Illumina read data by automatically correcting consensus errors and/or suggesting primer walking reactions to improve the base quality. If you are interested in acquiring this software, please contact degilbert@lbl.gov
    "Rnnotator" software: To address challenges related to comprehensive annotation and quantification of transcriptomes, Rnnotator was developed by a team at the JGI to provide an automated software pipeline that generates transcript models by de novo assembly of RNA-Seq data without the need for a reference genome.  It is freely available to academic users by request:  degilbert@lbl.gov  Big Data creates big challenges for agencies
    federalnewsradio.com
    The amount of individual data bytes created is so enormous, it is fast out pacing the ability to capture, search, analyze or store it. Big Data is the general term used to describe the 2.5 quintillion bytes of data produced each day.



    Building Safety Month 2012

    Week Two – Disaster Safety & Mitigation
    May 14-20, 2012

    Platinum Sponsors

    Presenting Sponsor

    Presented by ACMA

    The record-setting level of deaths, injuries and property destruction during 2011 provide a stark reminder that no matter where you live, everyone is at risk from natural disasters. However, the important lesson from this infamous year of earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires and worse is not simply the power of nature. It is the power of human resilience. When people survive and communities endure disasters, they do so because of actions taken beforehand, with purpose, to make structures stronger and people safer.

    Prepare Your Family

    Making sure your family is prepared for any natural disaster is important. Below are some of the steps you can take to prepare your family and protect your home from natural disasters. Your actions can ensure that no matter what Mother Nature brings, you, your family and your community will be resilient.

    Here are a few tips to follow from the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes – (FLASH®) when preparing your family for any emergency.

    • Develop a family disaster plan that includes a list of food and water supplies needed for each member of your family and supplies for your pets. Make copies of important documents like insurance policies, the deed to your home, and other personal papers, important phone numbers and a home inventory. Create a checklist of important things to do before, during and after a disaster.
    • Review your evacuation route and emergency shelter locations with your family. Options for evacuation would include staying with friends and relatives, seeking commercial lodging, or staying in a mass care facility operated by disaster relief groups in conjunction with local authorities.
    • Taking shelter is critical in times of disaster. Sheltering in place is appropriate when conditions require that you seek protection in your home, place of employment, or other location where you are when disaster strikes.

    Review your plan regularly. If you make changes that affect the information in your disaster plan, update it immediately.

    Protect Your Home

    The power of these natural disasters can be overwhelming. While you can’t necessarily stop natural disasters from happening, there are steps you can take to increase your home’s chance of survival, even in the face of the worst Mother Nature can dish out.

    Earthquakes

    If the earthquake occurs in a populated area, it may cause deaths, injuries and extensive property damage. Here are some helpful tips to prepare your family and protect your home.

    • Plan and hold earthquake drills for your family.
    • Identify two ways to escape from every room in the home.
    • Keep a flashlight and sturdy shoes by each person’s bed.
    • Select a safe location away from the home where your family can meet after evacuating.
    • Have an earthquake kit containing water, food, medicines and other necessities for at least three days
    • Make sure your home is securely anchored to its foundation
    • Strap water heaters, appliances and TVs to wall studs.
    • Anchor bookshelves, heavy furniture, appliances and televisions to wall studs.
    • Secure pictures, mirrors and ornaments to the wall with appropriate fasteners.
    • Know where and how to shut off electricity, gas, and water services.

    More Information on Preparing For an Earthquake by Simpson Strong-tie

    Additional Guidance from FEMA

    Number

    Earthquake Home Hazard Hunt Poster

    FEMA 528

    Earthquake Publications for Individuals and Homeowners

    FEMA P-711CD

    Earthquake Safety Checklist

    FEMA 526

    Earthquake Safety Guide for Homeowners

    FEMA 530

    Homebuilders' Guide to Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction

    FEMA 232

    Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage — A Practical Guide, Fourth Edition

    FEMA E-74

    What To Do Before, During, and After an Earthquake a 1-page summary of FEMA 530

     

    FEMA Earthquake Mitigation video showcases Hearst Castle and a business owner both of whom mitigated for earthquake risk, thus saving priceless cultural treasures, properties and human lives


    Flood

    Devastating floods occur throughout the U.S. every year. Ninety percent of all presidentially declared natural disasters involve flooding. Flooding is usually divided into two categories: flash flooding and river flooding. Both can cause death, injury and property destruction. If you are building or retrofitting your home consider these recommendations:

    • Wet flood proofing your home allows flood water to flow through the structure. An example of wet flood proofing is installing flood vents that create permanent openings in the foundation.
    • Dry flood proofing your home prevents floodwaters from entering the building. An example of dry flood proofing is installing new brick veneer over asphalt coating and applying polyethylene film over existing walls.
    • Construct non-supporting, break-a-way walls designed to collapse under the force of water without causing damage to the foundation.

    Additional Resources from FEMA

    Number

    Above the Flood Elevating Your Flood Prone House 

    FEMA 347

    Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas

    FEMA P-85

    Floodproofing for Non-Residential Structures

    FEMA 102

    Homeowner's Guide to Retrofitting

    FEMA L-235

    Mitigation of Flood and Erosion Damage to Residential Buildings in Coastal Areas (brochure)

    FEMA 257

    Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Structures

    FEMA 259

    Homeowner's Guide to Retrofitting 

    FEMA P-312

    Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage 

    FEMA P-348

    FEMA Map Service Center provides access to Flood Maps and flood-related Databases


    FloodSmart Testimonial Videos are real life stories about flooding and its aftermath


    FloodSmart Levee Simulatorshows different ways a levee can fail and reminds everyone that a levee doesn't guarantee your home's protection


    FloodSmart Cost of Flooding Interactive Tool shows what a flood could cost homeowners


    FloodSmart State Fact Sheets explain facts about flooding in each state, risks during Summer Storms & Hurricane Season, and informational tips to reduce risk:


    Hurricanes

    A well-built home can stand up to hurricanes. FLASH provides homeowners the tools to make sure your house is hurricane-ready with the Protect Your Home in a FLASH program.

    More Information on Preparing for Hurricanes by Simpson Strong-Tie

    Additional Guidance from FEMA

    Number

    Coastal Construction Manual

    FEMA P-55

    Recommended Residential Construction for Coastal Areas: Building on Strong and Safe Foundations

    FEMA P-550

    Home Builder's Guide to Coastal Construction

    FEMA P-499

    Tornados and High Winds

    A properly built, high wind safe room protects your family from the most intense tornadoes and hurricanes and can be incorporated into a planned build or renovation to create a multiuse space in your home, adding to its value. FLASH urges homeowners to "Give an Ordinary Room an Extraordinary Purpose" by building or retrofitting interior spaces in their home to safe-room standards.

    • Tornado safe rooms are designed to withstand winds up to 250 miles per hour, and offer lifesaving refuge for families in the path of high-wind events like tornadoes.
    • Your closet, bathroom, laundry or even an outdoor room like a garden shed or pool house can be enhanced to serve as a safe room.
    • A safe room designed to meet standards set forth by the National Storm Shelter Association, the International Code Council and FEMA and will stand up to the most intense tornadoes and hurricanes.

    More Information on Preparing for Tornados and High Winds by Simpson Strong-Tie

    Additional Guidance from FEMA

    Number

    Taking Shelter From the Storm Building a Safe Room for Your Home or Small Business (brochure)

    FEMA L-233

    Taking Shelter From the Storm Building a Safe Room For Your Home or Small Business 

    FEMA 320 –

    Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Rooms

    FEMA 361

    Tornado Protection Selecting Refuge Area in Buildings

    FEMA P-431

    Wind Retrofit Guide for Residential Buildings

    FEMA P-804

    Wildfires

    Each year, thousands of acres of wildland and many homes are destroyed by fires that can erupt at any time of the year. Wildfires spread quickly, igniting brush, trees and homes. You can protect your home by following these tips.

    • Prevent wildfire damage by developing a defensible space in your landscaping by clearing at least 30 feet around your home, or 50 feet around your home if you reside in a heavily wooded area.
    • Plant fire-resistant, native vegetation and remove any dead or dying trees. Properly prune shrubs, and trim tree branches so they don’t extend over a roof or near the chimney. Mow your grass and control the height and spread of ground covering vegetation. Keep plants at least 12 to 18 inches away from the house.
    • When putting on a new patio deck, build from fire-resistant materials. On new and existing decks, create fire barriers around the deck base and clear vegetation at least 100 to 300 feet downhill from the deck base.
    • Install only burning-brand, exposure rated (Class A, B or C) roof assemblies using materials such as asphalt shingles, slate or clay tile or metal roof coverings.

    Additional Guidance from FEMA

    Number

    Home Builder's Guide to Construction in Wildfire Zones Technical Fact Sheet Series

    FEMA P-737

    Important Disaster Safety & Mitigation Links

    FEMA Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration's Building Science Branch develops and produces multi-hazard mitigation guidance, provides training on this guidance and works closely with the ICC and other partners to develop disaster-resilient building codes to reduce loss of life and property.  Building Science's Mitigation Assessment Teams (MATs) are comprised of expert investigators who deploy into the field post-disaster to assess the damages and make recommendations for future technical guidance and building code improvements. Download disaster-specific MAT reports and find out how to join a future MAT team.

    Other helpful disaster safety and mitigation links include:

    Simpson Strong-Tie

    Go to FLASH.org or www.safestronghome.com for more information on how to protect your home.


    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts -- Bertrand Russel

    There are only two or three human stories, and they go on repeating themselves as fiercely as if they had never happened before.

    — Willa Cather

    "LAW OF THE LAND"

    "No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. . . . . . . . . . . . " Northwest Ordinance (1787)

    King John himself could not have designed a more oppressive or abusive system.
    The Ninth Circuit noted that if the Act is read literally to make violations of Administrative Compliance Orders alone the basis for liability, then such orders "could indeed create a due process problem." App. A-10. It therefore "interpreted" the Act to require that civil and criminal penalties be dependent on whether or not there was an underlying violation of the Act.
    However, this is not an "interpretation" or "construction" of the statute; it is a rewriting of it. As the Eleventh Circuit correctly found, "no canon of statutory interpretation can trump the unambiguous language of a statute." TVA, 336 F.3d at 1255.
    In Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta, the barons conditioned the circumstances under which the Crown could strip them of their property: "No free man shall be . . . stripped of his rights or possessions . . . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land." Magna Carta, ch. 39.
    The Magna Carta thus linked the provision of adequate process to the underlying rights the barons wished to protect: "The main point in this plan, the chief grievance to be redressed, was the King's practice of attacking his barons with forces of mercenaries, seizing their persons, their families and property, and otherwise ill-treating them, without first convicting them of some offence in his curia." C.H. McIlwain, Due Process of Law in Magna Carta, 14 Colum. L. Rev. 27, 41 (1914).
    As English law developed, the link between process and property solidified. Parliament codified the Magna Carta when it passed the so-called "six statutes" interpreting Chapter 39 in 1354. The third statute declared: " 'Item, That no man of what estate or condition that he be shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer by due process of the law.' " Robert E. Riggs, Substantive Due Process in 1791, 1990 Wis. L. Rev. 941, 954 (1990) (quoting 28 Edw. 3, ch. 3 (1354)). Lord Coke also recognized that the Magna Carta was aimed at protecting property and other underlying rights by requiring an adequate process before the government could act. See Sir Edward Coke, INSTITUTES OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, PART II 45-46 (1641) ("No man shall be disseised, that is, put out of seison, or dispossessed of his free-hold (that is) lands, or livelihood, or of his liberties, or free customes, that is, of such franchises, and free-domes, and freecustomes, as belong to him by his free birth-right, unlesse it be by the lawfull judgement, that is, verdict of his equals (that is, of men of his own condition) or by the law of the land (that is, to speak it once for all) by the due course, and processe of law.").
    Roscoe Pound noted the influence Lord Coke's reading of the Magna Carta had on American constitutional law, particularly those portions of the Institutes where Lord Coke "considers the necessity of giving one whose rights are to be affected by official action a full and fair opportunity to meet the case against him - something we have been forgetting in much summary administrative action nowadays." Roscoe Pound, THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF LIBERTY 49
    The Founders thus accepted the English view that procedural requirements were a vital weapon against tyranny. This view arose not only from the influence of Lord Coke, but Sir William Blackstone's writings as well. See Charles A. Miller, The Forest of Due Process of Law, in DUE PROCESS 3, 7 (J. Roland Pennock & John W. Chapman, eds., (1977)) (quoting Blackstone's classification of property as " 'the third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman . . . of property: which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land' ")

    15 USC § 15h - Applicability of parens patriae actions

    Safe & affordable housing, 100% financing.
    `Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012''.
    Title IV--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

    Resource Record Details


    Telling the Tale of Disaster Resistance: A Guide to Capturing and Communicating the Story

    Resource Record Cover Image Thumbnail - telling_the_tale.jpg

    This guidebook provides some of the “best practices” of those who have promoted disaster-resistance efforts throughout the country. This publication provides a step-by-step guide on how to document disaster-resistance efforts, offers guidance for developing story leads, researching and documenting projects, and creating and promoting a finished product. If you’ve never told a disaster-resistance story, we hope you’ll use this guide as a starting point. If you’re already promoting disaster-resistance efforts, we hope this book will add to what you already know... and can pass on to others.

    Todays' Safety & Mitigation letter sponsored by: MIGHTY-POUR WATER & MIGHTY-HIGH POWER Co.

    THE HEAT REGULATION & REDUCTION INSTITUTE

    The Society for trust & better communication

    Mission Assurance & Confirmation Commission


    champions of change?
    C. Statutes Affecting the Competition Advocacy of the Antitrust Division



    GAO reportThe environmental impacts of OHV use, both direct and indirect, have been studied and documented over the past several decades. In fact, in 2004, the Forest Service Chief identified unmanaged motorized recreation as one of the top four threats to national forests, estimating that there were more than 14,000 miles of user-created trails, which can lead to longlasting damage. Potential environmental impacts associated with OHV use include damage to soil, vegetation, riparian areas or wetlands, water quality, and air quality, as well as noise, wildlife habitat fragmentation, and the spread of invasive species. For example, studies on the impacts of OHV use indicate that soil damage can increase erosion and runoff, as well as decrease the soil's ability to support vegetation. Additionally, research has shown that habitat fragmentation from OHV use alters the distribution of wildlife species across the landscape and affects many behaviors such as feeding, courtship, breeding, and migration; habitat fragmentation can also negatively affect wildlife beyond the actual amount of surface area disturbed by roads. In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that as a result of OHV use, the size and abundance of native plants may be reduced, which in turn may permit invasive or nonnative plants to spread and dominate the plant community, thus diminishing overall biodiversity. Another potential impact of OHV use is damage to cultural resources, including archaeologically significant sites such as Native American grave sites, historic battlefields, fossilized remains, and ruins of ancient civilizations. OHV use on federal lands generally increased from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, according to a majority of field unit officials from the Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service. Most field unit officials reported that environmental impacts associated with OHV use occurred on less than 20 percent of the lands they manage, although a few field unit officials reported that 80 percent or more of their lands are affected. Most field unit officials also indicated that social and safety impacts occasionally occurred on their lands. Most field unit officials from all three agencies indicated that environmental impacts of OHV use occur on less than 20 percent of the lands they manage; a few field unit officials, however, reported that 80 percent or more of their lands are affected by OHV-related environmental impacts.7 Forest Service and BLM field unit officials were more likely to report greater percentages of land with environmental impacts than Park Service field unit officials. The OHV-related environmental impacts that field unit officials identified as most widespread were soil erosion, damage to vegetation, wildlife habitat fragmentation, and the spread of invasive species. For example, officials from the Tonto National Forest in Arizona noted that the main impact associated with OHV use in the forest has been soil erosion, particularly in areas with highly erodible soils (see fig. 4). Additionally, officials from BLM's Phoenix District in Arizona noted that OHV use has fragmented desert tortoise habitat because the tortoise can be disturbed by OHV noise. Other reported environmental impacts included damage to riparian zones and harm to threatened or endangered species. Specifically, 31 field unit officials (7 percent of units that reported having OHV use) indicated that at least one environmental impact of OHV use affected more than 80 percent of their lands. The severity of certain OHV-related environmental impacts, such as soil damage, may also depend on the ecosystem in which OHV use occurs (see fig. 5). For example, BLM officials from the El Centro Field Office in southern California explained that the Imperial Sand Dunes are dynamic and soil damage from OHV use tends to be minimal, since most tracks are quickly erased by the wind. In contrast, certain desert ecosystems, including those in Arches National Park , have sensitive soils, and recovery from OHV-related disturbance to soils and plant life can be very slow. Additionally, Forest Service officials from the Manti-LaSal National Forest in central Utah stated that soil erosion is a major environmental impact associated with OHV use on their forest. Damage to the forest's soils often occurs from OHV use in the late fall (after the first snow), when the ground is wet but not frozen. While officials at the Manti-LaSal National Forest said that these damaged areas could recover in about a year with rehabilitation efforts, the areas often take 4 to 5 years to recover because the forest lacks staff to rehabilitate the lands more quickly. Similarly, Park Service officials in Big Cypress National Preserve said that the environmental impacts primarily associated with OHV use include disturbance to soils and vegetation, as well as disruption to the hydrology of the wetland ecosystem. These officials further stated that while plant life regenerates fast, ruts from OHV use can persist for more than a decade. Social and safety impacts related to OHV use occasionally or rarely occur on federal lands; although, an annual average of about 110 OHV-related fatalities occurred nationwide from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008 according to data provided by field unit officials. Forest Service and BLM field unit officials reported a higher frequency of OHV-related social and safety impacts than did Park Service field unit officials. The most often reported of these social and safety impacts were conflicts between OHV and nonmotorized users, displacement of nonmotorized users, conflicts with private landowners, and irresponsible OHV operation. For example, Forest Service officials at the Manti-LaSal National Forest said that motorized recreationists have taken over trails managed for nonmotorized use, resulting in conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized users. Additionally, BLM officials at the Prineville District in central Oregon noted that private landowners adjacent to federal lands, frustrated with OHV users driving on their lands, have taken enforcement into their own hands by placing cables and rocks across trails to prevent unauthorized OHV use. BLM officials at the El Centro Field Office also said that many OHV-related violations are due to irresponsible behavior, such as failing to have a safety flag on an OHV or driving an OHV while under the influence of alcohol. Nearly all reported OHV-related fatalities occurred on Forest Service and BLM lands. Although a majority of field unit officials from all three agencies reported having no OHV-related fatalities from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, some field unit officials did report fatalities—a maximum total of about 570 during that time frame at 117 field units. Specifically, Forest Service field unit officials reported about 250 fatalities at 68 field units, BLM about 320 fatalities at 45 field units, and Park Service 5 fatalities at 4 field units. While most field units that had OHV-related fatalities reported 5 or less, a few field unit officials reported between 10 and 75 fatalities. At a national level, the Forest Service's and BLM's management of OHVs is broadly guided by department-level strategic plans, as well as by morespecific agency-level plans. These plans, however, are missing some key elements of strategic planning—such as results-oriented goals, strategies to achieve the goals, time frames for implementing strategies, or performance measures to monitor incremental progress—that could improve OHV management. The Park Service has no extensive planning or guidance for managing OHV use, but this absence seems reasonable given that Park Service regulations limit OHV use to only a few units and that OHV use is not a predominant recreational activity on Park Service lands. The Department of Agriculture's strategic plan includes a goal to protect forests and grasslands. Within the context of this goal, the plan specifically mentions OHV management, identifying unmanaged motorized recreation as one of four key threats to national forests. The plan also identifies a performance measure to develop travel plans—which designate roads, trails, and areas that will be open to motorized travel—for all national forests, with a target of completing these plans by 2010. In addition to this department-level plan, the Forest Service has an agency-level strategic plan that identifies a goal of sustaining and enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities and, in particular, improving the management of OHV use. The Forest Service's strategic plan also reiterates the performance measure identified by the department-level plan—to develop travel management plans for all forests that designate OHV roads, trails, and areas. While the agency plan includes a goal—improving the management of OHV use—and one strategy to achieve the goal—designating motorized roads, trails, and areas—the plan does not identify strategies to address— or time frames to implement—other important aspects of OHV management as identified in the executive orders, such as implementing motorized-travel designations on the ground, communicating with the public, monitoring OHV trail systems, or enforcing OHV regulations. Given that the Forest Service has identified unmanaged motorized recreation as one of the top four threats to national forests, the agency's strategic plan provides insufficient direction on this management challenge. Similar to the Forest Service, BLM's management of OHV use is guided by departmental planning. The Department of the Interior's strategic plan identifies a broad goal of improving recreation opportunities for America , and BLM has two plans expanding on this goal for OHV-related activities. BLM's first plan, the “National Management Strategy for Motorized Off- Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands,” was published in 2001 as a first step in developing a proactive approach to on-the-ground management of OHVs. The second plan, BLM's “Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services,” was developed in 2003 and reconfirmed in 2007 as the agency's plan for recreation management, including OHV management. This recreation plan identifies numerous goals for OHV management, as well as strategies the agency can use to achieve each goal. For example, the plan identifies a goal of improving on-the-ground travel management and identifies three strategies to achieve that goal—conducting trails surveys to determine maintenance needs; implementing best management practices such as signs, maps, and the presence of agency staff in the field; and monitoring social outcomes and environmental conditions along trails. Despite identifying numerous goals and strategies to achieve the goals, BLM's recreation plan does not identify any time frames for implementing the strategies or any performance measures for monitoring incremental progress.8 For example, while the agency identifies a strategy of implementing best management practices, the agency identifies neither performance measures that could track the use of best management practices—such as the percentage of routes with signs or the number of field offices with up-to-date maps—nor time frames by which some of these best management practices should be implemented. Without performance measures and time frames, BLM cannot ensure that it is making progress on achieving its goals in a timely manner. Actions that agencies' field units reported taking to manage OHV use include supplementing federal funds with authorized outside resources (such as state grants), communicating with and educating the public, enforcing OHV regulations, and engineering and monitoring OHV trail systems. Additional efforts could improve communication with the public about OHV trails and areas and enforcement of OHV regulations. In addition, a majority of field unit officials reported that they cannot sustainably manage existing OHV areas; sustainable management would include having the necessary human and financial resources available to ensure compliance with regulations, educate users, maintain OHV use areas, and evaluate the existing OHV program. A limited number of staff for OHV management was identified as a great challenge for a majority of Forest Service field unit officials, most BLM field unit officials, and some Park Service officials. Field staff who work on OHV issues work in various capacities, such as managing volunteers, creating route systems, maintaining routes, educating users, and writing state grant applications, but most units do not have such staff. For example, at BLM's Phoenix District Office, OHV management staff maintain an ambassador program, which coordinates volunteers to educate users and promote safe, sustainable OHV use in the area. Managing this program requires one full-time manager plus 10 to 20 percent of the time of two additional staff. Officials from four field units we visited stated that although volunteers and partnerships can enhance OHV management, taking advantage of their labor requires a significant Conclusions Over the past 5 years, OHV use has increased on federal lands and has emerged as a national issue. Federal land management agencies have only recently begun to respond to this trend by revising their plans and how they manage OHV use, but they are having to do so in an environment of constrained budgetary and staff resources and other competing management priorities. Although they reported taking a variety of actions to manage OHV use in this environment, agency field unit officials reported that they cannot sustainably manage their OHV route systems. The likelihood that the Forest Service and BLM, in particular, will succeed in their efforts to enhance management of OHV use could be increased by improving the agencies' planning to include key strategic planning elements. Such enhancements could also help the agencies to more effectively address and manage some of the challenges that their field unit officials reported in managing OHV use on their lands, such as insufficient staffing levels and financial resources. In addition, developing more userfriendly maps and signs for their route systems and seeking more appropriate fines to deter violations of OHV regulations could provide all federal land users, including OHV users, a more enjoyable, quality experience while also potentially lessening environmental, social, and safety impacts resulting from OHV use. The GAO report states: In addition, a majority of officials reported they cannot sustainably manage their existing OHV use areas; sustainable management would include having the necessary human and financial resources to ensure compliance with regulations, educate users, maintain OHV use areas, and evaluate the OHV program. CRS Report for Congress July 11, 2006 Order Code RL33525gh th Recreation on Federal Lands Critics of OHVs raise environmental concerns, including the potential for damage to land and water ecosystems and wildlife habitat; noise, air, and water pollution; and a diminished experience for recreationists seeking quiet and solitude. Two executive orders define and generally guide administering OHV use on federal lands. The first (E.O. 11644, Feb. 8, 1972) defines an off-road vehicle, now commonly referred to as an off-highway vehicle, as “any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain,” with exceptions for any registered motorboat or authorized or emergency vehicles. It was issued to “establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” The order directed each agency to develop and issue regulations to carry out this purpose and to provide for the designation of areas and trails on which OHVs may be permitted, and areas in which such vehicles would not be permitted. Agencies were to monitor the effects of OHV use and amend or rescind area designations or other actions taken pursuant to the order as needed to further the policy of the executive order. A subsequent executive order (E.O. 11989, May 24, 1977) amended the 1972 order to exclude military, emergency, and law enforcement vehicles from the definition of off-road vehicles (to which restrictions would apply). It provided authority to immediately close areas or trails if OHVs were causing or would cause considerable damage on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or trails. Areas could remain closed until the manager determined that “the adverse effects have been eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence.” Also, each agency was authorized to adopt the policy that areas could be closed to OHV use except for those areas or trails that are specifically designated as open to such use. This meant that only open areas would have to be marked, a lesser burden on the agencies. BLM and FS managers formulate guidance on the nature and extent of land uses, including OHV use, through regulations, national policies, land and resource management plans, and area-specific decisions. In 2004, the NPS conducted an internal survey of current OHV use, authorized and unauthorized, and the extent of OHV damage (if any) at NPS units to respond to concerns raised by Bluewater Network.2 Currently, NPS is developing regulatory guidance and planning documents for individual park units, and considering what elements of OHV management may best fit under a national OHV management strategy. Meanwhile, on November 29, 2005, Bluewater Network and two other conservation groups sued DOI and NPS over alleged OHV damage to park resources. On October 19, 2005, the NPS also released draft Management Policies for public review through February 18, 2006,3 part of ongoing efforts to review and revise policies guiding management throughout the National Park System, including changing recreational uses and evolving technologies.4 One much discussed proposed change would require “balance” between conservation and enjoyment of park resources, whereas current policy states that “conservation is to be predominant” in conservation/enjoyment conflicts (§ 1.4.3). The extent to which this and other changes represented a shift in emphasis for management of motorized and other recreation is unclear. However, NPS subsequently made extensive changes to its draft policies based on analysis of over 45,000 comments. On June 19, 2006, NPS released a revised draft 2006 Management Policies that largely restores current policy language and its emphasis on conservation (§ 1.4.3).5 The 109th Congress is considering legislation and conducting oversight on issues pertaining to recreation on federal lands. Several major issues are covered in this report, particularly motorized recreation on BLM and FS lands; use of personal watercraft and snowmobiles in certain National Park System units; overflights of national park units; and expansion of the National Trails System. Other issues addressed cover recreation within the National Wildlife Refuge System; recreation at federal (Corps and Bureau) water sites; recreation fees; and Colorado River management within Grand Canyon National Park . While this report focuses on recreation issues on federal lands, it does not cover additional issues affecting these lands comprehensively. For background on federal land management generally, see CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. Overview information on numerous natural resource use and protection issues is provided in CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress, coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent. For information on NPS issues, see CRS Report RL33484, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. Information on BLM and Forest Service lands is contained in CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests, coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent. For information on appropriations for federal land management agencies, see CRS Report RL33399, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren. Current Issues Motorized Recreation on BLM Land (by Carol Hardy Vincent) Background. The growing and diverse nature of recreation on BLM lands has increased the challenge of managing recreation and other land uses, and managing different types of recreation. Access to BLM lands for a variety of recreational purposes is viewed as important for fostering public health, public support for land management, and a stable economic base for communities that depend on recreation and tourism. It also has enhanced interest in protecting the ecological integrity of federal lands from environmental harm as a result of recreational use. Motorized OHV use, including use of dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles, is a major recreational use of BLM lands that has been controversial. While motorized user groups often have opposed restrictions on OHV use, many environmentalists have been concerned about harm to natural and cultural resources. In some areas, OHV use may conflict with other types of recreation, such as hiking, that seek quiet and solitude on agency lands. There are also differing views on how effectively OHV authorities are being enforced. While BLM employs a variety of means of enforcement, including monitoring, law enforcement, signing and mapping, and emergency closures of routes, enforcement may be impeded in some locations due to their remoteness, insufficient signs, inadequate staff and resources, and other factors.Administrative Actions. Guidance on OHV use on BLM lands is provided in law, executive orders, and agency regulations and policies. Under agency regulations (43 C.F.R. § 8340), BLM has been designating public lands as open, limited, or closed to OHV use. As of October 31, 2005, the following designations had been made: open, where OHV use is permitted anywhere, 81.1 million acres; limited, where OHV use is in some way restricted, 126.7 million acres; and closed, where OHV use is prohibited, 11.6 million acres. The remaining 42.1 million acres of BLM land (mostly in Alaska ) are not currently designated. Other regulations govern OHV use in particular areas. For instance, on August 18, 2005, BLM issued final supplementary rules for its lands in Oregon and Washington , which include guidance on OHV use. The FY2007 BLM budget justification describes BLM's “most pressing challenge” as “comprehensively managing travel, off highway vehicles (OHVs), and public access in the West” (p. III-128). In FY2007, BLM plans to develop approximately 67 travel management plans, which will identify and designate roads and trails for motorized travel, and to begin implementation when the plans areCRS-5 6 The BLM Strategy and related documents are available at [http://www.blm.gov/ohv/]. 7 Available at [http://www.blm.gov/mountain_biking/]. 8 Available at [http://www.id.blm.gov/publications/data/recvisit.pdf]. 9 Available at [http://www.id.blm.gov/publications/data/recvisit.pdf]. 10 Available at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/071305.htm]. completed. The agency requested $63.8 million for recreation management generally for FY2007, a 2% reduction from the FY2006 level of $65.1 million. In passing H.R. 5386, the House approved $67.0 million for recreation management in FY2007, a 3% increase over FY2006 and a 5% increase over the Administration's request. BLM has issued two national strategies dealing with transportation on its lands. The National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands6 has multiple purposes, including to guide land managers in resolving OHV issues; to promote consistency of OHV decision- making; to highlight needed staff and funding for OHV management; to reduce conflicts among land users; to promote responsible OHV use and reduce habitat degradation; and to lead to an update of OHV regulations (which has not occurred to date). The National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan7 addresses mountain bicycling and other musclepowered mechanical transport. Further, to guide BLM managers in taking actions affecting recreation during FY2003-FY2007, in May 2003 BLM issued The BLM's Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services.8 BLM revised its land use planning handbook in 2005 regarding motorized and non-motorized recreation.9 The agency makes OHV designations during the planning process, on an area-by-area basis, and such designations often have been contentious and complex. Although the agency is in the midst of a multi-year effort to develop and update land use plans, many plans do not currently address OHV use and other relatively recent issues. In some cases, the BLM and FS jointly address OHV use on their lands. For instance, an interagency plan governs OHV use on lands in Montana , North Dakota , and South Dakota . Joint management approaches, where federal lands are intermingled, can promote consistency and public understanding of OHV guidance. However, BLM and FS lands are different, and they are governed by separate authorities, making complete consistency on vehicular travel management difficult to achieve. Legislative Activity. A July 13, 2005, House Resources joint subcommittee hearing examined motorized recreational use on federal lands.10 Agency representatives discussed the increased popularity of OHV use on federal lands, development and implementation of travel management plans, and challenges of managing OHVs. Other witnesses testified on availability of federal lands for OHV use, and the effects of OHV use on human health, the economy, the environment, and other forms of recreation. Some pending measures affect OHV use in particular areas. For instance, H.R. 3603 contains provisions related to OHV use in central Idaho . They include conveying BLM land to the State of Idaho to establish a motorized recreation park, CRS-6 11 Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States , Regions and States (USDA-FS Southern Research Station, June 2005). Available via the FS website at [http://www. treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/21307]. 12 70 Fed. Reg. 1023, Jan. 5, 2005. Also available via the FS website at [http://www.fs. fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/rule%20.pdf]. 13 Detailed information and documents concerning the 2005 final rule are available via the FS website at [http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index2.html]. 14 70 Fed. Reg. 68264-68291, Nov. 9, 2005. establishing a special management area on certain BLM and FS lands to provide opportunities for motorized and other recreation, and authorizing up to $1.0 million for the Secretary of Agriculture to grant to the State of Idaho for the off-road motor vehicle program. Motorized Recreation in the National Forests (by Ross W. Gorte) Background. The national forests are managed by the USDA Forest Service (FS) for a variety of uses, including many types of recreation — sightseeing, OHV use, backpacking, etc. — while preserving the productivity of the lands. Recreation use continues to grow, with OHV use among the fastest growing uses.11 The various uses and values of the national forests sometimes conflict with one another. For example, timber harvesting and OHV use may affect birdwatching and sightseeing, and can degrade water quality in certain settings. Decisions about what uses are allowed, and when and where, are made in comprehensive land and resource management plans prepared for each unit of the National Forest System, and at the project level. Because of multiple efforts to modify the planning regulations, many plan revisions were delayed. New planning regulations have recently been finalized,12 and plan revisions are now expected to proceed.13 Administrative Actions. Federal guidance on OHV use in E.O. 11644 and E.O. 11989 was incorporated into FS regulations, at 36 C.F.R. Part 295. Despite this guidance, not all forest plans have identified areas as open or closed to OHVs, and local practices as to OHV use vary. In 2004, the FS Chief identified unmanaged recreation — “increasing use of the national forests for outdoor activities ... , including the use of off-highway vehicles” — as a threat to the nation's forests and grasslands. In particular, OHV use has created many unauthorized roads and trails, which can be unsafe and harmful to other resources. In response, the FS has finalized new regulations to require forest plans to identify a system of roads, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle use and prohibit the use of OHVs and other motorized vehicles outside the designated system.14 Implementing directives are expected to be published for public comment during 2006, and decisions governing motorized uses are then to be made in forest planning (with public involvement) over the next four years. Opinions are divided over the importance and impact of the regulations. Some assert that the regulations do not go far enough, preferring that all OHV uses be prohibited in the national forests, because OHVs can (and sometimes do) damage CRS-7 15 65 Fed. Reg. 15077, effective April 20, 2000. national forest lands and resources. Others counter that the regulations penalize the majority of OHV users that obey the current rules and restrict off-highway uses at a time when other landowners and other federal and state agencies are reducing recreational access to their lands. The FY2007 FS budget proposes cutting recreation funds. Recreation management would be funded at $250.9 million, a $7.9 million (3%) reduction from the FY2006 level of $258.8 million. Trails funding would be $60.3 million, a $13.9 million (19%) reduction from the FY2006 level of $74.2 million, with a greater reduction (in dollars and percentage) in trails construction than in maintenance. Legislative Activity. The House-passed FY2007 Interior appropriations bill, H.R. 5386, restored or increased FS recreation and trails funding, compared to the request. Recreation management was approved at $262.0 million, $3.2 million (1%) above FY2006 and $11.1 million (4%) above the request. Trails funding was approved at $73.4 million, $0.8 million (1%) below FY2006 (all in construction) and $13.1 million (22%) above the request (increasing both construction and maintenance). On July 13, 2005, two subcommittees of House Resources held a joint hearing to examine motorized recreation use on federal lands. (See “Legislative Activity” under BLM, above.) To date, no comprehensive legislation addressing OHV use in national forests generally has been introduced in the 109th Congress. Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) The Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) application period opened on June 1, 2010 and the FY11 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance is now available. The  FY11 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance is available in the FEMA Library. The  FY10 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance is still available in the FEMA Library but does not apply to the FY11 HMA application cycle.



    Environment Day
    Marking the culmination of a full 20 years of planning and development, the Bureau of Land Management and its many partners this morning will dedicate the final leg of a trail running the full length of the eastern side of Keswick Reservoir. Open to all non-motorized users — horses, cyclists, trail runners, dog walkers — the single-track dirt trail runs from Keswick Dam Road north above the lake, connecting to an existing network that leads all the way to Shasta Dam. The final stretch isn't quite finished, but another week or so's work will link the trail to the stress-ribbon bridge on the Sacramento River Trail, just downstream from Keswick Dam. With multiple access points, loops, and side routes to waterfalls and overlooks, the Keswick-area trails can accommodate casual morning nature strolls and off-road ultramarathons alike. And they open to recreational users a beautiful stretch of the Sacramento River canyon that, until recently, demanded venturesome bushwhacking. It was in 1990 that the McConnell Foundation first doled out a grant to Shasta County to study converting the old railroad grade on the west side of Keswick Reservoir into a trail. Today that is the nearly fully paved Sacramento River Rail Trail, and the opportunities have grown rich on both sides of the river in what the BLM calls the “Interlakes Special Recreation Management Area.” There have been roadblocks along the way. Toxic old mine sites peppered the area beneath Iron Mountain Mine on Keswick's west shore. Post-Sept. 11, security concerns near Shasta Dam slowed development. And the route includes some private property, whose owners generously opened their land to easements. Through it all, the BLM, local governments and several private foundations toiled steadily toward scratching their vision into the hillsides. It's a tremendous accomplishment that local residents will enjoy for years. Everyone involved deserves our gratitude. And the best way to thank them? Get out and use it.  

    College of the Hummingbird - Center for Health, and the Institute for Liberty & Independence, (CHILI) Our Mission The College of the Hummingbird - Center for Health, and Institute for Liberty & Independence, (CHILI) works side-by-side with the nation's top emergency responders in the public and private sector to develop plans, policies, and strategies that ensure the safety of citizens in the event of natural or man-made catastrophes, (we'll bring the chili) and assure the defence and protection of the consitution. To fulfill that mission, CHILI focuses on general emergency preparedness planning, continuity of operations planning and training, preparation of special needs populations during emergencies, mass evacuation and sheltering planning, emergency communication systems, hospital coordination, table top and field emergency response exercises, the provision of adequate energy supplies during emergencies, and therefore is in need of grant writing assistance for governmental institutions seeking to provide funding for emergency planning efforts and similar needs. Iron Mountain Mine Re-Working Group Open Government & Communities Engagement Initiative Action Plan, June  2010 
      
    In December 2009, EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) circulated for public comment a draft 
    Proposed Action Plan for its Community Engagement Initiative. EPA received and incorporated public comments on the  draft Plan and also developed the OSWER Community Engagement Initiative Iplementation Plan. The Implementation Plan  lays out specific actions and activities that EPA will undertake to achieve the goals and objectives of this Action Plan.
     
     
     

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State  to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

    Federal sovereign immunity

    "Though this was the intent of the Congress [to waive sovereign immunity] in passing the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, the Supreme Court, encouraged by Federal agencies, has misconstrued the original intent." S. Rep. No. 370, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 67 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4326, 4392. See Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-95, [section] 116, 91 Stat. 711 (1977); see also Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. 217, [subsection] 60, 61(a), 91 Stat. 1597, 1598 (1977).

    The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.
    James Madison

    From such a gentle thing, from such a fountain of all delight, my every pain is born.
    Michelangelo

    Parents wonder why the streams are bitter, when they themselves have poisoned the fountain.
    John Locke

    Look within. Within is the fountain of good, and it will ever bubble up, if thou wilt ever dig.
    Marcus Aurelius

    Words that everyone once used are now obsolete, and so are the men whose names were once on everyone's lips: Camillus, Caeso, Volesus, Dentatus, and to a lesser degree Scipio and Cato, and yes, even Augustus, Hadrian, and Antoninus are less spoken of now than they were in their own days. For all things fade away, become the stuff of legend, and are soon buried in oblivion. Mind you, this is true only for those who blazed once like bright stars in the firmament, but for the rest, as soon as a few clods of earth cover their corpses, they are 'out of sight, out of mind.' In the end, what would you gain from everlasting remembrance? Absolutely nothing. So what is left worth living for? This alone: justice in thought, goodness in action, speech that cannot deceive, and a disposition glad of whatever comes, welcoming it as necessary, as familiar, as flowing from the same source and fountain as yourself. (IV. 33, trans. Scot and David Hicks)

    errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum

    'to err is human, but to persist is diabolical.'

    extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur

    impeach judge mendez

    .federal fascists

    federal faxcists2

    INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

    Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy. Although it is EPA's expectation that treatment or engineering controls will be used to address principal threat wastes and that groundwater will be returned to its beneficial use whenever practicable, ICs play an important role in site remedies because they reduce exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use and guide human behavior at a site. For instance, zoning restrictions prevent site land uses, like residential uses, that are not consistent with the level of cleanup.

    Often, ICs are a critical component of the cleanup process and are used by the site manager to ensure both the short- and long-term protection of human health and the environment. For this reason it is important to understand what constitutes an IC. Specifically for EPA, ICs:

    . are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and/or legal controls that minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use;
    . are generally to be used in conjunction with, rather than in lieu of, engineering measures such as waste treatment or containment;
    . can be used during all stages of the cleanup process to accomplish various cleanup-related objectives; and,
    . should be “layered” (i.e., use multiple ICs) or implemented in a series to provide overlapping assurances of protection from contamination.

    ICs are vital elements of response alternatives because they simultaneously influence and supplement the physical component of the remedy to be implemented. On the one hand, the right mix of ICs can help ensure the protectiveness of the remedy; on the other, limitations in ICs may lead to reevaluation and adjustment of the remedy components, including the proposed ICs. At some sites, remedy contingencies may protect against uncertainties in the ability of the ICs to provide the required long-term protectiveness. These points illustrate how important it is for site managers to evaluate ICs as thoroughly as the other remedy components in the Feasibility Study (FS) or Corrective Measures Study (CMS), when looking for the best ICs for addressing site-specific circumstances. Adding ICs on as an afterthought without carefully thinking about their objectives, how the ICs fit into the overall remedy, and whether the ICs can be realistically implemented in a reliable and enforceable manner, could jeopardize the effectiveness of the entire remedy.

    Often ICs are more effective if they are layered or implemented in series. Layering means using different types of ICs at the same time to enhance the protectiveness of the remedy. For example, to restrict land use, the site manager may issue an enforcement tool [e.g., Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO)]; obtain an easement; initiate discussions with local governments about a potential zoning change; and enhance future awareness of the restrictions by recording them in a deed notice and in a state registry of contaminated sites. Also, the effectiveness of a remedy may be enhanced when ICs are used in conjunction with physical barriers, such as fences, to limit access to contaminated areas.
    ICs may also be applied in series to ensure both the short- and long-term effectiveness of the remedy. For example, the site manager may use an enforcement tool to require the land owner to obtain an easement from an adjacent property owner in order to conduct ground water sampling or implement a portion of the active remedy. This easement may not be needed for the long-term effectiveness of the remedy and is terminated when the construction is complete. At another site, the site manager may use an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) or permit condition to prohibit the land owner from developing the site during the investigation. Later, the site manager may add a provision to the Consent Decree (CD) or the permit requiring the land owner to notify EPA if the property is to be sold and to work with the local government to implement zoning restrictions on the property.

    CERCLA as amended by SARA, the NCP and RCRA support the use of ICs in remediation of a site:
    CERCLA—Section 121(d)(2)(B)(ii)(III) refers to the use of enforceable measures (e.g., ICs) as part of the remedial alternative at sites. EPA can enforce the implementation of ICs, but not necessarily their long term maintenance. For example, the local government with zoning jurisdiction may agree to change the zoning of the site to prohibit residential land uses as part of the remedy, but the local government retains the authority to change the zoning designation in the future. EPA is authorized, under CERCLA section 104(j), to acquire (by purchase, lease or otherwise) real property interests, such as easements, needed to conduct a remedial action provided that the state in which the interest is to be acquired is willing to accept transfer of the interest following the remedial action. Transfers of contaminated Federal property are subject to special deed requirements under CERCLA sections 120(h)(3)(A)(iii) and 120(h)(3)(C)(ii)(I) and (II).
    NCP—the NCP provides EPA’s expectations for developing appropriate remedial alternatives, including ICs under CERCLA. In particular, it states that EPA expects to use treatment to address the principal threats posed by sites; engineering controls for wastes that pose relatively low risk or where treatment is impracticable; and a combination of the two to protect human health and the environment [40 CFR 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(A), (B), and (C)]. In appropriate situations, a combination of treatment, containment, and ICs may be necessary. The NCP also emphasizes the use of ICs to supplement engineering controls during all phases of cleanup and as a component of the completed remedy, but cautions against their use as the sole remedy unless active response measures are determined to be impracticable [40 CFR 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(D)]. In the case where ICs are the entire remedy, the response to comments section of the preamble to the NCP states that special precautions must be made to ensure the controls are reliable (55 Federal Register, March 8, 1990, page 8706). Recognizing that EPA may not have the authority to implement such controls, the NCP requires that (for fund financed sites) the state assure that the ICs implemented as part of the remedial action are in place, reliable, and will remain in place after the initiation of operation and maintenance [40 CFR 300.510(c)(1)]. Lastly, for Superfund financed and private sites, the NCP also requires the state to hold any interest in property that is acquired (once the site goes into O&M) to ensure the reliability of ICs [40 CFR 300.510(f)].
    RCRA—RCRA requirements are imposed through legal mechanisms different from those used under CERCLA. In RCRA, authorized states are the primary decision makers, this results in a wide variety of state-specific mechanisms being available. This fact sheet does not attempt to list all of the state and local IC mechanisms, but to identify key principles for the use of ICs. If the IC is being imposed through a RCRA permit, steps should be taken to ensure that long-term enforcement is not lost through property transfer or permit expiration. Cleanups under RCRA are conducted in connection with the closure of regulated units and facility-wide corrective action either under a permit [RCRA sections 3004(u) and (v)], interim status order [RCRA section 3008(h)] or imminent hazard order [RCRA section 7003] or other authorities. It should also be noted that landfill closure requirements under 40 CFR 264.119 require deed notices that the land has been used to manage hazardous waste, although the notice itself does not restrict future use. EPA expects to use a combination of methods (e.g., treatment, engineering, and institutional controls) under RCRA, as appropriate, to achieve protection of human health and the environment. EPA also expects to use ICs, such as water and land use restrictions, primarily to supplement engineering controls, as appropriate, for short- and long-term management to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous wastes and constituents. ICs are not generally expected to be the sole remedial action.

    Proprietary Controls—These controls, such as easements and covenants, have their basis in real property law and are unique in that they generally create legal property interests. In other words, proprietary controls involve legal instruments placed in the chain of title of the site or property. The instrument may include the conveyance of a property interest from the owner (grantor) to a second party (grantee) for the purpose of restricting land or resource use. An example of this type of control is an easement that provides access rights to a property so the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP), facility owner/operator, or regulatory agency may inspect and monitor a groundwater pump-and-treat system or cover system. The benefit of these types of controls is that they can be binding on subsequent purchasers of the property (successors in title) and transferable, which may make them more reliable in the long-term than other types of ICs.
    However, proprietary controls also have their drawbacks. Property law can be complicated because a property owner has many individual rights with respect to his or her property. To illustrate this point, property rights can be thought of as a bundle of sticks, with each stick representing a single right (e.g., the right to collect rents). The terminology, enforceability, and effect of each of these rights is largely dependent upon real property common law and the state where the site is located. A property owner can convey certain rights to other entities (either voluntarily or involuntarily through condemnation) and keep other rights. For example, if it is determined that a long-term easement is required to ensure remedy protectiveness, this “right” would need to be transferred by the property owner to another entity. For the easement to bind subsequent purchasers, some states require that the entity be an adjacent property owner. This may complicate long-term monitoring and enforcement since the party receiving the right (the grantee) is often not an adjacent property owner. To eliminate this problem, a proprietary control may be established “in gross.” This means that the holder of the control (the grantee) does not need to be the owner of the adjacent property. However, it should be noted that easements in gross may not be enforceable under the laws of some states. State property laws governing easements should therefore be researched before this type of IC is selected in order to determine its enforceability in that jurisdiction.
    A distinction at Federal sites being transferred to the private sector is that CERCLA sections 120(h)(3)(A)(iii) and 120(h)(3)(c)(ii) and (iii) require that property interests be retained by the Federal government. At active Federal sites, proprietary controls may not be an option because a deed does not exist or the landholding Federal agency lacks the authority to encumber the property. However, the landholding Agency may be willing to enter a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with EPA and/or state regulators providing for specific IC implementation plans, periodic inspections and other activities which it will undertake (in lieu of deed restrictions) to assure that ICs for the active site will remain effective.
    Enforcement and Permit Tools with IC Components—Under sections 104 and 106(a) of CERCLA, UAOs and AOCs can be issued or negotiated to compel the land owner (usually a PRP) to limit certain site activities at both Federal and private sites; CDS can also be negotiated at private sites under 122(d). Similarly, EPA can enforce permits, conditions and/or issue orders under RCRA sections 3004(a), 3004(u) and (v), 3008(h), or 7003. These tools are frequently used by site managers, but may also have significant shortcomings that should be thoroughly evaluated. For example, most enforcement agreements are only binding on the signatories, and the property restrictions are not transferred through a property transaction. For example, if a PRP under CERCLA signs a CD or receives a UAO and then sells his or her property, many types of ICs would not be enforceable against the next owner. This could jeopardize the protectiveness of the remedy. One possible solution to this problem is to ensure that the enforcement tool contains provisions requiring EPA or state notification and/or approval prior to a property transfer. In this instance, EPA could negotiate an agreement with the new owner. Another solution is to require signatories of an enforcement document to implement additional long-term institutional controls such as information devices or proprietary controls (i.e., layering).
    Informational Devices—Informational tools provide information or notification that residual or capped contamination may remain on site. Common examples include state registries of contaminated properties, deed notices, and advisories. Due to the nature of some informational devices (e.g., deed or hazard notices) and their potential non-enforceability, it is important to carefully consider the objective of this category of ICs. Informational devices are most likely to be used as a secondary “layer” to help ensure the overall reliability of other ICs.

    ICs at Federal Facilities
    Because of Federal ownership, there are significant differences in the way ICs are applied at Federal facilities. Some proprietary or governmental controls cannot be applied on active Federal facilities. However, for properties being transferred as part of a base closure, the Department of Defense does have the authority to restrict property by retaining a property interest (i.e., an easement intended to assure the protectiveness of the remedy). For active bases, ICs are commonly addressed through remedy selection documents, base master plans, and separate MOUs. More detailed information on ICs and Federal facilities is contained in “Institutional Controls: A Reference Manual (Workgroup Draft - March 1998)” and in the FFRRO IC guidance ("Institutional Controls and Transfer of Real Property under CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A), (B), or (C)," January, 2000).
    Legal Mechanisms for Imposing ICs Under CERCLA and RCRA
    CERCLA and RCRA employ the same types of ICs to reduce exposure to residual contamination. However, as explained below, EPA’s legal authority to establish, monitor and enforce ICs varies significantly between the two programs. As a result, officials involved in cleanups need to appreciate the range of options available under each program before determining whether, and to what extent, ICs should be incorporated into a remedial decision.
    At CERCLA sites, EPA often imposes ICs via enforcement tools (e.g., UAOs, AOCs, and CDs). Since these enforcement tools only bind the parties named in the enforcement document, it may be necessary to require the parties to implement ICs that “run with the land” (i.e., applied to the property itself) in order to bind subsequent land owners. For Fund-lead CERCLA sites, the lead agency has the responsibility for ensuring ICs are implemented. Legal mechanisms such as UAOs, AOCs and CDS should also require reporting to EPA and/or the state of any sale of the property.
    Under RCRA, ICs are typically imposed through permit conditions or by orders issued under section 3008(h). In certain circumstances cleanup may also be required under the imminent hazard order authority of section 7003. In the case where an IC is meant to continue beyond the expiration of a permit, an order may be required to ensure the IC remains in effect for the long term RCRA permit writers should incorporate ICs as specific permit conditions, where appropriate. By doing so, such conditions would be enforceable through the permit. At the same time, permit writers should consider whether additional ICs are available (e.g., governmental and/or proprietary controls) to ensure that subsequent property owners will be aware of, and bound by, the same types of restrictions. Similar factors should be considered when preparing RCRA corrective action orders to ensure that both the current facility owner/operator and any subsequent property owners are subject to effective and enforceable ICs that will minimize exposure to any residual contamination.
    One significant difference between RCRA and CERCLA is that RCRA generally does not authorize EPA to acquire any interests in property. Therefore, many proprietary controls (such as easements) will require the involvement of third parties (e.g., states or local governments) under RCRA.
    ICs and Future Land Use
    Land use and ICs are usually linked. As a site moves through the Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) or RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study (RFI/CMS), site managers should develop assumptions about reasonably anticipated future land uses and consider whether ICs will be needed to maintain these uses over time. EPA’s land use guidance (Land Use in CERCLA Remedy Selection Process, OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04, May 25, 1995) states that the site manager should discuss reasonably anticipated future uses of the site with local land use planning authorities, local officials, and the public, as appropriate, as early as possible during the scoping phase of the RI/FS or RFI/CMS. Where there is a possibility that the land will not be cleaned up to a level that supports unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the site manager should also discuss potential ICs that may be appropriate, including legal implementation issues, jurisdictional questions, the impact of layering ICs and reliability and enforceability concerns. It is also important for the site manager to recognize that, in addition to land uses, ICs can be used to affect specific activities at sites (e.g., fishing prohibitions).
    Screening ICs
    The need for ICs can be driven by both the need to guard against potential exposure and to protect a remedy. If any remedial options being evaluated in the FS or CMS leave waste in place that would not result in unrestricted use and unlimited exposure, ICs should be considered to ensure that unacceptable exposure from residual contamination does not occur. However, ICs may not be necessary if the waste that is left at the site allows for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. Remedy options that typically leave residual wastes on site and necessitate ICs include capping waste in place, construction of containment facilities, natural attenuation and long-term pumping-and-treatment of groundwater.
    ICs should be evaluated in the same level of detail as other remedy components. ICs are considered response actions under CERCLA and RCRA. ICs must meet all statutory requirements, and are subject to the nine evaluation criteria outlined in the NCP (40 CFR 300.430 (e)(9)(i)) for CERCLA cleanups. The balancing criteria recommended for corrective actions should generally be used in evaluating ICs under RCRA. However, before applying these criteria, the site manager should first make several determinations:

    Determining the Role of Local Governments
    CERCLA, RCRA, and the NCP do not specify a role for local governments in implementing the selected remedy. However, a local government is often the only entity that has the legal authority to implement, monitor and enforce certain types of ICs (e.g., zoning changes). While EPA and the states take the lead on CERCLA and RCRA response activities, local governments have an important role to play in at least three areas: (1) determining future land use; (2) helping engage the public and assisting in public involvement activities; and (3) implementation and long-term monitoring and enforcement of ICs. Therefore, it is critical that the site manager and his or her state counterpart involve the appropriate local government agency in discussions on the types of controls that are being considered. The capability and willingness of the local government to implement and ensure the short- or long-term effectiveness of the proposed ICs should be considered during the RI/FS or RFI/CMS. In certain cases, cooperative agreements may be considered to assist local governments in the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of required ICs.

    ICs in CERCLA Removal Actions
    ICs will rarely be a component of true emergencies where a time critical action serves as the only response at a site. It is more likely that a site manager will choose ICs as a component of a non-time critical removal action or during a follow-up remedial action. A post-removal site control agreement must be completed before commencing a fund-financed removal action where ICs are included in post-removal site control (OSWER Directive No. 9360.22-02). As in the remedial process, begin considering ICs when conducting an analysis of land use assumptions during the removal decision-making process. Where a final, site-wide, non-time critical removal remedy decision will be made, ICs should be thoroughly and rigorously evaluated with all other response actions in the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). In short, because ICs are considered to be actions, apply the full criteria required by
    the NCP for EE/CA evaluations. It is anticipated that ICs would not be chosen as the sole action for a removal.

    It is fundamental that a remedy under RCRA or CERCLA that includes ICs meet the following threshold criteria:
    • protect human health and the environment; and • for CERCLA sites, comply with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).
    The site manager for RCRA facilities should also consider whether remedies that include ICs:
    • attain media cleanup standards or comply with applicable standards for waste management; and
    • control the source(s) of releases so as to reduce or eliminate, to the extent practicable, further releases of hazardous waste that might cause threats to human health and the environment.
    Balancing Criteria
    The site manager evaluates the individual, layered or series of ICs to determine their respective strengths and weaknesses. ICs are also evaluated in combination with engineered controls to identify the key tradeoffs that should be balanced for the site. Following are balancing criteria required by CERCLA and the NCP and recommended by the RCRA program in guidance.
    Long-term effectiveness and permanence (CERCLA) or reliability (RCRA)—Under both CERCLA and RCRA, this factor assesses the permanence/reliability and effectiveness of ICs that may be used to manage treatment residuals or untreated wastes that remain at the site over time. When evaluating whether an IC will be effective over the long-term, the site manager should consider factors such as: whether the property is a government-owned site or a privately-owned site that is likely to change hands; the applicability of ICs to multiple property owners; the size of the area to be managed; the number of parcels; the contaminated media to be addressed; the persistence of the contamination; whether site contamination is well-defined; and whether local governments or other governing bodies are willing and able to monitor and enforce long-term ICs. The site manager should also consider the contaminated media to be addressed by the ICs. Different ICs may be required for different media.
    Where ICs must be effective for a long period, either proprietary or governmental controls should be considered because they generally run with the land and are enforceable. However, both proprietary and governmental controls have weaknesses in terms of long-term reliability. For example, with proprietary controls, common law doctrines may restrict enforcement by parties who do not own adjoining land. This can render proprietary controls ineffective if EPA or another party capable of enforcing the control is not the owner of the adjacent property. To eliminate this problem, proprietary controls may be established "in gross," signifying that the holder of the control does not need to be the owner of the adjacent property. However, some courts do not recognize in gross proprietary controls.
    At some sites, governmental controls may be preferable to proprietary controls. For example, the site manager might work with a local government to pass an ordinance to restrict construction or invasive digging that might disturb or cause exposure to covered residual lead contamination in a large residential area. The implementation of government controls might be considered a beneficial addition to information tools that may be forgotten over the long term or an enforcement action that would be binding only on certain parties.
    Proprietary controls would likely be deemed impractical at such a site due to the complex and uncertain task of obtaining easements from multiple property owners.
    Like proprietary controls, the use of governmental controls may not be effective over the long term. Of primary concern are the political and fiscal constraints that may affect the ability of a state or local government to enforce the controls. Similarly, governmental controls may be problematic when the local or state government is or may become the site owner or operator because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. Regardless of the control selected, its viability over the long term needs to be closely evaluated.
    Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment—
    This CERCLA and RCRA criterion does not apply since ICs are not treatment measures.
    Short-term Effectiveness—Short-term effectiveness of ICs at CERCLA and RCRA sites should be evaluated with respect to potential effects on human health and the environment during construction and implementation of the remedy. In order to satisfy this criterion, the remedy might entail the use of an IC through an enforcement order to compel the PRP to restrict certain uses of the groundwater at or down gradient from the site during remediation.

    After remediation is complete, other ICs might be implemented if residual contamination remains on site (i.e., implementing ICs in series).
    Implementability—This CERCLA and RCRA criterion evaluates the administrative feasibility of an action and/or the activities that need to be coordinated with other offices and agencies. Implementation factors that generally should be considered for ICs include whether the entity responsible for implementation possesses the jurisdiction, authority, willingness and capability to establish, monitor and enforce
    ICs. A proper analysis of implementability can be complex, considering such diverse factors as the extent to which land being restricted is owned by liable parties and the willingness and capability
    of the local government or other authority responsible for establishing controls for land or resource use.
    Cost—This CERCLA and RCRA criterion includes estimated capital and O&M costs. In CERCLA, estimated costs for implementing, monitoring, and enforcing ICs should be developed. For example, cost estimates for ICs might include legal fees associated with obtaining easements restricting land use, the costs of purchasing property rights (e.g.., groundwater rights, easements), or the wages of the state or local government personnel that will regularly monitor the IC to ensure that it has not been violated. It is interesting to note that once the total life-cycle costs of implementing, monitoring and enforcing an IC – which may exceed 30 years – are fully calculated, it may actually be less costly in the long term to implement a remedy that requires treatment of the waste. For more information on estimating response costs, see “A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study,” EPA 540-R-00-002, OSWER 9355.0-
    075. In RCRA, costs historically have played a less prominent role in remediation selection. Typically cost estimates are expected to be developed at the discretion of the owner/operator, although implementors should take into account sites where ICs are inappropriately costly.


    Modifying Criteria
    Typically the site manager presents the proposed remedy, including ICs to the state, local government, and community for comment prior to implementation. The issues and concerns of these stakeholders may result in modifications to the remedy and are addressed by the site manager in the remedy decision document. Following is a discussion of these modifying criteria (note: these criteria are only recommended in RCRA guidance).
    State Acceptance—The site manager should make the appropriate state authorities aware of the basis and scope of the ICs to be implemented under CERCLA or RCRA, and what role, if any, the state is expected to play to make ICs an effective part of the remedy. The state can formally express its concerns about the use of ICs, in general, and its role, in particular, or indicate its willingness to take on the responsibility for implementing and enforcing the proposed ICs. If the state’s position is uncertain at the time the remedy is selected (e.g., for CERCLA sites, when the ROD is signed or, for RCRA facilities, when the permit/order is issued or modified), it may be necessary to outline contingent remedial approaches in the decision documents. Specifically, remedies that require long-term ICs to remain protective may require alternative actions (e.g., additional soil removal) if the ICs are later determined to be unenforceable or cannot meet the
    remedial objectives. Alternatively, at a RCRA site, it may be necessary to leave a facility under a permit or other mechanism enforceable by the regulating agency. If the state’s willingness or ability to implement or enforce an IC changes after remedy selection, the protectiveness of the remedy should generally be re-evaluated and, when necessary, remedial decisions revised. Under CERCLA, this may require an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), or even a ROD amendment. Under RCRA, a permit modification or change to a corrective action order may
    be necessary. It is important to note that under no circumstances can a Fund-financed CERCLA remedial action be initiated without receiving state assurances on ICs and property transfer.
    Local Government and Community Acceptance—Involving the community and local government early during the remedy decision process will enable the site manager to more fully evaluate IC options. Discussions with the local government and community give the site manager the opportunity to:
    • gather local government and community input on the proposed ICs;
    • identify whether a particular stakeholder group may be harmed as a result of a proposed IC (for example, will a ban on fishing cause an economic hardship in the community);
    • receive comment on the impacts of the potential ICs on religious or cultural customs and beliefs (e.g., preventing access to property which grows the plants that are used in a tribal ceremony); and
    • determine if the community has special needs in regards to the IC (for example, will it be necessary to publish informational devices in multiple languages).
    In addition, the local government and community’s response to certain types of ICs and the willingness and capability of the local government to monitor ICs will help the site manager determine whether the ICs will be effective overall. This is especially important if nearby property owners will need to agree to implement proprietary controls or if other governmental ICs (e.g., zoning changes) will have an impact on the community. Early involvement will also enable the community to work with the local government to develop innovative approaches to using ICs, especially in light of any future land use plans.
    As with other aspects of the proposed remedy, the community should have the opportunity to comment on the proposed IC component of the remedy during the public comment period. It may be necessary to educate the community about ICs so that its members understand how the different ICs may impact their property and activities. Under CERCLA, it may also be possible, as long as all appropriate requirements are met, to provide a Technical Assistance Grant to the community so they can hire a technical expert to assist them in evaluating ICs and the overall remedy.
    In some cases, it may be appropriate not to identify the exact IC required at the time of the remedy decision. In these instances the critical evaluation of the available ICs should still be conducted and the specific objective(s) of the ICs should be clearly stated in the ROD or other decision document. Examples of when this flexibility may be appropriate are contingent remedies based on pilot studies or if a remedy would not be implemented for several years and the state is developing enabling language for Conservation Easements authority.

    Conclusion
    The ICs outlined in this fact sheet can be important elements of environmental cleanups. ICs play an important role in limiting risk and are often needed to ensure that engineered remedies are not affected by future site activities. When selecting ICs, the site manager needs to evaluate the situation at the site, define the needs that ICs are intended to address, identify the kinds of legal and other tools available to meet these needs, and ensure the ICs are implemented effectively. All of this requires up-front planning and working closely with the Regional office attorneys, the state, community, and PRPs or facility owner/operators. Key concepts to keep in mind when implementing ICs are provided in the text box below.
    If you have questions regarding the material covered in this fact sheet, consult the draft document, “Institutional Controls: A Reference Manual” or contact your Regional Coordinator in the OERR Technical Regional Response Center. For information on model language for enforcement or legal documents used to implement ICs, consult your Regional Counsel, OSRE or the Office of General Counsel.

    .

    EPA has not yet implemented ICs (Institutional Controls) as required at the IMM Superfund Site in the five signed RODs
    (EPA, 1986; EPA, 1992; EPA, 1993; EPA, 1997; EPA, 2004)




    [PDF]

    Iron Mountain Mine case study

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    Mar 7, 2006 ... Listing Iron Mountain Mine on the National Priorities List was key to the success of this project, as listing gave ...
    www.epa.gov/aml/tech/imm.pdf - Similar

    EPA, scientists tour Iron Mountain Mine cleanup project » Redding ...

    Aug 21, 2010 ... Jane Vorpagel burned through her camera's battery taking snapshots of the green and black crystals that mark the heart of Iron Mountain Mine ...
    www.redding.com/news/2010/aug/21/decades-of-decay/ - Cached

    1. [PDF]

      Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Iron Mountain Mines , inc. P.O. Box 992867 ...

      File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
      IRON MOUNTAIN MINES PRIVATE PROPERTY. Mineral Exploration & Mine Develppment . Mining • Processing. Producers of Industrial and Agricultural Minerais ...
      www. ironmountainmine .com/ iron %20 mountain / TEDS%20NEW%20PICTURES.pdf - Similar

    2. Redding.com: Blogs: Marc Beauchamp's blog

      Jul 4, 2010 ... I am corresponding to you again concerning my property known as Iron Mountain Mines , Inc., located in Shasta County , California . ...
      blogs.redding.com/mbeauchamp/archives/.../owner-of- iron -m.html - Cached

    Iron Mountain Mine | Online Resources for Environmental Impact ...

    by IM Mine
    May 4, 2007 ... Iron Mountain Mine near Redding, California operated from the 1870's to the 1960's (Verosub, 2007). The mineral deposits found and mined ...
    ice.ucdavis.edu/education/esp179/?q=node/164 - Cached - Similar

    Iron Mountain Mine : “A Hellish Pit” « KCBS All News 740AM & FM106.9

    Aug 29, 2010 ... Chronicle reporter Peter Fimrite says the abandoned copper mine is often called one of the most polluted places on earth with some of the ...
    kcbs.cbslocal.com/2010/08/29/ iron - mountain - mine -a-hellish-pit/ - Cached

    Toxics Program Remediation Activities

    Jul 2, 2010 ... Mine Shaft Plugging Assessment - Geochemical characterization of Iron Mountain and geochemical modeling studies predicted that if the mine ...
    toxics.usgs.gov/topics/rem_act/ iron _ mountain .html - Cached - Similar

    AR Index| Iron Mountain Mine |US EPA |Region 9|Superfund

    Jan 11, 2008 ... 06/08/1998, Richard Sugarek / Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9, T W Arman / Iron Mountain Mines , Inc, ROC: Site mine maps for view ...
    yosemite.epa.gov/.../3a76535e12b35ac288257007006085e2!OpenDocument - Cached

    Inside a toxic hellhole, Iron Mountain Mine - Aquafornia

    Aug 31, 2010 ... The Iron Mountain Mine , outside of Redding, is a hellish pit where acid water sloshes against your boots, greenish bacterial slime gurgles ...
    aquafornia.com/archives/31308 - Cached

    New Iron -Eating Microbe Major Component of Mining Pollution and ...

    Mar 10, 2000 ... Edwards says the microbe found in such abundance at the Iron Mountain Mine is probably more common in nature that is currently recognized, ...
    www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12467&tid=282&cid... - Cached - Similar

    Iron Mountain Mine dredging ahead of schedule; legal fight continues...

    Nov 22, 2009 ... While a dredging project to remove Iron Mountain Mine tailings from Keswick Lake is ahead of schedule, legal documents continue to pile up ...
    www.redding.com/.../ iron - mountain - mine -dredging-ahead-of-schedule/ - Cached - Similar

    Iron Mountain Mine , CA - Southwest Region - DARRP

    Sep 24, 2009 ... Location: Iron Mountain Mine , Shasta County, California. ... Overview: From the 1860s through 1963, Iron Mountain Mine (IMM) in Shasta County ...
    www.darrp.noaa.gov/southwest/ iron /index.html - Cached - Similar

    Negative pH and Extremely Acidic Mine Waters from Iron Mountain ...

    by DK Nordstrom - 2000 - Cited by 134 - Related articles
    In this report we present new data on acid mine waters from the undergroundworkings at Iron Mountain that have pH values as low as -3.6 with total ...
    pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es990646v - Similar

    Iron Mountain Mine | Implementation of the Recovery Act | US EPA

    Iron Mountain Mine was mined for iron, silver, gold, copper, zinc and pyrite from the 1860s through 1963. As a result of the mining activities, annual rains ...
    www.epa.gov/superfund/eparecovery/ iron _ mountain .html - Cached - Similar

    ShastaCountyHistory.com - Ghost towns

    Iron Mountain During the 1890s when Mountain Copper Company owned Iron Mountain Mine , a company town named Iron Mountain was located on the mountain. ...
    shastacountyhistory.com/ghost_towns - Cached

    Inside a toxic hellhole, Iron Mountain Mine - one of - Twitter ...

    Sep 1, 2010 ... Inside a toxic hellhole, Iron Mountain Mine - one of the most polluted places on Earth. www.sfgate.com - Derekmarkham (Derek Markham) ...
    twitoaster.com/.../inside-a-toxic-hellhole- iron - mountain - mine -one-of-the- most-polluted-places-on-earth/ - Cached

    Iron Mountain Mine CERCLA Site

    INCIDENT SUMMARY: Acid mine drainage (AMD) from Iron Mountain Mine runs out of the mine site and into several creeks, reservoirs, and the Sacramento River, ...
    www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/NRDA/ iron - mountain .aspx - Cached

    Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site Settlement; This is a Stauffer ...

    Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site Settlement; This is a Stauffer Management - Business Editors WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 20, ...
    www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-66237479.html - Cached

    ACID-LOVING MICROBE MAY BE A KEY TO MINE POLLUTION

    Aug 25, 2004 ... It is possible, according to Edwards, that the microbe found in such abundance at the Iron Mountain Mine near Redding, Calif., is ubiquitous ...
    www.biotech.wisc.edu/outreach/biotechnews/microbeacidlove.html - Cached

    ScienceMatters @ Berkeley.

    Feb 13, 2006 ... Every time UC Berkeley professor Jillian Banfield descends into the abandoned Richmond Mine in Iron Mountain , California, she's fascinated ...
    sciencematters.berkeley.edu/archives/volume2/.../story2.php - Cached - Similar

    Geochemical and biological aspects of sulfide mineral dissolution ...

    by KJ Edwards - 2000 - Cited by 65 - Related articles
    Jump to Biodiversity at Iron Mountain : seasonal and spatial relationships ... ?: At Iron Mountain , as at other sites ... within the Richmond mine . ...

    EPA Demo
    Iron Mountain Mine Site, CA

    1990 to 1991

    S. Jackson Hubbard
    (513) 569-7507

    Table 3-8 Projects Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil

    Iron Mountain Mine Site, CA. 1990 to 1991. S. Jackson Hubbard (513) 569-7507, Separation: Precipitation, microfiltration & sludge dewatering ...
    www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section3/table3_8_nfr.html - Cached - Similar

    Separation: Precipitation, microfiltration & sludge dewatering Sludge & leachable soil Heavy metals, non-volatile organics & solvents, oil, grease, pesticides, bacteria, solids Up to 5% solids, 30 lb/hour of solids, 10 gpm of wastewater Heavy metal precipitation, filtration, concentrated stream dewatering Filter cakes 40-60% solids, water recycled EXXFLOW and EXXPRESS fabric microfilter and filter press.

    HYDRONIUM-RICH JAROSITE AND ASSOCIATED WATER FROM THE RICHMOND ...

    by C ROBINSON - 2003
    Mar 28, 2003 ... The inactive Cu-Zn mines at Iron Mountain , California, are well known for producing extremely acidic drainage and a variety of Fe-sulfate ...
    gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003NE/finalprogram/abstract_51375.htm - Cached

    [PDF]

    TERRESTRIAL SULFATES IN AN EXTREME ACID MINE DRAINAGE ENVIRONMENT ...

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    Introduction: The Iron Mountain mining district, in the Klamath Mountains of northern California, is host to some of the most extremely acid mine waters ...
    www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/sulfates2006/pdf/7064.pdf

    GRIN | Characterization of Waterbodies Affected by Acid Mine ...

    by T Heise - 2010
    Mar 29, 2010 ... 17 Acid Mine Drainage in Tasmania, Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101. 18 Iron Mountain Mine , U.S.A. . ...
    www.grin.com/.../characterization-of-waterbodies-affected-by-acid- mine - drainage

    Geochemical Transactions | Comments | Acid mine drainage ...

    by G Druschel - 2004 - Cited by 68 - Related articles
    Acid mine drainage biogeochemistry at Iron Mountain , California. Gregory K Druschel* email , Brett J Baker* email , Thomas M Gihring email ...
    www.geochemicaltransactions.com/content/5/2/13/comments - Cached

    USDOJ: Environment and Natural Resources Division 100th ...

    Nov 4, 2009 ... The Iron Mountain Mine National Priorities List Site is a 4400-acre inactive mine ... Iron Mountain Mine treatment plant. Courtesy of EPA. ...
    www.justice.gov/enrd/Anniversary/2259.htm - Cached

    NRDC: Too Good To Throw Away - Appendix C

    The Iron Mountain mine , one of the most destructive Superfund sites, deposits 400 pounds of copper and 1400 pounds of zinc into Shasta County reservoirs ...
    www.nrdc.org › ... › All Recycling Documents - Cached - Similar

    .

    Too Good To Throw Away

    Recycling's Proven Record

    California Shasta County, located in northern California, bears many unpleasant reminders of the old gold rush days. The Iron Mountain mine, one of the most destructive Superfund sites, deposits 400 pounds of copper and 1,400 pounds of zinc into Shasta County reservoirs every day -- one-fourth of the copper and zinc discharged into surface waters for the entire United States. The Balaklala mine discharges acid and heavy metals into a tributary of the Shasta Lake, one of California's most important recreational lakes. In Southern California, upcoming passage of the Desert Protection Act will bring hundreds of abandoned -- and potentially life-endangering -- mines into the National Park system.

    Scientists Report First Sequencing Of Environmental Genome

    Feb 3, 2004 ... Acid mine drainage in Spring Creek downstream from the Richmond Mine, part of the Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site nine miles northwest of ...
    www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040202064701.htm - Cached

    [PDF]

    Acid Mine Drainage - USGS Publications 9/14/0

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    computations for acid mine waters, Iron Mountain , California. ... quality and discharge data for acidic mine waters at Iron Mountain , Shasta County, ...

    Microbial diversity in acid mine drainage of Xiang Mountain ...

    by C Hao
    Jul 16, 2010 ... Druschel GK, Baker BJ, Gihring T, Banfield JF (2004) Acid mine drainage biogeochemistry at Iron Mountain , California. Geo- ...
    www.springerlink.com/index/P724G2360247K403.pdf

    Shotgun sequencing finds nanoorganisms - Probe of acid mine ...

    Dec 22, 2006 ... The organisms in the mine drainage, which live in a pink slick on ... the Richmond Mine at Iron Mountain , Calif. The mine is one of the ...
    www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=21532 - Cached

    [PDF]

    old-shasta-county-gold- mines - lé W,

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    at Mammoth Mine on Iron Mountain. 'Note the '. ' !*'- player“s uniforms, the bleachers, ..... Gladstone Mine First Aid Dispe. Iron Mountain Mine Hospital ...
    www.gold-prospecting-equipment.net/.../old-shasta-county-gold- mines .pdf

    [PDF]

    US v. Iron Mountain Mines - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ...

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    May 5, 2010 ... hazardous waste on land where Defendant Iron Mountain Mines is located. Iron Mountain Mines is owned and operated by Defendant. T.W. Arman. ...
    www.acoel.org/.../USA%20v%20 IRON %20MT%20 MINES %205_6_ 2010%20ORDER.pdf

    Feds pay to clean up Blue Ledge Mine | MailTribune.com

    Jun 4, 2010 ... The company has extensive experience with mine remediation projects, including the stimulus-funded Iron Mountain Mine restoration project ...
    www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100604/NEWS/...

    Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference: Proceedings - Google Books Result

    Gary Almeraris , Bill Mariucci - 2009 - Science - 1386 pages
    In 2001, North Pacific Research was hired to upgrade the capture and control facility. The general layout of the Iron Mountain Mine is shown in Figure 1. ...
    books.google.com/books?isbn=0873353048 ...

    ShastaCountyHistory.com - Copper mining and the toxiccopper smelters

    In 1896, Mountain Copper Company began successfully mining copper at Iron Mountain Mine and built Shasta County's first copper smelter at Keswick. ...
    shastacountyhistory.com/copper_mining_and_the_copper_smelters - Cached

    Acid mine drainage - MicrobeWiki

    Aug 26, 2010 ... 6.1 Iron Mountain , California; 6.2 Acid Drainage Technology Initiative, ... Acid mine drainage in a stream just outside of Pittsburgh, PA. ...
    microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Acid_ mine _drainage - Cached

    Current Research

    Iron Mountain, California

    At Iron Mountain near Redding, CA research is currently focusing on a “molecular-level understanding of the metabolism of organisms involved in AMD formation”. The project is using several methods to identify the molecular community and the roles of specific organisms present. DNA sequence analysis is used to learn what organisms are in the environment and then fluorescence in-situ hybridizations (FISH) determines cell type distribution and geochemical conditions. Samples are taking from different locations such as sediments, pore fluids, free-flowing waters, and subaerial biofilms. These field samples then serve as innoculum in various media that are incubated under aerobic, microaerophillic, and anaerobic conditions. Information about growth rates, metabolic capability, and optimal growth conditions is taken from isolates which are then identified through DNA sequence analyses. Currently, analysis has identified Leptospirillum group II, Leptospirillum group III, and Ferroplasma acidarmanus. [9] Allen, E. and Banfield, J. 2005. “Community genomics in microbial ecology and evolution”. Nauture Reviews Microbiology 3:489-498. http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~jill/amd/AMDresearch.html#fieldsite

    Highlights of Research Progress, Genomic Science Program

    by I Gallery
    Apr 19, 2010 ... Microbial Community Thriving in Acid Mine Drainage ... abandoned gold mine at Iron Mountain , one of the nation's worst Superfund sites (see ...
    genomicscience.energy.gov/research/progress_metagenomics.shtml - Cached

    An Archaeal Iron -Oxidizing Extreme Acidophile Important in Acid ...

    by KJ Edwards - 2000 - Cited by 239 - Related articles
    THE COMPOSITION OF COEXISTING JAROSITE-GROUP MINERALS AND WATER FROM THE RICHMOND MINE , IRON MOUNTAIN , CALIFORNIA. H. E. Jamieson, C. Robinson, C. N. Alpers ...

    Advances in the Hydrogeochemistry and Microbiology of Acid Mine Waters

    by D Nordstrom - 2000 - Cited by 39 - Related articles
    refuse piles. This species optimally grew at 55°C and pH about 2. At the Iron Mountain Mine site, a new iron-oxidizing Archaeon has been found, Ferro- ...
    www.informaworld.com/index/910193110.pdf

    [PDF]

    Oxidation Kinetics of Tetrathionate at Low pH: Implications for ...

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    the Iron Mountain Mine site may be intimately linked to the mechanism and rate of sulphur oxidation in different environ- ments. It is the goal of this ...
    www.the-conference.com/JConfAbs/5/362.pdf - Similar

    Environment – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

    The Iron Mountain Mine acid draining treatment facility, the heart of the ... Iron Mountain, a former mine that is dripping with acid capable of eating away ...
    news.blogs.cnn.com/category/env iron ment/ - Cached

    World's most acidic water found in mine - Water Technology Online ...

    With a pH of -3.6, the puddles found in the Iron Mountain Mine are more acidic ... The Iron Mountain Mine was the largest copper mine in California in the ...
    www.watertechonline.com/news.asp?N_ID=14585 - Cached

    Acid Mine Drainage ( Iron Mountain ) - Analysis

    Acid Mine Drainage ( Iron Mountain ). Download · Analysis · Info · Home. Analysis. Assembly. Gene Calling. Annotation. • Acid Mine Drainage ...
    genome.jgi-psf.org/acidm/acidm.analysis.html - Cached

    Data Usage Policy (February 5, 2009)

    As a public service, the raw sequence data from the genome sequencing projects are being made available by the Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI) before scientific publication. The purpose of this policy is to balance the imperative of DOE and JGI that the data from its sequencing projects be made available to the scientific community as soon as possible with the reasonable expectation that the collaborators and the JGI will publish their results without concerns about potential preemption by other groups that did not participate in the effort.

    These pre-publication data are preliminary and may contain errors. The goal of our policy is that early release should enable the progress of science. By accessing these data, you agree not to publish any articles containing analyses of genes or genomic data on a whole genome or chromosome scale prior to publication by JGI and its collaborators of its comprehensive genome analysis. These restrictions will be lifted on the publication of the whole genome description or the expiration of a 12-month period after public release of the 8x assembly and draft annotation, whichever comes first. During this waiting period, the data will be available for any kind of publication that does not compete directly with planned publications (e.g. reserved analyses) of the JGI and collaborators. A principal collaborator or "champion," listed in the organsim's Info page and is the point of contact and arbiter regarding publication plans. Scientists are strongly encouraged to contact the principal collaborator and JGI about their intentions and any potential collaboration.

    Reserved analyses include the identification of complete (whole genome) sets of genomic features such as genes, gene families, regulatory elements, repeat structures, GC content, etc., and whole-genome comparisons of regions of evolutionary conservation or change. Manually annotated genes within the Genome Portal are also reserved. Studies of any type on the reserved data sets that are not in direct competition with those planned by the JGI and its collaborators may also be undertaken following an agreement to that effect. Interested parties are encouraged to contact the the principal collaborator and JGI to discuss such possibilities.

    If these data are used for publication, the following acknowledgment should be included: "These sequence data were produced by the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute http://www.jgi.doe.gov/ in collaboration with the user community." We request that you notify us upon publication so that this information can be included in the final annotation.

    The data may be freely downloaded and used by all who respect the restrictions in the previous paragraphs. While still in waiting period status, the assembly and raw sequence reads should not be redistributed or repackaged without permission from the JGI. Any redistribution of the data during this period should carry this notice: "The Joint Genome Institute provides these data in good faith, but makes no warranty, expressed or implied, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any purpose for which the data are used." Once moved to unreserved status, the data are freely available for any subsequent use.




    Do not show Data Usage Policy for Acid Mine Drainage (Iron Mountain) next time

    Microbiome Details

    Microbiome Information
    Genome Statistics
    Phylogenetic Distribution of Genes
    Phylogenetic Profiler
    Genome Viewers
    Export Genome Data
    Scaffold Search

    Microbiome Information

    Microbiome Name Taxon Object ID NCBI Taxon ID NCBI Project ID GOLD ID in IMG Database External Links Genome type Sequencing Status IMG Release Comment Release Date Add Date Modified Date Obsolete Flag Is Public Bins (of Scaffolds) Project Information GOLD ID NCBI Project ID Publication Journal Isolation Country Isolation Year Geographic Location Project Location (Longitude) Project Location (Latitude) Project Geographical Map Funding Agency Sequencing Center Metadata Isolation Temperature Optimum pH Phenotype Disease Relevance Habitat
    Acid Mine Drainage
    2001200000
    256318
    20823
    Gm00001

    metagenome
    Draft



    2006-12-20
    2010-04-17
    No
    Yes
    Method : tetra
            Thermoplasmatales archaeon Gpl  ( 410 )
            Leptospirillum sp. Group II  ( 70 )
            Leptospirillum sp. Group III  ( 474 )
            Ferroplasma acidarmanus Type I  ( 170 )
            Ferroplasma acidarmanus Type II  ( 59 )
    Gm00001
    20823
    Nature (428, 37-43)
    USA
    2005
    Iron Mountain California
    -122.515068
    40.678099

    "Iron Mountain California
    40.678099
    -122.515068
    "); GEvent.addListener(gmarker, "click", function() { gmarker.openInfoWindowHtml("Iron Mountain California
    40.678099
    -122.515068
    "); }); } //
    DOE, NSF
    DOE Joint Genome Institute, Univ of California, Berkeley
    Richmond mine at Iron Mountain California
    38-42
    0.83-1.28
    Acidic, Metal tolerance, Pink biofilm
    None
    Biotechnological, Environmental
    Acid mine, Biofilm, High metal concentration

    Metagenome Statistics

    Number % of Total DNA, total number of bases DNA scaffolds Genes total number COG clusters Pfam clusters TIGRfam clusters
    10830886 100.00%
            DNA coding number of bases 8854527 81.75%
            DNA G+C number of bases 4696265 45.77% 1



    1183 100.00%
            CRISPR Count 14



    12820 100.00%
            Protein coding genes 12559 97.96%
            Pseudo Genes 0 0.00%
            RNA genes 261 2.04%
                    rRNA genes 12 0.09%
                            5S rRNA 3 0.02%
                            16S rRNA 5 0.04%
                            18S rRNA 0 0.00%
                            23S rRNA 4 0.03%
                            28S rRNA 0 0.00%
                    tRNA genes 249 1.94%
                    Other RNA genes 0 0.00%
            Protein coding genes with function prediction 7172 55.94%
                    without function prediction 5387 42.02%
            Protein coding genes connected to KEGG pathways 3 2430 18.95%
                    not connected to KEGG pathways 10129 79.01%
            Protein coding genes connected to KEGG Orthology (KO) 3955 30.85%
                    not connected to KEGG Orthology (KO) 8604 67.11%
            Protein coding genes connected to MetaCyc pathways 1384 10.80%
                    not connected to MetaCyc pathways 11175 87.17%
            Protein coding genes connected to SwissProt Protein Product 0 0.00%
                    not connected to SwissProt Protein Product 12559 97.96%
            Protein coding genes with enzymes 2297 17.92%
            w/o enzymes but with candidate KO based enzymes 0 0.00%
            Protein coding genes with COGs 3 7095 55.34%
                    with Pfam 3 7265 56.67%
                    with TIGRfam 3 2449 19.10%
                    with IMG Terms 0 0.00%
                    with IMG Pathways 0 0.00%
                    with IMG Parts List 0 0.00%
                    in internal clusters 7303 56.97%
            Fused Protein coding genes 0 0.00%
            Protein coding genes coding signal peptides 2189 17.07%
            Protein coding genes coding transmembrane proteins 2416 18.85%
            Obsolete Protein coding genes 0 0.00%
            Revised Protein coding genes 4 0.03%
            Genes with Proteomic data 0
    1728 35.46%
    1762 0.00%
    1007 0.00%


    Notes :

    1 - GC percentage shown as count of G's and C's divided by a total number of G's, C's, A's, and T's.
          This is not necessarily synonymous with the total number of bases.
    2 - Pseudogenes may also be counted as protein coding or RNA genes,
          so is not additive under total gene count.
    3 - Graphical view available.

    Phylogenetic Distribution of Genes

    Phylogenetic Profiler

    Genome Viewers



    Compare Gene Annotations

    Compare Gene Annotations

    Gene annotation values are precomputed and stored in a tab delimited file
    also viewable in Excel.


    Download Gene Information

    Download Gene Information

    Gene information is precomputed and stored in a tab delimited file
    also viewable in Excel.


    Export Genome Data

    Download sequences and gene information for this genome.

    FASTA nucleic acid file for all scaffolds
    FASTA amino acid file for all proteins
    FASTA nucleic acid file for all genes
    FASTA intergenic sequences
    Tab delimited file for Excel with gene information

    .

    Protein Study Finds Clues to Microbes' Survival Techniques

    May 5, 2005 ... Acidophilic microbes thrive in this biofilm growing inside an abandoned mine at Iron Mountain , Calif. The microbes' metabolism creates ...
    https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news.../NR-05-05-01p.html - Cached

    Agenda 5 27 May 2010 Litigation filed against the Regional and/or ...

    Iron Mountain Mine Cleanup - State of Calif., CVRWQCB, et al. v. Iron Mountain Mines , Inc., et al., (EDCal No. CIV-S-91-1167-DFL-PAN) and U.S. v. ...
    www.co.merced.ca.us/BoardAgenda/2010/MG154943/.../5.TXT - Cached

    [PDF]

    Addressing Threats from Abandoned Mines in California Communities

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    Effects to biota are often acute (fish kills). ? Effects to plants are long lasting (barren hill sides). Iron Mountain Mine , Shasta County ...
    www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/upload/AML_Threat-presentation.pdf

    Natural Resource Restoration Plans, NOAA Office of the General Counsel

    Apr 21, 2010 ... Iron Mountain Mine Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council. 2000. Final Restoration Plan for Natural Resource Injuries From Iron Mountain Mine . ...
    www.gc.noaa.gov/natural-office2.html - Cached - Similar

    Iron Mountain Mine Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council. 2000. Final Restoration Plan for Natural Resource Injuries From Iron Mountain Mine. Report of the Iron Mountain Mine Natural Resource Trustee Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), California Department of Fish and Game, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Copies may be requested from: Eva Grey, USBR. [Southwest DARRP web site.]

    10/19/2000: U.S., STATE ANNOUNCE LONG-TERM SETTLEMENT FOR IRON ...

    The EPA listed Iron Mountain Mine as a federal Superfund site in 1983, ... Additional information on Iron Mountain Mine is available on the Web at ...
    yosemite1.epa.gov/.../ 6d8c6077be9d48d68525697d005f3ad3!OpenDocument&Start=1&

    RODS Abstract Information - Superfund Information Systems - EPA ...

    The Iron Mountain Mine site includes mining property on the topographic ... Iron Mountain Mines , Inc. (IMMI) acquired a majority of the parcels to the mine ...
    cfpub.epa.gov/superrods/index.cfm?fuseaction=data.rodinfo... - Cached

    .

    PRECISION WATER TREATMENT SOLUTIONS

    Iron Mountain, Redding CA - Bench Testing / Site Evaluation


    Iron Mountain Mine had the distinction of being the largest generator of metal contaminants into a drinking water supply in the United States. The varying volume of AMD flowing from Iron Mountain Mine ranges between 150 gpm in the summer to over 1200 gpm during periods of heavy precipitation.


    On this site, acid water draining from the underground workings within the massive sulfide ore bodies and mine waste dump are creating a monumental problem. Iron Mountain Mine contains many miles of tunnels and stopes containing millions of gallons of AMD. In the lower levels the AMD is under several hundred pounds of pressure and heat is being generated, assisting the normal chemical processes of breaking down the sulfide ores. This is creating a very concentrated AMD. One AMD source is generating an effluent that measures a pH of -3.6.


    This site has been an EPA Super Fund Site for many years. A decision was made to treat the AMD at Iron Mountain with lime; first, a single lime and, second, a dual lime system. By EPA estimates the amount of metal leaving the discharge stream from the site has been reduced by 95%.


    The volume of toxic sludge created by this double liming process is almost unimaginable. HPT has repeatedly attempted to obtain actual AMD treatment, sludge handling and storage costs at this site but neither EPA nor the Principal Responsible Party has been forthcoming with any financial information. The only information available at this point is the amount of sludge being generated and the cost of handling the volume of sludge are considerably higher than had been anticipated.

    Major Treatment Problems Associated With Iron Mountain Mine AMD

    The plant mix at Iron Mountain Mine is unusually high in copper (over 185,000 PPB).


    The copper present is in both of its naturally occurring ionic states: Cu+1 and Cu+2 with most of it in the Cu+1 state. Copper in the +2 state can be easily removed by addition of a lime Ca (OH) 2. The addition of CA (OH)2 starts a two-phase reaction: first, neutralization of the acid (H+) by it's association with the hydroxides (+OH-) =>H2O creating water, and second, the copper +2 is hydrolyzed to form insoluble copper hydroxide Cu (OH)2 that will precipitate. The calcium in the lime reacts with the sulfates (SO4) and forms CaSO4 (calcium sulfate) in large quantities. The treated AMD is now free of copper +2. However, some copper +1 is still in solution as Cu OH, or precipitated as an unstable hydroxide. When the pH is raised above 7.5, the copper +1 hydroxide will re-dissolve, re-contaminating the treated AMD with copper that may/will exceed discharge standards.


    Tests done at Lawrence Livermore National Labs (LLNL) showed the Iron Mountain Mine plant mix had an arsenic level of >17.5 PPM, a manganese level of >4.7 PPM and a cadmium level of >13 PPM.


    Because of the high pH necessary to remove these metals it was necessary to change the initial single lime treatment to a much more expensive double liming system.


    The use of both slack lime Ca(OH)2 and quicklime (CaO) make the process very labor intensive. The process has to be monitored extensively because mine run lime varies considerably in solubility and the amount of inert materials in each batch.


    For AMD sites that require the pH to be raised only to 7.0 or slightly above, this can be easily accomplished with common slack lime Ca(OH)2. If the AMD contains metals that require a higher pH the more active quick lime (CaO) must be used.


    The use of this double liming process has serious financial consequences. The amount of sludge generated can be double or triple what a single lime process generates. The second problem is that quick lime is very corrosive. Employees must use both breathing protection equipment as well as protective clothing. Quick lime is also very hard to store and has a tendency to absorb moisture from the air and this moisture oxidizes the quick lime into slack lime and usually turns it into a concrete like material making it hard to dispense.


    Lastly, any treated AMD that has a final pH above 9.0 will have to use some sort of pH control chemical to reduce the pH below the 9.0 discharge specification usually weak hydrochloric acid.

    Use of the Proprietary AMD Systems on the Iron Mountain Plant Mix AMD

    This AMD also contained high levels of arsenic, cadmium and manganese. By using the ISM pretreatment system these metals were oxidized or reduced so that they could all be precipitated at a pH below 9.0.


    The testing by LLNL proved our AMD process had successfully reduced the arsenic from 2600 parts per billion to 11 parts per billion.


    The cadmium and manganese were also significantly reduced. Starting cadmium levels were 4670 parts per billion and after treatment it was non-detectable or below 10 parts per billion. The manganese was reduced from 13,000 parts per billion to less than 90 parts per billion.


    The treated AMD was demetalized but was still very high residual sulfate level (over 60,000 parts per million). The sulfates were reduced with lime, creating a metal free calcium sulfate. During the LLNL tests, an agricultural grade of calcium hydroxide and some unknown calcium material was used to reduce the sulfate levels. This material successfully reduced the sulfates to 147 PPM from 35,700 PPM. We have never been able to duplicate this level of sulfate reduction by this method.


    Washington D.C. history

    www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/.../washington_bgf.html - Cached
    In 1800 the seat of the national government moved to Washington D.C. which was then only a swamp. Read this interesting description of the founding of the ...

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square [259 km²]) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings

    The City of Washington was laid out on a magnificent scale, in 1791, with broad avenues bearing the names of the several States of the Union radiating from the hill on which the Capitol was built, with streets intersecting them in such a peculiar way, that they have ever been a puzzle to strangers. The corner-stone of the Capital was laid by Washington, in April, 1793, with masonic ceremonies. Only the two wings were first built, and these were not completed until 1808.

    The site for the city was a dreary one. At the time when the government was first seated there, only a path, leading through an alder swamp on the line of the present Pennsylvania Avenue, was the way of communication between the President's house and the Capitol. For awhile the executive and legislative officers of the government were compelled to suffer many privations there. Oliver Wolcott wrote to a friend in the fall of 1800: "There is one good tavern about forty rods from the Capitol, and several houses are built or erecting; but I don't see how the members of Congress can possibly secure lodgings unless they will consent to live like scholars in a college or monks in a monastery, crowded ten or twenty in one house. The only resource for such as wish to live comfortably will be found in Georgetown, three miles distant, over as bad a road in winter as the clay grounds near Hartford. There are, in fact, but few houses in any one place, and most of them small, miserable huts, which present an awful contrast to the public buildings. The people are poor, and, as far as I can judge, they live like fishes, by eating each other. You may look in any direction over an extent of ground nearly as large as the City of New York, without seeing a fence or any object except brick-kilns and temporary huts for laborers. There is no industry, society, or business."

    Nullification Crisis

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      (Redirected from Nullification crisis)

    Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    skins
    An April 24, 1851 poster warning colored people in Boston about policemen acting as slave catchers.
    Hicks Thomas LLP Wins Ninth Circuit CERCLA Ruling

    .

    .

    SACRAMENTO, Calif., July 29, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Attorneys from the Houston and Sacramento offices of Hicks Thomas LLP won an important ruling this week at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after the court issued its opinion giving a narrow construction to "arranger" liability under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

    In Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust (No. 10-16916), a Modesto, Calif.-based dry cleaning operator sued Naperville, Ill.-based R.R. Street & Co. Inc. under CERCLA and California common law.

    Team Enterprises used equipment manufactured by R.R. Street to filter and recycle perchloroethylene (PERC), a chemical widely used in the U.S. dry cleaning industry. Team Enterprises claimed that R.R. Street and others in the industry designed equipment to improperly dispose of waste, which allegedly contaminated soil and groundwater.

    U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill granted Hick Thomas' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against R.R. Street. Judge O'Neill found that R.R. Street sold a useful product, and that Team Enterprises failed to present evidence that R.R. Street intended to dispose of hazardous waste.

    Hicks Thomas attorney Eric Grant argued the case before the Ninth Circuit, and was joined on the brief by firm named partner John B. Thomas.

    In the ruling issued July 26, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued its first CERCLA arranger liability decision since being reversed by the United States Supreme Court in the landmark Burlington Northern decision. In Team Enterprises, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's finding that a company selling a product that uses or generates a hazardous substance as part of its operation cannot be held liable as an arranger under CERCLA unless the plaintiff proves the defendant company sold the product with the specific purpose of disposing of a hazardous substance.

    "We are very pleased with the court's ruling," says Mr. Grant. "We believe that the standard articulated by the Ninth Circuit is fully consistent with Burlington Northern and should give guidance to trial courts that are hearing similar claims."

    Founded in 1997, Hicks Thomas LLP is a premier litigation firm representing plaintiffs and defendants across the nation. With offices in Houston and Sacramento, the firm provides in-depth experience in cases involving oil and gas, environmental, toxic tort, products liability, corporate governance, securities, banking, insurance coverage, transportation, trade secrets and business litigation.

    CONTACT: Alan Bentrup at 800-559-4534 or alan@androvett.com.

    SOURCE Hicks Thomas LLP

    Prosecutor Corruption

    www.prosecutorcorruption.com/ - Cached
    Mar 25, 2011 – Investigative Bloggers Exposing Corrupt Prosecutors ... environmental issues related to real estate transactions, and OSHA matters. ...

    Friday, March 25, 2011

    John E Collins Attorney at Law. John E. Collins Civil Rights Attorney. John E. Collins Criminal Defense Attorney.

    John E Collins Attorney

    John E Collins Attorney at Law.

    John E. Collins Civil Rights Attorney.  

    "Civil rights" are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or "discrimination") in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics.
    Historically, the "Civil Rights Movement" referred to efforts toward achieving true equality for African-Americans in all facets of society, but today the term "civil rights" is also used to describe the advancement of equality for all people regardless of race, sex, age, disability, national origin, religion, or certain other characteristics.
    John E. Collins ~ Where Do Civil Rights Come From?
    Most laws guaranteeing and regulating civil rights originate at the federal level, either through federal legislation, or through federal court decisions (such as those handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court). States also pass their own civil rights laws (usually very similar to those at the federal level), and even municipalities like cities and counties can enact ordinances and laws related to civil rights.

    John E. Collins Criminal Defense Attorney.
    John E Collins is a Criminal Defense Lawyer defending clients in federal and state court 


    John E Collins is a Discrimination Attorney. John E Collins will fight to protect your equal rights.

    John E Collins is an advocates for legislation and court rules to protect defendants.
    John E Collins has been an attorney for over 20 years.

    John E Collins is active in his community and cares about your quality of life. 

    John E Collins is an intellectual property attorney.
    John E. Collins serves as a member of the firm's Recruiting Committee.

    John E
    Collins - Attorney. "With a background in environmental law.

    John E. Collins has conducted internal investigations and advises clients on permits issues, environmental issues related to real estate transactions, and OSHA matters.

    John E. Collins began his legal career restructuring, recapitalizing, and reorganizing troubled companies. From 1992 until 1997, John E. Collins served in the office of the United States Attorney prosecuting cases involving bank fraud, securities fraud, and other white collar crimes.

    John E Collins is experienced in Real Estate Law.

    John E Collins is experienced in Contract Law.

    John E Collins Attorney at Law

    Investigating And Prosecuting Fraud & Corruption In The ...

    www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=77402 - Cached
    Apr 7, 2009 – 7 Apr 2009 - United Kingdom - Criminal Law - Investigating And Prosecuting Fraud & Corruption In The International Business Environment ...

    Kirkland & Ellis LLP > DePippo, Henry J.

    www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentid=220&itemid=9669 - Cached
    ... public corruption and criminal environmental enforcement. ... In addition to his extensive trial experience as a prosecutor and in private practice, ...

    U.S. News - Best Lawyers - Trombley & Hanes, P.C.

    bestlawfirms.usnews.com/firms/trombley-hanes-p-c-/.../9034/ - Cached
    ... Gary R. Trombley, a former federal prosecutor in the Middle District of Florida. ... Mail Fraud, Public Corruption, Bank Fraud, Environmental Crimes, ...

    Crowell & Moring

    www.crowell.com/Bios/John-Vandevelde/msword
    File Format: Microsoft Word - Quick View
    ... the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, securities fraud, environmental crimes, ... Mr. Vandevelde served as a prosecutor in the United States Attorney's ...

    Georgia Criminal Defense Attorney | Atlanta Criminal Defense

    www.atlanta-georgia-criminal-defense-attorney.com/ - Cached
    Former Federal Prosecutor Richard Rice – Atlanta, Georgia Criminal Defense in all ... Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations; Environmental criminal and ...

    Corruption & The Environment Transparency International

    www.columbia.edu/.../mpaenvironment/.../...
    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    Corruption and the Environment. Appendices. 70 government staff and officials in return for not prosecuting illegal logging. It has even been ...

    Corrupt officials prosecuting corrupt officials ~ like having the ...

    www.politicalforum.com › General Political ChatCurrent Events - Cached
    4 posts - 2 authors - Last post: Sep 29, 2010
    Corrupt officials prosecuting corrupt officials ~ like having the fox guard the hens ... prosecutors who were part of the broader Alaska corruption ..... Environment & Conservation, Human Rights, Other Political Issues ...

    TIME'S UP! :: NYC Direct Action Environmental Organization ...

    times-up.org/index.php?page=2008-08-15-cyclist-slam... - Cached
    Aug 15, 2008 – Cyclist Slam Renews Calls For Special Prosecutor ... attorneys in corruption cases or appoint special prosecutors to individual cases. ...

    TIME'S UP! :: NYC Direct Action Environmental Organization ...

    times-up.org/index.php?page=2008-08-15-cyclist-slam... - Cached
    Aug 15, 2008 – Cyclist Slam Renews Calls For Special Prosecutor ... attorneys in corruption cases or appoint special prosecutors to individual cases. ...

    Migratory bird rule

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The migratory bird rule, adopted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserted that the Clean Water Act covers regulation of isolated waters "which are or would be used as habitat by... migratory birds that cross state lines." The rule was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2001.



    Inspector General Report:
    Serious Safety and Quality Flaws at Hanford Waste Plant

    published Tuesday, May 01, 2012  

    Hanford Challenge Decries Appalling Lack of Oversight, demands
    Immediate Stand Down and Complete Investigation

    Immediate Release -  April 30, 2012                                                                       
    Contact:  Tom Carpenter  (206) 419-5829
     
    Richland, WA: The Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General released a report today that revealed a disturbing breakdown in Hanford’s quality program that allowed radioactive waste processing vessels to be installed without required documentation proving their integrity.  This means that the Department of Energy is unable to prove the safety of the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). 
     
    The IG also found a critical lack of oversight on the DOE’s part, and a failure to collect the repayment of a $15 million assessment against Bechtel, the contractor, when DOE discovered a defective vessel.
     
    Tom Carpenter, Executive Director of the public interest group Hanford Challenge stated:
     
    The Hanford WTP plant continues to be designed and built despite the tidal wave of allegations and findings on the lack of safety by key engineers and managers, who have sacrificed their careers to do so.  Now we have the findings of the Inspector General which reveal an appalling pattern of failing to design and construct a facility that safeguards the public -- a situation that we won’t tolerate here in Washington State.  Hanford Challenge calls for a stand-down of design and construction at the WTP and reconsideration of how to get this plant back on track.
     
    Carpenter pointed out that a 2006 60 Minutes show revealed the same allegations, when it was discovered that Hanford waste vessels called “scrubber tanks” were installed defectively and without proper quality assurance documentation and inspection. 
     
    “Six years ago, the Department was put on notice of this problem in a 60 Minutes feature yet failed to act.  The GAO testified about this issue in April 2006.  When will Congress realize that this agency cannot juggle safety considerations against cost and schedule pressures?” stated Carpenter.
     
    The DOE Inspector General report, entitled, “Audit Report on "The Department of Energy's $12.2 Billion Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – Quality Assurance Issues – Black Cell Vessels," was released on April 30, 2012.  According to the report -
    • “[T]he Department had procured and installed vessels in WTP that did not always meet quality assurance and/or contract requirements . . .we identified multiple instances where quality assurance records were either missing or were not traceable to the specific area or part of the vessel.”
    • “We also found that the Department paid the WTP contractor a $15 million incentive fee for production of a vessel that was later determined to be defective. Although the Department demanded return of the fee, it did not follow up on the matter and the fee was never reimbursed. Weaknesses in quality assurance records associated with black cell and hard-to-reach  processing vessels occurred because of deficiencies in Bechtel's implementation of its quality assurance program and a lack of Department oversight."
    • “The importance of black cells and hard-to-reach components cannot be over stated. Premature failure of these components could potentially impact safety, contaminate large portions of a multi-billion dollar facility and interrupt waste processing for an unknown period of time. For these reasons, we have made several recommendations designed to strengthen quality assurance controls at WTP. We have also recommended a more intense effort to recover contractor fee for the nonconforming vessel.”
     
    Hanford Challenge has been urging Congress to give another federal agency, the Defense Nuclear Safety Board (DNFSB), more authority and resources to oversee the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant.  So far, there has been no action.  Similarly, the Department of Energy has not taken meaningful steps to beef up its inspection or enforcement function, or otherwise show that it is willing or capable of conducting the proper oversight. 
     
    “The WTP is a decade behind schedule, 240% over its projected costs, and is able to treat only a fraction of the high-level waste that we were told it would.  So we are spending more and waiting longer for a facility that will do less.  And it is riddled with safety issues that appear irresolvable.  The stark truth is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if it had jurisdiction here, would probably not license this facility given its “quality indeterminate” state," said Carpenter.
     
    The consequences of a vessel failure inside the Waste Treatment Plant could be catastrophic.  Like Fukushima, the radioactive waste generates large amounts of explosive hydrogen gas.  The current design is under attack by Hanford engineer whistleblowers over the failure of the design to prevent or mitigate the possible release of radioactive materials to the environment in the case of an explosion or fire.  That is why the quality of the equipment inside the plant is key to safety.
     
     

    New Hanford water treatment plant first to receive LEED gold for being green

    Posted: 12:25pm on May 9, 2012; Modified: 1:25pm on May 9, 2012

    A view from the top of the 200 West Groundwater Treatment Facility, with the LEED Gold-certified process building shown, left .

    A view from the top of the 200 West Ground Water Treatment Facility, with the LEED Gold-certified process building shown, left. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    A sophisticated new water treatment plant in central Hanford is the first plant in the Department of Energy’s defense environmental cleanup complex to win LEED gold certification for being green.

    The Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, program, recognizes sustainable design. Gold is its second highest ranking.

    “Achieving LEED certification required diligence on the part of the entire project team because the focus is on energy use and recycling goals for both construction and operation,” said Kent Dorr, CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Co. vice president, in a statement.

    DOE and CH2M Hill worked together to use 420 tons of recycled concrete to build the 200 West Ground Water Treatment Facility. About half of the steel used also was recycled.

    Translucent panels will reduce the need for interior lighting.

    The building’s efficient design is expected to result in an energy cost savings of more than 70 percent over the life of the facility, according to CH2M Hill.

    Construction of the ground water treatment plant was finished in 2011 and work is under way to start operations this summer.

    It will remove contamination from ground water in a five-square-mile area contaminated from the past production of weapons plutonium at Hanford.

    The plant is expected to be capable of removing more types of radioactive and chemical contaminants than any other facility of its type in the DOE complex.


    military whistleblowers

    McCain, Levin want more information from defense secretary Panetta

    Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) want more information from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about an inspector general's report criticizing the Pentagon's treatment of whistleblowers — a report first disclosed by the Center and the Project on Government Oversight.

    Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and McCain, the panel's ranking member, made their feelings known Tuesday in a letter to Panetta.

    "Last Sunday, the Washington Post reported on an 'internal Pentagon report' finding that the Department of Defense Inspector General unit responsible for protecting military whistleblowers had failed to do its job," wrote the Senators, referring to the Center story that was reprinted in the Post. "According to the article, the May 2011 report found 'persistent sloppiness and a systematic disregard for Pentagon rules meant to protect those who report fraud, abuses, and the waste of taxpayer funds.'

    "We understand that this report was initiated and conducted by the Inspector General, and that the Inspector General has made a number of changes in an effort to address the problems identified in the report," the letter concludes. "Nonetheless, the systematic failure of the Department to protect military whistleblowers from reprisal is a matter of grave concern. Accordingly, we ask that you provide us with a copy of the report and advise us of the actions that have been taken and will be taken to address the problems identified in the report - including steps to re-open any reprisal cases that were inadequately investigated or erroneously dismissed."


    press release

    May 8, 2012, 1:18 p.m. EDT

    NRCS Invests $2.5 Million to Protect Watersheds of Concern

    DAVIS, Calif., May 8, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Landowners in five watersheds will receive targeted funding to improve water quality

    In conjunction with a national water quality initiative, The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in California will invest $2.5 million in targeted funds to improve water quality in five high priority watersheds in California.

    "NRCS California is proud to participate in this national campaign to add on-farm water quality improvements within targeted watersheds," said Ed Burton, NRCS California state conservationist. "These additional funds will help landowners to voluntarily address issues related to Clean Water Act compliance and keep their farms and ranches healthy and productive."

    Using funds through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), NRCS will provide financial and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to install conservation practices that help to stabilize soil and reduce the transport of sediments and other pollutants into public waters. This assistance will help landowners address high priority water resource concerns in small watersheds with streams or water bodies that are impacted by agricultural runoff and under increased regulatory scrutiny.

    Applications will be batched and evaluated on May 18 and again on June 15, 2012; those received by the earlier date will have a higher chance of being funded.

    Through this effort, eligible farmers and ranchers will partner with NRCS to invest in voluntary conservation actions to help provide cleaner water for their neighbors and communities. The selected watersheds were identified with help from state and federal agencies, and other conservation partners.

    The following five watersheds are eligible for assistance:

    Calleguas Creek: Revlon Slough, Ventura County

    Calleguas Creek: Town of Nyland - Frontal Pacific Ocean, Ventura County

    Big-Navarro-Garcia: Upper Garcia River, Mendocino County

    Big-Navarro-Garcia: Middle Garcia River, Mendocino County

    Lower Eel: Salt River, Humboldt County

    This effort helps landowners in eligible watersheds to qualify for financial assistance by competing for targeted funds with a smaller pool of applicants. Typically, NRCS receives a large number of applications for EQIP funding each fiscal year and only about 30 percent of farmers and ranchers are successful.

    Eligible farmers and ranchers should visit http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ or contact their local NRCS office for additional information on eligible practices and to submit an application.

    NRCS has provided leadership in a partnership effort to help America's private land owners and managers conserve their soil, water and other natural resources since 1935. For more information on NRCS, visit www.nrcs.usda.gov .

    SOURCE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service

    This sign near the entrance of Talking Water Gardens doesn't mention smoking. (Hasso Hering/Democrat-Herald)

    Albany, Millersburg officials want no butts getting into the river

    Dogs on leashes are OK at the Talking Water Gardens, but smoking tobacco is not.

    Albany Councilman Floyd Collins told the city council Monday that the joint Albany-Millersburg committee managing the area had made that decision in March.

    The Water Gardens are the 50-acre constructed wetlands where treated wastewater from the cities and the Wah Chang industrial plant gets additional filtering in a series of ponds and waterfalls before being discharged to the Willamette River.

    The area at the north end of Waverly Drive, laced with two miles of walkways, has become a haven for wildlife. The area is now open to the public. A grand opening is scheduled for June 20.

    At Monday’s council work session, Collins just wanted to let his colleagues know what the management committee had decided. But an extended discussion ensued.

    Signs have already been put up regarding the smoking ban, the council was told. But the D-H could not find any Monday night.

    The joint management committee decided on the smoking ban because essentially the area is part of a treatment facility, Collins said, and the committee did not want cigarette butts and filters to get into the water and then the river.

    The question of enforcement came up. It’s complicated because Talking Water Gardens is not an Albany park, so park regulations would not apply even if parks restricted smoking, which only Monteith Riverpark does during River Rhythms concerts.

    Also, the Water Gardens are in Millersburg, where Albany ordinances have no sway. But Millersburg lacks a city court, so if it wanted to ban smoking, it could not back it up.

    City Attorney Jim Delapoer said nobody wants to be heavy-handed about this, but any ban will inevitably be tested. He suggested writing up a regulation against smoking at Talking Water Gardens plus an intergovernmental agreement in which Millersburg would ask Albany to enforce the prohibition.

    Mayor Sharon Konopa and City Manager Wes Hare said they would ask the city attorney to draft an agreement, for council action later.

    Councilor Bessie Johnson said it would be an unenforceable law. But Councilor Bill Coburn said the issue should be taken seriously because elsewhere, a corporate property owner had been penalized for violating the Clean Water Act when construction workers tossed away paper cups that found their way into a waterway.

    Hare said that even before rules are written, he was sure most people would simply observe no-smoking signs.

    Copyright 2012 democratherald.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Copyright (C) 2012 PR Newswire. All rights reserved


    Fishing for answers

    The Corps of Engineers is studying how steelhead and chinook salmon fare when they pass through the turbines at Foster Dam

    FOSTER — For the next few weeks, biologist Robert McDonald’s job will be to stand near the spillway at Foster Dam and herd 5- to 6-inch steelhead and chinook salmon smolt into a basket attached to a long rope.

    It’s not an easy task.

    But brightly colored balloons attached to the smolt make the job a bit easier for McDonald and co-worker Matthew Williams.

    “We hope to collect 150 fish today,” McDonald said Friday, as Williams collected a bright silver smolt from the basket and removed the balloon.

    Their work is part of a month-long study to improve the survival rate of steelhead and chinook salmon passing through the dam that was built and has been operated since the mid-1960s by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    Their research is looking at the survival rates of smolt that pass through two electricity-producing turbines in the dam and over a temporary weir in one of the four steel spillway gates.

    Corps of Engineers spokesman Scott Clemans said the project is based in part on the July 2008 biological opinion concerning the effect of the dams on threatened and endangered fish species issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    “The 13 Willamette Valley Project dams were constructed from the 1940s through the 1960s,” Clemans said. “They were designed for flood control, irrigation and recreation. But to fish, they are a big stop sign.”

    Comtex





    Monday, May 7, 2012
    Daily Newsletter


    'Curbside' features Waste Expo highlights
    Filmed on location of Waste Expo, this week's "Curbside Live," features highlights from the event held in Las Vegas last week.


    EPA's hubris

    Posted: Sunday, May 6, 2012

    Ed Moreen, a project manger for EPA, working on the clean-up of the Silver Valley, is a nice guy. So is Terry Harwood, an employee of the Idaho Department of Ecology.

    Sincerity oozes from both as they explain what government is doing to protect human health, and the flora, fauna and wildlife within a mammoth basin-wide Superfund site covering the full drainages of the South Fork and North Forks of the Coeur d’Alene River.

    Both men, however, reflect the arrogance so many bureaucrats display----that smugness that comes from feeling they have the facts and all the answers. .

    The ancient Greeks called it “hubris.” It was on full display last week when the agency conducted an informational meeting at the Medimont Grange Hall. Twenty of my neighbors and I showed up to listen and ask questions.

    Like all the “chain lakes” that lie on either side of the Coeur d’Alene River between Cataldo and Harrison, nearby Cave and Medicine were swollen with water from the spring mountain run-off and unusually heavy rains. Adjacent fields in the flood plain were mostly underwater.

    Therein lies the problem. Each year this seasonal flow brings new amounts of lead and zinc from historic waste dumps throughout one of the most mineralized and mined areas in the nation. EPA, under the Superfund Law and the Clean Water Act, is the lead agency in overseeing removal of the most contaminated soils and then remediation.

    Funding this effort is $750 million extracted from Asarco, HECLA and other mining companies who historically contributed to the creation of the waste. By law the money can only be expended for clean-up in the basin.

    But how clean is clean? And how much sense does it make to remove and remediate areas in the flood-plain that just a year later are flooded again with contaminated water? How thorough are studies on human health impacts in the area as opposed to studies about the white swans several of which die each year from ingesting excessive zinc and lead in the plants they eat.

    EPA has divided the basin into an upper and a lower portion. Most work so far has been done in the upper basin, cleaning up in the 21 square mile “box” surrounding the old Bunker Hill site in Kellogg,. Now attention is turning to the lower basin and there are significant differences EPA best take note of.

    Utilizing its traditional methods of public participation, EPA is forming “collaboratives” of interested parties. They claim these advisory groups will have real input into their “adaptive management” approach to clean up solutions.

    People are justifiably skeptical. What they see is an agency hell bent on spending $750 million on clean up whether it is justified or not. Despite having been in the Silver Valley 20 years, the agency has no real time-line nor any real cost numbers for its plans in the lower basin, or so it claims.

    Despite federal law clearly defining EPA’s authority to be limited to just navigable waters with ground water management left to the states, they see and read about an agency that proposes legislation to do away with that distinction and give them control over ground water also. Just to the north, in Bonner County, they see where EPA tried to deny property owners the right of judicial review of EPA’s decisions to decide what is and is not a wetland.

    They also see an agency whose subcontractors tell property owners if they don’t submit to soil sampling they’ll never be able to sell their property because while they of course won’t inform title companies which properties are clean and/or remediated, they will of course have to answer questions that lenders inevitably will pose. That of course is not a threat.

    What Ed and Terry don’t get is folks around here don’t like the sense of money being spent just because it is there to spend. They want to know just what goes into the cost benefit formulas and whether the models constructed allow for empirical data, or just some bureaucrat’s calculation of what the variables are.

    Ed and Terry’s arrogance really showed at the end when they dismissed as a “pipe dream” a question regarding Congress possibly accessing the settlement funds since federal appropriations for NPL clean-ups are declining under other pressures. “Never will happen,” Ed said.

    Ed and his agency ignore at their peril this flag. The suggestion that their “storebox” might be raided came from none other than Idaho Second District congressman Mike Simpson, the chairman of the appropriation subcommittee over-seeing the EPA budget.

    Yes, EPA is offering short-term jobs without benefits to those contracted with locally to undertake clean-up activities. My neighbors are trying to tell EPA you have created such a stigma by over-playing the health threat that it is going to be impossible for the current mining operations, which offer long-term jobs with benefits, to ever again flourish despite there being plenty of minerals left to be extracted compatibly with the environment.

    Especially noteworthy and sad to this observer was the meeting had no moment of silence or any mention that the day, May 2nd, was the 40th anniversary of the Sunshine Mining disaster that took 91 lives from the valley.

    Believe me, the people of my home valley understand risk as well as reward, productive work as opposed to make work, benefits that outweigh costs, humility as opposed to arrogance, respect as opposed to benign tolerance. EPA still doesn’t get it.

    Inspector General presses for answers on certain lab costs ...
    The Office of Inspector General issued a report this week which looks into the questioned, unresolved and potentially unallowable costs that have been incurred ...
    www.lamonitor.com/.../inspector-general-presses-answers-cert...

    Subject:
     Earth Month Tip of the Day: Play it safe.
     From:
    To:

    Play it safe.

    Today's environmental tip: Play it safe! Children are curious but they are also more sensitive to substances in the environment. Protect children from accidental poisoning by locking up your household cleaners, pesticides, paint thinners, and other substances. Household products are safe and effective when used properly.  Remember to read the label.

    More information: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/poisonprevention.htm
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

    en español: ¡Juegue a lo seguro! Los niños son curiosos, pero también pueden ser susceptibles a sustancias en el medio ambiente. Protéjalos de los envenenamientos accidentales. Ponga los productos de limpieza caseros, solventes de pintura y otras sustancias fuera del alcance de los niños y siempre lea la etiqueta. Las sustancias químicas caseras son seguras y eficaces cuando se usan de manera responsable.

    Más información: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/poisonprevention_sp.htm
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

    ------------------

    NOTE - This is the last Earth Month daily tip email message. To receive monthly "what you can do" information, subscribe to the GoGreen! newsletter with information and activities you can use in your home, community, or office. Go to http://www.epa.gov/gogreen

    And there are still things you can do online such as
     -"Six Words for the Environment" - contribute yours
     -"Expand the Conversation" - discussion forum
     -"State of the Environment" Photo Project - submit yours
    ...go to http://www.epa.gov/earthday for more info!

    Thanks!

    Coming like a beggar to the back door. No references, please, to “cutting greenhouse emissions” or “sustainability” or “carbon reduction” except as bi-products of “improving military security” and “factoring in true costs of energy for equipment, purchases, and operations.” "Energy security and cost", according to Admiral Mike Mullen, "can no longer be ignored. Half the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have been related to fuel convoys. Dependence on oil equals vulnerability, everywhere and always".
    nasa watches antarctic ice sheet disintegrate
    global ecology

    Gloomy miner suffers in silence

    MENTAL illness, associated with isolation and overwork, looms as a threat to the mining boom and affects up to 10,000 workers each year in the sector in NSW alone.

    Illnesses such as depression and anxiety disorder are costing the state's mining industry between $320 million and $450m in reduced productivity, according to a new report.

    Iron Mountain Mine Co-founder Charles Camden celebrated

    Camden Toll Road

    The toll road from Shasta to the Tower House

    | No Comments

    Tollkeepers house, Shasta, 2008.jpgIn February 1863 Charles Camden built a new road from the Tower House to Shasta (the first road was a wagon road built by Levi Tower in the 1850s). He also purchased the section of road over the Shasta Divide from the Shasta Turnpike Road Company for $6,500. Camden changed the name of the road to the Camden Turnpike Company and announced he would charge a toll from Shasta to the Tower House. The toll keepers house (see photo) at the Shasta end still stands and is still occupied on Tollkeepers Road a short distance west of Shasta. He also extended the road north around the foot of the hill at the Tower House to connect with the Yreka Road (now the road to French Gulch).

    Dottie Smith is the former Curator of the Shasta College Museum and former Instructor of Shasta County History at Shasta College. She has written 12 local history books.

    Subject: Scattering Long Range Population Trapping Forces

    variance

    Constant decay sets the scale for mass perturbation. (and in the pursuit of fulfillment & a Grant from the Private Industry Council).

    Translate This Page

    Investigators routinely disregarded rules while rejecting complaints of reprisals for reporting waste, fraud and abuse

    By

    &


    The Defense Department has inadequately protected from reprisals whistleblowers who have reported wrongdoing, according to an internal Pentagon report, and critics are calling for action to be taken against those who have been negligent.

    The report, dated May 2011, accuses the officials, who work in the Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General, of persistent sloppiness and a systematic disregard for Pentagon rules meant to protect those who report fraud, abuses, and the waste of taxpayer funds, according to a previously-undisclosed copy. The report was obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group.


    South Shore, Ky., one of 12 national winners of conservation challenge

    Challenge sponsored by Wyland Foundation and Toyota

    One of the murals by the artist and environmentalist Wyland, who created the Wyland Foundation, in honor of the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act.

    MIAMI (May 7, 2012) — A Kentucky city has been named a winner of the 2012 National Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation, an online competition conducted throughout April that encouraged residents in all 50 states to conserve water, save energy and reduce pollution.

    South Shore, Ky., was among 12 winning cities, including:

    • Laguna Beach, Calif.

    • Victoria, Minn.

    • Charlestown, N.H.

    • Manhattan Beach, Calif.

    • Eden Prairie, Minn.

    • Fort Pierce, Fla.

    • Quakertown, Pa.

    • Greeley, Colo.

    • Madison, Wis.

    • Charlottesville, Va.

    • Toms River, N.J.

    The Wyland Foundation, founded by environmental artist Wyland, created the Challenge with Toyota in honor of the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, the primary federal law protecting water resources in the United States. Organizations spearheading the effort also include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, U.S. Forest Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, WaterPik, Rain Bird, Lowe’s, STERLING Plumbing, PADI and Project AWARE.

    “We had two goals for the National Mayor’s Challenge,” Wyland said. “It brings communities together and gets people thinking about simple ways to take their commitment to conservation even further.”

    The challenge divided cities into four regions (West, Midwest, South and Northeast) and categorized them by population according to ZIP Codes (5,000 to 30,000 residents, 30,001 to 100,000 residents, 100,000+ residents). Cities with the highest percentage of residents within the city’s ZIP code boundaries who made online pledges at www.mywaterpledge.com to reduce their water use were recognized as the winners. Participants in the winning cities will now be entered into a drawing to win more than $50,000 in prizes, including the grand prize of a Toyota Prius c Hybrid, as well as custom-designed sprinkler systems from Rain Bird, Eco-Flow Showerheads from WaterPik, water-saving toilets from STERLING Plumbing, and 1,000 gift cards for Lowe’s Home Improvement Stores.

    “Conserving water is one of the most important actions we can take to protect this irreplaceable resource, and small actions that people take in their homes can add up to make a big difference,” said U.S. EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Water Nancy Stoner. “EPA was proud to partner with the Wyland Foundation and Toyota on this challenge and congratulates the winning cities, and everyone who participated.”

    To celebrate the winners of the National Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation, the Wyland Foundation and Toyota hosted an event on May 3 in Miami Beach where Wyland joined members of the community to paint a 400-square-foot marine life mural celebrating South Florida marine life. Toyota’s support of the Wyland Foundation is part of the automobile company’s long-standing commitment to sustainability.

    Join The Discussion

    water council

    What is the National Water Quality Monitoring Council?

    The Council was created in 1997 as a vehicle for bringing together diverse expertise needed to develop collaborative, comparable, and cost-effective approaches for monitoring and assessing our Nation’s water quality. The approaches are fundamental to the successful management and sustainability of our waters, and are increasingly important because water issues are becoming more complex, resources are tighter, and the demand for high-quality water continues to grow in order to support a complex web of human activities and aquatic ecosystem needs.

    The National Water Quality Monitoring Council (Council) provides a national forum for coordination of comparable and scientifically defensible methods and strategies to improve water quality monitoring, assessment and reporting, and promotes partnerships to foster collaboration, advance the science, and improve management within all elements of the water quality monitoring community. Vital to this role, the Council provides a voice for monitoring practitioners across the Nation and fosters increased understanding and stewardship of our water resources.

    What is the Advisory Committee on Water Information?

    Federal activities and funding for water resources information are integrally tied to partnerships with non-Federal entities. Therefore, the Secretary of the Interior established an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to help implement the program at the national level. The purposes of the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) are to identify water information needs, evaluate their effectiveness of water information programs and recommend improvements. The member organizations represent all levels of government, tribal interests, and the private sector. The Chair of the ACWI is Interior's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. The Alternate Chair is the Associate Director for Water of the USGS.

    The Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) represents the interests of water-information users and professionals in advising the Federal Government on Federal water-information programs and their effectiveness in meeting the Nation's water-information needs.

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) originally established the Water Information Coordination Program (WICP) in the 1960's. In 1991 OMB updated the authority and established the Water Information Coordination Program by issuing Memorandum No. 92-01. The overall purpose of the program is to improve water information for decision making about natural resources management and environmental protection. The memorandum designates the Department of the Interior, through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as the lead agency. Other Federal organizations that fund, collect, or use water resources information work together with the USGS to implement program recommendations.

    EPA Co-Chair: Susan Holdsworth (holdsworth.susan@epa.gov), Chief of the Monitoring Branch, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC
    USGS Co-Chair: Michael Yurewicz (mcyurewi@usgs.gov), Council Co-Chair (NAWQA), Reston, VA
    Exec. Sec: Cathy Tate (cmtate@usgs.gov), Lakewood, CO

    Electron Politics: Physicists Probe Organization at the Quantum Level
    05/02/2012 02:36 PM EDT

     A study published this week in Nature by researchers at Rice University, two Max Planck Institutes in Dresden, Germany, and University of California, Los Angeles, finds that "quantum critical points" (QCP) in exotic electronic materials can act much like polarizing "hot button issues" in an election. On either side of the QCP, electrons fall into line and behave as traditionally expected.

    Full story at http://news.rice.edu/2012/04/25/electron-politics-physicists-probe-organization-at-the-quantum-level/

    Subject:
     Data Infrastructure Building Blocks (DIBBs)
     From:
    National Science Foundation Update <nsf-update@nsf.gov>
    To:

    You are subscribed to All NSF Program Announcements and Information for National Science Foundation Update. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.


    Available Formats:
    HTML: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12557/nsf12557.htm?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click
    PDF: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12557/nsf12557.pdf?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click
    TXT: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12557/nsf12557.txt?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click

    Document Number: nsf12557

    Event
    BIGDATA Webinar

    Core Techniques and Technologies for Advancing Big Data Science & Engineering (BIGDATA)

    May 8, 2012 11:00 AM  to 
    May 8, 2012 12:00 PM
    NSF

    The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health invite you to attend a webinar to learn more about their joint Core Techniques and Technologies for Advancing Big Data Science & Engineering (BIGDATA) solicitation -- NSF 12-499: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12499/nsf12499.htm  

    The BIGDATA solicitation aims to advance the core scientific and technological means of managing, analyzing, visualizing, and extracting useful information from large, diverse, distributed and heterogeneous data sets so as to: accelerate the progress of scientific discovery and innovation; lead to new fields of inquiry that would not otherwise be possible; encourage the development of new data analytic tools and algorithms; facilitate scalable, accessible, and sustainable data infrastructure; increase understanding of human and social processes and interactions; and promote economic growth and improved health and quality of life.

    The phrase "big data" in this solicitation does not refer just to the volume of data, but also to its variety and velocity.  Big data includes large, diverse, complex, longitudinal, and/or distributed data sets generated from instruments, sensors, Internet transactions, email, video, click streams, and/or all other digital sources. 

    The focus is on core scientific and technological advances (e.g., in computer science, mathematics, computational science and statistics). Proposals that focus primarily on the application of existing methods (e.g., machine learning algorithms, statistical analysis) to data sets in a specific science domain or on implementation of software tools or databases based on existing techniques are not appropriate for this solicitation. 

    NIH-specific information can be found at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-GM-12-109.html.

    An FAQ about the solicitation is available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12070/nsf12070.jsp

    This webinar is designed to describe the goals and focus of the BIGDATA solicitation, help investigators understand its scope, and answer any questions potential Principal Investigators (PIs) may have.

    The Webinar will be held from 11am to noon EST on May 8, 2012. Questions about the solicitation can be submitted in advance or during the webinar to bigdata@nsf.gov.

    Please register for the webinar by May 7, 2012 23:59 PDT at: https://mmancusa.webex.com/mmancusa/j.php?ED=181853737&RG=1&UID=0&RT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D

    After your registration is accepted, you will get an email with a URL to join the meeting. Please be sure to join a few minutes before the start of the webinar. This system does not establish a voice connection on your computer; instead, your acceptance message will have a toll-free phone number that you will be prompted to call after joining.  Please note that this registration is a manual process; therefore, do not expect an immediate acceptance.  In the event the number of requests exceeds the capacity, some requests may have to be denied.

    The webinar will be archived for later viewing and linked to the BIGDATA program web page at: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504767. The archived version will be available within a few days after the webinar.

    If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact bigdata@nsf.gov .

    This event is part of Webinars/Webcasts.

    tms 2013

    Submissions are now being accepted through July 15, 2012 on the latest research and developments in diverse areas of materials science and engineering technology. TMS2013 authors will represent numerous levels of industry, academia, and governmental labs and hail from more than 68 countries.

    TMS2013 will feature more than 65 symposia covering these technical themes:

    • Advanced Characterization, Modeling, and Performance
    • High Performance Materials
    • Light Metals: Aluminum, Magnesium, and Titanium
    • Materials and Society: Energy Technology, Policy, and Education
    • Materials Processing and Production
    • Nanoscale and Amorphous Materials
    • REWAS2013 ­– Enabling Materials Resource Sustainability

    More than 4,300 professionals attended TMS2012 in Orlando, Florida in March. Join this outstanding exchange of technical knowledge at TMS2013! Submit your abstract now!

    Your abstract is sought to create the ultimate in technical programming for the must-attend global forum for materials scientists and engineers: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS) 142nd Annual Meeting & Exhibition, March 3-7, 2013 in San Antonio, Texas.


    News From the Field
    Nature Gives Long Look at Who Benefits From
    Tourist Research
    Using nature out of poverty draws automatic conservation ticket
    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2012, its budget is $7.0 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 colleges, universities and other institutions. Each year, NSF receives over 50,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes about 11,000 new funding awards. NSF also awards nearly $420 million in professional and service contracts yearly.

    In 2009 alone, ocean-related tourism and recreation generated more than 1.8 million jobs and contributed more than $61 billion to the nation’s GDP. That same year, the commercial fishing industry supported more than 1 million jobs. In fact, the U.S. ocean economy is larger than the entire U.S. farm sector.

    Protect yourself from drinking America's 6000 water toxins

    Americans have been ingesting them for years—perchlorate, hexavalent chromium, volatile organic compounds—not because they’re safe, but because they are among 6,000 suspected toxins the EPA has not gotten around to regulating in municipal drinking water systems. But after a scathing review by the General Accounting Office, the EPA has begun to develop regulations of these chemicals in drinking water.

    "The Agency is considering eight currently regulated compounds (benzene; carbon tetrachloride; 1,2- dichloroethane; 1,2-dichloropropane; dichloromethane; tetrachloroethylene; trichloroethylene; vinyl chloride) and eight unregulated compounds (aniline; benzyl chloride; 1,3-butadiene; 1,1-dichloroethane; nitrobenzene; oxirane methyl; 1,2,3-trichloropropane and urethane). All of these VOCs are known or suspected to cause cancer.”

    via EPA (pdf)

    "Say anything that you like about me except that I drink water".

    "I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming".

    "Never cry over spilt milk, because it may have been poisoned".

    Is this a game of chance? Not the way I play it, no.- W.C. Fields


    According to the National Sanitation Foundation, reverse osmosis won’t help you get volatile organic compounds out of your water, but carbon filtration will.

    Measure to Stop Clean Water Act Manipulation

    The legislation introduced Friday to prevent the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers from using clean water guidance to expand the regulatory regime under the Clean Water Act has the support of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council. According to NCBA President J.D. Alexander – the Administration has used guidance documents as opposed to going through the rulemaking process to bypass the consideration of legal, economic and unintended consequences. While the guidance claims to provide clarity and certainty to landowners – but PLC President John Falen says the only thing clear and certain is more federal regulation and costly permits.

    Despite three Supreme Court rulings and a letter from 170 members of Congress opposing the guidance – Alexander says EPA and the Corps have crowned themselves kings of every drop of water in the country. He says the bill introduced by the leaders of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Agriculture Committee is the best path forward.



    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair John Mica says the Obama Administration and its agencies are ignoring law and rulemaking procedures. According to Senator Mica – "the Administration needs to realize it’s not above the law".
    Also this week, the House Appropriations Committee added a policy rider to their energy and water FY 2013 spending bill that would – in a similar fashion – bar the agencies from implementing their final guidance.  The amendment, introduced by Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.) and passed by a vote of 29-20, prohibits using funds to “develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce” guidance that purports to clarify which waters of the United States fall under federal protection.

    CHAPTER XXXI.

    showing that the roman generals were never severely punished for any faults they committed, not even when by their ignorance and unfortunate operations they occasioned serious losses to the republic.

    green truck


    shining ‘green light' makes anything look green.

    parent agency DHS Secretary Napolitano "will leave no stone unturned" in its "full and thorough investigation".

    HSPD 10: Biodefense for the 21st Century

    Legislation and Directives

    The government has promulgated legislation and directives in recognition of the increased need to protect the nation's water supply and utilities from terrorist attacks. The Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) and the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (Bioterrorism Act) of 2002 specifically denote the responsibilities of EPA and the water sector in:

    • Assessing vulnerabilities of water utilities
    • Developing strategies for responding to and preparing for emergencies and incidents
    • Promoting information exchange among stakeholders
    • Developing and using technological advances in water security

    These directives and laws supplement existing legislation, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act, which have always had the goals of promoting a clean and safe supply of water for the nation's population and protecting the integrity of the nation's waterways. These directives and laws affect the actions and obligations of EPA, the Water Security Division, and water utilities, and they are described below.

    Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs)

    The government uses these directives to disseminate Presidential and Homeland Security decisions on national security matters.

    HSPDs 7, 8, 9, and 10 are of particular relevance to water security issues.

    HSPD 7: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection

    HSPD 7 designates EPA as the sector specific agency responsible for infrastructure protection activities for the nation's drinking water and wastewater systems. As such, EPA is responsible for:

    • Identifying, prioritizing, and coordinating infrastructure protection activities for the nation's drinking water and water treatment systems;
    • Working with federal departments and agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector to facilitate vulnerability assessments;
    • Encouraging the development of risk management strategies to protect against and mitigate the effects of potential attacks on critical resources; and
    • Developing mechanisms for information sharing and analysis.

    Under HSPD 7, the Water Security Division has been tasked with developing a water sector specific plan as input to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan that the Department of Homeland Security must produce. The sector specific plan must address processes for:

    • Identifying assets within the sector;
    • Identifying and assessing vulnerabilities, and prioritizing assets within the sector;
    • Developing sector specific strategic protective programs; and
    • Measuring the effectiveness of the sector specific critical infrastructure protection program.

      Top of page


    HSPD 8: National Preparedness

    HSPD 8 establishes policies to strengthen the preparedness to prevent and respond to threatened or actual domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies by establishing mechanisms for improved delivery of federal preparedness assistance to state and local governments.

    HSPD 9: Defense of United States Agriculture and Food

    Under HSPD 9, EPA is to develop a robust, comprehensive surveillance and monitoring program to provide early warning in the event of a terrorist attack using biological, chemical, or radiological contaminants. HSPD 9 also directs EPA to develop a nationwide laboratory network to support the routine monitoring and response requirements of the surveillance program. HSPD 10, which is currently a classified document, basically reaffirms EPA's responsibilities under HSPD 9 while adding a clear directive on the Agency's responsibilities in decontamination efforts.

    The following programs have been developed by EPA in response to HSPD 9:

    Water Security Initiative
    EPA is is implementing a demonstration project program to design, deploy, and evaluate a model contamination warning system for drinking water security. The program, which is being developed in partnership with select cities and laboratories, responds to a Homeland Security Presidential Directive that charges EPA to develop surveillance and monitoring systems to provide early detection of water contamination.

    Water Laboratory Alliance
    The purpose of the WLA is to provide the drinking water sector with an integrated nationwide network of laboratories with the analytical capabilities and capacity to support monitoring and surveillance, response, and remediation of intentional and unintentional drinking water supply contamination events involving chemical, biological, and radiochemical contaminants.

    HSPD 10: Biodefense for the 21st Century

    HSPD 10 provides directives to further strengthen the Biodefense Program through threat awareness, prevention and protection, surveillance and detection, and response and recovery.

    • Read the entire HSPD 10: Biodefense for the 21st Century.

      Regulatory Information

      Congress authorizes EPA and other federal agencies to write rules and regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws. Below are some of the key rules and regulations that the Office of Water employs to implement key statutes and programs.

      Rules and Regulations Implemented under the Safe Drinking Water Act

       
      Rules and Regulations Implemented under the Clean Water Act:

    • Analytical Methods (Sections 301(a), 304(h), and 501(a)) - EPA publishes laboratory analytical methods (test procedures) that are used by industries and municipalities to analyze the chemical, physical and biological components of wastewater and other environmental samples that are required by regulations under the CWA. Most of these methods are published as regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40 Part 136. Some methods may also be found at 40 CFR Parts 401–503 (these methods are sometimes referred to as wastewater, Part 136, or 304(h) methods).
    • Cooling Water Intakes (Section 316(b)) - Section 306(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.
    • Effluent Limitations Guidelines - Existing regulations and regulations under development regarding national standards for industrial wastewater discharges to surface waters and publicly owned treatment works. (Current and proposed ELGs.)
    • Section 304(m)(1)(B) and (C) - Requires EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines for new categories of dischargers under certain circumstances
    • Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g)(1), 306(b)(1)(B) - Requires that EPA periodically review existing effluent guidelines, pretreatment standards, and standards of performance for new sources and to revise them "if appropriate" or, in the case of new source performance standards, "as technology and alternatives change"
    • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Rules and Regulations (Section 402) - Section 402 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by EPA, a state, or, where authorized, a tribal government on an Indian reservation. To help implement this provision of the Clean Water Act, EPA has proposed new or revised NPDES rules, which have included:
    • Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Final Rule – The CAFO Rule requires concentrated animal feeding operations to safely manage manure. Manure contains the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, which, when not managed properly on agricultural land, can pollute nearby streams, lakes, and other waters. The rule requires that an owner or operator of a CAFO that actually discharges to streams, lakes, and other waters must apply for a NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act and that nutrient management plans for manure be submitted as part of the permit application.
    • Pretreatment Streamlining Rule – The Pretreatment Streamlining Rule makes final changes to EPA’s General Pretreatment Regulations, which requires publicly owned treatment works that meet certain criteria to develop pretreatment programs to control industrial discharges into their sewage collection systems. These programs must be approved by either EPA or states acting as the Pretreatment “Approval Authority.” The Pretreatment Streamlining Rule, promulgated in 2005, streamlined and clarified various provisions of the General Pretreatment Regulations for existing and new sources of pollution codified at 40 CFR Part 403.
    • NPDES Permit Program (Section 402) - As authorized by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities that discharge to waters of the U.S. must obtain permits. There are two categories of NPDES permits: individual permits and general permits.
    • Individual permits are issued to individual dischargers and are specifically tailored to the specific facility to regulate its discharge of pollutants.  
    • General permits cover several entities that have the same type of discharge and set forth requirements applicable to the entire category of covered dischargers and include: the Vessels General Permit, Multi-Sector General Permit, and Construction General Permit.
    • Section 404 Regulations - Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have promulgated a number of regulations to implement the permitting program.
    • Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) Rule (Section 405) - The Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge rule (40 CFR Part 503) establishes requirements for the final use or disposal of sewage sludge (i.e., biosolids) when biosolids are: applied to land to condition the soil or fertilize crops or other vegetation grown in the soil; placed on a surface disposal site for final disposal; or fired in a biosolids incinerator. The Agency is required to conduct a review of the 503 standards at least every two years.
    • Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Impaired Waters Rules (Section 303(d)) - As authorized by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. A Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.  Visit the TMDL regulations page to view regulations for the TMDL program, including specific regulations for Great Lakes TMDLs.
    • Water Quality Standards define the goals for a water body by designating its uses, setting criteria to measure attainment of those uses, and establishing policies to protect water quality from pollutants.
    • Section 101(a) - Declaration of Goals and Policy
    • Section 303 - Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans
    • Water Quality Standards Regulation: CFR Title 40 Part 131
    • Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System: CFR Title 40 Part 132
    • Section 401 (PDF) (4 pp, 16K) - Permits and Licenses - Certification 
    • Section 510 (PDF) (1 pp, 47K) - State Authority
    Water Quality Standards Regulations and Determinations

    Subject:
     Drips, Drops and Spills: Automate Spill Management – Get New White Paper
     From:
    "Environmental Leader" <editor@environmentalleader.com>
    To:
    Part of your subscription to Environmental Leader.

    Gurus Guide

     

    Download White Paper From Enviance

    Hazardous material spills are a frequent occurrence in any EH&S professional realm of responsibility, regardless of the size of your corporation. With state regulations enforcing the reporting of spills with significant fines, it is imperative that organizations streamline their processes for recording and reporting spills.

    By leveraging workflow capabilities in your Environmental Management Information System (EMIS), you can easily develop an effective process flow that ensures accountability and meets inspection requirements.

    Get new white paper

    Take a look at how a utility company with a large number of spills has overcome spill management recording and reporting obstacles to achieve zero fines to-date.

    You will learn more about:

    • Designing an effective spill incident workflow process and recording system
    • Automating a spill management process with EMIS capabilities
    • Improving the decision making process with a spill incident management system

    Don’t let spills and their reporting requirements be a common source of frustration in your organization. Learn new ways to streamline and automate your spill management process, reducing headaches and fines.

    today


    Assessing the Untapped Potential


    high-stakes pursuit of a greener globe in a dialogue with experts and readers.

    Subject:
     Earth Month Tip of the Day: Get the lead out!
    From:
    "U.S. EPA" <usaepa@govdelivery.com>(Add as Preferred Sender) 
    Date:Sat, Apr 28, 2012 8:04 am
    To:john@ironmountainmine.com

    Today's environmental tip: Get the lead out!  If you're doing work on an older home or school building, be sure to follow lead-safe work practices. Contain the work area and keep kids and pets away. Minimize dust. And clean up thoroughly.  Lead is harmful to adults and children, and common renovation jobs like sanding, cutting, or demolition can create lead dust and chips.

    More information: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

    en español: ¡Elimine el plomo! Si está realizando trabajo en una casa o edificio escolar antiguo, asegúrese de que se utilicen prácticas laborales seguras para el plomo. Contenga el área de trabajo y deje los niños y mascotas alejados. Minimice el polvo. Y limpie cabalmente. El plomo es dañino para adultos y niños. Las actividades de remodelación comunes como lijado, recortes, y demoliciones pueden crear polvo o cáscaras de plomo.

    Más información: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovaterightbrochuresp.pdf
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

    Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.  http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips.htm  


    Subject:
     Earth Month Tip of the Day: Don't trash it - reuse it!
     From:
    To:

    Today's environmental tip: Don't trash it - reuse it! Be creative as you look for new ways to reduce the amount or kinds of household waste. Give cardboard tubes to pet hamsters or gerbils. Plant seeds in an egg carton. Make a flower pot out of a plastic ice cream tub. By thinking creatively, you will often find new uses for common items and new ways to recycle and reduce waste.

    More information: http://www.epa.gov/osw/wycd/catbook/tip12.htm
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

    en español: ¡No lo tire a la basura, reutilícelo! Sea creativo en encontrar nuevas maneras de reducir la cantidad y variedades de desechos caseros. Por ejemplo, dé los tubos de cartón a mascotas como hámsters para jugar. Siembre semillas en un cartón de huevos. Haga un tiesto de un envase plástico de helados. Si piensa de manera creativa, podrá encontrar nuevos usos para artículos comunes y nuevas maneras de reciclar y reducir los desechos.

    Más información: http://www.epa.gov/osw/wycd/funfacts/indexsp.htm
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

    Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.  http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips.htm  

    Metals for Energy & the Environment 2012, Las Vegas, 6-8 June

    MEE 2012 is your opportunity to meet global leaders from the metals and rare earths industry and learn how demand impacts on green energy and the protection of the environment.

    Last year over 250 delegates attended from companies including:

    BP Neo Material Traxys
    Molycorp General Motors Umicore
    Magnesium Elektron Treibacher OM Group

    As metals play an increasingly important and essential role in people's lives, particularly in technology and the generation of clean energy, we can no longer take their supply for granted. MEE will focus on and review the supply of these metals, their current demand, potential new uses, recycling, current production and future supply projections to assess whether there will be enough material to meet demand.

    Who should attend?

    • Mining Companies
    • Producers & recyclers of strategic metals & rare earths
    • Metal traders
    • Buyers of strategic metals and rare earths
    • Banks and financial institutions
    • Service providers to the strategic metals and rare earth industries
    • Government agencies
    • Industry analysts and consultants


    The full speaker programme can be viewed here. I look forward to welcoming you to the conference in Las Vegas!

    Kind regards,

    Nigel Tunna
    Managing Director

    Energy Recap: Celebrating Earth Day!

    President Barack Obama signs a proclamation regarding the establishment of the Fort Ord National Monument, in the Oval Office, April 20, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Sonya N. Herbert)

    On April 22nd, more than 1 billion people in 192 countries participated in the 42nd Earth Day. The President celebrated by designating a new National Monument at Fort Ord, a former military base in California. By protecting Ford Ord, President Obama has ensured that the area's vast canyons and grasslands will provide enjoyment and recreation to generations of Americans.

    Earlier in the week, the President spoke in the White House rose garden about increasing energy market oversight to make sure that excess speculation is not impacting gas prices. While reiterating that there are no silver bullets to increased gas prices, the President urged Congress to further strengthen market oversight and detailed the steps he has taken to protect consumers.

    These actions represent just a snapshot of the Administration's efforts to promote American-made energy. For more information, check out the highlights below and read the blog posts by Heather Zichal, the Deputy Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change, about natural gas production and building efficiency.

    Events

    President Obama announces new steps to strengthen oversight of energy markets
    On April 16th, President Obama spoke in the White House rose garden, announcing that the Administration is taking new executive actions to analyze trading activities in energy markets and implement consumer protections. During his remarks, the President called on Congress to provide increased funding for market surveillance and enforcement, to increase the civil and criminal penalties for illegal market manipulation, and to grant new authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to protect against excess speculation. Read the President's speech and check out this White House blog post.

    Secretary Salazar travels to North Dakota, unveiling new energy development initiatives
    Concluding his two-day visit to North Dakota on April 3rd, Secretary Salazar unveiled new initiatives to expedite safe and responsible development of domestic energy resources on U.S. public lands and Indian trust lands. As part of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) ongoing efforts to ensure efficient processing of oil and gas permit applications, the agency will implement new automated tracking systems that could reduce the review period for drilling permits by two-thirds. Learn more about the Secretary's visit and the Agency's new initiatives.

    The Clean Energy Ministerial announce new commitments for energy sustainability
    On April 26th, the 23-government Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) concluded its two-day meeting in London and, together with the UN Secretary-General's Sustainable Energy for All initiative (SE4All), outlined specific commitments by participating countries and private sector leaders which will promote improved energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies, and increased energy access around the world. Read more about these important commitments.

    News

    President Obama designates Fort Ord a National Monument
    On April 20th, President Obama signed a Proclamation to designate federal lands within the former Fort Ord as a National Monument under the Antiquities Act. Fort Ord, a former military base located on California's Central Coast, is a world-class destination for hikers, mountain bikers, and outdoor enthusiasts who come to enjoy the area's history and scenic landscapes. Read the full proclamation and learn more about Ford Ord.

    The Energy Department announces the first-ever "Apps for Energy" Competition
    On April 5th, the Department of Energy's launched the first-ever "Apps for Energy" competition, offering $100,000 in cash prizes. "Apps for Energy" challenges innovative software developers to build new apps – for mobile phones, computers, tablets, software programs and more – that utilize data from major utility companies to help consumers and businesses use less energy and save money. Learn more about the competition and then take up the challenge.

    Secretary Chu announces $30 million for next generation energy storage technologies
    On April 11th, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced a $30 million research competition that will engage our country's brightest scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs in improving the performance and safety of energy storage devices, including hybrid energy storage modules being developed by the Department of Defense for military applications. Learn more about this announcement.

    Army announces "Green Warrior Convoy"
    On April 11th, the Army announced plans for a "Green Warrior Convoy" to demonstrate and educate the value of science and technology in Army vehicles. The announcement was made during the opening of the Army's new Ground Systems Power and Energy Laboratory, or GSPEL, at the Detroit Arsenal, Warren, Mich. The "Green Warrior Convoy" will launch next year and will travel from Detroit to Washington as part of the road testing of technologies and systems developed at the Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC. Learn more about the "Green Warrior Convoy" here and read more about the military's commitment to advanced energy technologies at this White House blog post.

    Get Updates

    To learn more about the President’s vision for a more secure energy future and sign up to get updates, please visit: WhiteHouse.gov/energy.

    Stay Connected


    May 07, 2012

    Patent Malpractice Jurisdiction

    Patent2011070by Dennis Crouch

    Minkin v. Gibbons P.C (Fed. Cir. 2012)

    In yet another malpractice action, the Federal Circuit has granted itself jurisdiction and ruled in favor of the law firm defendant (here, Gibbons). Attorney malpractice is normally a state-law cause of action brought in state court. However, the Federal Circuit has increasingly claimed appellate jurisdiction over these cases based upon its arising under jurisdiction.

    Federal Circuit Appellate Jurisdiction.  As amended in the AIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1295 defines the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction to include “exclusive jurisdiction” over “an appeal from a final decision” in “a civil action arising under . . . any Act of Congress relating to patents.” 

    The new statute overrules Holmes Group, Inc., v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. 535 U.S. 826 (2002).  In that decision, the Supreme Court held that the existence of a patent law issue in a counterclaim is insufficient to create Federal Circuit jurisdiction.  The revised statute makes clear that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals that only raise patent issues in “a compulsory counterclaim.”  

    The new statute does not change the “arising under” language itself.  The Supreme Court interpreted that language in Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988).   In Christianson, the court wrote that the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction extended only to those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint established either (1) that the federal patent law created the cause of action or (2) that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depended upon resolution of a “substantial question of federal patent law.”  (New statute is no longer bound by a “complaint.”).

    In non-patent cases, the Supreme Court has placed some limitations on the exercise of arising under jurisdiction when the underlying cause of action is –  as here –  a state law claim.  In Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Eng'g, 545 U.S. 308 (2005), the court explained that the exercise of jurisdiction over state-law claims with an embedded issue of federal law should occur only when the state-law claim contains a federal issue that is “disputed” and “substantial,” and when the exercise of federal jurisdiction is “consistent with congressional judgment about the sound division of labor between state and federal courts.”  Grable made clear that the mere presence of a disputed federal question is insufficient to create federal jurisdiction.  Rather, a court must also assess “any disruptive portent in exercising federal jurisdiction.” This sentiment was repeated by the Court in the later case of Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 701 (2006) (“it takes more than a federal element ‘to open the ‘arising under’ door”).

    In this case, the Gibbons firm handled prosecution of Minkin's U.S. Patent No. 6,012,363 (Extended Reach Pliers).  Soon after Minkin went to market, one of his customers designed its own version of the device that avoided Minkin's patent claim. Minkin then sued Gibbons for negligence –  arguing that the claims offered no meaningful protection for Minkin's invention. At trial expert witness Richard Gearhart presented an alternative claim that was arguably patentable. Because Gearhart did not present a patentability analysis under Section 103(a), the district court rejected the evidence as insufficient and awarded summary judgment for the law firm. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that finding. “We find that the 37-page Gearhart report contains nothing to assist the trier of fact with respect to the unique tests and proofs of § 103(a), and provides no insight into the question of whether the alternate claims would ultimately have been allowed by the PTO.”

    Regarding Jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit noted that the malpractice claim (under N.J. Law) requires that the plaintiff prove that better representation would have resulted in a better outcome.  Here, that proof requires analysis of patentability of a hypothetical claim and thus raises substantial a question of Patent Law and therefore the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit.

    Writing in concurrence, Judge O'Malley again repeated her call for an en banc rehearing on the issue of jurisdiction.

    Notes:


    Hats off to Superfund: GE balks, E.P.A. wholly disregarded


    Fed Rules: E.P.A. bills for uncapped category that covers preparation of the action plan commonly known as the "Rest of River" & workshops held at "Shakespeare & Company" enforcement above and beyond oversight costs dead balls Null.

    In games played under the Official Baseball Rules, a balk results in a dead ball or delayed dead ball. In certain other circumstances, a balk may be wholly or partially disregarded. Under other rule sets, notably in the United States under the National Federation of High Schools (Fed or Federation) Baseball Rules, a balk results in an immediate dead ball. In the event a balk is enforced, the pitch is generally (but not always) nullified, each runner is awarded one base, and the batter (generally) remains at bat, and with the previous count. The balk rule in Major League Baseball was introduced in 1898.[1]

    Summary of Federal Requirements

    Septic system regulation is usually a state, tribal, and local responsibility but the U.S. EPA does provide guidance on their operation and maintenance.

    Some septic systems are regulated by EPA as Class V underground injection wells (UIC) if they receive industrial or commercial wastes and/or they have the capacity to serve 20 or more people.

    On 12 January 2005 the U.S. EPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU with the National Association of Towns and Townships (NATaT); National Association of Wastewater Transporters, Inc. (NAWT); National Environmental Health Association (NEHA); National Environmental Services Center (NESC); National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association, Inc. (NOWRA); Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc. (RCAP); Water Environment Federation (WEF); and Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (CIDWT)). This memorandum focuses on better planning, septic system design, and long-term operation and maintenance of septic systems. 

    Summary of State Requirements

    The definition for large capacity may vary from State to State, but should be comparable to the Federal definition. Some examples of alternative definitions include use waste flow rates or cesspool volume capacity to classify a cesspool as large-capacity. Check with the appropriate State UIC Program for more information.

    Laws and Statutes

    Clean Water Act

    Laws & Regulation

    Laws & Executive Orders

    There are a number of federal statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by the President that are central to the Office of Water’s mission. In addition, Presidential Executive Orders (EOs) play a central role in a number of Office of Water activities. EOs are legally binding orders that direct EPA and other federal agencies in their execution of Congressionally established laws and policies.

    Executive Order 13547 -summary-Stewardship

    To use science and the best available understanding and awareness from Regional Advisory Committees in consultation with their nonfederal co-lead agencies and membership and Coordinating Committee officials from State, tribal, and local governments to improve our knowledge and to inform decisions by the National Ocean Council affecting the respect of rights and the protection of freedoms preserving our Nation's treasured maritime heritage of safe, secure, and productive access while performing duties bolstering communities and to provide jobs, food, energy resources, ecological services, recreation, and tourism opportunities, and promoting our Nation's transportation, economy, and trade, improved sustainable uses of land and building a foundation and framework for the collaborative and cooperating participation of federal, State, tribal, and local authorities, regional governance structures, and nongovernmental organizations ensuring a cohesive policy of promoting actions for the beneficial public and the private sectors stewardship.and comprehensive adaptive management to enable sustainability, human health and well-being, national prosperity, adaptation, social justice, international diplomacy, security, and a more integrated, comprehensive, flexible, and proactive approach to planning and managing sustainable multiple uses across sectors pursuing the United States' accession to the Law of the Sea Convention and improve ocean conservation in a fiscally responsible ecosystem-based transparent manner to promote the well-being, prosperity, and security that present and future generations of Americans can rely on .

    Regulatory Information

    Congress authorizes EPA and other federal agencies to write rules and regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws. Below are some of the key rules and regulations that the Office of Water employs to implement key statutes and programs.

    Policy & Guidance


    Impasse Persists on Drugs in Drinking Water

    Laws & Regulations

    Laws & Executive Orders

    There are a number of federal statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by the President that are central to the Office of Water’s mission. In addition, Presidential Executive Orders (EOs) play a central role in a number of Office of Water activities. EOs are legally binding orders that direct EPA and other federal agencies in their execution of Congressionally established laws and policies.

    Regulatory Information

    Congress authorizes EPA and other federal agencies to write rules and regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws. Below are some of the key rules and regulations that the Office of Water employs to implement key statutes and programs.

    Policy & Guidance

    Policy & guidance for implementing Office of Water programs.

    "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

    Introduction to pH

    pH is a unit of measure which describes the degree of acidity or alkalinity of a solution.

     It is measured on a scale of 0 to 14.

    pH indicator

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    Acids and Bases

    Acid dissociation constant
    Acid-base extraction
    Acid–base reaction
    Acid–base titration
    Dissociation constant
    Acidity function
    Buffer solutions
    pH
    Proton affinity
    Self-ionization of water
    Acid strength

    Acid types

    Brønsted · Lewis · Mineral
    Organic · Strong
    Superacids · Weak

    Base types

    Brønsted · Lewis · Organic
    Strong · Superbases
    Non-nucleophilic · Weak

    A pH indicator is a halochromic chemical compound that is added in small amounts to a solution so that the pH (acidity or basicity) of the solution can be determined visually. Hence a pH indicator is a chemical detector for hydronium ions (H3O+) or hydrogen ions (H+) in the Arrhenius model. Normally, the indicator causes the colour of the solution to change depending on the pH. At 25 °C, considered the standard temperature, the pH value of a neutral solution is 7.0. Solutions with a pH value below 7.0 are considered acidic, whereas solutions with pH value above 7.0 are basic. As most naturally occurring organic compounds are weak protolytes, carboxylic acids and amines, pH indicators find many applications in biology and analytical chemistry. Moreover, pH indicators form one of the three main types of indicator compounds used in chemical analysis. For the quantitative analysis of metal cations, the use of complexometric indicators is preferred, whereas the third compound class, the redox indicators, are used in titrations involving a redox reaction as the basis of the analysis.

    Contents

    Theory

    In and of themselves, pH indicators are frequently weak acids or weak bases. The general reaction scheme of a pH indicator can be formulated as follows:

    HInd + H2O H3O+ + Ind-

    Here HInd stands for the acid form and Ind- for the conjugate base of the indicator. It is the ratio of these that determines the color of the solution and that connects the color to the pH value. For pH indicators that are weak protolytes, we can write the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation for them:

    \textrm{pH} = \textrm{pK}_{a}+ \log \frac{[\textrm{Ind}^-]}{[\textrm{HInd}]}

    The equation, derived from the acidity constant, states that when pH equals the pKa value of the indicator, both species are present in 1:1 ratio. If pH is above the pKa value, the concentration of the conjugate base is greater than the concentration of the acid, and the color associated with the conjugate base dominates. If pH is below the pKa value, the converse is true.

    Usually, the color change is not instantaneous at the pKa value, but there is a pH range where a mixture of colors is present. This pH range varies between indicators, but as a rule of thumb, it falls between the pKa value plus or minus one. This assumes that solutions retain their color as long as at least 10% of the other species persists. For example, if the concentration of the conjugate base is ten times greater than the concentration of the acid, their ratio is 10:1, and consequently the pH is pKa + 1. Conversely, if there is a tenfold excess of the acid with respect to the base, the ratio is 1:10 and the pH is pKa – 1.

    For optimal accuracy, the color difference between the two species should be as clear as possible, and the narrower the pH range of the color change the better. In some indicators, such as phenolphthalein, one of the species is colorless, whereas in other indicators, such as methyl red, both species confer a color. While pH indicators work efficiently at their designated pH range, they are usually destroyed at the extreme ends of the pH scale due to undesired side-reactions.

    Application


    pH indicators are frequently employed in titrations in analytical chemistry and biology to determine the extent of a chemical reaction. Because of the subjective choice (determination) of color, pH indicators are susceptible to imprecise readings. For applications requiring precise measurement of pH, a pH meter is frequently used. Sometimes a blend of different indicators is used to achieve several smooth color changes over a wide range of pH values. These commercial indicators (e.g., universal indicator and Hydrion papers) are used when only rough knowledge of pH is necessary.

    Tabulated below are several common laboratory pH indicators. Indicators usually exhibit intermediate colors at pH values inside the listed transition range. For example, phenol red exhibits an orange color between pH 6.8 and pH 8.4. The transition range may shift slightly depending on the concentration of the indicator in the solution and on the temperature at which it is used.

    Indicator

    Low pH color

    Transition pH range

    High pH color

    Gentian violet (Methyl violet 10B)

    yellow

    0.0–2.0

    blue-violet

    Leucomalachite green (first transition)

    yellow

    0.0–2.0

    green

    Leucomalachite green (second transition)

    green

    11.6–14

    colorless

    Thymol blue (first transition)

    red

    1.2–2.8

    yellow

    Thymol blue (second transition)

    yellow

    8.0–9.6

    blue

    Methyl yellow

    red

    2.9–4.0

    yellow

    Bromophenol blue

    yellow

    3.0–4.6

    purple

    Congo red

    blue-violet

    3.0–5.0

    red

    Methyl orange

    red

    3.1–4.4

    yellow

    Bromocresol green

    yellow

    3.8–5.4

    blue

    Methyl red

    red

    4.4–6.2

    yellow

    Methyl red

    red

    4.5–5.2

    green

    Azolitmin

    red

    4.5–8.3

    blue

    Bromocresol purple

    yellow

    5.2–6.8

    purple

    Bromothymol blue

    yellow

    6.0–7.6

    blue

    Phenol red

    yellow

    6.4–8.0

    red

    Neutral red

    red

    6.8–8.0

    yellow

    Naphtholphthalein

    colorless to reddish

    7.3–8.7

    greenish to blue

    Cresol Red

    yellow

    7.2–8.8

    reddish-purple

    Phenolphthalein

    colorless

    8.3–10.0

    fuchsia

    Thymolphthalein

    colorless

    9.3–10.5

    blue

    Alizarine Yellow R

    yellow

    10.2–12.0

    red

    Equivalence point

    In acid-base titrations, an unfitting pH indicator may induce a color change in the indicator-containing solution before or after the actual equivalence point. As a result, different equivalence points for a solution can be concluded based on the pH indicator used. This is because the slightest color change of the indicator-containing solution suggests the equivalence point has been reached. Therefore, the most suitable pH indicator has an effective pH range, where the change in color is apparent, that encompasses the pH of the equivalence point of the solution being titrated. [1]

     

    Litmus

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    This article is about the chemical test. For the political term, see Litmus test (politics). For other uses, see Litmus (disambiguation).


    Litmus is a water-soluble mixture of different dyes extracted from lichens, especially Roccella tinctoria. It is often absorbed onto filter paper to produce one of the oldest forms of pH indicator, used to test materials for acidity. Blue litmus paper turns red under acidic conditions and red litmus paper turns blue under basic (i.e. alkaline) conditions, with the color change occurring over the pH range 4.5-8.3 at 25 °C. Neutral litmus paper is purple.[1] Litmus can also be prepared as an aqueous solution that functions similarly. Under acidic conditions the solution is red, and under basic conditions the solution is blue.

    The litmus mixture has the CAS number 1393-92-6 and contains 10 to 15 different dyes. Most of the chemical components of litmus are likely to be the same as those of the related mixture known as orcein, but in different proportions. In contrast with orcein, the principal constituent of litmus has average molecular weight of 3300.[2] Acid-base indicators on litmus owe their properties to a 7-hydroxyphenoxazone chromophore.[3] Some fractions of litmus were given specific names including erythrolitmin (or erythrolein), azolitmin, spaniolitmin, leucoorcein and leucazolitmin. Azolitmin shows nearly the same effect as litmus.[4]

    Contents

    History

    Litmus was used for the first time about 1300 AD by Spanish alchemist Arnaldus de Villa Nova. From the 16th century on, the blue dye was extracted from some lichens, especially in the Netherlands.

    Natural sources


    Litmus can be found in different species of lichens.The dyes would be extracted from such species as Roccella tinctoria (South America), Roccella fuciformis (Angola and Madagascar), Roccella pygmaea (Algeria), Roccella phycopsis, Lecanora tartarea (Norway, Sweden), Variolaria dealbata, Ochrolechia parella, Parmotrema tinctorum and Parmelia. Currently, the main sources are Roccella montagnei (Mozambique) and Dendrographa leucophoea (California).[citation needed]

    Uses

    The main use of litmus is to test whether a solution is acidic or basic. Wet litmus paper can also be used to test water-soluble gases; the gas dissolves in the water and the resulting solution colors the litmus paper. For instance, ammonia gas, which is alkaline, colors the red litmus paper blue.

    Chemical reactions other than acid-base reaction can also cause a color-change to litmus paper. For instance, chlorine gas turns blue litmus paper white – the litmus paper is bleached[5], due to presence of hypochlorite ions. This reaction is irreversible and therefore the litmus is not acting as an indicator in this situation.

     

    Litmus test (politics)

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    For other uses, see Litmus (disambiguation).

    A litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would proceed with the appointment or nomination. (The expression is a metaphor based on the litmus test in chemistry.) Those who must approve a nominee, such as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, may also be said to apply a litmus test to determine whether the nominee will receive their vote. In these contexts, the phrase comes up most often with respect to nominations to the judiciary.

    Usage

    During United States presidential election campaigns, litmus tests the nominees might use are more fervently discussed when vacancies for the U.S. Supreme Court appear likely. Advocates for various social ideas or policies often wrangle heatedly over what litmus test, if any, the president ought to apply when nominating a new candidate for a spot on the Supreme Court. Support for, or opposition to, abortion is one example of a common decisive factor in single-issue politics; another might be support of strict constructionism. Defenders of litmus tests argue that some issues are so important that it overwhelms other concerns (especially if there are other qualified candidates that pass the test).

    The political litmus test is often used when appointing judges. However, this test to determine the political attitude of a nominee is not without error. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed under the impression that he was conservative but his tenure was marked by liberal dissents. Today, the litmus test is used along with other methods such as past voting records when selecting political candidates.

    The Republican Liberty Caucus is opposed to litmus tests for judges. "We oppose ‘litmus tests’ for judicial nominees who are qualified and recognize that the sole function of the courts is to interpret the Constitution. We oppose judicial amendments or the crafting of new law by any court."[1]

    Professor Eugene Volokh believes that the legitimacy of such tests is a "tough question", and argues that they may undermine the fairness of the judiciary:

    Imagine a justice testifies under oath before the Senate about his views on (say) abortion, and later reaches a contrary decision [after carefully examining the arguments]. "Perjury!" partisans on the relevant side will likely cry: They'll assume the statement made with an eye towards confirmation was a lie, rather than that the justice has genuinely changed his mind. Even if no calls for impeachment follow, the rancor and contempt towards the justice would be much greater than if he had simply disappointed his backers' expectations.

    Faced with that danger, a justice may well feel pressured into deciding the way that he testified, and rejecting attempts at persuasion. Yet that would be a violation of the judge's duty to sincerely consider the parties' arguments.[2]

    References

    1.                              ^ Wyoming Republican Liberty Caucus: "Goals, Principles and Positions"

    2.                              ^ The Volokh Conspiracy: `"Questioning Supreme Court Nominees About Their Views on Specific Questions"

     

    ·  Negative pH, efflorescent mineralogy, and consequences for ...

    www.pnas.org/content/96/7/3455.full

    by DK Nordstrom - 1999 - Cited by 191 - Related articles
    Mar 30, 1999 – Negative pH, efflorescent mineralogy, and consequences for environmental restoration at the Iron Mountain Superfund site, California ...

    ·  Chemical Modeling and Thermodynamic Data Evaluation of Major ...

    wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/GWC_chemtherm/ironmtn.htm

    Jan 20, 2011 – The copper mines at Iron Mountain, a Superfund site since 1983, ... mass balance studies, measurements of negative pH, and modeling to ...

    ·  Negative pH and Extremely Acidic Mine Waters from Iron Mountain ...

    www.mendeley.com/.../negative-ph-and-extremely-acidic-mine-wate...

    Dec 10, 1999 – Negative pH, efflorescent mineralogy, and consequences for environmental restoration at the Iron Mountain Superfund site, California ...

    Negative pH and Extremely Acidic Mine Waters from Iron Mountain ...

    digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1488...

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
    by DK Nordstrom - 2000 - Cited by 200 - Related articles
    Negative pH and Extremely Acidic Mine Waters from Iron Mountain, California. Darrell Kirk Nordstrom. U.S. Geological Survey, dkn@usgs.gov. Charles N. Alpers ...

    Iron Mountain Mine case study

    www.epa.gov/aml/tech/imm.pdf

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    Mar 7, 2006 – Early in its history, Iron Mountain Mine was famous for being the ......Negative pH, efflorescent mineralogy, and consequences for ...

    ·  Paradigms Lost: Learning from Environmental Mistakes, Mishaps, and ... - Google Books Result

    books.google.com/books?isbn=0750678887...Daniel A. Vallero - 2006 - Science - 563 pages
    Case of the Negative pH: Iron Mountain, California3 The acidity is so strong in some waters receiving runoff from mining activities that the calculated pH values ...

    ·  Iron Mountain Mine | Online Resources for Environmental Impact ...

    ice.ucdavis.edu/education/esp179/?q=node/164

    Negative pH, Efflorescent Mineralogy, and Consequences for Environmental Restoration at the Iron Mountain Superfund Site, California. Retrieved May 4, 2007, ...

    You've visited this page many times.

    Negative pH, Efflorescent Mineralogy, and the Challence of ...

    www.wolkersdorfer.info/publication/bht/nordstrom_wm25.pdf

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    by DK Nordstrom - Cited by 1 - Related articles
    125. Negative pH, Efflorescent Mineralogy, and the Challenge of Environmental Restoration at the Iron Mountain Superfund site or why not to plug a Mine ...

    ·  Science Blog -- USGS NEWS

    www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/E/usgs028.html

    To put the hydrology of the Iron Mountain site in context, the drip rate of the negative pH waters found in the Richmond Mine is on the order of less than one ...

     

    THE PHONY NEGATIVE 3.6 pH AMD TRICK

    Ted Arman | Goal: Mining His Own Business - Los Angeles Times

    articles.latimes.com/2005/may/10/local/me-mine10
    May 10, 2005 – But few are as notorious as Iron Mountain Mine -- and Arman has become ... The acidic runoff ate workers' shovel heads and turned nearby ...

    THE PHONY RUSTY SHOVEL TRICK

    ...there's no instance where we have recorded levels of heavy metal above the drinking water standard. EPA's first Iron Mountain Mine superfund project manager Tom Mix - 1985;

    EPA Selects New Science Adviser

    on 24 April 2012, 6:00 PM

    Lisa Jackson, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced today that she has picked Glenn Paulson to be her science adviser. Paulson will replace Paul Anastas, who returned to Yale University in February. "I'm very positive about Glenn; he's superb," says public health expert Bernard Goldstein of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health in Pennsylvania.

    Paulson received a Ph.D. in environmental science in 1971 before joining the Natural Resources Defense Council to work on air and water pollution issues. He spent several years at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, where he was the primary author of the state's Superfund law. Most recently, Paulson was associate dean for research and professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, a position he left about a year ago to return home to Wyoming.

    Jackson's memo to her staff members says that Paulson will begin the job soon. Anastas, in contrast, had to cool his heels for several months because of a hold that was placed on his Senate confirmation to lead EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Paulson will wear only the hat of science adviser, with Lek Kadeli remaining as acting head of ORD.

    That division of duties makes sense to Goldstein, a former ORD administrator. He says it will allow the science advisor to focus on providing input on policy issues demanding Jackson's attention. "The administrator should have someone sitting at her elbow listening to what she needs."


    Gestapo-like abuse of power by the EPA

    Background:

    (Vidrine v. United States)

    The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) filed a federal lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in Lafayette against the United States for maliciously prosecuting Hubert P. Vidrine, Jr. of Opelousas, LA, for allegedly storing a hazardous substance without a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    After four years of prosecution, felony charges were suddenly dropped on the eve of trial in September 2003 after Vidrine discovered that the only witness for the government was addicted to cocaine causing hallucinations.

    Even after putting their witness under hypnosis in vain, the EPA could not produce the allegedly hazardous substance or any test results.

    The suit, filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) seeks a total of $5 million in damages. Mr. Vidrine, a plant manager at Canal Refining Co. in Church Point, LA, was indicted in 1999 in federal court for allegedly violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for the improper storage of hazardous waste without a permit.

    A few years before Vidrine was indicted, a "SWAT Team" consisting of almost two dozen armed Special EPA Agents from EPA's Criminal Investigation Division (CID), FBI, and other law enforcement officers raided Canal Refining with M-16 rifles and police dogs; falsely accused Mr. Vidrine of storing hazardous waste and lying about it; prevented employees from using the restrooms for several hours; prevented those same employees from calling their homes and daycare centers to make plans to have children picked up; falsely told the employees that Mr. Vidrine had been poisoning them and giving them cancer; and threatened them with imprisonment if they did not provide damaging evidence against Mr. Vidrine.

    It appears that the EPA's chief witness in the case, Mike Franklin, claimed that he had taken samples of the alleged hazardous waste and had it tested. However, neither the EPA nor federal prosecutors could produce the test results allegedly proving RCRA violations.

    Mr. Vidrine later discovered that Mr. Franklin was addicted to cocaine. Nevertheless, federal prosecutors and the EPA insisted on using Mr. Franklin as their key witness, even though subpoenas issued by the prosecutors to chemical testing laboratories in the area failed to turn up any lab results of the alleged hazardous waste in question.

    To no avail, the government went so far as to place Mr. Franklin under hypnosis in a desperate attempt to obtain information about the alleged testing samples.

    The trial judge ruled that Mr. Franklin could not be used as a witness. At the urging of EPA agents, federal prosecutors continued to insist that the government should be able to use Mr. Franklin as their key witness and appealed the judge's decision to exclude Mr. Franklin's testimony to the Fifth Circuit.

    They reluctantly withdrew the appeal when the U.S. Solicitor General's Office decided not to approve it. On September 17, 2003, on the eve of trial, federal prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against Mr. Vidrine and two other defendants, which was granted the next day.

    Mr. Vidrine was forced to spend over $180,000, his entire retirement savings, to defend himself against the bogus charges. After the charges were dropped, Mr. Vidrine stated, "I didn't think that this could happen in America."

    Mr. Vidrine contacted WLF for legal assistance because of WLF's work on behalf of another small business in Worcester, Massachusetts, which was raided by armed EPA agents and where EPA misconduct led to charges being dropped on the eve of trial against the company (Riverdale Mills Corp.) and its owner (James M. Knott, Sr.).

    WLF filed complaints in November 2003 with EPA's Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice to investigate the misconduct.

    In September 2005, Vidrine filed a claim for damages against the EPA and the Department of Justice under the FTCA for compensation for malicious prosecution and other misconduct. Both agencies have failed to respond to Vidrine's claim, thus necessitating the filing of today's lawsuit.

    "This is an outrageous case of malicious prosecution and misconduct by the EPA and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Louisiana," said Paul Kamenar, WLF's Senior Executive Counsel. "The EPA and the Department of Justice has a sad history of using heavy-handed tactics and criminalizing business activities where administrative or civil remedies would be more appropriate," Kamenar added.

    SOURCE

    Update of October 7, 2011:

    The legal might of the U.S. government is usually enough to roll right over someone like Opelousas, La. plant manager Hubert Vidrine Jr. But last week the underdog had his day: a federal court awarded Vidrine $1.7 million for having been maliciously prosecuted by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Our friends at the Washington Legal Foundation, who helped represent Vidrine, give details:

    "The just-resolved case started in 1996 when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered its SWAT-like special operations team (equipped with M-16 rifles and police dogs) to raid the Canal Refinery, Mr. Vidrine’s workplace. The raid led to a criminal investigation against Mr. Vidrine for allegedly unlawful storage and disposal of hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

    When it discovered that evidence of the alleged offense was lacking, the feds refused to back off and in fact redoubled their zeal. In a scathing 142-page ruling, Judge Rebecca Doherty wrote that federal prosecutor Keith Phillips “set out with intent and reckless and callous disregard for anyone’s rights other than his own, and reckless disregard for the processes and power which had been bestowed on him, to effectively destroy another man’s life.”

    A Greenwire dispatch published in the New York Times is at pains to present the Vidrine case (quoting a former enforcement official) an “isolated situation” arising from the actions of a “rogue” agent. As a local paper reported, “Phillips was accused of targeting Vidrine because of his outspokenness and choosing an investigation in Louisiana to be close to a woman with whom he was having a sexual affair.” The second of these motives, at least, presumably doesn’t figure very often in decisions to pursue federal criminal charges.

    Cato readers have reason to be less than surprised when federal enforcers abuse their powers, especially at an agency as convinced of its own righteousness as the EPA. Nine years ago, Cato published James V. DeLong’s “Out of Bounds, Out of Control: Regulatory Enforcement at the EPA.” In 2009 congressional testimony, Cato’s Tim Lynch discussed troubling cases like that of Alaska railroad employee Edward Hanousek (“prosecuted under the Clean Water Act even though he was off duty and at home when the accident occurred”).

    Yesterday, incidentally, brought another setback in court for the EPA: a federal judge slapped it down for flagrantly overstepping its legal charter by usurping the Army Corps of Engineers’s statutory role as part of its efforts to restrict coal mining in Appalachia. How many times do the agency and its enforcers have to overstep their authority before those incidents cease to be just ”isolated situation[s]“?

    SOURCE

    Footnote:

    A key EPA agent in the case, Keith Phillips, has just been convicted of lying during the civil trial.

    The Court concludes:

    [T]his court finds Agent Phillips testimony, conduct and documentation illustrate a deliberate patten of disregard for oaths taken, truth of the matter involved, wholly lacking in intellectual honesty, and exhibiting a deliberate intent to mislead all involved, particularly the prosecutors with whom he worked and who were relying upon his investigation and technical expertise in order to evaluate their case. Agent Phillips has displayed the very worst example of abuse and misuse of the power and trust bestowed upon a governmental agent, and has brought great shame upon the agency which had entrusted him with that power, responsibility, and authority.

    Wow again. Kudos to the Washington Legal Foundation for its pro bono work representing Vidrine.

    UPDATE: I see that Agent Phillips received his due in the case. According to a DOJ press release dated October 4, Phillips recent pled guilty to perjury and obstruction:

    A former special agent with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Criminal Investigation Division (CID) in Dallas has pleaded guilty to lying under oath and obstructing justice, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins Jr. of the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

    Keith Phillips, 61, of Kent, Texas, pleaded guilty yesterday before U.S. District Judge Richard T. Haik Sr. in the Western District of Louisiana to a two-count indictment charging him with obstruction of justice and perjury. The charges stemmed from his sworn testimony in relation to a case that was pending in the Western District of Louisiana.

    . . . Phillips faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 on the obstruction of justice count, and five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 on the perjury count. A sentencing date has not yet been scheduled by the court.

    “There is universal consensus that less flagrant violations with
    lesser environmental consequences should be addressed through
    administrative or civil monetary penalties and remedial orders."
    Earl Devaney
    Director, EPA Office of Criminal Enforcement (1994)
    "I'm a salesman. I sell jail time to people."
    EPA Special Agent
    Criminal Investigation Division (2003)


    This is an isolated situation because it is rare — freakishly rare, struck-twice-by-lightening rare — for federal law enforcement agents or federal prosecutors to be held accountable in any meaningful way for even serious misconduct against the Americans they accuse and pursue.

    Even in the relatively rare cases where deferential courts find government misconduct, those findings rarely yield consequences more than dismissals of prosecutions or reversals of convictions. A recent USA Today study found that over 12 years courts found misconduct by federal prosecutors in 201 cases — yet only one of those instances of misconduct resulted in state bar action against the government miscreant. Other studies produce similar results — take, for instance, this study by the Northern California Innocence Project, which found that (1) prosecutorial misconduct was found in hundreds of surveyed cases, but only found to be material — that is, only yielded some sort of relief to the defendant — in 20% of those cases, and (2) of the 600 cases of prosecutorial misconduct found, only 1% resulted in California State Bar action.

    Our courts are complicit. They rarely name the prosecutors in opinions finding misconduct. A few journalists and bloggers struggle to counter this by naming names — as they should. But for the most part, the vast majority of law enforcement is not detected or not reported, and what is reported or detected is not addressed. Law enforcement remains largely protected by the law, which immunizes its misconduct in all but the most extreme cases. (Today's example courtesy of Radley Balko — did an FBI agent take your Ferrari for a joyride like a bit character in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and wreck it? Sorry bub — the government is immune. Tough luck!)

    The fault lies not just in law enforcement or courts, but in ourselves — we have bought the law-enforcement-as-unquestionable-heroes concept uncritically, have re-embraced it after the noble sacrifices of law enforcement on 9/11, and have convinced ourselves that it is rational to mistrust government but trust law enforcement at the same time.

    We need a society-wide change in the way we view law enforcement. We need to begin to look with skepticism at 40 years of insipid "law and order" rhetoric. Some conservatives need to stop their senseless habit of viewing the agent with the raid jacket and the gun as somehow more reliable or trustworthy than the regulator with the clipboard. Some liberals need to stop suspending their appropriate suspicion of law enforcement when cops are on the trail of something ideologically important to them, like environmental crime or sexual assault. We need, as a society, to reject the servile concept that questioning law enforcement is "setting criminals free" or "looney liberal" or the like.

    If we don't, then the small measure of justice that Hubert Vidrine Jr. obtained will remain isolated and elusive. Government misconduct will continue.

    SPECIAL REPORT:
    Federal Erosion
    of Business
    Civil Liberties

    CALIFORNIA - EPA DELISTING IRON MOUNTAIN MINE!

    "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 aquatic life." Rick Sugarek, EPA project manager for Iron Mountain Mine Superfund cleanup, 2008 5 year review.

    CALIFORNIA - COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing; Not one biota, not one iota; No further evidence required to facially apparent facts

    05/01/ 1986 P R C Environmental Management, Inc. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Endangerment assessment draft final rpt, w/TL to T Mix fr T Brisbin 51189

    12/15/2000 C H 2 M Hill Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6FSP, QAPP, Health & Safety Plan for surface-water sampling 103636

    03/17/1997 Charles Alpers / US Geological Survey Richard Sugarek / Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9Ltr: Transmits QAPP, draft workplan, & draft FSP, w/attchs

    08/01/2001C H 2 M HillEnvironmental Protection Agency - Region 9Amended QAPP for air & surface-water sampling (QAPP & amendment 1)165834

    Keswick dam to Cottonwood Creek; Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list. JUNE 15, 2010;

    EPA has not yet implemented ICs (Institutional Controls) as required at the IMM Superfund Site in the five signed RODs
    (EPA, 1986; EPA, 1992; EPA, 1993; EPA, 1997; EPA, 2004
    )

    The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” (James Madison, Federalist 45 )

    PROCLAMATION TERMINATING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY, 2010-0021996 Shasta County Court

    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


    IMMI's STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING THE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT (SWR)

    Court for the Eastern District shall be held at Redding.

    Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/sec-california-19212558#ixzz11HJZkgsS

    28 USC 84 - Sec. 84. California

    US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

    a private party may “recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites.” United States v. Atl. Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 131

    October 11, 2010 CERCLA 'Arranger' Liability Narrowed

     

    Strange Justice

    See also Madison 's explanation of the purpose of the 9 th Amendment in response to Hamilton 's objection in Federalist 84 :

    1. “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general (i.e. Federal) government, and were consequently insecure.  This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against.  I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4 th resolution (i.e. the original draft of the 9 th amendment)” (James Madison, U.S. House of Representatives, June 8, 1789)

     2. “The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution” (An early version of the 9 th amendment—the last clause of the 4 th resolution—as submitted by James Madison, June 8, 1789).

    "The Billion Dollar Settlement" Cashout Advance, Iron Mountain Mine Superfund
    Cashout Advances are funds received by EPA, a state, or PRP under the terms of a
    settlement agreement (e.g., consent decree) to finance response action costs at a specified
    Superfund site. Under CERCLA Section 122(b)(3), cashout funds received by EPA are
    placed in site-specific, interest bearing accounts known as special accounts and are used for
    potential future work at such sites in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
    Funds placed in special accounts may be disbursed to PRPs, to states that take responsibility
    for the site, or to other Federal agencies to conduct or finance response actions in lieu of EPA
    without further appropriation by Congress. As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, cashout
    advances are $572 million and $489 million as restated, respectively.

    a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
    the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
    The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
    use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
    First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
    the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
    Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
    enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
    not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
    the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
    refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
    that may be exercised only through participation in some
    corporate body.5

    in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble
    (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people”
    will choose members of the House), and the Tenth
    Amendment (providing that those powers not given the
    Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the
    people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people”
    acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or
    reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the
    Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer
    to anything other than an individual right.6
    What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution
    that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
    refers to all members of the political community, not an
    unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

    April 25, 2012, 12:02 a.m. EDT

    Taxpayers still on hook for $119 bln in TARP funds

    Community banks face uphill battle to exit government program: report

    WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Taxpayers are still owed $119 billion in outstanding Troubled Asset Relief Program funds, a watchdog for the government crisis response program said Wednesday in a quarterly report to Congress.

    That number is down from $133 billion in TARP funds owed as of January, according to the author of the report, the Office of the Special Inspector General for the TARP. The government expects TARP to lose $60 billion.

    The program was set up during the height of the financial crisis of 2008 to stem a growing credit contagion by providing taxpayer-funded capital injections into big and smaller banks.

    Most of the remaining costs come from investments including taxpayer-funded stakes in American International Group Inc. AIG +0.97% , General Motors Co. GM -0.26%   and Ally Financial, as well as $18 billion from banks that still must repay their TARP injections, and another $15 billion in costs come from the public-private investment program, in which the government matched private investment into mortgage securities.

    The reduction in money owed to taxpayers comes partly from banks repaying their TARP and exiting the program. Regions Financial Corp. RF +5.91% repaid TARP $3.5 billion on April 4 and exited the program. Until it paid back the Treasury, Regions was the largest bank remaining in the TARP program, the report noted.

    AIG, through a combination of buy-backs from Treasury and Treasury sales of the troubled insurer’s shares on the open market, repaid about $7 billion. Treasury still has a 70% stake in AIG following the transactions, according to the report.

    The report added that a key reason for the costs is that many community banks have an uphill battle to exit TARP because they cannot find new capital. It noted that community banks with less than $1.5 billion in assets typically don’t have access to capital from private equity firms, mutual funds, foundations, and other institutional investors.

    The report said that of 351 banks remaining in the TARP program as of March 31, 163 were not current on dividend payments they are obliged to make to the Treasury Department. Over a hundred banks have missed five or more dividend payments and dozens more face formal enforcement actions by their federal regulator, the report added.

    However, the report notes that Treasury has already written off or realized losses of $14 billion in TARP investments.

    The report noted that most regional mid-sized banks remaining in TARP have taken steps to issue new stock or debt or selling assets as part of plans to repay the government.

    Ten regional banks remained in the program as of April, including Cathay General Bancorp. CATY +1.28% , First Bancorp. FNLC +1.05% , Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. FBC +4.28% , International Bancshares Corp. IBOC +2.25% , M&T Bank Corp. MTB +0.96%  , New York Private Bank & Trust Corporation, Popular Inc. BPOP +1.10%  , PrivateBancorp Inc. PVTB +7.00% , Synovus Financial Corp. SNV +2.90% , and Zions Bancorp. ZION -3.58%  .

    New costs are expected to hit banks beginning in late 2013, when banks still in the program will face a significant rise in dividend payments they are obliged to make to the government from 5% to 9%.

    More from this author:
    • Follow Ron Orol on Twitter:
    twitter.com/rorol
    See Ron Orol's stories on MarketWatch

    “Getting the community banks left in TARP back on their feet without government assistance must be a high priority for Treasury and the federal banking regulators,” said Special Inspector General Christy Romero.

    Banks receiving TARP capital injections must initially pay a 5% dividend per year, with payment to Treasury due four times a year. Five years after signing a contract to receive those funds, TARP recipients must pay dividends of 9%, based on a provision to encourage banks to pay back the funds they have received.

    Ronald D. Orol is a MarketWatch reporter, based in Washington.

    TARP: Billions in Loans in Doubt

    Hundreds of small banks can't afford to repay federal bailout loans, a top watchdog will warn Wednesday in a report that challenges the government's upbeat assessment of its financial-system rescue.

    Christy Romero, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, said 351 small banks with some $15 billion in outstanding TARP loans face a "significant challenge" in raising new funds to repay the government.

    Ms. Romero made the comments in her quarterly report to Congress, the first since the Senate approved her appointment in March as special inspector general for the program. She urged the government and regulators to ...

    Available to WSJ.com Subscribers

    sponsored links

    Bank of America®Supporting The Non Profits That Address Critical Community Needs

    DUE DILIGENCE

    “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, . . . they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience . . . .” Id.  222, at 233 (emphasis added). Locke

     

    [$ 542] 5. Effect of Possession by Tenant. Within the rule that actual possession of part of a tract of land under color of title gives constructive possession to the extent of the boundaries designated in the conveyance, the possession of part of a tract of land by a tenant of the holder of color of title, who has been put into possession under a lease which does not restrict the possession to any definite part of the tract, will give the lessor constructive posses sion coextensive with the boundaries of his deed,* 4 since the possession of the tenant inures to the benefit of the lessor; 35 and it is not material that only a small part of the land is actually occupied. 38 It has also been held in a number of decisions that even though the lease restricts the possession of the tenant to a definite portion of the tract, his possession will, by construction, be extended to the boundaries of the deed under which the lessor claims, 37 provided of course no one else is in actual possession of the balance of the tract. 38 And in other decisions, where the opinion does not show definitely whether the lease contained such a restriction, the rule is broadly otherwise expressed, if one claiming under an assurance of title defining boundaries places a tenant in possession without limiting him to any definite part, the tenant's possession will extend to the landlord's boundaries, although the land actually occupied is but a small part of the whole Bell v. North American Coal, etc Co., 155 Fed. 712, 84 CCA 60.

    Possession by one's tenant is his own possession. State v. Harmon, 57 W. Va. 447, 50 SK 828

    "U.S. Marshall McKeough explained the object of the meeting in a few pertinent remarks. He said that Mr. Hutchens told him on yesterday that unless they give up the water in the creek aforesaid, that he, Hutchens, would take a body of men and take the water by force of arms and hold the same until he and his men were whipped off the ground.

    His party as above mentioned claim right of possession of the water, and are suing for breach of Close and holding over by deceit.

    In this dilemma Mr. Arman calls upon all his fellow-miners and countrymen to assist him in defending his rights, agreeable to the old miners' laws.

    They said that this was a serious affair, they are willing to defend the old established miners' laws and the right."


    California Choice of Law, Jurisdiction & Venue Clauses

    THE IDEAL LODE

    TAKING, UNJUST - When the government acquires private property and fails to compensate an owner fairly. A taking can occur even without the actual physical seizure of property, such as when a government regulation has substantially devalued a property.

    An otherwise valid exercise of the police power constitutes a taking for which compensation is due if the owner suffers a permanent, physical occupation of the property. Yee v. Escondido, 112 S. Ct. 1522 (1992); Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 2900 (1992); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 427-28 (1982); Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 166 (1871); Ferguson, 852 P.2d at 207. Physical invasions have been found where the government interferes with the owner's "right to exclude." See, e.g., Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) (public access to pond); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (public easement to beach); Loretto, 458 U.S. at 427-28 (installation of cable); Pumpelly, 80 U.S. at 166 (flooding); Hawkins v. City of La Grande, 843 P.2d 400 (Or. 1992) (one-time flooding).

    However, the state may enter property to enforce a valid land use regulation and destroy the offending property. This does not amount to a physical occupation even where the government's activity has a permanent effect. See Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, 278 (1928) (permitting state entomologist to enter property and destroy diseased trees without affecting a taking); see also Bowditch v. Boston, 101 U.S. 16, 18-19 (1880) (denying compensation to owners whose houses were destroyed to prevent spread of fire); Shaffer, 576 P.2d at 824-25 (finding that city may enter to demolish substandard vacant building without compensating owner). "[T]he government affects a physical taking only when it requires the land owner to submit to the physical occupation of his land." Ferguson, 852 P.2d at 207.

    "There is, of course, no federal Constitutional right to be free from changes in the land use laws." Lakeview Dev. Corp. v. City of South Lake Tahoe, 915 F.2d 1290 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1251 (1991); see also William C. Haas & Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 605 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 928 (1980). To establish a violation of their right to substantive due process, the Dodds must prove that the County's actions were "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395 (1926); see also Sinaloa Lake, 882 F.2d at 1407. A substantive due process claim requires proof that the interference with property rights was irrational and arbitrary. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 15 (1976). Federal judicial interference with a local government zoning decision is proper only where the government body could have no legitimate reason for its decision. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 464 (1981); Herrington, 834 F.2d at 1498 n. 7. There is no denial of substantive due process if the question as to whether the government acted arbitrarily or capriciously is "at least debatable." Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. at 469.

    According to the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional taking consists of two components: taking of property and subsequent denial of just compensation. If a property owner receives just compensation through the process the government provides, the property owner does not have a taking claim. Id. at 194-95. Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 194 (1985).

    Inverse condemnation suits do not provide only the just compensation required under state law. Rather, such suits are a method of obtaining the just compensation required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. "A landowner is entitled to bring an action in inverse condemnation as a result of the self-executing character of the constitutional provision with respect to compensation." First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315 (1987). "Claims for just compensation are grounded in the Constitution itself." Id. The state procedure Williamson County references is the procedure necessary to raise a federal taking claim in state court. Thus, under Williamson County, a taking claimant must litigate the federal constitutional claim through the processes the state provides.

    The Supreme Court compared the process for making a claim against state or local governments to the process for making a claim against the federal government. A taking claim against the federal government is "premature until the property owner has availed itself of the process provided by the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. S 1491." Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 195 (citing Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1016-1020 (1984)). The Tucker Act grants the U.S. Claims Court " `jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded . . . upon the Constitution.' " Monsanto, 467 U.S. at 1017 (citing 28 U.S.C. S 1491). Thus, a Tucker Act taking claim is a claim for the just compensation required by the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court indicated that the Tucker Act procedure is analogous to the state proceedings claimants must follow to obtain just compensation from state and local governments. Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 195. Therefore, claimants following state procedures, like those utilizing the procedure established under the Tucker Act, should raise the federal just compensation requirement.

    The decision in Williamson County, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), established two distinct requirements for taking claims under the rubric of ripeness:

    First, "the government entity charged with implementing the regulations [must have] reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue." 473 U.S. at 186.

    Second, plaintiffs must have sought "compensation through the procedures provided by the State for obtaining such compensation." 473 U.S. at 195.

    Both the final decision and compensation elements must be ripe before the claim is justiciable.

    The final decision element is well-developed. Beginning with Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980), and Hodel v. Virginia Surface Min. & Reclamation Ass'n. Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981), the Court has declined to rule on taking claims when it believed the property owner had not received a final and definitive decision from a land use regulatory body on development of the property at issue. In Williamson County, the taking claim was unripe because there remained the "potential for . . . administrative solutions." 473 U.S. at 187 (landowner failed to seek variances that could have allowed development).

    In applying the final decision requirement, we have emphasized that local decision-makers must be given the opportunity to review at least one reasonable development proposal before we will consider ripe an as-applied challenge to a land use regulation. See, e.g., Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 922 F.2d 498, 503 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 943 (1991); Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir.), modified, 830 F.2d 968 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043 (1988). Finality also requires the local government to determine the type and intensity of development that land use regulations will allow on the subject property; this determination helps the court evaluate whether regulation of the subject property is excessive by identifying the extent of the regulation. See Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 857 F.2d at 570; Lai v. City and County of Honolulu, 841 F.2d 301, 303 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 994 (1988). Thus, a landowner may need to submit modified development proposals that satisfy the local government's objections to the development as initially proposed. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, 920 F.2d 1496, 1501 (9th Cir. 1990); MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 351-53 (1986).

    Once the appropriate state agency reaches a final decision, the second ripeness requirement of Williamson County, the compensation element, is triggered. A federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider an as-applied regulatory taking claim until a determination is reached that "just compensation" has been denied by the state: [B]ecause the Fifth Amendment proscribes taking without just compensation, no constitutional violation occurs until just compensation has been denied. The nature of the constitutional right therefore requires that a property owner utilize procedures for obtaining compensation before bringing a Section 1983 action. 473 U.S. at 194 n. 13 (emphasis added).

    In Williamson County, the Court concluded that Hamilton Bank's taking claim was not ripe because the Bank failed to utilize available state procedures: Under Tennessee law, a property owner may bring an inverse condemnation action to obtain just compensation for an alleged taking of property under certain circumstances . . . [U]ntil it has utilized that procedure, its taking claim is premature. Id. at 196-97. See also Jama Const. v. City of Los Angeles, 938 F.2d 1045, 1047-48 (9th Cir. 1991) (Dismissed as unripe where plaintiff "did not seek compensation through California procedures before bringing its federal action."), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 919 (1992); Bateson v. Geisse, 857 F.2d 1300, 1306 (9th Cir. 1988) (Because Montana recognizes inverse condemnation under the State Constitution, plaintiff must "pursue [that claim] before he can state a [federal ] taking claim.").

    [I]f a state provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation. 473 U.S. at 195.

    The central concern of ripeness is whether the case involves uncertain or contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all. 13A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 3532 at 126 (citing Thomas v. Union Carbide Agr. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580 (1985)). If an issue can be illuminated by the development of a better factual record, a challenge may be unripe. See Pacific Legal Found. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Dev. Comm'n, 659 F.2d 903, 915 (9th Cir. 1981), aff'd on other grounds, 461 U.S. 190 (1983); Hoehne, 870 F.2d at 532. The Fifth Amendment action is not more "developed" or "ripened " through presentation of the ultimate issue -- the failure of a state to provide adequate compensation for a taking -- to the state court. Indeed, such a requirement would not ripen the claim, rather it would extinguish the claim. See Palomar Mobilehome Park v. City of San Marcos, 989 F.2d 362 (9th Cir. 1993). Declining to hear a case on ripeness grounds is appropriate in situations where there is a reasonable prospect that the state courts may adjust state law to avoid or alter the constitutional question. 13A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 3532.5 at 126. But where deference rests instead "on the prospect that the state courts may entertain and decide the constitutional question, the issue of comity should be addressed directly without reliance on ripeness." Id.

    The case law is clear that with the exception of federal habeas corpus review of state convictions under 28 U.S.C. S 2254, the determination of federal constitutional questions in state court systems may not be reviewed or repeated in the federal systems. The Court in Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 104 (1980) said that"[t]he federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel," excepting only "a federal writ of habeas corpus, the purpose of which is not to redress civil injury but to release the applicant from unlawful physical confinement."

    [I]t has been established at least since Jacobs v. United States, 290 U.S. 13 (1933), that claims for just compensation are grounded in the Constitution itself. [The claim] rested upon the Fifth Amendment. Statutory recognition [by the state] was not necessary. [I]n the event of a taking, the compensation remedy is required by the Constitution. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315-16 (1987) (citations omitted).

    Courts routinely have held that state procedures are considered inadequate only when state law provides no postdeprivation remedy for a taking. See Austin, 840 F.2d at 681 (Hawaiian courts and legislature had neither accepted nor rejected inverse condemnation action under Article I, Section 20 of the Hawaiian Constitution); Levald Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 688 (9th Cir. 1993) ("the unavailability of state remedies is the functional equivalent of the denial of just compensation"), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 924 (1994); see also New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 985 F.2d 1488, 1493-94 (11th Cir.) ("Florida law . . . provided no post-deprivation remedy."), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 439 (1993).

    Oct 28

    THE IMPORTANCE OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

    Filed Under Articles of Confederation , CONSTITUTION , LEARNING THE LAW , Northwest Ordinance , ORGANIC LAWS

    The powers of all governments are almost universally conceded to be: legislative, executive and judicial and law is either written or unwritten law, so in the United States of America, where government is without equivocation believed to be tripartite, written law controls government. The surprise is that written law is limited to the territory owned by the United States of America, which is a simple definition of territorial jurisdiction.

    The Constitution of September 17, 1787 and the Constitution of the United States are the two Constitutions that control the government of the United States, which is composed of territory belonging to the United States of America. The oft forgotten and erroneously reported as a dead Constitution, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, still guides and controls the federal government and Senate of the United States of America.

    A word search of the Organic Laws of the United States of America for a clear connection of territorial jurisdiction with anyone of the three government powers reveals the obvious difference between the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Constitution of September 17, 1787. The subject of territorial jurisdiction in the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 is purely a matter of the sovereign States involved in territorial disputes. This is consistent with the Articles of Confederation's purpose as an establishment of a defensive Union, without powers other than those expressly delegated. The Constitution of September 17, 1787 would, when ratified by nine States of the first Union create another Union of States composed of States primarily owned by the United States of America.

    Both the kind of government and the territorial jurisdiction of a Government of the United States headed by a President of the United States is revealed in the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, which provides a temporary government for the federal district then known as the Northwest Territory. The temporary government for the Northwest Territory federal district became the permanent government for the District of Columbia and other territory and other property belonging to the United States of America, when nine States of the first Union ratified the Constitution of September 17, 1787. Ratification of this Constitution made the temporary territorial jurisdiction of the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 permanent.

    Does the Constitution of September 17, 1787 expand the territorial jurisdiction of the permanent form of government proposed for the Northwest Territory? The answer has to be an unqualified no. Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 of that Constitution secures the proprietary power over “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” meaning, of course, the United States of America. Territorial jurisdiction is rooted in the proprietary power of the Congress of the United States under the authority of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution of September 17, 1787 only confers legislative power when ratified by nine States. Proprietary power can only be transferred by the conveyance of the territory or property.

    What's the importance of knowing the difference between the territorial jurisdiction of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 territorial jurisdiction of the Constitution of September 17, 1787? The Constitution of September 17, 1787 allows the States of the first and second Unions to draw the lines of a Congressional district even if there's no territory owned by the United States of America within the territory making up the district. Territory owned by the United States of America doesn't get the Representative a vote in the House of Representatives. Only Representatives with districts made up of territory not owned by the United States of America can vote on federal taxation legislation on settlers and inhabitants of territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

     

    § 409. b. New assignment.—Yet in many actions tha plaintiff, who has alleged in his declaration a general wrong, may in his replication, after an evasive plea by the defendant, reduce that them in the defamatory sense imputed by the innuendo, or in any defamatory or actionable sense which the words themselves imported, asserted that the occasion was privileged, and also denied that the words were spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his profession or trade, whenever they were alleged to have been so spoken. But now this compendious mode of pleading is abolished. "Not Guilty" can no longer be pleaded in a civil action. The defendant must deal specifically with every allegation of which he docs not admit the truth.

    (iv) Demurrers were abolished. It is true that either party is still allowed to place on the record an objection in point of law, which is very similar to the former demurrer. But there is this important difference. The party demurring could formerly insist on having his demurrer separately argued, which caused delay. But now such points of law are argued at the trial of the action; it is only by consent of the parties, or by order of the court or a judge, that the party objecting can have the point set down for argument and disposed of before the trial. And, as a rule, such an order will only be made where the decision of the point of law will practically render any trial of the action unnecessary.

    (v) Pleas in abatement were abolished. If cither party desires to add or strike out a party, he must apply by summons (see Kendall v. Hamilton, [1879] 4 App. Cas. 504; Pilley v. Robinson, [1887] 20 Q. B. D. 155; Wilson v. Balcarres Brook Steamship Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 422). No cause or matter now "shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties."

    (vi) Equitable relief is now granted, and equitable claims and defenses are now recognized, in all actions in the high court of justice.

    (vii) Payment into court was for the first time allowed generally in all actions.

    (viii) The right of setoff was preserved unchanged; but a very large power was given to a defendant to counterclaim. He can raise any kind of crossclaim against the plaintiff, and in some cases even against the plaintiff with others, subject only to the power of a master or judge to order the claim

    fraud."—(1) The word "fraud," as used in the statute providing that possession, to be the foundation of prescription, cannot originate in fraud, the fraud meant is actual fraud—a moral fraud, a wrongful act, and not a legal act which the law denominates a fraud regardless of the bona fides of the parties. Dixon v. Patterson, 135 Ga. 183, 69 SE 21: Floyd v. Ricketson, 129 Ga. 668, 59 SE 909; Bower v. Cohen, 126 Ga. 35, 54 SE 918: Arnold v. Limeburger, 122 Ga. 72, 49 SE 812; Street v. Collier, 118 Ga. 470, 45 SE 294; Connell v. Culpepper, 111 Ga. 805, 35 SE 667; Lee v. Ogden, 83 Ga. 325, 10 SE 349 [disappr Hunt v. Dunn, 74 Ga. 120]; Ware v. Barlow, 81 Ga. 1, 6 SE 465; Wingfleld v. Virgin, 51 Ga. 139. (2) "To defeat prescriptive title the fraud of the party claiming thereunder must be such as to charge his conscience. He must be cognizant of the fraud, not by constructive, but by actual notice." Shingler v. Bailey, 135 Ga. 666, 668, 70 SE 563 (per Atkinson, J.). (3) An honest mistake of law as to the effect of the writing cannot of course, amount to a moral fraud as against the true owner. Bower v. Cohen, supra.


    "Minerals like copper and zinc are necessary nutrients, not poisons. We don't threaten salmon, we eat salmon when it is served." John F. Hutchens -Full Article at Sacramento Bee

    DECLARATIONS OF TED ARMAN

    33n 6w

    Lincoln Patent


    Document ID: 1952-0000349
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 1/23/1952
    Book Page #: Book: 365 : Page: 22
    No. of Pages: 1
    Image: A scanned image of this document is not available.

    CONTRACT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO IRON MOUNTAIN INVEST CO
    UNITED STATES UNITED STATES

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 1974-0015100
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 8/15/1974
    Book Page #: Book: 1234 : Page: 649
    No. of Pages: Unknown
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    PATENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    USA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 1976-0033165
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 12/17/1976
    Book Page #: Book: 1385 : Page: 546
    No. of Pages: Unknown
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    DEED

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 1977-0023077
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 7/20/1977
    Book Page #: Book: 1442 : Page: 285
    No. of Pages: Unknown
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    DEED

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 1990-0018344
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 5/2/1990
    Book Page #: Book: 48 : Page: 177
    No. of Pages: Unknown
    Image: A scanned image of this document is not available.

    LAND SURVEY

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    ARMAN, T W None
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 2000-0016716
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 5/11/2000 3:27:17 PM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 12
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    LIEN

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 2011-0005844
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 2/28/2011 11:22:41 AM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 1
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018176CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/804
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018183CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/811
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018184CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/812
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018177CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/805
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034436CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034437CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034438CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034439CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034440CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034441CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034442CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034443CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034444CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018178CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/806
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018179CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/807


    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCO 2000-0047250SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE12/27/2000/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCO 2000-0047249SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE12/27/2000/


    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2000-0047249-001RECONVEYANCE12/27/2000/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2000-0047250-001RECONVEYANCE12/27/2000/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1981-0002532RECONVEYANCE1/30/19811788/128

    Document ID: 1992-0007124
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 2/18/1992
    Book Page #: Book: 2819 : Page: 33
    No. of Pages: Unknown
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC ARMAN, T W

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document Detail


    Document ID: 2004-0017790
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 3/31/2004 4:20:13 PM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 3
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 2009-0002640
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 1/28/2009 1:09:16 PM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 6
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    AGREEMENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC IRON MOUNTAIN MINES L L C
    SERENESCAPES SERENESCAPES

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 1927-0002401
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 10/8/1927
    Book Page #: Book: 33 : Page: 183
    No. of Pages: 1
    Image: A scanned image of this document is not available.

    DEED

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN RAILWAY CO MOUNTAIN COPPER CO

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 2002-0042547
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 8/20/2002 11:39:19 AM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 1
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    LIEN

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCORPORATED SYSTEMS AUTOMATION

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 2010-0008803
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 3/25/2010 2:05:34 PM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 4
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    NOTICE

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    ARMAN, TED W HU/MOUNTAIN JOINT VENTURE
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE INC HUTCHENS, JOHN
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE LLC SERENESCAPES

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    On Earth Day, a few snags
    Minor Recovering costs In a CERCLA Setback, Shell v. U.S., No. 2010-5161 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
    the Federal Circuit has unequivocally recognized that a World War II-era government contract obligates the government to reimburse its former contractor fully for any “laterarising” CERCLA environmental costs, even if those liabilities accrued 50 years after the government contract was terminated.[1]


    4:20
    December 9, 2010

    EPA is earning a reputation for abuse


    Posted at 11:00 AM ET, 04/27/2012

    An EPA official let the truth slip out

    ABC News reports:

    The video conveys the full force of the petty, self-satisfied bureaucrat who conceives in grandiose terms of his job in a war on the industries he regulates:

    Al Almendariz apologized for his remarks.
    This also sheds additional light on President Obama’s energy policy, such as it is. We know the highlights by now: Impose 10 of 14 new taxes on oil and gas companies, block the XL Pipeline, make development of natural gas and oil fields as difficult as possible and give sweetheart deals to donors to promote ”green jobs.” (Americans for Prosperity is out with a new ad highlighting some of the administration’s energy boondoggles.) The administration distanced itself from the EPA official’s remarks, but it’s hard to escape the conclusion that he perfectly embodies the ethos of his agency.
    Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex.) excoriated the EPA for“burdensome regulatory overreach.”
    Verb1.excoriate - express strong disapproval of; "We condemn the racism in South Africa"; "These ideas were reprobated"
    denounce - speak out against; "He denounced the Nazis"

    2.excoriate - tear or wear off the skin or make sore by abrading; "This leash chafes the dog's neck"


    GF-ribbon-logo

    Lead dangers

    CLEVELAND, April 19 (UPI) -- The Environmental Protection Agency and state regulators knew of lead contamination in hundreds of U.S. towns but did not notify the residents.

    The federal government had been warned a decade ago about the poison likely left behind by more than 400 companies operating lead smelters in American cities, but failed to take any action to protect citizens or compel cleanups.. The Federal EPA & state regulators tested for and found high levels of lead in many cities including New York City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Chicago, but they neglected to notify the residents of the probable risks or order any cleanups, said the newspaper USA Today.  A 14-month investigation found government officials failed to disclose the dangers of exposure or ingestion from the soil contamination in neighborhoods surrounding many of more than 400 lead smelter locations operating in the 1930s to 1960s.

    The sites tested came from a list of more than 400 potential lead smelters believed to be unknown to federal regulators because they operated before the creation of the EPA. The list was developed by environmental scientist William Eckel, who published a 2001 article in the American Journal of Public Health warning that the forgotten factories might have contaminated surrounding properties.

    Because most of the old smelters had operated for decades without any regulatory oversight and are now gone, little was known about the size of each factory, where they were located, how much lead they processed and how much pollution they left behind.

    Under natural conditions, lead is found only in very small amounts in soil. The average in U.S. surface soils is just 19 parts per million (ppm), according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

    The soil samples tested using the XRF devices showed several neighborhoods had lead levels greater than 2,000 ppm, topping 3,400 ppm in Cleveland, Portland, Ore., and Carteret, N.J. Mielke's lab often found higher levels in samples than what the devices showed in the field.

    The EPA considers soil a potential hazard in children's play areas at levels above 400 ppm. Soil below the EPA threshold isn't necessarily safe: California has set a much lower standard, 80 ppm, using computer models to find a level they say is more protective of children. Of the 21 smelter neighborhoods, 80% had median soil lead levels above California's benchmark in the XRF tests.

    "EPA does not notify residents of potential contamination based solely on the possibility that past industrial activities may have occurred. This type of approach would unnecessarily alarm residents and community members," the agency's Philadelphia regional office said in a written response to USA TODAY's questions.

    The EPA noted it is not uncommon to find high levels of lead in soil in large urban areas because of decades of pollution from sources including flaking lead-based paint and dust from vehicles burning leaded gasoline, as well as by lead smelters and other factories. The EPA is authorized to clean up soil only if it can prove the lead came from a specific industrial release.

    Director of assessment and remediation for the EPA's Superfund program Elizabeth Southerland said the investigation alarmed the government and it will now take a look at the soil contamination from lead smelters.

    "I am convinced we have addressed the highest-risk sites," she said, but; "Absolutely and positively, we are open to reassessing sites that we now feel, based on your information, need another look."

    A remainder-man, after entering upon a party in possession by intrusion, may maintain trespass against the intruders, though he retains possession. 1 M. & R. 220 ; 7 B. & C. 399.

    By virtue of the office of general conservator of the peace throughout the whole kingdom, the High Warden may commit all violators of the peace, or bind them in recognizances to keep it; but other Judges are only so in their own Courts.

    Terris, bonis et calallis rehabendis post purgationem. A writ for a clerk to recover his lands, goods, and chattels formerly seized, after he had cleared himself of the felony of which he was accused, and delivered to his ordinary to be purged. Reg. Orig. 68.

    Perhaps the best way to eliminate bad climate science is to discredit bad lead poisoning scientists... starting with Dr. Schoen

    Submitted by Norm Roulet on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 03:46.


    Dr. Edgar J. Schoen

    As the son of a physician, who grew up socializing with physicians and their families, I've always seen doctors - scientists - as regular human beings, who burn hot dogs, crash cars, fall down, make mistakes, and fade away. This makes me very aware of the fallibility of doctors and their diagnoses, to the core.

    Lessons learned - not all scientists are created equal - all scientists are flawed - be an informed consumer and make certain all your science decisions are based on the best scientific data and scientists possible - always get a second opinion... more if the decision in truly important.

    Having spent several years studying and addressing the lead poisoning crisis in Northeast Ohio and worldwide, as a subcommittee co-chair of the Greater Cleveland Lead Advisory Council, and seeing lead poisoning from inside the healthcare and human services industries, as the parent of lead poisoning victims, I have become informed about the poor quality of healthcare industry attention to lead poisoning in America - historically and now - nationwide and especially in highest incidence regions like Northeast Ohio. The poor quality of healthcare response to lead poisoning is intentional and designed into government by the healthcare industry through corruption of scientists who are bad.

    Bad—Synonyms: Depraved, corrupt, base, sinful, criminal, atrocious. Bad,  evil,  ill,  wicked  are closest in meaning in reference to that which is lacking in moral qualities or is actually vicious and reprehensible. Bad  is the broadest and simplest term: a bad man; bad habits.  Evil  applies to that which violates or leads to the violation of moral law: evil practices.  Ill  now appears mainly in certain fixed expressions, with a milder implication than that in evil: ill will; ill-natured.  Wicked  implies willful and determined doing of what is very wrong: a wicked plan.

    As all scientists are human, and so some significant percentage are bad, it is not a problem for industry to hire scientists who are corruptible and use science wrong. Tobacco, lead poisoning and now climate change are all areas of science where industry has hired bad scientists to use bad science wrong, to mislead government, the media and the public, killing beyond measure.

    As the informed world watches global industrial interests corrupt environmental science concerning climate change - paying bad scientists to promote bad climate change-denier science, and attack good science and good scientists - leading to flawed decisions in government, leading to excessive industrial harm in the world, pushing human life to the precipice... consider the suffering caused as a result of unnecessary lead poisoning, as a result of over a century of corruption of science, government and media by industry, causing an avoidable crisis still destroying the lives of 1,000,000s of Americans and the American economy today.

    As the father of lead poisoned children, furious about bad lead poisoning-denier science in America, I get furious whenever I come across evidence of industrial operations to discredit good science and prevent good government from protecting citizens from the crisis of lead poisoning in America. As many of the bad scientists responsible for this are still alive and impacting public health today, I'm inclined to "out" them and challenge them on their competency, now that they are proven wrong about lead poisoning.

    Perhaps the best way to eliminate bad climate science is to discredit bad lead poisoning scientists personally - show bad climate scientists how badly they will be treated when they are exposed.

    Make examples of bad lead poisoning-denier scientists to scare bad climate change-denier scientists straight.

    One disturbing lead poisoning-denier "scientist", who helped cause the unnecessary lead poisoning of 100s millions of children and adults in America, is Dr. Edgar J. Schoen, still practicing medicine in California today. Doctor Schoen... from Wikipedia:

    Dr. Edgar J. Schoen - (born 1925 in New York) is an American physician, who works as a Clinical Professor in Pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, and held the position of Chair of the 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Dr. Schoen holds positions at Children's Hospital of the East Bay in Oakland, CA, and the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco, CA and is Board-certified in Pediatrics and Pediatric Endocrinology, and has practiced Pediatrics and Pediatric Endocrinology in Oakland, CA for 46 years. Dr. Schoen was Chief of Pediatrics at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland for 24 years.

    Missing from his biography there, and at his circumcision site, is reference to his role as a published, "expert" lead-poisoning-denier who, in 1998, published "CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING AND TAINTED SCIENCE" (143 KB .PDF), where he pontificated:

    Government agencies are telling people that childhood lead poisoning is often named as the leading environmental threat to our children. This conclusion is not accepted by most practicing physicians, who almost never see a case of symptomatic lead poisoning. Most pediatricians who practice in a large medical group in an urban area see environmental threats daily. These include poverty, violence, homelessness, family dysfunction, abuse, teenage pregnancy, drugs, and alcohol--but they have not included symptomatic lead poisoning. Most physicians do not accept current proclamations about the importance of childhood lead poisoning: the nation's pediatricians did not comply with 1991 recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for annual, universal childhood BPb screening

    Re-read this passage published by Schoen - literally gloating about committing medical malpractice - from as recently as 1998 - "Most physicians do not accept current proclamations about the importance of childhood lead poisoning: the nation's pediatricians did not comply with 1991 recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for annual, universal childhood BPb screening".

    In 1995, around 25% of Cleveland children had confirmed blood lead levels greater than 15 μg/dl... showing how great our lead burden was here, in the days Schoen wrote those words.

     

    Now, realize the symptoms of broken society caused by "symptomatic lead poisoning" are "poverty, violence, homelessness, family dysfunction, abuse, teenage pregnancy, drugs, and alcohol"... exactly what Schoen reported "most pediatricians who practice in a large medical group in an urban area" see as "environmental threats daily".

    Dr. Schoen's JOB - his responsibility as a physician in America - was to comply with and enforce the 1991 recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for annual, universal childhood BPb screening. He is admitting and reporting crimes against children by himself and "most physicians" in America of his time.

    The US Government requires doctors to protect society and protect children from lead poisoning through simple, inexpensive testing, which doctors routinely fail to do, because of conditioning from lead poisoning-denier "doctors" like Schoen.

    Unfortunately, doctors in Northeast Ohio learned medicine from doctors like Shoen, who claimed, in 1998: "Since the early 1970s, when regulations were promulgated eliminating lead from gasoline, paint, and other sources, mean BPb levels have rapidly and continuously fallen, and the threat of lead encephalopathy (Encephalopathy literally means disorder or disease of the brain) and related death has essentially disappeared in the United States."

    So foolish, considering reality, as of 2008, from Environmental Health Watch:

    Cleveland and Cuyahoga County Childhood Lead Poisoning Rates - 2008 (children under 6 years of age)

    • Based on the CDC blood-lead level-of-concern (10 mcg/dl), 6.3% (956 children) in Cleveland were identified as lead-poisoned
    • Based on the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County blood-lead level-of-awareness (5 mcg/dl), 21.7% (3,298 children) in Cleveland were identified as lead-poisoned,
    • Of the 25,351 children in Cuyahoga County that were tested in 2008, 16.2% (3,951 children) were tested at levels of 5 mcg/dl and above.
    • Of the 25,351 children in Cuyahoga County that were tested in 2008, 4.8% (1,174 children) were tested at levels of 10 mcg/dl and above.
    • Lead poisoning and increased blood lead levels have permanent affects on the well-being and health of a child, regardless of the current blood lead level.
    • Prevalence history of Cleveland including charts and maps dating back to 1995.

    Making lead poisoning in Cleveland the worst in the nation.

    In "Dr." Schoen's mind, influencing the minds in the American medical community, the threat of lead poisoning had disappeard by 1998:

    Paradoxically. in the past decade as symptomatic lead poisoning has disappeared, the attention and expenditures devoted to childhood lead poisoning have multiplied. In 1991, the CDC issued a report decreasing the threshold of concern about BPb levels in children from 25 μg/dL to 10 μg/dL, thus increasing the number of children considered to be at risk from childhood lead poisoning from 250,000 to over 3 million, creating an "epidemic by edict". The CDC also recommended that all U.S. children should first have lead testing done during the second half of their first year and then annually until age 5 y. These recommendations would have required testing for as many as 8-16 million U.S. children annually at a mean cost of about $20 per test, or $320 million annually for laboratory costs alone. Further regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought the total cost of lead testing and abatement programs to billions of dollars annually. The CDC issued a report referring to childhood lead poisoning as "the leading environmental threat to U.S. children".

    Here we see the real basis of this Doctor's science - he is trying to protect his employer at the time, Kaiser Permanente, from the cost of testing children in their health system for lead poisoning, and from the costly reality that a high percentage of their child-patients are permanently disabled.

    Dr. Schoen's term "epidemic by edict" is specifically referenced in Little Pamphlets and Big Lies: Federal Authorities Respond to Childhood Lead Poisoning, 1935–2003 (77Kb .PDF), by Christian Warren, PhD, New York Academy of Medicine, in analyzing dishonest science and media that has caused ongoing lead poisoning of 100,000,000s of Americans, over nearly a century:

    An important part of the CDC’s leadership is its dominant role in setting standards: how to set up a screening program, best practices for laboratories, standards of care in case-management. And since the 1980s, the CDC’s standards for risk-assessment and case management have in effect defined the level of lead absorption considered to constitute a case of lead poisoning in the first place. Setting these standards is often highly politically charged. For example, lowering the blood-lead level that triggers medical or public health agency interventions (which for most of the medical community and the public comes to define the boundary between a “normal” and “lead-poisoned” child) dramatically increases the population of at-risk children, a function critics refer to as “epidemic by edict.” Favoring one screening technology over another has huge ramifications for medical technology companies hoping to cash in on enlarged screening programs. Establishing health standards in such a setting requires a mixture of good science, political and marketing savvy, and political will.

    It should have been no surprise, then, that as average blood lead levels fell sharply as a consequence of successes in removing lead from the general environment, advocates
    for universal screening within CDC had increasing difficulty making their case. By the mid-1990s, lead poisoning appeared to be far from the pandemic it had seemed ten years earlier. In 1995, the CDC began reviewing its 1991 recommendations for screening and abatement. At least three related factors pushed CDC toward capitulation. First, the lead industry was successful in manufacturing controversy around the dangers of “low-level” lead exposure through industry-sponsored research and highly public professional and legal attacks on prominent researchers. Second, there arose strong opposition from health care providers unwilling to be saddled with screening for lead poisoning in regions with low prevalence rates—especially in western states where housing stock was predominantly low-lead. In this setting, consensus within the CDC shifted considerably on the question of whether universal screening was a realistic goal.

    Dr. Warren just defined Dr. Schoen: "there arose strong opposition from health care providers unwilling to be saddled with screening for lead poisoning in regions with low prevalence rates—especially in western states".

    As a result of Schoen's global corruption of science - for his former employer Kaiser Permanente - and Schoen's misuse of his medical standing and the media, Cleveland suffers.

    It may come as no surprise Schoen's Kaiser Permanente has a huge customer base in Ohio - it would be interesting to see what percentage of their child-patients in Ohio have been lead tested as the law requires.

    My observation has been that, in Northeast, Ohio, "most physicians do not accept current proclamations about the importance of childhood lead poisoning". They learned the wrong lessons well.


    And, that shows in our ongoing lead poisoning crisis, as Cleveland has the most tragic lead poisoning outcomes in America... low testing rates - highest childhood lead poisoning rates.

    As a result of bad lead science in America, America remains in lead poisoned crisis... meaning "most physicians" and the "nation's pediatricians" are/were wrong about the seriousness of lead poisoning - especially at low levels - and have been generally criminal in their treatment of patients, which cost America our future.

    The 21st Century that Dr. Schoen and his fellow doctors gave us and our children is one of 1,000,000s more toxified citizens than necessary, and the harm they cause others, as best reflected in growing acknowledgement in the academic and legal systems that lead poisoning leads to murder, and lead poisoned murderers are mentally incompetent, and should be treated as such.

    Meaning, America needs a Guide to Mental Health Mitigation (5 MB .PDF) - prepared by David Freedman and the Capital Resource Counsel Project and the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel (May, 2004) - to help defense lawyers ensure that their "clients’ disabilities and impairments are accurately identified and understandably explained".... guides to help defenders explain to courts how and why clients' mental disabilities, like lead poisoning, were fectors in crimes. Regarding lead poisoning, from the Guide to Mental Health Mitigation:

    Lead: Recent research indicates that there is no safe level of lead exposure, with even the smallest amounts, at 1 microgram per deciliter of blood, ingestion in childhood results in lifelong decreases in IQ and increases in behavior problems.

    Lead has been recognized as causing neurological damage for at least 150 years, yet industry was slow to remove lead from places which exposed people to lead’s dangers.

    Even at exceptionally low levels of exposure, lead causes:

    • decreased IQ and cognitive functioning
    • heightened distractibility and shortened attention span
    • impulsivity
    • inability to inhibit inappropriate responses to stimuli
    • poor vigilance
    • inability to follow simple and complex sequences of directions
    • deficits in changing response strategy

    Symptoms Associated with Metal Exposure
             Acute Exposure Symptoms          Chronic Exposure Symptoms
                   abdominal colic                               Persistent cognitive deficit
                     constipation                                      Decline in IQ score
                       vomiting                                         Impaired Attention
                       headache                             Decline in visuo-spatial functioning
                   lightheadedness                                   Impaired Memory
                       dizziness                                      Reduced Reaction time
                     forgetfulness                           Impaired Executive Functioning
                        anxiety                                            Mood Alterations
                      depression
                      irritability
                muscle and joint pain
                        seizure
                         coma
           increased intra-cranial pressure
                      parathesia
                      nightmares
                       confusion
                  emotional lability
                     mood swings
     

    Do you believe lawyers and judges in the courts in Northeast Ohio consider a Guide to Mental Health Mitigation when determining the sentences lead poisoned criminals face?

    Do you think the criminal justice system in Cleveland - with the highest lead poisoning levels in America - provides appropriate treatment for inmates who are lead poisoned, or even knows who they are?

    In Criminality Resulting from Brain Damage from Lead Exposure in Philadelphia and Implications for Management of Deviance in a Fluid Culture (980 Kb .PDF)- Jenna Rosaniathe reflects: "When some of the underlying causes of crime, such as lead poisoning, can be obliterated from society, perhaps the purpose and need for capital punishment in our society may eventually be negated as well."

    Why aren't we exploring such issues in the lead poisoning capital of America?

    Rosaniathe introduces the real reality of lead poisoning in America in 2005, denied by most American physicians and courts still today:

    This thesis explores whether the functional behavioral effects of the brain damage caused by exposure to environmental toxins, such as lead, may be considered by the American culture, and therefore by the American legal system, as mitigation of the culpability of criminal defendants who suffer from such exposure sufficient to prohibit the imposition of the death penalty in capital cases as cruel and unusual punishment.

    The neurological deficits of individuals who exhibit criminal behavior that will be discussed are those caused by the lead poisoning of children. Lead poisoning has been discovered to cause a range of social problems for exposed children due to the damage lead inflicts on developing brains. These social problems can include behavioral problems, learning disabilities, lack of impulse control, and mental retardation, all of which can lead to delinquency and are predictors of crime.

    Rosaniathe concludes:

    The justice system has the means and authority to administer and enforce sentencing in the spirit of rehabilitation as well as punishment, particularly when crime can be proved to be a disease in need of a cure. This culture has the flexibility to accept that crime can be a symptom of disease rather than of the notion of inherent evil based on biblical and consequently cultural conceptions of free will and morality, and can evolve to discern the difference between the two sources in terms of managing deviance from culture. As in the cases of mental retardation and juvenility, there will still be penalties for crimes committed by brain-damaged offenders. Capital punishment cannot be an appropriate penalty for offenders who have demonstrably been brain damaged by lead exposure as this would be cruel and unusual punishment as well as inconsistent with the norms of a cognizant culture which marks an enlightened society.

    It is evident that the American medical community's approach to lead poisoning is inconsistent with the norms of a cognizant culture which marks an enlightened society, and those who are clearly inherently evil, "based on biblical and consequently cultural conceptions of free will and morality", are Dr. Schoen and his followers in the medical profession who have denied real lead poisoning science and so caused 1,000,000s of Americans to be unecesssarily harmed by lead poisoning in our society today.

    Especially disturbing and revealing, in Dr. Schoen's shocking pursuit to save Kaiser money by lead poisoning children, was his use of his publication ability to personally attack Dr. Herbert Needleman, who is a much more significant physician and researcher on the effects of lead poisoning on children, still respected today - from Wikipedia:

    Herbert Needleman, MD, known for research studies on the neurodevelopmental damage caused by lead poisoning, is a pediatrician, child psychiatrist, researcher and professor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, an elected member of the Institute of Medicine, and the founder of the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning (now known as the Alliance for Healthy Homes). Dr. Needleman played a key role in securing some of the most significant environmental health protections achieved during the 20th century, which resulted in a fivefold reduction in the prevalence of lead poisoning among children in the United States by the early 1990s. Despite engendering strong resistance from related industries, which made him the target of frequent attacks, Needleman persisted in campaigning to educate stakeholders, including parents and government panels, about the dangers of lead poisoning. Needleman has been credited with having played the key role in triggering environmental safety measures that have reduced average blood lead levels by an estimated 78 percent between 1976 and 1991.

    Dr. Schoen's "CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING AND TAINTED SCIENCE" is a direct attack on Needleman. Here is why, from Schoen:

    What caused this flurry of expenditures and concern despite rapidly-diminishing childhood BPb levels? The answer: controversial studies showing that BPb levels far lower than those causing symptoms were responsible for subtle neurobehavioral defects in children, including decreased IQ and learning disabilities.

    Concern about these supposed defects was largely the result of a study by Herbert Needleman and colleagues, who published an article in 1979, which showed diminished 1Q in children who had elevated lead levels in dentine. Further work by Needleman and other investigators indicated a possible decrease of 4-8 IQ points for every 10 μg/dL rise in BPb level.

    Dr. Schoen goes on to reveal his core fear, regarding the work of Dr. Needleman:

    This advocacy has prompted recommendations for a multibillion-dollar screening and abatement program which, according to Needleman, would have a societal as well as a medical benefit by helping to alleviate homelessness and joblessness. Being acknowledged as heroic initiator of such a program can be quite a stimulus for researchers to find detrimental effects of low BPb levels.

    Doctor Schoen literally attacked universal lead screening and remediation because it has "a societal as well as a medical benefit by helping to alleviate homelessness and joblessness"... and he attacked Needleman for initiating such a program because that is "heroic".

    What Schoen didn't attack is childhood lead poisoning, as was his job.

    A disproportionate percentage of lead poisoning victims are people of color... environmental racism victims....

    Dr. Schoen's perspective on society and lead poisoning is ignorant, corrupt and/or elitist, if not racist - he concludes his article:

    Elevated BPb level is a marker of a disadvantaged child and is associated with poverty, low parental IQ, dysfunctional families, violence, and other confounders. For example, abused children seen in an emergency department were shown to be 27 times more likely to have elevated BPb levels as controls.

    Acknowledgment--The Medical Editing Departrnent Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, provided editorial assistance.

    Dr. Schoen was a Kaiser Foundation production - of course big business is behind corrupting lead poisoning science.

    In Little Pamphlets and Big Lies: Federal Authorities Respond to Childhood Lead Poisoning, 1935–2003, Christian Warren wrote:

    Without the expansive notion of social responsibility that drove Great Society programs, health agencies, no matter how well-funded, will be subject to undue influence from industries (not only lead manufacturers and landlords seeking shelter from liability, but health providers seeking shelter from costly measures such as lead screening). On the other hand, with that enlarged sense of moral purpose, the leadership of federal efforts to combat childhood lead poisoning could return to 1991’s statement of principle—that universal screening is the gold standard. CDC should insist that targeted screening be considered a compromise—perhaps a necessary capitulation, but a costly one—and work to perfect cheap and effective screening technology and help lower barriers to their adaptation in all lead prevention programs. The “poor may always be with us,” as that lead poisoning researcher concluded in 1940, but our leaders can shape our response to that sad fact, and insist that lead poisoning need not be, even among the least of these.

    Warren also offers excellent observations on what works in lead poisoning eradication:

    What works is a shared sense of the universality of lead’s threat, or at least the “paternalistic” commitment among those in power to protect those most afflicted. What works is regulatory bodies, health providers and communities enlisting the broadest possible coalition of forces to move toward eliminating lead poisoning. This coalition should include industry, whether its participation comes at the point of new restrictions or litigation, or through more voluntary means. All parties in such a coalition must fully acknowledge their competing interests even as they share the same goal. Industry should contribute to, but never be allowed to dominate the field, as it did for much of the twentieth century. And the driving force in this complex process is an empowered and well-funded government regulatory apparatus as science-driven and politically detached as possible.

    What works is the opposite of what Dr. Schoen prescribed.

    What works for addressing lead poisoning will work for addressing climate change, as well.... including attacking bad climate scientists and their bad science, and defending good science in public.

    Consider an account of Dr. Needleman's battle with industry-funded bad lead poisoning-denier science and realize this is not the first time society has had to deal with this cursed problem:

    Box 1. A Battle-Tested Veteran in the Fight for Scientific Integrity

    Liza Gross

    Herbert Needleman is no stranger to the smear tactics of industry. Needleman, a professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, began to document the health effects of low lead exposure in the early 1970s. His groundbreaking work—which industry fought tooth and nail—clearly demonstrated lead's toxic effects on children, providing critical evidence for regulations to eliminate lead from gasoline and interior paints, and to lower the blood lead standard for children.

    Concerned that blood lead levels in an older child would not reflect early exposures, Needleman developed a method to evaluate discarded baby teeth (both teeth and bone accumulate lead) for a more accurate history of past lead exposure. He found that inner-city children had higher lead levels than children living in the suburbs, even though none of the children showed signs of lead poisoning [5]. When Needleman presented his findings at a 1972 meeting of lead researchers, he was surprised by the venomous nature of attacks by industry scientists leveled at any researcher who dared present evidence that lead could cause harm at low doses.

    Needleman continued his work and found that children with elevated tooth lead levels scored lower on a suite of cognitive tests measuring IQ, speech, and language skills. He published his results in a 1979 landmark study showing that early childhood exposure to low levels of lead could compromise a child's intellectual performance and behavior, again, without evidence of lead poisoning [6,7]. Six months later, Needleman received a call from a representative at the International Lead Zinc Research Organization, a nonprofit trade organization that conducts research on behalf of the lead and zinc industry, asking for his data. He declined.

    The attacks began soon after, starting with a Pediatrics paper criticizing Needleman's 1979 study [8], followed by charges that the work was flawed in testimony before the EPA [9]. After reviewing the charges and original work, the EPA confirmed Needleman's findings [10]. Then, in 1991, two psychologists who provided expert testimony on behalf of the tetraethyl lead industry accused Needleman of scientific misconduct. One of the psychologists, Claire Ernhart, had written the critical Pediatrics paper and testified against his study before the EPA. The attorney who filed the complaint with the NIH Office of Research Integrity worked for a firm with links to the Ethyl Corporation of America, the major manufacturer of tetraethyl lead.

    The University of Pittsburgh Medical School began a preliminary investigation of the charges, but denied Needleman's request for open hearings. Needleman sought the support of the faculty assembly, which unanimously voted for open hearings, filed a complaint in federal court, and had the support of 400 independent scientists calling on the chancellor to open the hearings. The university acceded. After a 2-day hearing, and months of deliberation, the committee released a unanimous decision: there was no evidence of scientific misconduct [11]. Thanks to Needleman's pioneering efforts to reduce the hazards of lead [7], average blood lead levels of children in the United States dropped an estimated 78% from 1976 to 1991 (http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t960501b.​html). Whether other defenders of public health will be spared a similar path may ultimately depend on stronger laws to safeguard scientific integrity—and public health—from the undue influence of industry.

    For now, climate science is full of Dr. Schoens who are using credentials and positions they clearly don't deserve to promote science that is wrong, and to wrongfully attack good science and scientists, like Dr. Needleman.

    This is a topic of considerable concern among environmentalists and climate scientists... especially as the new Republican leadership in Congress has promised a challenge to climate science and climate scientists in coming months and years. I recommend the good science community become as aggressive against the bad science community as the bad have been against the good.

    Know the enemy is flawed, expose them, and make matters direct and personal.

    Expose the enemies by name, as Dr. Schoen is exposed here, and make the truth as public and global as possible.

    Make examples of bad lead poisoning-denier scientists to scare bad climate change-denier scientists straight.

    Evelyn Fox Keller, emeritus professor of the history and philosophy of science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, offers further advice for Climate Scientists who find themselves under attack, from NewScientist (registration required):

    Stick to your guns, climate scientists

    Researchers should not be apologising for their errors when they could win hearts and minds by patient explanation, argues Evelyn Fox Keller

    IF NOTHING else, December's Cancún climate conference demonstrated, once again, just how dependent international negotiations are on the American political process. In this respect, the US Senate's failure to pass a climate bill last summer was a colossal setback, and we need to understand how this could have happened.

    One major factor is that public confidence in climate scientists and their science is at an all-time low. This loss of confidence is a direct result of a long-standing campaign to discredit them, initially mounted and funded by business interests and libertarian-conservative organisations.

    The campaign made good use of strategies honed by the tobacco industry and soon recruited an army of "sceptics": some opposed to government regulation per se, some resistant to claims to intellectual authority (especially scientific), and some mobilised by a version of everyone's right to an opinion.

    The upshot is that internet sites, radio and TV channels now transmit "contrarian" attacks on climate scientists on a daily basis. Even responsible newspapers seeking "balance" contribute to the false impression that climate scientists are deeply divided about the danger and relevance of human activity to global warming. Not knowing who or what to believe, the natural response of the public is to do nothing.

    "Climategate" may well have brought tensions to a breaking point. The term was coined to describe the scandals erupting, first, from the theft and release of some scientists' private emails, and second, from the exposure of an error in a report by a subcommittee of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate scientists were charged with mounting a "hoax" and engaging in "fraud" and "conspiracy", and bombarded with threats. The researchers were - and are - thunderstruck: nothing in their training prepares them for the vitriol of such attacks.

    Until recently, the main response has been to take refuge in peer review and to blame scientific illiteracy. But with the escalation of attacks, some now feel the need to engage with their critics, admit mistakes, and open up their data. As a result, the media reports that researchers have been learning a little humility and trying harder to stay clear of policy advocacy. This response, they claimed, indicated a new willingness to engage with critics, as if this was a step towards more democratic relations between science and society.

    I am not sure. I am all in favour of greater engagement with the public, but propitiation is not engagement, and self-criticism must not obscure the fact that these "revelations" are not evidence of misconduct but of the human nature of scientific inquiry. Nor must it obscure the fact that their own confidence in their findings on climate remains unshaken.

    If they are to be blamed at all it is for adhering to an image of science as capable of delivering absolute (and value-free) truth: an image most scholars recognise as indefensible, and one that, among themselves, most researchers accept as unrealistic. They well recognise that, however rigorous their practice, the knowledge they produce falls short of infallibility, certainty, and value-neutrality. Furthermore, confidence in their findings does not depend on such unattainable ideals, but on the constant scrutiny, mutual criticism, and peer review to which they are subject.

    Climate science is especially prone to uncertainty, but what mainly distinguishes it from other sciences is the gravity of its social implications. That this science has become so politicised is probably inevitable. Because its findings so conspicuously affect the body politic, climate science might be said to be inherently political.

    Yet the notion that scientific knowledge should be politically neutral persists, posing a deep dilemma by suggesting that engaging in public controversy could compromise their claim to scientific objectivity and undermine their credibility.

    On the contrary, I say that researchers have a responsibility to so engage. Discussions of scientific responsibility often centre on questions of scientific integrity. But researchers are also under an obligation to the public who have placed their trust in them - by their implicit contract with the state, which by funding them makes the product of their labour a public good.

    For as long as the scientific knowledge they produce remains under their control, they are its custodians, responsible for its safe delivery into public hands. They have an obligation to convey the results of their expertise to those likely to be affected by the implications of those results.

    They need to redouble their efforts to make their arguments, their doubts, and the reasons for both their confidence and their concerns intelligible to the non-specialist citizen. They need to combat, piece by piece, the misrepresentations brought in support of attacks on their scientific integrity, and to show readers why the popular accounts and even the naming of "Climategate" are so misleading. And they need to explain why the expectations of science on which these accounts are based are similarly misleading. Doing so is rarely as difficult as they assume: disagreement, uncertainty and distortion are familiar territory to most readers who, even without specialist technical expertise, are capable of the discrimination needed to establish trust.

    What I am proposing is far from a solution. But if it encourages climate scientists to take the lead in breaking the current impasse, both because they are best equipped to take on the task, and because their responsibility as scientists obliges them to do so, it is at least a start.

    Scientists also have obligations incurred by the trust the public has invested in them

    Evelyn Fox Keller is emeritus professor of the history and philosophy of science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

     

    AttachmentSize
    drschoen.jpg8.89 KB
    Little_Pamphlets.pdf77.61 KB
    lead_exposure_brain_damage.pdf980.61 KB
    pb-tainted_science.pdf143.94 KB


    Falsely making a terrorist

    In Chicago last week, among the many arrested NATO protesters with whom the State Department does not stand are three young white americans arrested for "domestic terrorism" in what Dave Lindorff reports was "a warrantless house invasion reminiscent of what US military forces are doing on a daily [and nightly] basis in Afghanistan." If the US government, which stands with protesters everywhere except in America, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Palestine, can make this into a terrorism case, the three americans can be convicted on the basis of secret evidence or simply be incarcerated for the rest of their lives without a trial.


    HEY ETHYL, IT'S LEAD POISONING PREVENTION WEEK!


    sui generis - Real Time Justice

    PRESIDENTS COUNCIL OF CAPITALIST PRINCIPALS

    QUINTO EXACT- The fifth and last call

    By What Warrant he claims to have, use, and enjoy the liberties, privileges, and franchises aforesaid.

    A writ which lies against any person or corporation that usurps any franchise or liberty against the king without good title, and is brought against the usurpers to show by what right or title they hold or claim such franchise or liberty. It also lies for misuser or nonuser of privileges granted ; and, by Bracton, it may be brought against one who intrudes himself as heir into land, ftc. Old Nat. Br. 149.

    Wait 'till my American lawyers hear about this!

    Emphatically saying what the law is, terminating the national emergency;

    reforming legislation, abolishing holistic accounting & jurisprudence.

    High Peak Regulations Week!

    ANCIENT DEMESNE OF THE COLLEGE OF THE HUMMINGBIRD

    takes possession without institution or induction. 2 Rol. Abr. 356.

    In all actions upon the case and other pleadings, wherein the party claiming may now by law allege his right generally, without averring the existence of such right from time immemorial, such general allegation shall still be sufficient, and if the same shall be denied, all the matters in the act mentioned and provided, applicable to the case, shall be admissible in evidence to sustain or rebut such allegation; and in all pleadings to actions of trespass, and in all other pleadings wherein before the act it would have been necessary to allege the right to have existed from time immemorial, it shall be sufficient to allege the enjoyment thereof as of right by the occupiers of the tenement in respect whereof the same is claimed for such of the periods mentioned in the act as may be applicable to the case, and without claiming in the name or right of the owner of the fee, as is now usually done ; and if the other party shall intend to rely on any proviso, exception, incapacity, disability, contract, agreement, or other matter therein-before mentioned, or on any cause or matter of fact or of law not inconsistent with the simple fact of enjoyment, the same shall be specially alleged and set forth in answer to the allegation of the party claiming, and shall not be received in evidence on any general traverse or denial of such allegation.

    “Whenever the Federal Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are authoritative, void, and of no force.” Thomas Jefferson

    completion by EPA- SCRR May 6, 2004

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE 2005

    clean land?

    Special Agent in Charge Anthony S. Costakis

    San Bruno, California - United States

    epaoigsf@gmail.com

    415-878-3882

    Special Agent Peter Jackson, FBI, Redding Field Office

    NATION: Whither liberty?

    A Text Size

    All Americans who have perished in combat did so to accomplish a mission — to win freedom from tyranny, to defend their families, to vanquish fascism and totalitarianism, to defeat the enemies of the United States. More broadly, they fought to bequeath a free nation to future generations. As the living memorialize the fallen today, Americans should also take time to think about that cause as it relates to the prerogatives of Washington, D.C.

    Since the Revolutionary War, nearly 850,000 men and women under arms have died to preserve the “unalienable Rights … of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” To ensure that people with power would not encroach on those rights, defined in the Declaration of Independence, the Founders limited the scope of their new central government. James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 45:

    “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.”

    In practice, though, Madison’s vision of central government powerful in war and weak in peace has not held up well. Power flows to Washington and rarely reverses course. And with every power granted the federal government, Americans give up more of the freedom so many have died to defend.

    Many of Washington’s claims on power originate with the clause in the Constitution that lets the federal government regulate commerce between the states. Ironically, Madison dismissed concerns about the commerce clause in the same paragraph of Federalist No. 45: “The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.”

    If only he knew! In 1942, the Supreme Court would rule that the federal government could prohibit Roscoe Filburn of Montgomery County, Ohio, from growing wheat on his own farm to feed his own family. In doing so, Filburn violated the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which controlled wheat production and which the court found to be within Congress’ commerce clause powers.

    Wickard v. Filburn has become the basis for much congressional usurpation in the decades since. The commerce clause is at issue once again in litigation involving the Obama administration’s health care law.

    The nation will soon find out if, as Justice Anthony Kennedy put it in March, Congress “can create commerce in order to regulate it” by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance. Court observers expect a decision before the court’s term ends June 25.

    The Constitution of 1787 is not the revealed word of the Almighty, of course, and not every departure from it, whether by amendment or court order, is a step backward for freedom. However, accumulating federal power comes at a price.

    The question is whether a particular new government power is worth that price. To answer, Americans might ask themselves what someone who died in the cause of freedom might say about the trade-off.



    After 150 Years We Are Still Fighting The Civil War

    Above is the 2012 Presidential Election Map. You can see President Obama will likely lose the South…no surprise there. LBJ knew the South was lost for Democrats for generations after Civil Rights passed in the 1960′s. We remain a very much divided country. We always have been. From the very beginning the argument has been [...]



    Jumpstart Our Business



    CATASTROPHE MITIGATION AND RESTORATION SERVICES (PRESOL)
    SOL: HQ0034-12-R-3028
    POC: Samia C. Brandford, 703-545-1578, samia.brandford@whs.mil.
    POP: 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301.
    WEB: FBO.gov Permalink at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/WHS/REF/HQ0034-12-R-3028/listing.html
    NAICS: 562910, Remediation Services.




    EPA Awarding $69.3 Million in Grants to Clean and Redevelop Contaminated Properties

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is giving out $69.3 million grants for new investments to provide communities with funding necessary to clean and redevelop contaminated properties, boost local economies and create jobs while protecting public health.

    "Restored Brownfield properties can serve as cornerstones for rebuilding struggling communities. These grants will be the first step in getting pollution out and putting jobs back into neighborhoods across the country,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Clean, healthy communities are places where people want to live, work and start businesses. We're providing targeted resources to help local partners transform blighted, contaminated areas into centers of economic growth."

    The 245 grantees include tribes and communities in 39 states across the country, funded by EPA’s Brownfields Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup (ARC) grants, and Revolving Loan Fund Supplemental grants. The grants awarded will assess and clean up abandoned industrial and commercial properties. Nearly half of the grantees this year are new awardees who demonstrate a high level of commitment for undertaking specific projects and leveraging the funding to move those projects forward.



    Superfund Report - 05/28/2012

    EPA Restates Pesticide Cleanup Stance, But Agrees To Weigh Site Factors

    EPA waste chief Mathy Stanislaus is reiterating the agency's position that residual pesticides left in soil, once they no longer serve their "intended use," may be regulated as a hazardous waste but in a recent letter, he told a top Army official, who is concerned that the stance may trigger new cleanups, that the agency will consider site-specific factors, such as future land use, to determine which sites will actually require cleanups.1240 words
     

    IG Resuming Audit Of Superfund Remedial Action Contract Costs

    EPA's Office of Inspector General (IG) is resuming work on an audit of the Superfund program's remedial action contracts, examining whether the agency has implemented recommendations from a 2004 IG audit that called on EPA to improve the structure and administration of its cleanup support contracts.521 words
     

    Bankruptcy Case May Send Warning About Environmental Liability Transfers

    The outcome of a high-profile bankruptcy trial underway in New York could provide a warning that companies buying or selling assets with existing environmental cleanup liabilities must take steps to ensure their disclosure of liabilities is well documented and that everyone involved in a sale is acting in their own company's best interests, according to a lawyer familiar with the case.806 words
     

    DOJ Restates Bid To Overturn Novel Ruling Allowing Cleanup Renegotiation

    The Justice Department (DOJ) is reiterating its arguments that an appellate court should overturn a precedent-setting trial court ruling that allows a liable California county to renegotiate a Superfund cleanup agreement, with DOJ underscoring its charge that the pact should not be treated as a fixed-price contract that is held to a different legal review standard than cleanup decrees.1610 words
     

    Industry Charges EPA's Proposed Change To CRT Export Rule Is Unlawful

    The electronics and recycling industries are charging that EPA's proposal to tighten reporting requirements for the export of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for recycling and reuse is an unlawful expansion of regulatory powers over products that are still functioning and would ensnare innocent parties in liability, potentially discouraging responsible recycling and reuse.1164 words
     

    California Recycling, Diversion Plan Draws Early Industry Criticism

    A draft report by California's waste department to the state legislature recommending a variety of new waste diversion and recycling strategies to reach a 75 percent waste-diversion goal is raising initial concerns from industry officials over how the agency is defining waste "disposal," which could limit the types of recycling or diversion activities used to meet a 75 percent goal, sources say.867 words
     

    House Presses DOE To Weigh IG Advice To Reprioritize Waste Cleanups

    House defense authorizers are pressing the Energy Department (DOE) to seriously consider calls by its Inspector General (IG) to reprioritize its environmental nuclear waste cleanup efforts on a national, complex-wide risk basis, though the lawmakers say that adopting the approach wholesale may not be possible.864 words
     

    Treasury Deflects Lawmaker's Query Into Use Of Judgment Fund At FUDS

    The Treasury Department is denying it has a significant role in determining when the so-called Judgment Fund can be used to pay third parties for the Army Corps of Engineers' share of cleanup liability at multi-party Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), deflecting an Illinois congressman's inquiry into the propriety of using the fund over to the Justice Department (DOJ).1262 words
     

    States Urge Appropriators To Restore FUDS Cleanup Funds In FY13 Budget

    State regulators are urging congressional appropriators to reject the Obama administration's proposed 15 percent cut to the Defense Department's (DOD) formerly used defense sites (FUDS) cleanup program budget in fiscal year 2013, arguing such a reduction would halt "most" pending cleanups and site investigations.478 words
     

    CDC Seeks Coordination With EPA, HUD On Lead Exposure Issues

    Federal health officials are planning to meet with EPA and other agencies tasked with addressing lead exposure issues as part of a slew of recommendations to better protect children from the neurotoxin, including eliminating a standard blood lead level of concern in recognition that there is no safe level of exposure.661 words
     

    EPA Children's Office Seeks Pediatric Experts For Perchlorate Review Panel

    EPA's children's health office is seeking to ensure that several pediatric experts are selected for the Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel that will review the agency's proposed health goal for perchlorate, a move that could bolster the agency's approach, which sought to protect children and pregnant women from the chemical's harmful effects.893 words
     

    Advisors Urge North Carolina To Strengthen PFOA Drinking Water Goal

    North Carolina's Science Advisory Board (NCSAB) is recommending that the state strengthen its drinking water cleanup standard for (PFOA), the persistent chemical used to makes products stain resistant and waterproof, despite uncertainty with new data from EPA and other federal scientists that presented a "murky" picture of the substance's risks.696 words
     

    EPA, Industry Seek Data Monitoring Pact For Key Plastics Ingredient

    EPA is entering negotiations to gain more data on certain siloxane chemicals -- data which could be used in crafting risk assessments for the chemicals -- the latest move by the agency as it attempts to better regulate the plastics ingredient that has proven problematic because of its potential benefits in medical devices and other applications.930 words
     

    EPA Sends Revised Combustion Emissions Rules For White House Review

    EPA has sent its highly anticipated package of revised boiler and incinerator combustion air rules for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review, which may help EPA meet its goal of issuing the rules this spring -- though the rules could face fresh industry and activist legal challenges depending on their final content.682 words
     

    EPA Enforcement Seen Shaping Fracking Policy Despite Regulatory Limits

    EPA is increasingly using settlements in oil and gas enforcement cases to secure monitoring, permitting and other measures, in what industry sources say could be a strategy for shaping the agency's upcoming hydraulic fracturing policies given statutory and resource limitations that are making it difficult for EPA to craft formal regulatory policies.1321 words
     

    EPA Drops Proposal To Scale Back Chemical Safety Enforcement In FY13

    EPA is dropping plans to significantly reduce funding and resources for hazardous chemical safety enforcement in fiscal year 2013, after state and local officials raised concerns that the reduced enforcement could discourage compliance by industry, leading to outdated information on hazardous chemicals and increased risks to communities.735 words
     

    Highway Bill Conferees Face Competing Calls On Coal Ash Provision

    The House-Senate highway bill conference committee is facing competing calls from House members on whether to include a provision in the pending legislation to curb EPA's ability to regulate coal ash, with Democrats appearing to be split on the issue.639 words
     

    Democrats Doubt Prospects For TSCA Reform Bill Absent GOP Support

    Key Democratic senators say they are unlikely to hold votes on pending legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) until they gain backing from at least one Republican senator, though they say they plan to use a recent Chicago Tribune series that raises questions about chemical industry marketing and political tactics to win GOP support for the bill.593 words
     

    TSCA Lead Shot Exclusion Approved In House-Passed Defense Bill

    Legislation to exempt lead bullets from EPA regulation under toxics law passed the House May 18 as part of the massive fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill, H.R. 4310.455 words
     

    Lawmakers Urge OMB To Return CBI Rule For EPA Economic Review

    House lawmakers are calling on the White House to return EPA's long-delayed proposed rule seeking greater public disclosure of chemical data so the agency can assess whether the rule will cause job losses as manufacturers move research and development (R&D) to countries with better protections for confidential business information (CBI).720 words
     

    States Harmonizing Definition Of Underground Tank Emergency Response

    State underground tank regulators are working to more clearly define what constitutes an "emergency response" in order to ensure that state regulators report emergencies to EPA in a consistent and accurate manner, which would ensure fairness in federal funding.344 words
     

    California Water Board Adopts Policy To Speed UST Cleanups

    The California water board recently adopted an underground storage tank (UST) cleanup policy intended to accelerate the cleanup and closure of UST sites throughout the state, but attorneys for some UST stakeholders are threatening to sue the board over its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the policy because it downplays potential impacts on water quality.997 words
     

    Connecticut Asks EPA For More Time To Properly Fund Tank Cleanups

    Connecticut is asking EPA to hold off on possibly decertifying the state's underground storage tank (UST) cleanup program until after a special session of the Connecticut legislature this summer, when legislators intend to pass a plan to fund existing cleanup claims before encouraging tank owners to shift to private insurance.584 words
     

    EPA Grants Managers Discretion To Select Risk Basis For Water Advisories

    In a policy reversal, EPA is now calculating lifetime non-cancer risk levels for all drinking water contaminants, even if the chemical has a cancer risk level, effectively widening the choices risk managers have when deciding which level to use to best reduce risk for a specific situation, such as a cleanup.1255 words
     

    Industry Urges EPA To Craft 'Evidence' Guide Ahead Of NAS' IRIS Review

    Industry is urging EPA to move ahead with adopting a weight-of-evidence guidance to address data quality concerns in its risk assessment program and not wait for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to address the issue in its recently announced review of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program.630 words
     

    May 24, 2012

    Feinstein Letter to California Fish and Game on Drakes Bay Oyster Co.

    November 2011 – Given the repeated allegations of scientific misconduct, Congress included, at my request, report language in its Fiscal Year 2012 appropriations omnibus that directed the National Academy of Sciences to conduct another review of the Park Service’s work on the draft EIS which was released in September 2011. The Academy and the Park Service are in discussions about the study.


    the Department of the Interior’s Inspector General has opened a new investigation into the Park Service’s conduct. The Park Service’s repeated misrepresentations of the scientific record have damaged its trust with the local community, and stained its reputation for even-handed treatment of competing uses of public resources.



    EPA told to come clean on feedlot flyovers

    By Joe Duggan
    WORLD-HERALD BUREAU

    LINCOLN — A spy in the sky over Nebraska and Iowa has gotten under the hides of some livestock producers and their representatives in Washington.

    The Environmental Protection Agency’s aerial photo surveillance of livestock feeding operations in both states flew under the radar for nearly two years.

    But now the flyover program, conducted to help enforce the Clean Water Act, has prompted a demand for answers from all five members of Nebraska’s congressional delegation.

    The delegation delivered a joint letter Tuesday to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, listing 25 questions about the legality of the surveillance and the privacy rights of business owners. Although the letter stopped short of calling for an end to the flyovers, the two senators and three representatives want to know more about their purpose.

    “Nebraskans are rightfully skeptical of an agency which continues to unilaterally insert itself into the affairs of rural America,” Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., said in a statement.

    EPA representatives in Washington, D.C., did not immediately return messages seeking reaction. A spokesman for the agency’s Region 7 office in Kansas City said he was not authorized to comment.

     

    Key Officials Grapple With Ways To Speed Endocrine Science In Decisions

    As EPA continues to struggle to advance its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), key policymakers are grappling with ways to speed scientific research showing the harmful endocrine disrupting effects of chemicals and use the data in regulatory decisions.1323 words




    On December 16, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from interfering with citizen's rights on their claim that the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional...

    The government argued that if a single exception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. CSA is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

    In 2009 the Department of Justice issued new guidelines allowing for non-enforcement.

    Guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

    Uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecution...on core federal enforcement priorities committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws. Prosecution of individuals...who use...is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

    NEED EXERCISE? JUST GET OUT & USE IT!

    Agenda

    F2C: Freedom to Connect Agenda 0.99.9.1

    DRAFT (still subject to change) 8May12

    Registration required to attend F2C: Freedom to Connect.


    Meet The World’s Highest-Scoring

     “Green Power: Turn It On” award 

    Bayer MaterialScience announced plans


    joint efforts



    (3ROX).

    PSC Provides Direct Link from Galaxy to the XSEDE Backbone

    PITTSBURGH  —Mountains of genomics data that had to work their way through a bottleneck of network connections now have a direct, high-speed link to the world’s most powerful data-processing resources — thanks to network engineering at the Three Rivers Optical Exchange (3ROX).

    3ROX, a high-performance Internet hub operated and managed by the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC), has put into place a high-bandwidth link from Galaxy, a data-intensive bioinformatics program at Penn State, to the network backbone of the National Science Foundation’s XSEDE (Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment) program. This link opens the high-performance computing (HPC) resources of XSEDE to a research community that has not traditionally been a big user of HPC but, with emerging genomics technologies, will benefit greatly from using it.

    This is the first dedicated link from a site that’s not an XSEDE “service provider” to the XSEDE network backbone, said Wendy Huntoon, PSC director of networking, and Penn State is a pilot site to do this because of Galaxy. “This link,” she added, “enables a much more efficient capability for Galaxy to get its work done.”

    Galaxy, an open, web-based platform for biomedical research, allows biologists, who traditionally have not had the need to use HPC technologies in their research, to do complex data analyses in easy, web-based protocols. Galaxy has more than 10,000 users who run 4-5,000 analyses daily. Genomics data, in particular, has exploded over the last few years as a result of “next-generation sequencing” — which makes it possible to read DNA sequences at dramatically improved speeds compared to prior technologies.

    Genomics researchers, however, need to assemble the sequences accurately into complete genomes and analyze them, and the skyrocketing quantities of data pose a research bottleneck, to which 3ROX and XSEDE now offer a solution. The new link to XSEDE, facilitated by 3ROX, is a 10-gigabit per second (10 billion bits per second) fiber-optic based link that greatly improves Galaxy’s connectivity to XSEDE sites.

    “Next-generation sequencing is the biological version of the radio telescope,” says Anton Nekrutenko, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Penn State, who co-developed Galaxy. “These emerging technologies place huge demands on data analysis and storage.”

    “The network connection to XSEDE through PSC is a huge breakthrough,” adds Nekrutenko. “It provides us with the ability to run up to 150,000 jobs per month, and we expect to quadruple that as this link gets fully up and running. It allows biologists to take advantage of HPC resources in ways they otherwise could not, not only the computing, but the storage resources at XSEDE sites. It democratizes research by making XSEDE useful for a scientific community that traditionally has not been a heavy user of high-performance computing.”

    A four-year grant of $1.5-million to 3ROX in 2010 through NSF’s Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) program provided support for the new high-bandwidth link. “This ARI grant is intended to advance ‘meritorious scientific research,’” said Huntoon, “and we were able to provide the equipment from this funding.”

    Through XSEDE’s Extended Collaborative Support Service (ECSS), XSEDE staff are working with Galaxy scientists to develop capability that will allow biologists to transparently use XSEDE data analysis and storage resources as needed. Led by ECSS “Science Gateways” manager Suresh Marru (Indiana University), ECSS consultants Terri Schwartz (San Diego Supercomputer Center) and Josephine Palencia (PSC) are collaborating with Galaxy staff to incorporate distributed data analysis and management capabilities into future versions of Galaxy software.

    More about 3ROX: http://www.3rox.net

    About PSC: http://www.psc.edu

    The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center is a joint effort of Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh together with Westinghouse Electric Company.


    Governor Sean Parnell says the overall problem is “federal overreach.”

    “Basically, it takes one EPA employee - that's what we had - one EPA employee that walked on that property, uninvited, with no credentials, and had no evidence that that property was a wetlands, and with that opinion, and her opinion only, she turned our life into a five-year nightmare," said Mike Sackett.

    "The Sackett case is an example of all us working together to protect all our individual rights - rights that a heavy-handed government would trample, whether you're from Idaho, Alaska or any other state,” Parnell said. “That's why we joined in as a state."

    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability; Federal Register: Damages for injury to Party, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable cost of assessing such injury, destruction, or loss...reimburse recipient party assessment costs as natural resource trustees to implement natural resource restoration.

    The U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory issued the following news release:

    Two Department of Energy (DOE)-supported programs are helping the Crow Tribe in Montana produce energy with minimal environmental impact, educate future generations, and prepare its community for future jobs in energy fields.

    At the heart of the Work Readiness Program and the Cultivation and Characterization of Oil Producing Algae Internship are 6-week intensive courses of study that teach real-world skills and provide opportunities for academic and industrial advancement in science, math, and energy.

    The programs are supported in part by the Office of Fossil Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), as well as the Many Stars Project, Accelergy Inc., the University of North Dakota's Energy & Environmental Research Center, Little Big Horn College, and Montana State University. Ultimately, the two programs are helping the Crow Tribe take steps toward preserving local resources and jobs, and ultimately improving their reservation.

    States Rights of Sovereign Immunity to federal prosecution for a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

    Equal protection of the law makes CSA unenforceable in practice, State's Rights and equal protection of rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the several states, and all treaties made thereby.

    Habeas Corpus Petition for release of hostages, emancipation of all prisoners of the federal intrusion, comprehensive annulment, deforcement and debarment.of state or federal prosecutions of individuals...who use...controlled substances. FREE THE PEOPLE!

    Regional Haze

    The United States protects the right of adult Americans to use and smoke tobacco.

    Prohibition of alcohol was tried in the United States from 1920 to 1933, it nearly destroyed the fabric of the nation, created organized crime syndicates that still plague the country, and was roundly decried as an abject failure that cost the nation dearly.

     

    The federal government recognizes no therapeutic value for marijuana, however, it does recognize the therapeutic value of the phenylethylamines amphetamine and methamphetamine, (dexadrine, desoxyn) (for ADHD, endocrine disorders, obesity, etc.) and for the protected religious uses by native Americans (tri-methoxy-phenylethylamine, i.e. mescaline, peyote.) and the medicinal value of opiates, (codeine, cough syrups, etc.) morphine, (pain killer, etc.) and numerous other derivatives and synthetic analogs.

     

     Drugs such as the stimulant Ritalin and the tranquilizer Prozac are effectively designer drugs fabricated to mimic some of the effects of cocaine (n-methyl-tropane phenyl /ecgonine ethyl-ester).

     

    The first padres in the California empire, (the missionaries), having established relations with the indigenous tribes, (savages), with such enticements as cloth and iron, persuaded the natives to dwell at the Mission(s) and accept Christ in exchange for their gifts. Upon the consent to this contract the Chiefs produced their calumets, (peace pipes) to confirm the agreement by their customary manner, and as they said “To celebrate their mutual warm feelings”.

     The chief padre, alarmed by the practice, suggested that it was an abomination or “sin” and even perhaps “devil worship”.

     

     The native’s chief informed the padre that such an insult would be considered a declaration of war.

     

     The chief padre wrote to the Bishop in Mexico to explain the situation and get advice.

     

     The Bishop replied: The heathen practice of sharing the calumet is not much different from the ancient practice of making burnt offerings at the temple, it is a form of oblation, or sacrifice. Therefore, you are instructed to inform the chiefs and savages of the California empire that it is the order of the Bishop of Mexico, in the name of the King of Spain, and the Pope of Rome, that henceforth and forever after, the natives of California shall be protected in their practices of oblation, and no objection shall be made to their celebration of mutual warm feelings by the passing of the calumet.

    This was the first treaty between Europeans and the native tribes of California.

     

    The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo requires the United States to honor all treaties made by the nations of Mexico or Spain with the native tribes of California.


    Mine Camp.

    Rollback to 1862, when the chariot of the democratic government’s wheels of justice in motion are in a quagmire of uncertainty on the trail of constitutional safety.


    Science Wednesday: Wheels of Progress  “shotgun!”


    Let’s Feed People, Not Landfills


    EPA Partner on Green Initiatives"...support the growing green economy,” said Jim Jones, EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).

    EPA speaker reviews risk assessment program

    Written by  Fenceviewer Staff Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 8:27 am

    BAR HARBOR — Keith Salazar, an Environmental Protection Agency biologist, will be speaking about the history of the agency and its Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS Program. The talk, “From the lab to policy: the role of EPA’s IRIS program in risk assessment,” will be at College of the Atlantic’s McCormick Lecture Hall from 4 to 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29. It is the last in the spring series of the college’s human ecology forum.

    The EPA was established in 1970 in the wake of elevated concern about environmental pollution. It consolidates in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. Since its inception, the EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the nation, a COA spokesman said. IRIS was created in 1985 as a human health assessment program to evaluate scientific data on the toxic effects that may result from exposure to environmental contaminants.

    The IRIS Program develops science-based, rigorously peer-reviewed assessments that include an analysis of the health effects resulting from extensive exposure to various environmental substances. These assessments, which are on a searchable database, describe the health effects of more than 540 chemicals. By analyzing cancer incidence information for both humans and animals, the risk of cancer for a given level of chemical exposure is calculated. Regulatory programs and regional offices within the EPA utilize this information in combination with exposure data to determine the potential risk to public health. In this way, IRIS research contributes to regulatory activities and other decisions aimed at protecting public health.

    Dr. Salazar has a Ph.D. in immunology from West Virginia University. The author of numerous publications on immunology and toxicology, Dr. Salazar has been working at the EPA since 2008. His talk at COA’s McCormick Lecture Hall is free and open to the public. For more, contact John Visvader at jvisvader@coa.edu or 288-5105.


    locus standi

    Citizen's initiative for 'smart and streamlined' regulations, Stewardship.


    Under the influence of innovativeness strategy conducted jointly by the University of San Diego, USA, the University of Muenster, Germany, and the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Our objective is to examine which strategic orientations and organizational capabilities lead to innovation and subsequent competitive advantage.


    Besides raffling off an iPad 3, we will donate $ 3 for every participant to the “Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation”. To fill out the questionnaire, please click on the following link:

    http://ww3.unipark.de/uc/academic-survey

    If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

    Carsten Gelhard
    Institute of Business Administration at the Department of Chemistry and Pharmacy,
    University of Muenster, Germany
    Gelhard@sandiego.edu

    Prof. Dr. Sebastian Kortmann
    Assistant Professor for Strategy and Innovation,
    Amsterdam Business School, The Netherlands

    Prof. Dr. Carsten Zimmermann
    Assistant Professor of Management
    School of Business Administration
    University of San Diego, USA

     innovativeness? Up in smoke, OR ON THE ROCKS?

    The doctrine of nullification, used against both the partisan Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, is alive and well. A-List founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison considered absurd the viewpoint that the Federal Government was the exclusive or final judge of the limits of its own power. The states, after a Rip Van Winkle snooze, are awaking to the idea that ‘no’ can be an answer. Nullification laws opposing the NDAA, REAL ID, marijuana laws, Obamacare and the Food Safety and Modernization Act have passed or are pending in a dozen states.. Our Constitution is in distress and the 2.7 million federal civilian employees might not be inclined to help.

    Audit the Federal Reserve

    Written by 

    GOP leadership in the House of Representatives announced that legislation to thoroughly audit the secretive Federal Reserve, a wildly popular measure pushed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) for decades, will come up for a floor vote in July. Honest-money advocates and pro-transparency activists celebrated the news as a historic opportunity to rein in the central bank, which has come under heavy fire — especially in recent years — for debasing the U.S. dollar, manipulating markets, and showering big banks with trillions in bailouts.     

    The legislation, H.R. 459, already has over 225 co-sponsors in the House including an impressive roster of senior Democrats and Republicans, some of whom chair important committees. In the Senate, however, a similar bill has only about 20 co-sponsors so far, forcing Audit-the-Fed activists to wage a massive campaign aimed at exposing Senators who refuse to support transparency at the shadowy central bank. Polls in recent years revealed that four out of five Americans support auditing the Fed.   

    “The Fed has proven it cannot be trusted and must be audited. While the banksters’ dangerous schemes have been going on for years, the bailouts exposed the trillions being stolen from the American people,” noted Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a sponsor of the Senate legislation and the son of Congressman Ron Paul. “It is time to Audit the Fed. Time to shine a bright spotlight on the largest theft in American history.”

    But victory in what Sen. Paul called this “vital effort to rein in the Federal Reserve” will not be easy, he noted. The establishment is already fighting back hard against the plan in an effort to shield the controversial institution from public scrutiny. And as the battle heats up, the Fed and its supporters will not give up easily. 

    “As we enter this critical time, we have an unprecedented chance to finish this fight and finally hold the Fed accountable for all it has done to wreck our economy and endanger our nation,” Sen. Paul concluded. “Don’t let this opportunity slip away.”

    Experts and economic analysts have long said that if citizens understood what was really going on behind closed doors at the privately owned central bank, a tsunami of outrage would almost certainly force politicians to shut down the Fed and restore honest money once and for all. Even a watered-down audit, passed as part of the broader Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill, exposed blatant conflicts of interest among top Fed officials as well as some $16 trillion in Fed bailouts to big banks around the world.

    Public outrage was unprecedented. Millions of Americans who had never even seriously contemplated the institution or its functions demanded reform. And lawmakers, political candidates, and grassroots organizations — realizing that there was no way the cat was going back in the bag — eventually jumped on the bandwagon, too.  

    “This historic moment is only possible thanks to your relentless pressure. Now we must turn up the heat to secure victory — first in the House and then in Harry Reid’s U.S. Senate,” wrote Vice-President Matt Hawes of the freedom-promoting Campaign for Liberty, one of the organizations leading the public battle for an audit that is planning a huge operation to make sure the legislation becomes law. “Now, we just need to show Congress the American people demand action on the Audit the Fed bill.” 

    With the looming vote, officials will soon have the chance to demonstrate whether their loyalty lies with the American people or with the mega-banks that literally own and control the Fed system. “You see, with the piling up of trillions of dollars in reckless bailouts of Wall Street and international bankers, even many politicians in Washington, D.C. want to show you they’re ‘being responsible,’ ” Hawes explained. “What better way for Congress to do this than by auditing the Federal Reserve to account for the trillions stolen from the U.S. taxpayers?” 

    The Fed, of course, has fiendishly resisted an audit — going so far as to hire a lobbyist to defend its interests on Capitol Hill while producing pro-central bank propaganda aimed at children — all under the guise of maintaining its supposed “independence.” But activists and monetary-policy experts suspect something far more sinister is going on. 

    “They know coming clean with Congress and the American people on what they’ve done to our money would result in an anti-Fed firestorm,” noted Hawes, echoing comments made by a vast array of experts and policy makers who support sound money. “So can you imagine the impact of a full-scale audit?”

    According to Hawes, the Campaign for Liberty, and numerous economists, auditing the Fed would expose the destructive economic consequences of centrally planning interest rates and manipulating the supply of currency. It would also show that the central banking system leads to the destruction of the middle class, the destruction of the currency, and eventually, chaos.

    “You and I have seen the damage the out-of-control Fed can cause, especially during a time of crisis. As you know, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and their cronies on Wall Street have for nearly four years been engaged in the worst plundering of a country’s wealth in the history of civilization,” Hawes explained in a letter to supporters soliciting help for the battle ahead.

    “Americans are crushed under a mountain of debt, yet the Fed continues to print more money — backed by nothing but the whims of Ben Bernanke and international bankers,” he added. “If you and I don’t put an end to it all, it will clearly be the ruin of our entire way of life.” The next crisis, experts believe, could be just around the corner.

    Other commentators backing the legislation also emphasized that the time to move on this crucial measure is now — for more than one reason. “As the global financial system teeters on the cusp of another recession, and nations throughout the Eurozone fall to economic insolvency, the time appears right for Congress to finally address the issue of the Federal Reserve, especially before their original 100-year charter expires,” wrote finance analyst Kenneth Schortgen Jr with the Examiner.

    Even the debate will have a big impact, too. “[House Majority Leader] Eric Cantor's decision as a prime leader in the Republican party to bring the bill before Congress in July will have staggering effects on what the Fed may have to reveal in subpoenaed testimony, and what efforts they may be handcuffed from doing going forward if the economy continues to decline,” Schortgen explained. But actually passing the full bill, its supporters say, is more crucial than ever.

    While Rep. Paul has been a longtime leader in the movement to expose, rein in, and eventually abolish the Fed, the public outcry about the issue has become so loud that lawmakers in both parties have taken up the call as well. During a recent hearing in Paul’s subcommittee on monetary policy, a bipartisan collection of legislators and experts discussed whether the Fed should be reformed or simply dismantled. Progress in addressing the problems, while slow, is expected to speed up.

    Related articles:
     
    Congress Debates the Federal Reserve: Reform or Abolish?

    Time to Audit the Fed

    Ron and Rand Paul Introduce “Audit the Fed” Legislation

    Bernanke Attacks Ron Paul's Audit the Fed Bill

    $Trillion Bailout of Euro, Greece Shows Need to Audit the Fed

    Fed Manipulations in the Crosshairs

    U.S. Fed Bailout of Euro Prompts New Push for Audit & Sound Money

    GOP Lawmaker Unveils New Effort to Rein in Fed

    Fed Audit: Trillions For Foreign Banks, Conflicts of Interest

    Fed Plotting to Monitor Critics, Tailor Propaganda

    Fed Wages PR Battle for Power, Secrecy 

    Fed Approves First Communist Chinese Takeover of U.S. Bank





    Hyper-V Enhancements Private Cloud Camp

    Calling Eeyore!


    California Congressional Candidate Promises to Smoke a Joint on Capitol Hill if Elected

    By on 05/22/2012 

    Andy Caffrey smokes cannabis in Fairfax as fellow CA-2 House candidate John Lewallen watches. John Storey / San Francisco Chronicle

    Andy Caffrey, a candidate for US Congress in California’s 2nd Congressional District, made an unusual campaign promise in a recent interview with The Politico: if he’s elected to Congress by the people of the second district, he’ll smoke a marijuana cigarette right on the steps of the Capitol Building in Washington as an act of civil disobedience against marijuana prohibition.

    “I’m willing to get arrested to fight for our rights, to defend our rights as Californians to consume medicine. If I have to do it, I’ll smoke a joint on the Capitol steps and get arrested to draw national attention to what’s going on.”

    Caffrey is running for Congress as a Democrat in the crowded CA-2 race for the open seat left by retiring Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA). Although multiple sources, including The Huffington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, and Outside the Beltway are saying that retiring Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) represents the 2nd District, which covers a vast stretch of Northern California, she in fact represents the nearby 6th District, while Herger represents CA-2.


    A Shasta Nation



    Press Release 12-096
    Relationship Between Social Status and Wound-Healing in Wild Baboons

    (No monkey on his back)

    Photo of an adult male baboon resting on a tree near Amboseli National Park, Kenya.

    An adult male baboon rests on a tree near Amboseli National Park, Kenya.
    Credit and Larger Version

    May 21, 2012

    Turns out it's not bad being top dog, or in this case, top baboon.

    Results of a study by University of Notre Dame biologist Beth Archie and colleagues from Princeton University and Duke University finds that male baboons that have a high rank within their society recover more quickly from injuries, and are less likely to become ill than other males.



    U.S. Department Of Agriculture: Assistant General Counsel, General Law and Research (Washington, DC)

    Job Title:Assistant General Counsel, General Law and Research

    Department:Department Of Agriculture

    Agency:Office of the General Counsel

    Job Announcement Number:DA-OGC-2012-0005

    SALARY RANGE:

    $119,554.00 to $179,700.00 / Per Year

    OPEN PERIOD:

    Wednesday, May 09, 2012 to Friday, June 08, 2012

    SERIES & GRADE:

    ES-0905-ES

    POSITION INFORMATION:

    Full-time – Permanent

    PROMOTION POTENTIAL:

    ES

    DUTY LOCATIONS:

    1 vacancy(s) – Washington, DC, USView Map

    WHO MAY BE CONSIDERED:

    Applications will be accepted from all groups of qualified individuals.

    JOB SUMMARY:

    The Senior Executive Service (SES) is comprised of the men and women charged with leading the continuing transformation of government. These leaders possess well-honed executive skills and share a broad perspective of government and a public service commitment which is grounded in the Constitution. This position is SES, General. Positions in the SES are not graded. SES employees are also eligible for bonuses and awards based on performance. Veteran’s preference is not applicable to the SES. Selectee is subject to a one-year probationary period, unless currently serving under an SES appointment. Visit http://www.opm.gov/ses/ for additional information regarding SES employees.

    Joint Universities Seismic Taskforce Characterization Assessment Users Security Expert

     

    Dissolution of the integrated Departments under the disguise of “Homeland Security”.

    Annulment for breach of federalism, unconstitutional regulations, forbidden union.

    Creation of  Agency for Reconstruction, Piece by Piece Department, Rush Job.

    “Come in Peace, or go in Pieces”


    SWA/AML PROGRAM TRANSITION (SNOTE)
    SOL: NA
    POC: Matthew Burns, mburns@blm.gov.
    NAICS: 541690. The Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming, intends to award on a sole source basis with Fumble Recovery, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The contractor will provide professional services in support of the Wyoming BLM soil and water resources program management. The work includes assisting in: soil and water quality data acquisition and preparation for incorporation in WY BLMs and other related data storage/management systems; subsequent preparation or review of these data for use in surface and groundwater modeling and impact analysis; review of soil and water resources sections of EISs and RMPs; water quality impact model review and critique; audit and quality control oversight of BLMs water quality database maintenance and operation; review of new and revised water resources related regulations and policies as they pertain to WY BLM activities, with subsequent advise to BLM Management and Resource Specialist; technical assistance with data analysis and/or compilation; and attending/facilitating internal or external soil and water related technical meetings in Wyoming. Fumble Recovery possesses unique qualifications and will draw on years of knowledge and management experience gained as a Soil and Water Specialist/Program Leader with the BLM to complete the required tasks in a manner that best meets the needs of the WY BLM. A determination by the Government not to compete this proposed contract based on this notice is solely within the discretion of the Government. Detailed capabilities must be submitted no later than May 18, 2012. The North American Industry Classification for this procurement is 541690.
    CITE: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=aba2dddde5b64591cf1c2b429efb5692
    Posted: 05/15/12
    SPONSOR: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming Region, 5353 Yellowstone Rd., Cheyenne, WY 82009
    PUBLICATION DATE: May 17, 2012
    ISSUE: FBO-3827

    Archi-future: 13 Green Buildings That Will Blow Your Mind (PHOTOS)

    AstraZeneca doubles down in CNS with “Neuroscience iMed”

    May 21st, 2012

    While the drug development industry has seen a retrenchment of big pharma in CNS, AstraZeneca continues to provide a steady presence in the space. With the recent launch of their Neuroscience Innovative Medicines Unit (iMed), AstraZeneca aims to foment innovation in CNS by leveraging a “virtual” approach to drug discovery.

    In this interview with partneringNEWS™, Frank D. Yocca, PhD, VP Strategy and Externalization for AstraZeneca’s Neuroscience iMed, explained how they will tap into the best available external science while sharing cost, risk and reward with other research partners active in this field.


    More Americans Think Congress is Doing a Poor Job | 11 months ago

    Americans Not Enamored with Congress | 22 months ago

    We're Running out of Superlatives to Explain How Much America Hates Congress | 8 months ago

    Esteem of Congress Falls to All-Time Low | 5 months ago




    News Release

    Date: May 22, 2012 

    UC San Diego Superfund Research Program Receives $15 Million Grant Renewal


    Strategic Partners get High Throughput Research

    CATALYST FOR CHANGE - Comprehensive initiative driving innovation

    Metal Impregnation System (MIPS) and the Screening Pressure Reactor (SPR)

    Lab Execution and Analysis (LEA) integrated software for pharmaceutical, chemical, and energy solutions


    Get daily updates by email

    Biomass A Mile High

    The 2012 International Biomass Conference & Expo in the Mile High City drew attendees from around the world, eager to learn and meet others who share their passion
    By Lisa Gibson, Anna Simet and Luke Geiver | May 23, 2012

    The U.S. Department of Defense has many needs, but electricity tops them all, according to Dan Nolan, a 26-year U.S. Army veteran and current CEO of energy and military consulting firm Sabot 6. He authors the DoD energy blog and captivated his audience as the keynote speaker of the International Biomass Conference & Expo, held April 16-19 in Denver, Colo.


    Congress is Deaf: (No wonder whistling hasn't worked!)

    Congress sits idly by while whistleblowers bravely go public to explain the continuing erosion of rights and liberties through dragnet electronic surveillance: 

     (One of two Democracy Now! segments)

    (Segment two)

    Despite the fact that government secrecy and surveillance are continuing to expand,  the channels for whistleblowers, which we need now more than ever, remain closed. Not only are intelligence community whistleblowers exempted from the protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act, but far too many Inspector General positions remain vacant. Even the conservative Washington Post editorial board criticized the number of long-standing Inspector General vacancies:

    INSPECTORS GENERAL serve an invaluable purpose in government, ferreting out waste and corruption and exposing internal wrongdoing. According to a September report by the Government Accountability Office, audits by inspectors general saved $43.3 billion in public funds in 2009. But 10 of the 73 federal inspectors’ posts are vacant — eight at Cabinet-level departments, including State and Interior. Four of the positions have been vacant for the entirety of the Obama administration.

    The responsibility lies both with Congress and the President, neither of which - judging from the quick approval of expanded NSA spy powers - have been keen on oversight. WaPo writes:

    These vacancies are the result of presidential lassitude in filling the spots and, to a significantly lesser extent, of congressional failure to act on the few nominees that have been sent to the Senate for confirmation. . . . The president has a responsibility, which he has not fulfilled, to nominate candidates for those inspector general jobs that require Senate confirmation and to ensure that the posts are filled in agencies whose inspectors general do not have to go through the confirmation process. The Senate has a responsibility, on which it too has fallen short, to swiftly act on those nominees that are sent its way. The current morass does not serve the public well.

    While Inspectors General can be problematic options of intelligence community whistleblowers, - just ask Binney, Drake, and Wiebe who were targeted for criminal investigation after bringing concerns to the IG - the IGs are an existing channel where intelligence whistleblowers can report waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, illegality, or dangers to health and public safety. Without Inspectors General, the only other place intelligence whistleblowers can go is Congress, and as we can see from yesterday's approval of the FAA re-authorization, most of Congress is deaf.

    Since Congress is deaf, you can contact your Congressperson and yell at them. The ACLU has a form for writing to Congress about the FAA re-authorization here.

     

    Jesselyn Radack is National Security & Human Rights Director for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.

    1. Learn Sign Language

      www.learnsignlanguage.com/
      Victorious Life Sign Language and Signing Choir. We want to invite you to learn sign language and be involved in our Signing Choir. We will be starting classes ...
    2. Learn Sign Language (ASL)

      www.start-american-sign-language.com/learn-sign-language-asl.html
      Free Online ASL Classes. Learn Sign Language (ASL) on your time and in your budget!
    3. American Sign language - ASL

      www.handspeak.com/
      Learning sign language online using a free ASL dictionary online, fingerspelling, Baby Talk in ASL, grammar, and ASL storytelling by qualified ASL natives.
    4. ASL Deafined | How to Learn ASL through video lessons online

      www.asldeafined.com/
      ASL Deafined: Find out How to learn ASL American Sign Language through video courses and lessons.
    5. Signing Online - Learn American Sign Language

      www.signingonline.com/
      Signing Online provides interactive web-based instruction in American Sign Language (ASL). It allows you to learn ASL at your own pace, anywhere, anytime.

    FBI Issues Warning to Travelers

    Fraudsters Exploit Hotel Internet Connections to Spread Malware

    By Information Security Media Group, May 22, 2012. 
    FBI Issues Warning to Travelers

    The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation warns of fraudsters who are targeting travelers through hotel Internet connections. The scheme involves pop-up windows through which fraudsters trick travelers into installing bogus software updates on their computer. The "updates" are really malware installations.

    In a May 21 memo, the FBI describes recent incidents of travelers' laptops being infected with malicious software while using hotel Internet connections.

    "In these instances, the traveler was attempting to set up the hotel room Internet connection and was presented with a pop-up window notifying the user to update a widely used software product," the FBI memo says. "If the user clicked to accept and install the update, malicious software was installed on the laptop. The pop-up window appeared to be offering a routine update to a legitimate software product for which updates are frequently available."


    ‘Family Talk’ guest: EPA run by ‘militant’ Earth-worshipers who hate America

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is run by “militant” environmentalists who’ve created a cult of Earth-worship, and their hatred of America has led them to become, knowingly or not, a key element of the global Muslim conspiracy, according to a guest on Dr. James Dobson’s “Family Talk” radio show this week.

    Michael Youssef, an Egyptian-born man who came to the U.S. as a child and authored numerous books about how Muslims plan to take over the world, told religious right figure James Dobson on Tuesday that in order to see his full conspiracy theory, one must “follow the money.”

    “So there’s a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, unfortunately,” he explained. “Not many people reporting on it. When some do, all of the sudden, their voice is gone. They disappear and you don’t know what happened to them.”


    EPA: Mystic River Water Quality Poor

    The river received a grade of a "D" in its annual report card.

    Mother Earth and Father Sky aren't going to be too happy when they see the Mystic River's most recent report card.

    The Environmental Protection Agency released its annual report card for the river's water quality at an event in Somerville Sunday. The river received a grade of a D, with slight improvements over last year, but worse than 2008 and 2009, when it received a C-, according to an EPA press release.

    “Although our grade is not where we would like it to be, we are continuing  to focus on problem areas and apply all our available tools to improving water quality in the Mystic River,” said region EPA administrator Curt Spalding in a written statement. “We need to redouble our efforts and stay the course over the next several years to ensure the water quality in the Mystic River Watershed improves.”

    The EPA and the state's environmental protection department have put in place enforcement efforts recently aimed at removing harmfal discharges from sewage and storm drains throughout the watershed, the press release said. 

    Storm drains in the Mystic River Watershed that produce of estimated 14,000 gallons per year in sewage are scheduled to be removed this year, the press release said.

    The report card results were announced Sunday in Somerville during the annual Mystic River Herring Run and Paddle.

    The Post’s View

    Where are the inspectors general?

    INSPECTORS GENERAL serve an invaluable purpose in government, ferreting out waste and corruption and exposing internal wrongdoing. According to a September report by the Government Accountability Office, audits by inspectors general saved $43.3 billion in public funds in 2009. But 10 of the 73 federal inspectors’ posts are vacant — eight at Cabinet-level departments, including State and Interior. Four of the positions have been vacant for the entirety of the Obama administration. These vacancies are the result of presidential lassitude in filling the spots and, to a significantly lesser extent, of congressional failure to act on the few nominees that have been sent to the Senate for confirmation.

    The critical role of inspectors general was underscored in a recent report by the inspector general of the Government Services Administration (GSA). The report exposed the agency’s profligate spending on employee training conferences. As a result, GSA Administrator Martha N. Johnson resigned and her two deputies were fired. Meanwhile, more than 30 GSA employee conferences have been canceled, and other federal agencies are reexamining their expenditures.


    A Different Buzz at the White House


    News»

    PUSH FOR RECYCLED WATER

    Implications of concept of drinking recycled water hard to swallow, more when dubbed toilet-to-tap. Opposition softens as ongoing demonstration project by San Diego assesses technical feasibility of recycled water satisfying health regulators.

    “What we now have is a blueprint that … will hopefully change the way we view sewage and water in our region,” said Marco Gonzalez, an environmental lawyer in Encinitas who pushed for the study in 2009.

    Mmmmmm... Tastes Great, or Less Filling?

    PUSHERS AND FLUSHERS UNITED



    Epidemic of "bipolar NIH psychotic Big Pharma mental mood disorders disease"

    Uneasy psychiatrists pool “sophisticated” psychiatric medicines for anxiety and combat-related nightmares on the Big Pharma battlefield.

    National Institutes of Health and Big Pharma “at risk” for psychosis or depression or bipolar disorder; treat drug addiction and alcoholism on the basis of “biological and environmental factors,” rationalize and justify as alcoholics and drug addicts. Models of powerlessness on the basis of their family histories; symptoms evidence abuse of treatments not approved, relapse on delusions of vaccines to “cure” them. Co-dependents resolve to pathologize healthy people, blame National Institute on Drug Abuse and the American Psychiatric Association

    Pass the Seroquel.



    May 22, 2012

    Solving the World’s Water Problems through Technology


    minnesota mining


    EPA; COLD TURKEY TMDL WITHDRAWALS


    EPA to Revise Its Regulations to Specify Logging Roads Need No Discharge Permits

    Tuesday, May 22, 2012

    EPA Notice on Logging Road Rules Revisions

     

    Key Provision: EPA plans to specify that stormwater runoff from logging roads needs no Clean Water Act NPDES permit.

    What's Next: Administration brief is due at Supreme Court on May 25, to appeal logging roads case.

    By Alan Kovski

    The Environmental Protection Agency will issue a rule to specify that logging roads do not need discharge permits for stormwater runoff from logging roads, according to a notice released May 21.

    The rule is intended to protect the status quo on logging roads--on both public and private land--by specifying that they should be operated under best management practices, often developed by states, rather than regulated with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

    The EPA notice is to be published in the May 23 Federal Register.

    EPA said it will use its authority under Section 402(p) to specify that stormwater runoff from logging roads are not discharges “associated with industrial activity.”

    The agency said that section of the law “allows EPA to consider a range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches and determine which forest road discharges (if any) should be regulated under 402(p)(6).”

    EPA's action is a response to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that said NPDES permits are required for logging roads wherever water runoff is channeled in some fashion, because ditches, culverts or other channels create pollution “point sources” requiring NPDES permits. That 2010 ruling, reaffirmed in 2011, upended a couple decades of EPA policy in which the agency has not required permits (Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063, 72 ERC 1897 (9th Cir. 2011); 158 DER A-29, 8/18/10).

    Q. Do Bears and Loggers shit & piss in the woods?

    A. Not if they're on the road, as a rule.


    77 FR 30280 - Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Withdrawal of Nine Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)


    Download Files

    Metadata




    The reply to the petition for the writ admits the act of the state engineer in filing his orders of determination with the clerk of the district court. Hence that order of determination, the manner in which it was brought about, its force and effect, are the subjects of inquiry. For this purpose we review and set up certain sections of the statute, some of which, although disconnected or having intervening!; sections, must be considered together inasmuch as they operate jointly. Section 29 provides:

    "Should any person claiming any interest in the stream system involved in the determination of relative rights to the use of water, whether claiming prior vested title or under permit from the state engineer, desire to contest any of the statements and proof of claims filed with the state engineer by any claimant to the waters of such stream system, as herein provided, he shall, within twenty days after said evidence and proofs, аs herein provided, shall have been opened to public inspection, or within such further time as for good cause shown may be allowed by stream ; provided, however, that within sixty days after the entry of an order establishing water rights, the state engineer may, for good cause shown, reopen the proceedings and grant a rehearing. Such order of determination shall be certified to by the state engineer, and as many copies as required printed in the state printing office. A copy of said order of determination shall be sent by registered mail, or delivered in person, to each person who has filed proof of claim, and to each person who has become interested through intervention or as a contestant under the provisions of section 2u or section 29 of this act."

    Section 34, as amended by the act of 1915, has to do with the filing of the order of determination made by the state engineer. It is as follows:

    "As soon as practicable thereafter a certified copy of the order of determination, together with the original evidence and transcript of testimony filed with, or taken before, the state engineer, as aforesaid, duly certified by him, shall be filed with the clerk of the county, as ex officio clerk of the district court, in which said stream system is situated, or if in more the state engineer upon application made prior than one county but all within one judicial di trict to the expiration of said twenty (20) days, in trict> with &e sni(] clerk of the county writing notify the state engineer .stating with , wnerein reside the largest number of parties in reasonable certainty the grounds of the proposed ; interest. But if such stream system shall be in contest, which statement shall be verified by the two or more juic¡ai districts, then the state

    affidavit of the contestant, his agent or attorney. * * * "

    Section 30, as amended by the act of 1915, is as follows:

    "The state engineer shall fix a time and place for the hearing of said contest, which date shall not be less than thirty (30) days nor more than sixty (60) days from the date the notice is served on the persons who are parties to the contest. Said notice may be sent by registered mail to the person, and the receipt thereof shall constitute valid and legal service. Said notice may also be served by the state engineer, or by any person qualified and competent to serve subpoenas as in civil actions, appointed by him, and returns thereof made in the same manner as in civil actions in the district courts of the state. The state engineer shall have power to adjourn hearings from time to time upon reasonable notice to all parties interested, and to issue subpoenas and compel the attendance of witnesses to testify at such hearings, which shall be served in the same manner as subpoenas issued out of the district courts of the state. He shall have the power to administer oaths to witnesses. In the case of neglect or refusal on the part of any person to comply with any order of the state engineer or any subpoena, or on the refusal of any witness to testify to any matter regarding which he may be lawfully interrogated, it shall be the duty of the district court of any county, or any judge thereof, on application of the state engineer, to issue attachment proceedings for contempt, as in the case of disobedience of a subpoena issued from such court, or a refusal to testify therein. Said witnesses shall receive fees as in civil cases, the costs to be taxed in the same manner as in civil actions in this state. The evidence in such proceedings shall be confined to the subjects enumerated in the notice of contest and answer and reply, when the same are permitted to be filed. All testimony taken at such hear- in Its shall be reported and transcribed in its entirety."

    Section 33, as amended by the act of 1915, provides:

    "As soon аs practicable after the hearing of contests, it shall be the duty of the state engineer to make, and cause to be entered of record in his office, an order determining and establishing the several rights to the waters of said engineer shall notify the district judge of each of such judicial districts of his intent to file such order of determination, whereupon, within ten days after receipt of such notice, such judges shall confer and agree where the court proceedings under this act shall be held and upon the judge who shall preside, and on notification thereof the state engineer shall file said order of determination, evidence, and transcripts with the clerk of the court so designated ; provided, that if such district judges fail to notify the state engineer of their agreement, as aforesaid, within five days after the expiration of such ten days, then, and in that event the state engineer may file such order of determination, evidence, and transcript with the clerk of any county he may elect, and the district judge of such county shall have jurisdiction over the proceedings in relation thereto. In all instances a certified copy of the order of determination shall be filed with the county clerk of each county in which such stream system, or any part thereof, is situated. Upon the filing of the certified copy of said order, evidence, and transcript with the clerk of the court in which the proceedings are to be had, the state engineer shall procure an order from said court setting the time for hearing. The clerk of such court shall immediately furnish the state engineer with a certified copy thereof. It shall be the duty of the state engineer immediately thereupon to mail a copy of such certified order of the court, by registered mail, addressed to each such party in interest at his last known place of residence, and to cause the same to be published at least once a week for four consecutive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in each county in which such stream system or any part thereof is located, and the state engineer shall file with the clerk of the court proof of such service by registered mail and by publication. And such service by registered mail and by publication shall be deemed full and sufficient notice to all parties in interest of the date and purpose of such hearing."

    Section 35, as amended by the act of 1915, provides:

    "At least five days prior to the day set for hearing all parties in interest who are aggrieved or dissatisfied with the order of determination of the state engineer shall file with the clerk of said court notice of exceptions to the order of determination of the state engineer, which notice shall state briefly the exceptions taken, and . the prayer for relief, and a copy thereof shall be served upon or transmitted to the state engineer by registered mail. The order of determination by the state engineer and the statements or claims of claimants and exceptions made to the order of determination shall constitute the pleadings and there shall be no other pleadings in the cause. If no exceptions shall have been found with the clerk of the court as aforesaid, then on the day set for the hearing, on motion of the state engineer, or his attorney, the court shall enter a decree affirming said order of determination. On the day set for hearing all parties in interest who have filed notices of exceptions as aforesaid shall appear in person or by counsel, and it shall be the duty of the court to hear the same or set the time for hearing, until such exceptions are disposed of, and all proceedings thereunder shall be as nearly as may be in accordance with the rules governing civil actions."

    Section 30, as amended by the act of 1915, provides:

    "For further information on any subject in controversy the court may employ one or more qualified persons to investigate and report thereon under oath, subject to examination by any party in interest as to his competency to give expert testimony thereon. The court, may, if necessary, refer the case or any part thereof for such further evidence to be taken by the state engineer as it may direct, and may require a further determination by him, subject to the court's instructions. After the hearing, the court shall enter a decree affirming or modifying the order of the state engineer. Upon the hearing the court may assess and adjudge against any party such costs as it may deem just and equitable, or may assess the costs in proportion to the amount of water right allotted. Appeals from such decree may be taken to the supreme court by the state engineer or any party in interest, in the same manner and with the same effect as in civil cases."

    Section 38, as amended by the act of 1915, provides:

    "From and after the filing of the order of determination, evidence, and transcript with the county clerk as aforesaid, and during the time the hearing of said order is pending in the district court, the division of water from the stream involved in such determination shall be made by the state engineer in accordance with said order of determination."

    Section 39, as amended by the act of 1915, provides:

    "At any time after the order of determination, evidence and transcript has been filed with the clerk of the court, as aforesaid, the operation of said order of determination may be stayed in whole or in part by any party upon filing a bond in the court wherein such determination is pending in such amount as the judge thereof may prescribe, conditioned that such party will pay all damage that may accrue by reason of such determination not being enforced, pending decree by said court. Immediately upon the filing and approval of such bond, the clerk of the court shall transmit to the state engineer a certified copy of such bond, which shall be recorded in the records of his office, and he shall act in accordance with such stay."

    Section 45 of the act is as follows: "In any suit which may be brought in any district court in the state for the determination of a right or rights to the use of water of any stream, all persons who claim the right to use the waters of such stream and the stream system of which it is a part shall be made parties.

    shall by its order duly entered, direct the state engineer to furnish a complete hydrographic survey of such stream system, which survey shall be made as provided in section 20 of this act, in order to obtain all physical data necessary to the determination of the rights involved. The cost of such suit, including the costs on behalf of the state and of such surveys, shall be charged against each of the private parties thereto in proportion to the amount of water right allotted. In the case of any such suit now pending or hereafter commenced the same may at any time after its inception, in the discretion of the court, be transferred to the state engineer for determination as in this act provided."

    Section 84 declares:

    "Nothing in this act contained shall impair the vested right of any person to the use of water, nor shall the right of any person to take and use water be impaired or affected by any of the provisions of this act where appropriations have been initiated in accordance with law prior to the approval of this act. Any and all appropriations based upon applications and permits now on file in the state engineer's office, shall be perfected in accordance with the laws in force at the time of their filing."

    Stat. 1913, p. 192; Stat 1915, p. 378.

    Dwelling now on these statutory provisions as we find them, and especially these sections. Inasmuch as they are the sections directly involved, we may inquire, with what does this statute deal? It deals with that vested estate which one may acquire by diverting water from a public stream and applying the same to a beneficial use. This is commonly termed a water right.

    By reason of the nature of the soil and the climatic conditions attendant in western arid and semiarid states, it has been recognized, and rightfully so, that the waters of the public streams are indispensable to the land, the productiveness of the whole depending entirely, as it does, upon the beneficial application of the former. This being true, the land and the water as beneficially applied thereto must be, and indeed have been by courts and text- writers, regarded as one by reason of their correlation. Property in land acquires its value and importance, its very life in regions such as that encompassed by this state, from the application of water. A vested right to divert the waters from a public stream and apply them to a beneficial use in the way of irrigation applies to and is of the very nature of the realty itself. A deprivation of the land made valuable by the application of water diverted from a public stream would no more affect the property rights of the individual than would the deprivation of the water itself by reason of which the value of the estate was acquired and without which it would be worthless.

    In the case of Conant v. Deep Creek & C. Valley Irrigation Co., 23 Utah, 627, 66 Рас. ISS, 90 Am. St. Uep. 721, the Supreme Court of that state declared in effect that an action to ascertain, determine, and decree the extent and priority of water rights partakes of the nature of an action to quiet title to real estate. The same court, in the case of Taylor v. (N. S.) 535, held that a water right appurtenant to irrigated land was real property.

    The right to the flow and use of- water, being a right In a natural resource, was held by the Supreme Court of Colorado, in the case of Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Childs, 25 Colo. 360, 54 Рас. 1020, to be real estate; and to the same effect will be found Davis v. Randall, 44 Colo. 488, 99 Рас. 322, and Bates v. Hall, 44 Colo. 360, 98 Раc. 3.

    In the case of Hill v. Newman, 5 Cal. 445, 63 Am. Dec. 140, the Supreme Court of California held that a justice of the peace, although conferred with Jurisdiction to try and determine actions for damages for taking, detaining and injuring personal property, had no jurisdiction over an action for diversion of water because it was an action concerning title to real estate. Holding to the same conclusion, we find the case of Griseza v. Terwilliger, 144 Cal. 456, 77 Рас. 1034.

    In the case of Yankee Jim's Union Water Co. v. Crary, 25 Cal. 504, 85 Am. Dec. 145, the Supreme Court of California held thnt water rights may be held, granted, abandoned, or lost by the same means as a right of the same character issuing out of lands to which a private title exists, saying that:

    "The right of the first appropriator may be lost, in whole or in some limited portions, by the adverse possession of another. And when such person has had the continued, uninterrupted, and adverse enjoyment of the water course, or of some certain portion of it, during the period limited by the statute of limitations for entry upon lands, the law will presume a grant of the right so held and enjoyed by him."

    Supporting this general proposition of law may be found the cases of Lower Kings River Water Ditch Co. т. Kings River & F. C. Co., 60 Cal. 410, and Last Chance Co. v. Emigrant Ditch Co., 129 Cal. 278, 61 Рас. 960. See, also, Hayes т. Fine, 91 Cal. 398, 27 Рас. 772; Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman, 152 Cal. 716, 93 Рас. 858, 115 L. R. A. (N. S.) 359.

    Mr. Klnney, in his work on Irrigation and Water Rights/ summing up the subject, puts It thus:

    "It is generally conceded by all the authorities that a water right, or an interest in a water right, is real property, and it is so treated under all the rules of law appertaining to such property." Kinney on Irrigation and Water Rights (2d Ed.) vol. 2, p. 1328.

    The assertion of the author In this respect Is supported by a line of authorities wherein the question has been discussed and determined in nearly every phase.

    To the same effect will be found the holding of the courts in the cases of Hough v. Porter, 51 Or. 318, 95 Рас. 732, 98 Рас. 1083, 102 Рас. 728; Town of Sterling et al. v. Pawnee Ditch Extension Co., 42 Colo. 421, 94 Рас. 339, 15 L. B. A. (N. S.) 238 ; Fisher et al. v. Bountiful City, 21 Utah, 29, 59 Рас. 620.

    Mr. Well, In his work on Water Rights in the Western States (vol. 1) asserts the same general principle.

    Our Legislature has In but one Instance, 171 P.-12

    so far as we are able to ascertain, attempted to define the term "real property," and In that Instance they declared that:

    "The term 'real property' shall include every estate, interest and right in lands, tenements and hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal." Section 6294, sub. 10, Rev. Laws.

    In the case of Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, 152 Fed. 11, 81 С. С. A. 207, Judge Wolverton, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, analyzed the question at hand with a finesse which is to our mind unanswerable, and there the court, after a complete analysis in which he referred to numerous cases supporting the position, held that an appropriation of water from a public stream put to a beneficial use "savors of and is a part of the real estate." Speaking of the nature of the suit, which was in that Instance one to determine water rights on the Walker river, the court said:

    "The suit * * * in its purpose and effect, is one to quiet title to realty."

    This court, speaking through Mr. Justice Hawley, has declared to the same effect, holding that a right to the use of water diverted from a public stream should be regarded and protected as property. Dalton v. Bow- ker, 8 Nev. 190.

    Hence, it may be asserted as the first and major premise of the position which we here take that the subject-matter dealt with by the sections of the act referred to Is real property.

    The validity of this act Is challenged under the several sections of our Constitution, as well as under the Fourteenth Amendment. Article 1, § 8, of our Constitution provides, inter alia:

    "No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense * * nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. * » » »

    Article 3, § 1, provides:

    "The powers of the government of the state of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments—the legislative, the executive and the judicial; and no persons charged with, the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed or permitted."

    Article 4, §f 1 and 6, provide:

    "Sec. 1. The judicial power of this state shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, and in justices of the peace. The Legislature may also establish courts, for municipal purposes only, in incorporated cities and towns.

    "Sec. 6. The district courts in the several judicial districts of this state shall have original jurisdiction in all cases in equity; also in ail cases at law which involve the title or the right of possession to, or the possession of real property, or mining claims, or the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, toll or municipal fine, and in all other cases in which the demand (exclusive of interest) or the value of the property in controversy exceeds three hundred dollars. * They shall also have final appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in justices courts, and such other inferior tribunals as may be established by law. The district courts, and the judges thereof shall have power to issue writs of mandamus, injunction, quo warranto, certiorari, and all other writs proper and necessary to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction. * * "

    The framers of our Constitution, judging from the report of debates upon the subject, appear to have been most zealous and careful In the language selected and the terms used in each particular section and article. It was no haphazard selection of provisions thrown together for the purpose of forming the fundamental law for the government of a new state. Words were selected with regard to their true, usual, and ordinary acceptation and meaning; and we, in construing and applying these provisions, now may well give these terms the very broadest meaning of which they are susceptible, but none such as would lie inconsistent with the spirit and Intent of the framers of that organic law.

    Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 23, at page 188, expresses the idea when he says that the framers of the Constitution must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense and to have intended what they have said. The application of this rule would forbid forced or unnatural construction to be put upon the language found In the constitutional provisions. "This," says Mr. Cooley, "seems so obvious a truism that one expects to see it universally accepted without question ; but the attempt Is made so often by Interested subtlety and ingenious refinement to induce the courts to force from these instruments a meaning which their framers never held, that it frequently becomes necessary to redeclare this fundamental maxim." Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 93.

    In so far as the sections of the water law of this state directly involved in the proceedings in the district court are concerned, and in our attempt to test them under the constitutional provisions, we may be mindful of the rule that we are bound to Indulge in the presumption of the validity of the statute, and we should so construe unless we find In the Constitution some specific inhibition which has been disregarded or some express command which has been disobeyed.

    Reluctant as we may be to accept a responsibility wherein by reason of the nature of our duties we may be called upon to nullify the enactment of the legislative branch of the government, the seriousness of that responsibility Impresses us all the more with the necessity that we should speak plainly and emphatically, and when we find some specific inhibition of the Constitution which has been disregarded or some express command thereof which has been disobeyed, we should adopt no apologetic language, but declare the condition, that the future may be benefited thereby.

    Sections 25, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 of the water law as amended seek to deal with real property. In this and in the results accomplished pursuant to these statutory provisions, has a specific inhibition of the Constitution been disregarded, has some express command of the Constitution been disobeyed? This is the scope and limit of our inquiry. The identical question here presented was up for consideration before the federal District Court of the District of Nevada but a short time since (Bergman v. Kearney [D. C.] 241 Fed. 884), and inasmuch as the views expressed there by the learned judge is the apparent inspiration of the prevailing opinion, here, we deem both most eminently worthy of review.

    Certain sections of this act—and to these sections we confine ourselves entirely—would confer upon the state engineer the power to determine in the first Instance the title to and the right to possession of real property as such is founded in the use and beneficial application of water diverted from the public streams.

    The framers of our Constitution, recognizing that some tribunal or arbiter was necessary for the settlement of disputes and controversies having to do with the title to or possession of real property, designated in no uncertain language the district court as created by the Constitution to be the tribunal that should have jurisdiction over such matters. The district court by the express provisions of the Constitution (article 6, § 6) is conferred with original jurisdiction of cases In equity, and cases at law "which involve the title or right of possession to or possession of real property."

    Sections 29, 30, 33, and 34 of the act provide for the institution, hearing, and determination of a contest, the subject of which is the right of the contestants to a stated appropriation of water. Under these sections the state engineer assumes functions of equal significance to a constituted court. The pleadings are provided for and the issues of fact and law are thereby made. Witnesses are required to testify before the state engineer. The subject-matter of the action is the independent, usufructuary estate in the use of water. Vested rights are set up and their validity passed upon by the state engineer. An order is made and caused to be entered of record by the engineer "determining and establishing" these rights, vested or otherwise. The order of the state engineer thus made becomes effective against the property of the parties contestant immediately on its being filed with the clerk of the district court. This is the original or initial proceeding involving property of the highest order. Is the function judicial? Is it "the exercise of that portion of judicial authority appertaining to or belonging to the judicial department?" Bergman v. Kearney, supra. It is not necessary for this court to answer this query. The organic law (section C, art. C) answers for exercise of that portion of Judicial authority belonging originally to the district court.

    By section 35 the district court, the constituted court of original jurisdiction, is made a court of review only. The order of determination having already been made and filed by the state engineer pursuant to sections 129, 30, 33, and 34, and the establishment having been already set up and put Into effect, the district court reviews the orders and establishments already made by the state engineer, and this review Is limited to the orders of determination made, and is circumscribed as to those orders by the scope of the exceptions filed as provided in section 35. We say this because the pleadings as fixed by section 35 being "the order of determination of the state engineer and the statements or claims of claimants and exceptions made to the order of determination" limit and fix the -scope of the review that may be conducted by the district court. Finally, the district court may, pursuant to section 36, do but one of two prescribed acts: "Affirm or modify the order of the state engineer." So by these sections It Is sought to transfer the court of original Jurisdiction into a court of review, where its field of review Is limited and Its powers or relief are fixed, and where the greatest function that It can perform with reference to a subject-matter over which it was by the organic law given original jurisdiction is to affirm or modify orders made originally by another tribunal. If this statute is to be upheld, the district court ceases to be a court of first Instance as to these matters and becomes a court invested with limited powers of review and yet more limited powers as to the making of orders therein. Instead of being a proceeding the initial stages of which are before the engineer and the final stages before the district court, the reverse Is the fact, for it is the order of determination as initially and- finally made by the state engineer that is dealt with by the district court. Such order by the language of section 36 is final, subject only to modification by the district court. Modification has to do rather with degree of effectiveness than with final- ity. If that court affirms, it merely reasserts (Standard Diet.) an order in the making of which it had no part. Certainly, It will not be seriously contended that this is the original jurisdiction prescribed by section 6 of article 6 of the Constitution as belonging to the district court.

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, referring to the Oregon law under the Oregon Constitution, said:

    "That the state, consistently with due process of law, may thus commit the preliminary proceedings to the board and the final hearing and adjudication to the court is not debatable." Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, 241 U. S. 440, 36 Sup. Ct 637, 60 L. Ed. 1084.

    Such observations might, under the peculiar language of the Oregon Constitution, making no mention of the matter of original jurisdiction over real property, be pertinent Again, it might apply by reason of the peculiar reviewing powers conferred on the circuit court of Oregon by their Constitution. But under our Constitution, which of itself "commits the preliminary proceedings" In matters involving title to real property specifically to the district court and limits the power of review by such court to certain matters arising in the justice's court only (Anderson v. Kearney, 37 Nev. 314, 142 Раc. 803), such an observation as that made in the Lewis Case is not to be anticipated.

    It is asserted that the proceeding following the acts of the state engineer in making his determination and establishment is a special proceeding; that the transfer from the ¡ state engineer's office to the district court is not an appeal.

    Taking the first assertion as to special proceeding, it must be admitted that If It is a special proceeding, it Is one originating before a ministerial officer; and If it is a special proceeding, it is one Involving title to real property, a subject constitutionally assigned to the judicial branch of the government. If It is a special proceeding, its culmination is an order establishing rights to the possession of real property, an order, the finality of which can, by the terms of section 36, be disturbed by the district court to the extent only of modification.

    Taking the second assertion, that the proceeding In the district court is not an appeal, the language of the statute (section 30) precludes the idea of a trial de novo. The lat- ter term implies complete power to try and determine as of the first instance. The language of the statute here studiously avoids such, and makes the power of determination of the district court limited to affirmance or modification of an order of establishment already made and entered by a subordinate authority. Can it be seriously contended that this is the original jurisdiction reposed in the district court by the framers of article 6, § 6, of the Constitution? However minutely the district court may review the pax codings under the exceptions taken (section 35), whatever evidence may be produced before the district court within the scope of the exceptions, however erroneous or unfounded the court may find the determination of the state engineer, such determination must stand in that court subject only to modification. The determination of the state engineer when filed in the district court under our statute (section 34) Is not there as a matter of evidence (Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, supra ; In re Willow Creek, 74 Or. 592, 144 Рас. 505, 146 Рас. 475). It has passed beyond the realm of the evidentiary. It cannot be excluded. The rules of materiality, relevancy, competency, and general admlssibility are inoperative, because the statute confirms it as a fixity which must be affirmed, or at most can be but modified. How in seriousness can It be said that this order of determination, made originally by the state engineer, the finality of which cannot be disturbed, but at most can be but modified, Is not of the very essence of that which is the sine qua non of that judicial power vested in the original Jurisdiction of the district court? True, the form of the procedure whereby the determination of the state engineer goes to the district court is not such as we are accustomed to recognize as an appeal, but the substance of the whole proceeding in the district court is that of review only, review looking only to affirmance or modification. An appeal or review, except where it is provided for hearing de novo, is not to be regarded as a trial. People v. Mc- Кеrrу, 108 Cal. 531, 143 Рас. 752. Hence the trial, if there be one, in which is involved the title or right to possession of real property in so far as the same is involved in a vested water right is, under this statute, originally conducted, and the original order of determination is entered by the state engineer. A review of that trial looking only to affirmance or modification of that order is conducted in the district court; and, whether this review be termed an appeal or a special proceeding, the substance and result are the same. Due process of law as affecting real property under our Constitution (article 6, § Ъ) placed the power of original trial and final determination in the district court; the whole matter was one for the judicial branch of the government only. This was a constitutional guaranty under section 8, art. 1. The judicial authority of the state "may," says the Supreme Court of the United States, "keep within the letter of the statute prescribing forms of procedure in the courts and giving the parties interested the fullest opportunity to be heard, and yet it might be that its final action would be inconsistent with the amendment (Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution). In determining what is due process of law, regard must be had to substance, not to form." Chicago, Burlington & Quiucy R. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, ICO U. S. 2^0, 17 Sup. Ct. 581, 41 L. Ed. 079.

    And again in the case of Davidson v. New Orleans, 06 U. S. 97, 24 L. Ed. C1Ü, that court made the pertinent observation:

    "Can a state make anything due process of law which, by its own legislation, it chooses to declare such? To allow this is to hold that the prohibition to the states is of no avail, or of no application where the invasion of private rights is effected under the forma of state legislation."

    By this statute and under the sections providing for the trial and determination by the state engineer of property rights in the contest proceeding (sections 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, and 30) that officer Is made to assume the powers properly belonging to the judicial

    These sections of the water statute were taken largely from a similar statute found in the state of Oregon. In passing upon these sections of the act as they are now amended by our statute of 1915, the federal court, in Bergman v. Kearney, adopted the conclusion announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, supra, where like provisions of the Oregon statute were challenged. The Constitution of Oregon (article 7, § 9) provides:

    "All judicial power, authority, and jurisdiction not vested by this Constitution; or by laws consistent therewith, exclusively in some other court, shall belong to the circuit courts; and they shall have appellate jurisdiction and supervisory control over the county courts, and all other inferior courts, officers, and tribunals."

    In the Lewis Case the appellant concluded, as does petitioner here, that the proceeding in the circuit court constituted an appeal and was therefore a proceeding, the nature of which was not properly belonging to the circuit court. The Supreme Court of the United States, reviewing this provision of the water law of Oregon, in response to the argument of appellant said:

    "A serious fault in this contention is that it does not recognize the true relation of the proceceeding before the board to that before the court. They are not independent or unrelated, but parts of a single statutory proceeding, the earlier stages of which are before the board and the later stages before the court. In notifying claimants, taking statements of claim, receiving evidence, and making an advisory report, the board merely paves the way for adjudication by the court of all the rights involved. As the Supreme Court of the state has said, the board's duties are much like those of a referee." Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, supra.

    'Speaking of this phase of our water law, Judge Farrington, In his opinion In the case of Hergman v. Kearney, said:

    "There is no appeal from the determination of the engineer to the district court, but rather a continuation in that court of proceedings commenced by and before the state engineer."

    The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, while it appears to have afforded the thought which guided the learned judge of the federal court in the assertion just quoted, appears to our mind to afford no assistance in deciding the question as to the nature of the proceedings before the state engineer and as to the validity of sections .'10, 33, 34, 35, 30, and 38 of the statute under the sections of our Constitution. In that case the court was, as It expressly declares, guided by the decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon in the case of In re Willow Creek, supra. This latter decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon was construing the statute of that state In the light of their Constitution, wherein the jurisdiction of the circuit court is as stated. Under their constitutional provision the way was made clear for matters such as the Investigation by the circuit court of the findings and determination of stages" of a statutory proceeding, the "later stages" of which might be before the circuit court under Its constitutional grant of "appellate jurisdiction and supervisory control over * * officers and tribunals."

    It Is said In the prevailing opinion that neither the Constitution of Nebraska nor Nevada "has a word to say about Irrigation." Hence the decision of the Supreme Court of Nebraska In the cases of Crawford v. Hathaway, 60 Neb. 754, 84 N. W. 271, and Enterprise Irrigation District v. Tri-State Land Co., 92 Neb. 121, 138 N. W. 171, should be guiding authorities here. True, neither the Constitution of Nevada nor that of Nebraska mentions irrigation; in both, however, property rights are protected. But, singularly, in Nevada real property Is a subject over which a given tribunal, the district court, is vested with original jurisdiction. No such provision is found in the Constitution of Nebraska. This same distinction may be noted In comparing the Constitution oí Nevada with those of Wyoming and Oregon, and this distinction differentiates the effect of the water statute of those states from that of ours under our constitutional provisions. This differentiation takes from the force and effect of the decisions rendered in the states named.

    The function exercised by the state engineer under sections 29, 30, 33, and 34 being an original "determination and establishment" of the right to possession and enjoyment of property arrived at after a trial conducted with all the formality with which such would be conducted in a court of established jurisdiction, attended with all the seriousness and responsibility that is always attendant where title and right to possession of property is Involved, is one which by the express command of the Constitution is placed in the district court, which by the specific inhibition of that organic law is denied to any other authority.

    Keeping always in mind the nature of the proceeding contemplated by our water law and the character and future of the subject- matter, and realizing that our water law was largely drafted from the Oregon statute, we may dwell with more than usual seriousness on a comparison of the constitutional grant of jurisdiction of our district court with that of the circuit court of Oregon. The Constitution of Oregon (article 7, § 1) vests the judicial power of the state in the Supreme Court, circuit court, and county court. To the circuit court is granted general jurisdiction to be limited, regulated, and defined by law. Section 9 of article 7 makes clear the placing of all judicial power not otherwise vested by the Constitution or by laws in the circuit court. The term "jurisdiction" as applied to courts has been variously defined. It is:

    "The power conferred on a court by Constitution or statute to take cognizance of the subject-matter of a litigation and the parties brought before it, tried to legal certainty, and determine the issues joined by them, either of law or of fact." Brown on Jurisdiction, § 2. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Arnold, 33 Tes. Civ. App. 30C, 77 S. W. 240.

    "Jurisdiction is the right to put the wheels of justice in motion and to proceed to the final determination of a cause upon the pleadings and evidence." ' Illinois Central R. Co. v. Adams, ISO U. S. 2S, 21 Sup. Ct. 251, 45 L. Ed. 410 ; Venner v. Groat Northern Ry., 209 U. S. 24, 28 Sup. Ct 328, 52 L. Ed. 666.

    Jurisdiction is not only the power to hear and determine, but also the power to render a particular judgment In a particular case. Charles v. White, 214 Mo. 187, 112 S. W. 545, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 481, 127 Am. St Rep. 674.

    Turning to our Constitution (article 6, | 6), we find specific conference of jurisdiction placed in the district court with reference to a given and specific subject-matter, to wit, title to real property and the right of possession thereto, so the right to put the wheels of justice In motion and proceed to final determination as to these specific subjects is vested in our district court. Moreover, the section of the organic law referred to gives the district court original jurisdiction. The word "original" Is defined as:

    "Of or belonging to the beginning; the first stage or existence of a thing." . Standard Dictionary.

    "Of or pertaining to the origin or beginning; first in order or existence ; belonging to or being the origin or source." Webster.

    "Pertaining to or characteristic of the first or earliest stages or state of anything. Century.

    "Proceeding immediately from its source; not arising from or dependent on any other thing; independent ; underivative." Oxford.

    Our Constitution not only specifies the branch of the state government in which that particular subject, to wit, title to and possession of real property, shall be determined, and specifically provides the forum in which such matters may be heard and determined, but with equal emphasis it declares that forum to be the site of the first stage or existence of a case involving matters of this general character. It is a well-established doctrine that the extent, character, and completeness of jurisdiction of a court is ordinarily to be determined by the provisions of the organic law or by such statutory provisions as may be enacted thereunder. To give sanction to the expression found In the prevailing opinion, and taken from the opinion of the federal district court in the case of Bergman v. Kearney, wherein is declared that the proceedings provided for by sections 36, 37, and 38 are but a continuation in the district court of proceedings commenced by and before the state engineer, we must close our eyes not only to the technical but to the ordinary acceptation and meaning of the term "original jurisdiction" as found in section 6 of article 6 of our Constitution applicable to our district court. The term permits of no such interpretation as signifying the continuation of a something commenced before any other authority. This term is applied to a specific forum which is empowered to deal originally with specific subjects; It limits the place of first existence of actions with reference to the matters named. Actions commenced In a court endowed with original Jurisdiction must, by reason pf the very terms used, giving the words their very broadest scope and significance, be independent and unrelated to any primary or Inferior authorities. Original Jurisdiction Is a vested power which bears no relation to prior proceedings. It Is a power independent and unrelated ; hence the view taken by the Supreme Court of the united States in the case of Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, supra, as to the validity of the Oregon law in the light of the Oregon Constitution, cannot be binding or applicable, and we regret (hat It can be of no assistance, In view of the vested power and emphatic exclusiveness thereof placed specifically In the district court by the Constitution of this state as to the subject of real property, Its title and possession.

    Addressing himself to this phase of the question and to the same contention as that of petitioner here, the learned Judge of the federal court In the case of Bergman v. Kearney, says:

    "The insistence that the proceedings provided in the statute as amended are tantamount to an appeal to the district court, as authorized in the act of 1913, is not well founded. At no stage does the determination possess any of the characteristics of finality ; it cannot be regarded as terminating between the parties litigation on the merits .of the case."

    We dwell on the words of the learned Judge, because they give force to our position both as to section 38 and also as to the effect of sections 34, 35, 36, and 37.

    The very thing prescribed against by section 6 of article 6 of the Constitution Is here presented, to wit, a proceeding involving title to or possession of real property brought before the district court, the initial stage or existence of which was before another jurisdiction or officer. Moreover, by the operation of these sections in conjunction with section 38, not only are the initial stages and existence of the proceedings brought before an authority other than that prescribed by section 6 of article 6 of the Constitution, but the Initial order of determination is before another authority, and more, the Initial power of execution of such orders of determination (section 38), which execution lays hold on real property, divests of or confers possession, declares the right of possession to, and would deliver possession thereof; all of which powers are by the constitutional prescription placed originally In the district court.

    In reference to this proceeding, the court, in Bergman v. Kearney, further comments:

    "It [the order of determination] operates, not as a judgment, but as a pleading, or the findings of a referee."

    Again we dwell on the words of the learned federal court, for we may emphasize our

    Section 33 requires the state engineer to "make, and cause to be entered of record in his office, an order determining and establishing the several rights to the waters of said stream. * * " Section 34 provides for the filing of this order of determination and establishment in the office of the clerk of the court. This is made and entered prior to any court action.

    A pleading is a statement of causes of action or grounds of defense; allegations of what is affirmed on one side or denied on the other, disclosing to the tribunal of trial the matter In dispute between the parties. It seems to us we are going far afield when we try to apply this definition to an order of determination filed in a court, subject to attack only within the scope of exceptions filed thereto, and which order of determination can only be affected in that court to the extent of modification or affirmance.

    Section 38 commands the state engineer, after filing his order of determination with the clerk of the district court, to immediately assume the role of executioner, and without let or hindrance, as though clothed with all the equitable writs, enter upon private property, close and open headgates, confer or divest possession of property. Let us view section 38 under the theory of respondent that the state engineer might exercise the powers there sought to be conferred because his action In this respect was but temporary at most and was not final. If this ministerial officer can confer or divest title to property for the period of an hour, If he can for a day oust of or instate to possession of real property, what Is there to limit the time during which his> order conferring or divesting title or ousting of or instating to possession may be enforced? If the determination and order and the execution thereof made by the state engineer affecting the title to and right to possession of real property can, under our Constitution, be effective for the shortest period of time, can it not with equal sanction be made to be effective at the pleasure of that officer? When the Constitution declared that where a controversy arose Involving the title or right to possession of real property It should originate in the district court, did It Infer there that any other power than that tribunal could even temporarily oust of possession or divest of ownership? Was not _the jurisdiction conferred on the district 'court by article: 6, § 6, original and exclusively so? If so, then by what other means than the power and process of the district court may title to real property or the right to possession thereof be even temporarily determined? The prevailing opinion in dealing with section 38 waives It aside by alluding to the provision of section 39, wherein it declares that the operation of the order of determination "may be stayed in whole or In part by any party determination is pending." We deem It sufficient observation to say that we are here required to determine whether a law is contrary to constitutional prescription, rather than as to how the effect of the law may be avoided. Section 38 is before us in this proceeding more effectually than any other section of the statute. It is no answer to the question of constitutionality to say that the effect of the law may be stayed by the giving of a bond by the party against whom the operation of the law may be enforced. Such does not operate to make a void law valid, nor does the fact that by this means there Is offered a simple way of avoiding the force of the law resolve the question of its constitutionality. This section deals with property of the highest order and of which no man may be deprived without due process of law. Section 8, art. 1, Const. The question is not, may the force of this statute be avoided by some court order such as the issuance of an extraordinary writ, but rather, does the statute when enforced place in the bands of some ministerial officer, power and privilege which by the organic law may only be exercised by the judicial branch of the government? We have declared that where the means for the exercise of a grant of power are given, no other or different means can be employed as being more effectual or convenient. State v. Hal- lock, 14 Nev. 202, 33 Am. Rep. 559; Fletcher v. Oliver, 25 Ark. 289.

    Let us suppose that a statute was enacted authorizing the state engineer to inquire as to the title and right to possession of all lands contiguous to the natural water courses in this state, and that as to a strip of land for one mile on each side of such water courses he was empowered to Inquire as to the ownership or right to possession and to "determine and establish" the same, and, after filing his determination and establishment In the office of the clerk of the district court, he was empowered by the statute to issue his orders, putting his determination and establishment into effect. Let us suppose that pursuant to such statute the state engineer, having determined and established title and right to possession of the lands adjacent and contiguous to the Carson river system, sought to exercise his orders, and In furtherance thereof directed that certain parties vacate a given tract, and that the same be turned over to another ; that certain gates be thrown open and others permanently closed; that certain titles were good and sufficient and others were void; would such a statute be constitutional? Under section 6 of article 7 of our organic law, would such titles be recognized? Manifestly not. A writ of injunction would no doubt be to prevent the acts of the state engineer in this respect, but If the statute be challenged as to its constitutionality, would it be a sufficient answer for this court to say not, inasmuch as a remedy was available by way of injunction, the question of constitutionality might be overlooked? Would this court be warranted, when called upon to declare as to the constitutionality of the statute, in saying: "Assuming that this statute Is unconstitutional, the parties are protected in their property rights, inasmuch as they may seek relief by injunction," or would it .suffice to say that, inasmuch as injunction might be sought to prevent the acts of the engineer, therefore the act was not in contravention of the organic law?

    But there is another observation that might be made as to the availability of a remedy by injunction against the order determining and establishing water rights under section 33 of the statute under consideration and against the enforcement of such orders as provided for by section 38 of the statute. The learned Judge of the federal court In the Bergman Case, like the prevailing opinion In this case, passed lightly over sections 33 and 38 and laid emphasis on the so-called remedy offered by section 39. The prevailing opinion contents itself with the assumptive hypothesis that section 38 is unconstitutional. In order to typify the remedy suggested by section 39, relied upon in the prevailing opinion, let us assume that an appropriator on the upper waters of the North fork of the Humboldt (a tributary of the Humboldt river system) finding his vested rights impaired by the state engineer, seeks the remedy of injunction to prevent his being deprived of his property by the acts of that officer. For immediate relief he must act under section 39 of the statute, which provides:

    "At any time after the order of determination, evidence and transcript is when filed with the clerk of the court, as aforesaid, the operation of said order of determination may be stayed in whole or in part by any party upon filing a bond in the court wherein such determination is pending in such amount as the judge thereof may prescribe, conditioned that such party will pay all damage that may accrue by reason of such determination not being enforced, pending decree by said court. * * * " (We italicize.)

    To whom may damage accrue by reason of such determination not being enforced? All the appropriators on a stream system affected by the order of détermination made by i the state engineer whose order of determination the appropriator seeks to stay. The injunction proceedings must be and are none other than a proceeding for the determination of a water right and to relieve such water right of an order unjustly and illegally made. That being true, the party seeking injunctive relief, unless he brings in. all the appropriators on the stream, will be met with the objection of defect of parties defendant, because by section 45 of the original act of 1913 it is provided that :

    "In any suit which may be brought in any district court in the state for the determination of a right or rights to the use of water of any stream, all persons ho claim the right to use the waters of such stream and the stream by term of which it is a part shall be made parties." etc. Stat. 1913, p. 204.

    So our appropriator on the North fork seeking injunctive relief from the order affecting his property must bring in as parties defendant, under the authority of sections 39 and 45, not alone the state engineer, but "all persons who claim the right to use the waters of such stream and the stream system of which it is a part." The stream system of which the North fork Is a part is the Humboldt river system, extending from Northern Elko county to Western Humboldt county, affecting a culture watered area of approximately 300,000 acres, with more than 400 water users and appropriators. The court in fixing the bond before the issuance of the injunction must do so with a view to the "damage that may accrue by reason of such determination not being enforced," and the condition must run accordingly. Injunctive relief under such conditions is the adequate protection suggested by the prevailing opinion, afforded by way of staying the order of determination. To him whose property has been taken, whose vested rights have been ' divested, whose possession has been ousted, whose title may have been set aside, an injunction under such conditions is said to be available. Section 39, taken, as it must be, in connection with section 45 of the act of 1913, makes injunctive relief a useless and impossible thing. However just may be the approprlator's cause, however secure and well founded may be his vested right, Immediate relief from the effects of an order, however unjust or unauthorized, is a thing impossible. A more effective plan of making the determination and order of the state engineer entered and put forth under sections 33 and 38 free from interference by court action could scarcely be conceived. By these sections a condition, and not a theory, is presented. The Injunctive relief offered by section 39, when sought for, will, in the light of section 45, be found to be a remedy that does not relieve, a function without substance, a camouflage which serves the purpose of covering the hidden sting in section 38.

    Respondents contend that section 38 is put in force only by the properly constituted authority, and In furtherance of this they argue that not until the final order and decree of the state engineer axe filed with the clerk of the district court may such order become operative In this they say is due process.

    The contention of respondents In this respect finds sanction only in the fact that the order of determination, evidence, and transcript are filed with the clerk of that tribunal wherein is vested the original power to determine matters of that nature. If we read the section correctly, it calls for no judicial investigation or sanction to put it in files the orders of determination which he made, affecting certain property rights, he might set about under the sanction of section 38 and from thence exercise all the Jurisdiction and powers that by the organic law were reposed in the district court. The judge of the district court, that constituted officer whose Judgment and decision Is presumed to be exercised and in whom is reposed the powers and duties under the law of determining title, possession, and right to possession of real property, might be in the remote ends of the state, yet by the mere act of filing his determination the state engineer becomes clothed with powers to fix, limit, regulate, establish, and set up the title or the right of possession or the possession of real property within that judicial district. This statute may give evidence of a studied effort to clothe the proceedings with the outward form of due process of law, but with that Ingenious refinement of which Mr. Cooley makes mention, it Is mode devoid of the substance. Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, supra.

    Section 38 ousts the district court of its constitutional function and seeks to repose in a ministerial officer powers which belong exclusively in that court. It is in contravention of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, as expressed in section в, article в, аs well as in article 3, § 1.

    In the ease of Bergman v. Kearney, supra, plaintiff contended, as does petitioner here, that these sections of the act were void as conferring judicial powers on a nonjudicial officer. In the opinion in that case, the court took occasion to remark :

    "Apparently it is not the exercise of all judicial authority, but the exercise of that portion of the judicial authority pertaining or belonging to the judicial department, which is forbidden."

    We would search in vain for an expression more cogent to the furtherance of our views. Real property, the title thereof, and questions Involving the possession or right of possession thereof, are all matters which the Constitution ordained should be originally dealt with, pertain to, and belong to the Judicial department. These matters are exclusively and originally within the jurisdictional authority pertaining and belonging to the district court The exercise of judicial authority to the extent of ousting from or conferring possession of real property is not only ultimately, but originally, In the district court, and any act which seeks to place this power to any extent In any other tribunal, board, body, or officer must fall by the force of the organic law, and especially under the view thereof as expressed by the learned judge of the federal court

    It is the exception found in section 1 of article 3 of our Constitution that adds emphasis to the application of the expression of the learned Judge of the federal court:

    "No persons charged with the exercise of pertinents shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others, except in cases herein expressly directed or permitted.."

    There are exceptions expressly directed and permitted by the organic law itself. These exceptions furnished the basis for the assertion in the Bergman-Kearney Case that "a complete and perfect separation of powers is not made by the Constitution itself." The veto power of the Governor is authorized by the Constitution; likewise the Lieutenant Governor is made the presiding officer of the Senate. It is by constitutional provision that the Legislature is made the judge of the qualifications of its own members, and the Senate, the high court of impeachment By section 6, art. 6, the original jurisdiction over the subject of real property, title thereto, and possession thereof, was specifically vested in the judicial branch, and no exception is expressly directed or permitted, nor can such exception be inferred from the language employed. The power of originally putting in motion the wheels of justice applicable to the title or right to possession of real property is seated in a designated branch of the government, and that without the remotest inference of exception :

    "When the Constitution defines the circumstances under which a right may be exercised or a penalty imposed, the specification is an implied prohibition against legislative interference to add to the condition." Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 99.

    It is seriously contended here that the powers sought to be conferred on the state engineer by section 29 and those sections following are not such as belong to judicial officers; and in furtherance of this argument It is said that all acts judicial in their nature are not within the exclusive province of the judicial department of the government We are referred to instances where nonjudicial officers have been required to exercise functions which in a sense are judicial and courts have held statutes imposing such duties or powers to be constitutional. Perhaps the most striking Illustration of this is found in the statutes creating our Railroad Commission, the constitutionality of which was passed upon in the case of Southern Pacific т. Bartine (O. C.) 170 Fed. 725. But there it was held that the power exercised by this commission, as by other boards similarly created, is, in a constitutional sense, legislative rather than judicial. "Judicial power in the constitutional sense," says the court In the Bergman Case, supra, "is something more than authority to hear and determine; it Includes the power to decide finally and conclusively." We would add to this expression by saying that when by constitutional mandate the power to hear originally and decide finally as to a specific thing, as in this instance the right to possession of real property, is placed in the judicial branch of the government, then a statute which seeks to confer these powers, either in the Initial stage of determination or finally, in some other branch of the government, la void as against the constitutional mandate. If the original Jurisdiction to determine reasonable rates to be charged for freights and fares by common carrier was a function which by the constitutional mandate could be exercised originally and finally only by the district court, would not the fixing of freights and fares by a board or officer other than the district court be a usurpation of judicial function?

    It is absurd to argue that in the proceeding before the state engineer nothing is involved which belongs to the function of the district court under Its constitutional grant of jurisdiction. A mere analysis of the matter dispels such a contention. From the very moment that the state engineer attempts to establish (sections 29, 30, and 33), title and right to possession are Involved. By reason of the force and effect of section 38, the immediate possession of and right of possession of a usufructuary estate is to be determined. When the proceeding before the state engineer passes out of the realm of investigation into that of establishment or determination, the nature of the proceedings changes; and the constitutional prescription, establishing the specific functions of the several branches of the state government, as a traffic officer on the avenue of governmental guarantees, calls a halt and points the way. Up to a given point the proceedings are ministerial ; when they assume to establish or determine (sections 25 to 38) they take on the nature of an action to quiet title (Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, supra), and that function belongs from the very Initial step to the district court.

    It has been suggested that the statute here under consideration is enacted under the police power of the state and for regulation; hence the observations as to the application of the several sections of the Constitution are not well taken. No authority of which we are aware has ever held that police regulation took the place of or superseded specific constitutional provision. Determination and establishment of individual or relative property rights is one thing; police regulation after determination and establishment is another. Where by the organic law itself the way is made and the machinery furnished for the carrying out of a given policy, that is final and police regulation can only follow.

    To those who, believing In organized government, would adhere to a democracy, the Constitution is looked to as the instrument of guaranty, and its specific inhibitions and commands are to be enforced and carried out. We are referred to the learned words coming by way of an excerpt from an address of Mr. George B. Rose, of the Arkansas bar. The language and thought therein expressed, in the midst of the prevailing opinion, la most refreshing and enlightening. In our bumble way we might Interpolate the words of the learned author by saying that the Constitution Is never a "dam to stem the tide of human progress," when It points the way and paves the avenue by which that progress may be accomplished. It Is the avoidance of that "broad channel" furnished, by the organic law for human progress, and evasive constructions sanctioning such avoidance, that Imperils the existence of constitutional government by making the same a "mere scrap of paper" rather than a guaranty. It Is the "Constitution be damned" theory that wrecks the chariot of democratic government and makes the road of constitutional safety a quagmire of uncertainty.

    In the proceeding before us it is sought to prohibit the district court from assuming jurisdiction of a matter involving title and right to possession of real property where a determination and establishment of that title has been already made by a ministerial officer and where, notwithstanding the constitutional direction that such was the original function of the district court, the determination and establishment as originally made by the ministerial officer can only be affected to the extent of modiflcation.

    The order of determination was originally and finally made by a ministerial officer, and In this he exercised functions belonging to the district court.

    The district court assumes to take jurisdiction of this matter after determination by a ministerial officer, and can only review to ultimately affirm or modify that determination. In this it permits itself to be divested of original Jurisdiction and assumes an appellate jurisdiction forbidden by the Constitution.

    The order of determination which the lower court will act upon and which it will modify or affirm, Is a decree by which it Is bound, and not of Its own making. It is not due process of law.

    The writ should have Issued,

    (87 Or. 476)


    Tuesday, May 22, 2012

    US science integrity move devolving into mosh pit

    WASHINGTON -- A vaunted initiative to restore public confidence in the scientific work of the federal agency with the most tarnished record is foundering, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The U.S. Department of Interior has failed to deliver on its promises to conduct independent investigations of reports of scientific misconduct, prevent political interference or develop protocols to prevent duplicative and conflicting investigations, leaving an opaque jumble of irresolution.

    One of the highest profile complaints under Interior’s scientific integrity process (launched in February 2011) involves Arctic researcher Dr. Charles Monnett who charged that his own agency and the Interior Office of Inspector General (OIG) had improperly disrupted his work in a “witch hunt” involving his paper on polar bears drowning after storms. On August 8, 2011, Interior Scientific Integrity Officer Ralph Morganweck wrote that he was “conducting an inquiry into these allegations.” Yet, in a letter to Representative Edward Markey three weeks after pledging to investigate the complaint against OIG (which letter PEER obtained recently under the Freedom of Information Act), Morganweck stated that he had already met with the OIG twice about the. Monnett case and –

    “…I will be assisting the OIG in reviewing the scientific integrity claims that have been raised in this matter.”

    “This is beyond screwy. How in the name of objectivity can the integrity officer work to assist the subject of a complaint without telling the complainant?” asked PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, who is asking Morganweck to recuse himself from the case but has gotten no reply. “If there is no independence in these reviews, Interior’s scientific integrity process is simply an elaborate exercise in damage control.”

    At the same time, the complaint sits in limbo. On April 2, 2012, nearly eight months after accepting the Monnett case, Morganweck wrote to PEER (which represents Dr. Monnett) asking for basic information indicating that he had barely begun a review. Nor has he ever asked to interview Dr. Monnett. Similarly, five months after PEER filed a complaint about improper exclusion of livestock grazing from a massive Bureau of Land Management landscape study there has been little movement. Indeed, the assigned science integrity officer never asked for the list of witnesses PEER had offered.

    The conflicting investigations by the OIG and Scientific Integrity Office also prompted promises last summer to develop a protocol to sort out who does what and to insure that OIG probes do not extend into scientific issues for which it has no expertise. Thus, in an August 25, 2011 letter about the Monnett case to Senator James Inhofe, Acting Inspector General Mary Kendall wrote:

    “We are, however, in contact with the Department’s Office of Scientific Integrity on this matter and are developing protocols for coordination on such matters in the future.”

    Yet, in response to a recent Freedom of Information Act request by PEER for any “protocol, guidance or memorandum of understanding” between the two entities or adopted unilaterally by the OIG on handling scientific misconduct issues, the OIG declared that it had “no documents responsive to your request.”

    “Consistent and considered treatment of allegations are among the stated goals of Interior’s Scientific Integrity policy, yet this failure to coordinate makes every scientific controversy into a bureaucratic jump ball,” Ruch added, noting that PEER is preparing a series of reforms it will file as rule-making petitions this summer to fix holes in the procedures. “Interior’s scientific integrity program has broken down coming out of the gate and needs to be retooled.”


    Narcokleptocracy

    A narcokleptocracy is a society ruled by "thieves" involved in the trade of narcotics.

    The term has its origin in a report prepared by a subcommittee of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.[13]

    puppet master puppet

    Narcoleptolumpenfishnetocracy Security Dept.


    COMPREHENSIVE NULLIFICATION:

    ANNULMENT, DEFORCEMENT AND DEBARMENT FOR INEFFICIENT AND IRRATIONAL USE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, OVERREACHING ABUSE OF OFFICE, ABUSE OF RESOURCES, INTRUSIONS OF THE PEOPLE'S SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY & STATES RIGHTS, NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION TO GUARANTEES OF PROTECTED RIGHTS, LIBERTY, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREEDOMS, LOCAL RULE, AND THE RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE . RESTRICTIONS OF USURPATION; FOR CONSPIRACY TO IMPOSE PHARMACEUTICAL DICTATORSHIP, MEDICINAL TYRANNY, PIRACY BY A DESPOTIC INTRUSION UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

    SLAVERY AND PEONAGE ABOLISHED.

    RIGHTS OF SELF DETERMINATION PROTECTED BY PRIORITY OF POSSESSION, RIGHTS VESTED AND ACCRUED; WASTE AND CONVERSION BY JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE  ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS TRESPASSERS; QUIET TITLE EJECTMENT; FALSE CLAIMS AND ILLEGITIMATE ANIMUS; ULTERIOR MOTIVES AND NEGLIGENCE.

    SEDITION. AIDING THE ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY

    & CONSTITUTIONALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT IN AND OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC.


    EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION OF AMNESTY.

    SUIT FOR TRUCE & TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES PETITION TO EXCHANGE PRISONERS OF WAR &

    SAFE CONDUCT RANSOM OF SPIES & HOSTAGES.

    RE-CONFEDERATION OF THE UNION OF STATES.

    RECONSTRUCTION OF HABEAS CORPUS.


    CREATION OF THE SACRED VANGUARD IN PLANETARIUM & SOLARIUM CHAMBERS

    (FULLVIEW AND BROAD DAYLIGHT, SEE i.e. TRANSPARENCY) to aid the nation's vigilance,

    THAT GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, SHALL NOT PERISH.


    (B) Prohibition

    (i) In general No part of a grant or loan under this subsection may be used for the payment of—

    (I) a penalty or fine;

    (II) a Federal cost-share requirement;

    (III) an administrative cost;

    (IV) a response cost at a brownfield site for which the recipient of the grant or loan is potentially liable under section 9607 of this title; or

    (V) a cost of compliance with any Federal law (including a Federal law specified in section 9601 (39)(B) of this title), excluding the cost of compliance with laws applicable to the cleanup.

    (ii) Exclusions For the purposes of clause (i)(III), the term “administrative cost” does not include the cost of—

    (I) investigation and identification of the extent of contamination;

    (II) design and performance of a response action; or

    (III) monitoring of a natural resource.

    (iii) Exception Notwithstanding clause (i)(IV), the Administrator may use up to 25 percent of the funds made available to carry out this subsection to make a grant or loan under this subsection to eligible entities that satisfy all of the elements set forth in section 9601 (40) of this title to qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser, except that the date of acquisition of the property was on or before January 11, 2002.

    (C) Assistance for development of local government site remediation programs

    A local government that receives a grant under this subsection may use not to exceed 10 percent of the grant funds to develop and implement a brownfields program that may include—

    (i) monitoring the health of populations exposed to one or more hazardous substances from a brownfield site; and

    (ii) monitoring and enforcement of any institutional control used to prevent human exposure to any hazardous substance from a brownfield site.

    (D) Insurance


    HOTLINE BUZZ
    Real-time comments on legal news by newsmakers, activists, legal experts and special guests...


     Monday, October 26, 2009

    Non-enforcement of Controlled Substances Act leaves medical marijuana issue unresolved
    2:10 PM ET

    Mark Kleiman [Professor of Public Policy, UCLA]: "The Justice Department will not pursue people using or selling cannabis in compliance with state "medical marijuana" laws, even though those activities remain forbidden by the Controlled Substances Act. That policy ends more than a decade of federal efforts to overturn state efforts to make cannabis available to patients. In effect, the Attorney General has decided that although the Federal government has the power (affirmed by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich) to enforce the CSA in such cases, prudence and comity argue that it should not use that power.

    Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

    California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing the medical use of marijuana. The United States Federal Government has limited the use of marijuana since the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act came into effect. Defendant Angel Raich used homegrown medical marijuana, which was legal under California law, but illegal under federal law. On August 15, 2002, Butte County Sheriff's Department officers and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) destroyed all six of California resident Diane Monson's marijuana plants, facing light resistance. The marijuana plants were illegal Schedule I drugs under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). CSA is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Monson and Angel Raich sued, claiming that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.

    Angel Raich's physician has stated that, without marijuana, Angel's life is threatened by excruciating pain. California was one of fourteen states that allowed medicinal use of marijuana. California's Compassionate Use Act allows limited use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

    The relevant precedents for the Court's analysis are Wickard v. Filburn (1942), United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000).

    Scalia's opinion

    Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurrence that had the effect of differentiating the decision from the previous results of United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison. Although Scalia voted in favor of limits on the Commerce Clause in the Lopez and Morrison decisions, he said that his understanding of the Necessary and Proper Clause caused him to vote for the Commerce Clause with Raich for the following reason:

    Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”[8]

    Dissenting opinions

    Justice O'Connor, dissenting, began her opinion by citing United States v. Lopez, which she followed with a reference to Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:

    Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country..."[9]

    O'Connor concluded:

    Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.

    Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:

    Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

    and

    If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

    and further:

    If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[10]

    Chief Justice William Rehnquist, author of the majority opinions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, joined O'Connor's dissent.


    federal standards for egg-laying

    joint dissent


    Subsequent events

    Both Raich and Monson have indicated their intention to continue using marijuana for medical use in spite of the ruling.

    Two days after the ruling, the International Narcotics Control Board issued a statement indicating that the Board "welcomes the decision of the United States Supreme Court, made on 6 June, reaffirming that the cultivation and use of cannabis, even if it is for 'medical' use, should be prohibited." INCB President Hamid Ghodse noted, "Cannabis is classified under international conventions as a drug with a number of personal and public health problems," referring to the drug's Schedule I status under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.[11]

    Not long after the decision in Raich, the Court vacated a lower court decision in United States v. Stewart and remanded it to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Raich. In Stewart, the Ninth Circuit had held that Congress lacked the Commerce Clause power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns.

    In Congress, in order to counter the effect of this ruling, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) annually introduce legislation to stop the Department of Justice from arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients.[12] This effort has not yet succeeded, as most members of Congress voted against the bill.[13]

    In 2007, the Ninth Circuit decided against Angel Raich, when she renewed her litigation on substantive due process grounds. Judge Harry Pregerson, the author of the opinion, noted that only a minority of states legalized medical marijuana and it is not a recognized "fundamental right" under the due process clause. However, Pregerson also wrote that she could use medical necessity individually if she is ever arrested for using medical marijuana.

    In 2009, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder issued new guidelines allowing for non-enforcement of the federal ban in some situations:

    It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal.[14][15][16]

    When C-SPAN's Brian Lamb interviewed former Justice John Paul Stevens about Stevens' book, Five Chiefs, Stevens cited Gonzales as a case in which he upheld the law while deploring the policy.[17]

    See also

    . A vested right to divert the waters from a public stream and apply them to a beneficial use in the way of irrigation applies to and is of the very nature of the realty itself. A deprivation of the land made valuable by the application of water diverted from a public stream would no more affect the property rights of the individual than would the deprivation of the water itself by reason of which the value of the estate was acquired and without which it would be worthless.

    In the case of Conant v. Deep Creek & C. Valley Irrigation Co., 23 Utah, 627, 66 Рас. ISS, 90 Am. St. Uep. 721, the Supreme Court of that state declared in effect that an action to ascertain, determine, and decree the extent and priority of water rights partakes of the nature of an action to quiet title to real estate. The same court, in the case of Taylor v. (N. S.) 535, held that a water right appurtenant to irrigated land was real property.

    The right to the flow and use of- water, being a right In a natural resource, was held by the Supreme Court of Colorado, in the case of Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Childs, 25 Colo. 360, 54 Рас. 1020, to be real estate; and to the same effect will be found Davis v. Randall, 44 Colo. 488, 99 Рас. 322, and Bates v. Hall, 44 Colo. 360, 98 Рае. 3.

    In the case of Hill v. Newman, 5 Cal. 445, 63 Am. Dec. 140, the Supreme Court of California held that a justice of the peace, although conferred with Jurisdiction to try and determine actions for damages for taking, detaining and injuring personal property, had no jurisdiction over an action for diversion of water because it was an action concerning title to real estate. Holding to the same conclusion, we find the case of Griseza v. Terwil- llger, 144 Cal. 456, 77 Рас. 1034.

    In the case of Yankee Jim's Union Water Co. v. Crary, 25 Cal. 504, 85 Am. Dec. 145, the Supreme Court of California held that water rights may be held, granted, abandoned, or lost by the same means as a right of the same character issuing out of lands to which a private title exists, saying that:

    "The right of the first appropriator may be lost, in whole or in some limited portions, by the adverse possession of another. And when such person has had the continued, uninterrupted, and adverse enjoyment of the water course, or of some certain portion of it, during the period limited by the statute of limitations for entry upon lands, the law will presume a grant of the right so held and enjoyed by him."

    Supporting this general proposition of law may be found the cases of Lower Kings River Water Ditch Co. т. Kings River & F. C. Co., 60 Cal. 410, and Last Chance Co. v. Emigrant Ditch Co., 129 Cal. 278, 61 Рас. 960. See, also, Hayes т. Fine, 91 Cal. 398, 27 Рас. 772; Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman, 152 Cal. 716, 93 Рас. 858, 115 L. R. A. (N. S.) 359.

    Mr. Klnney, in his work on Irrigation and Water Rights/ summing up the subject, puts It thus:

    "It is generally conceded by all the authorities that a water right, or an interest in a water right, is real property, and it is so treated under all the rules of law appertaining to such property." Kiuney on Irrigation and Water Rights (2d Ed.) vol. 2, p. 1328.

    The assertion of the author In this respect Is supported by a line of authorities wherein the question has been discussed and determined in nearly every phase.

    To the same effect will be found the holding of the courts in the cases of Hough v. Porter, 51 Or. 318, 95 Рас. 732, 98 Рас. 1083, 102 Рас. 728; Town of Sterling et al. v. Pawnee Ditch Extension Co., 42 Colo. 421, 94 Рас. 339, 15 L. B. A. (N. S.) 238 ; Fisher et al. v. Bountiful City, 21 Utah, 29, 59 Рас. 620.

    Mr. Well, In his work on Water Rights in the Western States (vol. 1) asserts the same general principle.

    Our Legislature has In but one Instance, 171 P.-12

    so far as we are able to ascertain, attempted to define the term "real property," and In that Instance they declared that:

    "The term 'real property' shall include every estate, interest and right in lands, tenements and hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal." Section 6294, sub. 10, Rev. Laws.

    In the case of Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, 152 Fed. 11, 81 С. С. A. 207, Judge Wolverton, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, analyzed the question at hand with a finesse which is to our mind unanswerable, and there the court, after a complete analysis in which he referred to numerous cases supporting the position, held that an appropriation of water from a public stream put to a beneficial use "savors of and is a part of the real estate." Speaking of the nature of the suit, which was in that Instance one to determine water rights on the Walker river, the court said:

    "The suit * * * in its purpose and effect, is one to quiet title to realty."

    A. Expert Witness Testimony to Assist the Court in Interpreting Legislative History and Intent Is Permitted by the Evidence Code and Recognized as Appropriate by the Appellate Courts.

     

    1. Legislative history is a proper subject for judicial notice for both trial and appellate courts. (Evid. Code 452, subd. (c), and 459; People v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 504, fn.1 [53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 917 P.2d 628].) The court may judicially notice legislative history on its own motion or on the motion of a party. (People v. Cruz (1996) 13 Cal.4th 764, 780, fn. 9 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 117, 919 P.2d 731]; Grubb & Ellis Co. v. Bello (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 231, 240 [23 Cal.Rptr.2d 281].) 

     

    2. A court has broad discretion to take information, including expert opinion, to determine the propriety of judicially noticing legislative history and its meaning. (Evid. Code Section 454 subd. (a)(1) & (2).) Additionally, an appellate court has the same power to take judicial notice of a matter as the trial court has under Evidence Code Section 454. (Evid. Code 459 subd. (b).) In this regard, Evidence Code Section 454 in part states:

    “In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter or the tenor thereof: (1) Any source of pertinent information, including the advice of persons learned in the subject matter may be consulted or used, whether or not furnished by a party. (2) Exclusionary rules of evidence do not apply except for Section 352 and rules of privilege. (Evid. Code 454 subd. (a)(1) & (2).)”

     

    3. Additionally, Evidence Code Section 460 specifically provides that the court, in taking judicial notice of a subject, may hear the opinion of an expert.

    “Where the advice of persons learned in the subject matter is required in order to enable the court to take judicial notice of a matter, the court on its own motion or on motion of any party may appoint one or more such persons to provide such advice. If the court determines to appoint such a person, he shall be appointed and compensated in the manner provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 730) of Chapter 3 of Division 6. (Evid. Code, 460).

     

    4. Evidence Code Section 730 supplements Evidence Code Section 460, and concerns the general circumstances of using experts to assist the court:

    “When it appears to the court, at any time before or during the trial of an action, that expert evidence is or may be required by the court or by any party to the action, the court on its own motion or on motion of any party may appoint one or more experts to investigate, to render a report as may be ordered by the court, and to testify as an expert at the trial of the action relative to the fact or matter as to which the expert evidence is or may be required.” (Evid. Code 730.)

     

    5. Court acceptance of an expert does not preclude any other party from offering its own information on the propriety of taking judicial notice of the legislative history and its tenor, or prevent a party from offering its own expert witness testimony on the same matter. (Evid. Code, 455 subd. (a), and 733.)

     

    6. Expert opinion on the meaning of judicially noticed legislative documents offered by one or more parties is taken by the court “before the jury is instructed or before the cause is submitted for decision by the courts “ (Evid. Code 455 subd. (a).) The expert opinion need not be received in open court, and in the case of a jury trial, it generally is not.

     

    7. In the context of Evidence Code Sections 454, 455, 460 and 730, the “matter” before the court when it examines legislative history is the obligation of the court to construe a statute consistent with the intent of the Legislature, as provided for in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1859, which reads:

    “In the construction of a statute the intention of the Legislature, and in the construction of the instrument the intention of the parties, is to be pursued if possible; and when a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. (Code of Civ. Proc., 1859.)

     

    8. A vast body of case law supports the common practice of examining legislative history as a method of ascertaining legislative intent and satisfying the obligations that Code of Civil Procedure 1859 imposes on the courts (See e.g. Watts v. Crawford (1995)10 Cal.4th 743, 753-54 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 81, 896 P.2d 807].)

     

    9. Several appellate court cases have recognized that expert witness testimony on legislative intent as evidenced by the legislative history is helpful to the court and admissible. In Fallbrook Sanitary District v. San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 753, 759 [256 Cal.Rptr. 590], the Court of Appeal addressed a question of legislative intent in construing a statute. The court, in examining the statute and its legislative purpose, noted that “expert evidence of an act’s legislative history.... is an appropriate means of assisting courts in understanding and interpreting statutes.” (208 Cal.App.3d 753, 764; see also Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 781-82 [195 Cal.Rptr. 393](noting that the statutory history fully supports the testimony of a qualified expert analyst of legislative intent).)

     

     

    B. William H Keller has the Special Knowledge, Skill and Training to Qualify Him as an Expert and Assist the Court in Evaluating Legislative History and Intent

     

     

    10. Evidence Code Sections 454, 460 and 730 give the courts great discretion in determining when expert evidence is required to assist the court. Once the court determines, on its own motion or the motion of a party, that expert testimony is appropriate, Evidence Code Section 720 (a) establishes the qualifications necessary to testify as an expert witness:

     

    “A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.” (Evid. Code 720 subd. (a).)

     

    11. Mr. Keller’s background clearly qualifies him as an expert. His education includes graduation Cum Laude from UCLA with a degree in Political Science and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California at Davis. Following law school, Mr. Keller was selected through competition to be an Assembly Fellow. At the Legislature, Mr. Keller served as Legislative Assistant to Assemblyman William T. Bagley, and later as an Associate Consultant to the Assembly Welfare Committee.

     

    12. After leaving the legislative staff, Mr. Keller founded Legislative Intent Service. Under his direction over the past 26 years, his firm has researched the Historical background of over 20,000 California, federal and sister state code sections. Legislative Intent Service currently produces about 1,500 legislative histories yearly for courts and attorneys across the country. As part of this work, Legislative Intent Service prepares each year numerous analyses directly for the California District Courts of Appeal.  Legislative Intent Service has been cited by name in over 40 California appellate cases.

     

    13. Mr. Keller gives 10 to 12 classes a year to law firms and local bar associations on legislative history and statutory construction. These lectures have been certified by the California State Bar Association as approved MCLE activities. Mr. Keller has also lectured to numerous other groups, including law school classes, legal secretaries and law librarians. Mr. Keller co-authored an article entitled “Finding Legislative Intent in California” published in the January, 1986 issue of the California State Library Foundation Bulletin.

     

    14. On the basis of this special knowledge, experience and education, the California Courts have recognized Mr. Keller as an expert and have allowed him to give opinion testimony in approximately 35 instances. Mr. Keller has submitted written declarations in numerous other cases.

     

    15. Mr. Keller has been cited by name in three published California Appellate Court Opinions, in addition to several unpublished opinions. (See Roberts v. Gulf on Corporation (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 781-83 82 [195 Cal. Rptr. 393]; Lynch v. State Board of Equalization (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 94,112 [210 Cal. Rptr. 335]; Jimenez v. WCAB (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 61, 67 fn. 3 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 660].)

     

    16. In the case of Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corporation, the court specifically describes Mr. Keller’s testimony as that of a “qualified expert analyst” of legislative intent. (Id. At 781.) The decision goes on to acknowledge Mr. Keller’s testimony regarding the Legislature’s intent in enacting the statue at issue, and his study of the legislative history, including what the materials did not reveal as well as what they did. (Id. at 782-83.)

     

    17. Mr. Keller’s expertise has also been explicitly acknowledged in cases outside the state court system. (Judd v. United States (S.D.Cal. 1987) 650 F. Supp. 1503,1511 fn.10.)

     

     

    C. Expert Witness Testimony on Legislative History and Intent Does Not Usurp the Role of the Court to Determine What the Law Is.

     

     

    18.Axiomatic to our legal system is the role of the court to say what the law is.(Downer v. Bramet (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 837, 842 [199 Cal. Rptr. 830].) Testimony on legislative history and legislative intent does not violate this tenet. Examining legislative history is only one aspect of interpreting legislative intent. The plain meaning rule is also an element of this inquiry. (Petaluma v. Sonoma (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1244, 1247 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 617].) Additionally, interpretation of legislative intent is only one aspect of statutory construction, and functions only in conjunction with the maxims of statutory construction and case law precedent. (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XlV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142,1156-60 [278 Cal. Rptr. 614, 805 P.2d 873]; 7 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th Ed. 1988) Constitutional Law, 92-100, pp. 145-153.  Furthermore, expert witness testimony is not inadmissible simply because it approaches an ultimate issue in the case. (Evid. Code, 805.) Finally, the directive of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1859 requiring the court to pursue legislative intent when construing a statute says to do so only “if possible.”

     

    19. As noted above, courts construing statutes rely on a variety of methods in addition to analysis of legislative history and legislative intent. Courts routinely examine the “plain meaning” of a statute to determine the law’s import. The court may make this examination as part of a synthesis of the elements of statutory construction. (People v. King (1993) 5 Cal.4th 59, 69 [19 Cal.Rptr.2d 233, 851 P.2d 27].) Alternatively, the court may also make this examination of “plain meaning” as a separate analytical step prior to reaching external indicia of intent. (DaFonte v. Upright, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 601 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238, 828 P.2d 140].) In neither case does testimony on legislative history and intent subvert the court’s ability to establish the meaning of the law independently of historical evidence of intent.

     

    20.     In addition to the Plain meanings rule, courts also adhere to interpreting statutes consistent with various maxims of statutory construction. For example, courts routinely conduct in pari materia analysis when construing statutory language. (Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753, 763 [280 Cal.Rptr. 745, 809 P.2d 404].) As a further example, courts usually afford the construction of a statute by a state agency great weight, and will not overturn it absent a showing that the construction is clearly erroneous or unauthorized (Rizzo v. Board of Trustees (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 853, 861 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 892].) Given that maxims of statutory construction form a distinct aspect of the courts’ statutory analysis, testimony on legislative history and intent cannot, in itself, displace the courts’ from their customary role of establishing the law.

    21.     The courts also routinely examine prior case law interpretations of a statute in an effort to establish coherent meaning in the law. (California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board (1994) 8 Cal.4th 333, 343 [33 Cal.Rptr.2d 109, 878 P.2d 1321].)  Where a court has previously construed a statute, case law precedent ensures that any testimony on legislative history and intent does not unduly influence a court’s reading of the law.

     

    22.     The distinction between appropriate testimony about the history and framework of a law and inappropriate testimony on the proper judicial interpretation of a law was recognized in Western Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Albers (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 383, 392 [212 Cal.Rptr. 434]. In this instance, the Court of Appeal ruled that expert testimony on the interpretation of Medi-Cal rules and regulations was properly received by the trial court. This decision is consistent with the cases allowing expert witnessing on legislative intent noted in Paragraph 9 above. (Cf. American Home Assurance v. Hagadorn (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1898, 1902-3 [56 Cal.Rptr.2d 536](allowing expert testimony on the intent of an amendment to the workers’ compensation law).)

     

    23.     These cases are easily distinguished from another line of cases disallowing testimony on pure legal opinions. In the leading case on this issue, Communications Satellite Corporations v. Franchise Tax Board (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 726, 747 [203 Cal.Rptr. 779], the Court of Appeal correctly rejected expert testimony on the proper interpretation of a tax statute as applied to uncontroverted facts, which effectively directed a verdict. In this case, the expert testified on conclusions of law based on his interpretations of a uniform act.

     

    24.     Similarly in Downer v. Bramet (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 837, 841-2, one party sought to introduce evidence first from her own attorney, and then from independent counsel, on the legal test for determining whether a transfer was a gift or compensation. The appellate court upheld a trial court decision to exclude this proffered testimony as within its discretion. The court noted that calling witnesses “to give opinions as to the application of the law to particular facts usurps the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury...” (Id. at 842.)

     

    25.     In sharp distinction, expert witness testimony on legislative history and intent is based on expert evaluation of historical documents, and not simply an opinion on the meaning of law. Moreover, testimony on legislative history and intent does not lead the court inexorably to any particular conclusion as to the proper judicial interpretation of the law. Legislative history and intent are elements of a court’s statutory construction analysis, and expert testimony is accepted to assist the court in one part of that process.

     

    26.     Furthermore, given that expert witness testimony on legislative history is designed to assist the court in interpreting legislative intent, it does not usurp the role of the court to instruct the jury. This point is recognized in Evidence Code 455 which notes that such expert opinion is usually not given before a jury because it is ‘not received in open court”. Evid. Code, Section 455.) Neither does expert witness testimony on legislative history impose on the province of the jury to apply the facts to the law.


    "Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship...To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic..., and have no place in a republic...The Constitution of this Republic should make special provisions for medical freedom as well as religious freedom." - Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of Declaration of Independence; member, Continental Congress

    "Nearly all men die of their medicines, not of their diseases." - Moliere, (1622-1672).

    "He's the best physician that knows the worthlessness of most medicines."- Benjamin Franklin

    "...This large and expensive stock of drugs will be unnecessary. By ...doses of ...medicines ...multiplying ...combining them properly, 20 to 30 articles, aided by the common resources of the lancet, a garden, a kitchen, fresh air, cool water, exercise, will be sufficient to cure all the diseases that are at present under the power of medicine." - Dr. Benjamin Rush
    Hazard Circular
     (allegedly circulated by British banking interests among their American banking counterparts in July 1862)
     Slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war, must be used as a means to control the volume of money.... It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that.
    [Quoted in Charles Lindburgh, "Banking and Currency and the Money Trust" (Washington, DC: National Capital Press, 1913), page 102.


    This morning, we look at the JPM debacle: Has the Economy been made safe from Wall Street? The short answer is not very.

    The print version had the full headline Four short years after AIG, Wall Street is back to its old tricks (The online version is merely JPMorgan’s debacle, and its parallels to AIG).



    mandatory enforcement of Sarbanes-Oxley

    ferc
    mandatory reliability standards for timeliness, fairness and transparency while respecting jurisdiction

    Released on May 18, 2012

    Natural Resources and Environment

    Air Emissions and Electricity Generation at U.S. Power Plants
    GAO-12-545R, Apr 18, 2012

    In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law."The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers.[12] Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".[13]

    The American doctrine of standing is assumed as having begun with the case of Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923). But, legal standing truly rests its first prudential origins in Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) which was authored by Justice Brandeis. In Fairchild, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.[14] Since then the doctrine has been embedded in judicial rules and some statutes.

    In 2011, in Bond v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held a criminal defendant has standing to challenge the federal statute that he or she is charged with violating as being unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.

    Standing requirements

    There are three standing requirements:

    1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
    2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[15]
    3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[16]

    Prudential limitations

    Additionally, there are three major prudential (judicially created) standing principles. Congress can override these principles via statute:

    1. Prohibition of Third Party Standing: A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of the law into the rights of others. For example, a party suing over a law prohibiting certain types of visual material, may sue because the 1st Amendment rights of theirs, and others engaged in similar displays, might be damaged.
      Additionally, third parties who don't have standing may be able to sue under the next friend doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract. One example of a statutory exception to the prohibition of third party standing exists in the qui tam provision of the Civil False Claims Act.[17]
    2. Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.
    3. Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest
      1. Zone of Injury - The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute.[18]
      2. Zone of Interests - The party is arguably within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision.[19]

    Recent development of the doctrine

    In 1984, the Supreme Court reviewed and further outlined the standing requirements in a major ruling concerning the meaning of the three standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability.[20]

    In the suit, parents of black public school children alleged that the Internal Revenue Service was not enforcing standards and procedures that would deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit.[21] Although the Court established a significant injury for one of the claims, it found the causation of the injury (the nexus between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s injuries) to be too attenuated.[21] "The injury alleged was not fairly traceable to the Government conduct respondents challenge as unlawful".[22]

    In another major standing case, the Supreme Court elaborated on the redressability requirement for standing.[16] The case involved a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior interpreting §7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The rule rendered §7 of the ESA applicable only to actions within the United States or on the high seas. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit, because no injury had been established.[23] The injury claimed by the plaintiffs was that damage would be caused to certain species of animals and that this in turn injures the plaintiffs by the reduced likelihood that the plaintiffs would see the species in the future. The court insisted though that the plaintiffs had to show how damage to the species would produce imminent injury to the plaintiffs.[24] The Court found that the plaintiffs did not sustain this burden of proof. "The 'injury in fact' test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured".[25] The injury must be imminent and not hypothetical.

    Beyond failing to show injury, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the standing requirement of redressability.[26] The Court pointed out that the respondents chose to challenge a more generalized level of Government action, "the invalidation of which would affect all overseas projects". This programmatic approach has "obvious difficulties insofar as proof of causation or redressability is concerned".

    In a 2000 case, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000),[27] the United States Supreme Court endorsed the "partial assignment" approach to qui tam relator standing to sue under the False Claims Act — allowing private individuals to sue on behalf of the U.S. government for injuries suffered solely by the government.[28]

    Taxpayer standing

    The initial case that established the doctrine of standing, Frothingham v. Mellon, was a taxpayer standing case.

    Taxpayer standing is the concept that any person who pays taxes should have standing to file a lawsuit against the taxing body if that body allocates funds in a way that the taxpayer feels is improper. The United States Supreme Court has held that taxpayer standing is not a sufficient basis for standing against the United States government, unless the government has allocated funds in a way that violates the Establishment Clause found in the First Amendment of the Constitution.[29] The Court has consistently found that the conduct of the federal government is too far removed from individual taxpayer returns for any injury to the taxpayer to be traced to the use of tax revenues.

    In DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,[30] the Court extended this analysis to state governments as well. However, the Supreme Court has also held that taxpayer standing is "constitutionally" sufficient to sue a municipal government in a federal court.

    States are also protected against lawsuits by their sovereign immunity. Even where states waive their sovereign immunity, they may nonetheless have their own rules limiting standing against simple taxpayer standing against the state. Furthermore, states have the power to determine what will constitute standing for a litigant to be heard in a state court, and may deny access to the courts premised on taxpayer standing alone.

    In Florida, a taxpayer has standing to sue if the state government is acting unconstitutionally with respect to public funds, or if government action is causing some special injury to the taxpayer that is not shared by taxpayers in general. In Virginia, the Supreme Court of Virginia has more-or-less adopted a similar rule. An individual taxpayer generally has standing to challenge an act of a city or county where they live, but does not have general standing to challenge state expenditures.

    Standing to challenge statutes

    With limited exceptions, a party cannot have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute unless they will be subjected to the provisions of that statute. Courts will accept First Amendment challenges to a statute on overbreadth grounds, where a person who is only partially affected by a statute can challenge parts that do not affect them on the grounds that laws that restrict speech have a chilling effect on other people's right to free speech.

    The only other way someone can have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute is if the existence of the statute would otherwise deprive them of a right or a privilege even if the statute itself would not apply to them. The Virginia Supreme Court made this point clear in the case of Martin v. Ziherl 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005). Martin and Ziherl were girlfriend and boyfriend when Martin discovered that Ziherl gave her herpes. She sued him for damages. Because (at the time the case was filed) it was illegal to have sex with someone you're not married to, Martin could not sue Ziherl because joint tortfeasors - those involved in committing a crime - cannot sue each other over acts occurring as a result of a criminal act (Zysk v. Zysk, 404 S.E.2d 721 (Va. 1990)). Martin argued that because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (finding that state's sodomy law unconstitutional), Virginia's anti-fornication law was also unconstitutional for the reasons cited in Lawrence. Martin argued, therefore, she could, in fact, sue Ziherl for damages.

    Lower courts decided that because the Commonwealth's Attorney doesn't prosecute fornication cases, Martin had no risk of prosecution and thus lacked standing to challenge the statute [cite? or did the lower courts just decide that the statute was still constitutional, so that Martin could not sue? Maybe the issue was that Ziherl asserted Martin was unlikely to be prosecuted under the little-used statute?]. Martin appealed. Since Martin has something to lose - the ability to sue Ziherl for damages - if the statute is upheld, she had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. And since the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence has found that there is a privacy right in one's private, noncommercial sexual practices, the Virginia Supreme Court decided that the statute against fornication was unconstitutional. The finding gave Martin standing to sue Ziherl since the decision in Zysk is no longer applicable.

    However, the only reason Martin had standing to challenge the statute was that she had something to lose if it stayed on the books.

    State law

    State law on standing differs substantially from federal law and varies considerably from state to state.

    California

    On December 29, 2009, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District ruled that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 367 cannot be read as imposing a federal-style standing doctrine on California's code pleading system of civil procedure.[31] In California, the fundamental inquiry is always whether the plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has some entitlement to judicial action separate from proof of the substantive merits of the claim advanced.[31] The court acknowledged that the word "standing" is often sloppily used to refer to what is really jus tertii, and held that jus tertii in state law is not the same thing as the federal standing doctrine.[31]

    See also



    STANDING, THE LAST BASTION OF MALE DOMINANT SUPERIORITY

    standing ovation, as Issa entered the room, indicated the pliant tone set for the attendance of their hero.

    Hosted by the Carlsbad Republican Women's Federation this crowd of 105 paid $29 ($35 for non-members) a head to hear what they wanted to hear from their favorite conservative icon. With only about a dozen men present it seemed Issa might have had some explaining to do about his abuse of his chairmanship of the House Oversight Committee in having hearings about women's legislative contraceptive rights while refusing attendance by any women.


    GRIST SERVED AT CURSED BANQUET, FANCY MEAT GLUE FABRICATED REPORTER EATS AROUND MYSTERIOUS ORIGINS OF FILET MIGNON

    Pesticide Honchos Eat Round-up Ready GMO Broken Bread, face-down columnist feels cathartic, unloads. Purged blogger identifies agents scatologically; passes water for catharsis, softening blogged columnist.

    What to eat


    Black Feet fourth to administer Water Quality Standards authority from EPA;

    Northern Cheyenne and Flatheads #1 and #2.

    review and approval is separate agency action.


    Released on May 17, 2012

    Grants Management

    Action Needed to Improve the Timeliness of Grant Closeouts by Federal Agencies
    GAO-12-360, Apr 16, 2012

    EPA Awards for Environmental Stewardship Work


    September 09 - Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History - Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing.

    Death by Medicine By Gary Null, Ph.D.,  Carolyn Dean MD,  Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD   A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million.1 Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics. more...

    July 2003 - Pharmaceutical corporations accused of Genocide before ICC in The Hague  Pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Amgen and Astra Zeneca are accused of deliberately preventing life-saving natural alternatives to drug based treatments from being applied in prevention and cure. A worldwide disinformation campaign undertaken by these companies is said to have caused the death of millions of people. more

    How the Pharmaceutical Industry & the FDA are Endangering Your Health for Profit

    It is estimated that in America last year, nearly $2 trillion was spent on health care -- and virtually all that money was spent on treating disease.1 Despite this massive expenditure on treatment, more Americans are sicker than ever before with diseases that are largely preventable: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, fibromyalgia, and depression, to name a few. Each year more money is spent on treatment, mere patchwork, even though it has become crystal-clear that treatments do NOT enable you to live a longer, better life. So why is the amount of money being spent on prevention just a pittance compared with the amount spent on treatment? The answer is simple -- when you are sick it is highly profitable to various giant corporations. When you are well, it doesn't profit them much at all. 

    Drug Trials: Nobody checks, nobody knows
    What really goes on in medical trials? Are the results really as they seem, and is the drug that is being tested as effective - and safe - as the manufacturer claims? In truth, we have no way of knowing, because nobody is testing the testers. It should be the function of drug regulators, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the USA's drugs watchdog. But a recent survey discovered that the FDA has inspected just 1 per cent of medical trials that were carried out between the years 2000 and 2005. There's no registry of clinical trials, and the FDA is too under-resourced to carry out any further checking. Arthur Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, commented: "In many ways, rats and mice get greater protection as research subjects than do humans."  (Source: New York Times, 1 October 2007)  Rigged Drug Studies Favor The Manufacturer

    The FDA is a "partner" of the Pharmaceutical Industry - In an unusually candid comment for a senior government official Dr. Herbert Ley, former FDA commissioner, remarked: “The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It Isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day.” more

    Most Astonishing Health Disaster of the 20th Century

    Fear of the Invisible

    This is the story of a ten-year investigative journey into a reckless and contaminated medical industry. The author takes her readers on a journey into the very heart of the hunt for viruses - to the key experiments that were performed to prove that these invisibly small particles cause diseases that often were previously blamed on toxins or bacteria. It sheds light on the extraordinary assumptions underlying much of this research into viruses - and the resulting vaccines and antiviral medicines.

     There is much research here that will be totally new and horrifying to most readers. The author cites, for example, a senior World Health Organization (WHO) scientist reporting that the MMR vaccine is contaminated with chicken leukosis virus, and that they have decided not to tell the public and to continue to make the vaccine with eggs from contaminated chickens. She also cites a report from a major MMR vaccine manufacturer stating that their vaccine is contaminated with cellular degradation products - and cannot be cleansed. It seems they stay silent with the public because to confess this would reveal that they cannot purify the vaccines given to our children. A US court decision in 2008 has linked autism with vaccine contamination.This is not surprising given the degree of contamination documented here - contamination that seems inevitable given how the vaccines are manufactured using cells from slaughtered wild monkeys, chicken embryos and cancers. The author cites her sources by name - and gives references and Internet links where they are available.    Vaccinations - Deception and Tragedy 

    She also gives evidence on how US biowarfare researchers have tried to create new agents to destroy human immune systems - and reported working on a bacterium to make it a hospital superbug. Did they manage to create HIV? Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor might have thought so - but what is the evidence for this? The author critically examines this - and the evidence for another theory put forward to her by a senior professor. he said that HIV may well have contaminated the polio vaccine. She learns that chimps were used in vaccine manufacturing so widely that HIV could easily have spread in a vaccine without any need for military intervention. She then set out to find why HIV spread so far and so fast. Was it in a vaccine? She needed to know more about HIV so went to the foundation research widely held today to have found this virus and proved it caused AIDS.  The Immune System: The Body's Defense Department

    A report by the General Accounting Office in the United States revealed that 51.5 per cent of all drugs introduced between 1976 and 1985 had to be relabelled because of serious adverse reactions found after the marketing of these drugs. These included heart, liver and kidney failure, foetal toxicity and birth defects, severe blood disorders, respiratory arrest, seizures and blindness. The changes to the labelling either restricted a drug's use or added major warnings. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1.5 million Americans were hospitalised in 1978 as a consequence of taking drugs and some 30 per cent of all hospitalised people are further damaged by their treatments. Every year, an estimated 140,000 Americans are killed because of drug taking (21) and one in seven hospital beds is taken up by patients suffering from adverse drug reactions. The Pharmaceutical Drug Racket

    Tell Your Congressmen and Women to Co Sponsor the Health Freedom Protection Act, H.R. 2117 - The FDA is on a rampage against dietary supplements. Preventing reasonable and factual health claims, the FDA is using its immense power to fuel the pharmaceutical profit picture at the expense of the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. The rights of Americans to learn about natural products through truthful, science-based health claims is routinly stifled to the detriment of health and health freedom in the United States.

    Dr. Henry Jones, M.D. "Soon after the medical monopoly was formed, it began to push its agenda of destroying all competition. A well-organized and -funded nationwide purge of all non-M.D.s was undertaken. Over the course of the first half of the Twentieth Century this medical monopoly managed to shut down over forty medical schools. Their idea was to keep the number of doctors low in order to keep fees up. After WW II the medical monopoly started rigidly controlling how many of each medical specialty it would allow to be trained. So, ophthalmologists, orthopedists, dermatologists, obstetricians, and others began to be in short supply. And of course when supplies are low, fees are high. The medical monopoly also managed to outlaw or marginalize over seventy healthcare professions. Protection of the healthcare consumer was, as always, the rationale for this power grab. Whether the object of destruction by the medical monopoly be homeopaths, midwives, chiropractors, or internet prescribers, the purge is conducted in the same manner. No scientific proof or research data is offered to discredit these practitioners. The entire approach is one of character assassination directed at their profession. "  More: How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care


    Western Medicine Fails Tim Russert
    Byron Richards, CCN

    The most glaring omitted information from Russert’s doctor is telling us what diabetes medication he was taking.  I am willing to bet that he was taking Avandia, the drug the FDA should have pulled off the market because it causes a whopping 43% increased risk of a sudden heart attack, information the FDA actively sought to sequester during that drug’s approval process.  Why do I think that?  Because in the scant health data his doctor is giving out he has stated that Russert had high triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol – the exact metabolic profile that Avandia is supposed to treat.  When a treatment has death as a common side effect it can hardly be considered a treatment. 

    Could it be that Russert is a casualty of one of the great Big Pharma/FDA scams currently going on?  How ironic, since all news programs are sponsored by this industry’s ads and the media fought tooth and claw in the past year to ensure that dangerous drug ads could continue to run non-stop during all news programs – exposing millions of Americans to drug-induced injury (while they got their billions in ad revenues).  I am stunned that no reporter interviewing his doctor seems to be able to ask such an obvious question.  Learn more: Western Medicine Fails Tim Russert

    "A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million.1 Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics.  The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million.3 The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million.4  The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251.5. As few as 5 percent and only up to 20 percent of iatrogenic acts are ever reported.16,24,25,33,34 This implies that if medical errors were completely and accurately reported, we would have a much higher annual iatrogenic death rate than 783,936. Dr. Leape, in 1994, said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes annually was equivalent to three jumbo-jet crashes every two days.16 Our report shows that six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each and every day."  Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD

    Instinct Based Medicine: How to survive your illness and your doctor
    This is a great book. Every MD, ACS member, FDA member, media person, congressmen, and senators should be required to read this book. Everyone else should want to read this book. I highly recommend it. There should be more doctors like Dr. Coldwell. It should be common sense that all the diseases you here about on TV or in the paper are not from the lack of some drug they are advertising. Remember, drugs don't cure anything, they just mask the symptoms.


    The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
    (If the video below does not show/play, please download the flash player)
    Most Astonishing Health Disaster of the 20th Century

    Most Astonishing Health Disaster of the 20th Century
    Politics in Healing: The Suppression & Manipulation of American MedicineMatthias Rath, M.D. - "In recent years the pharmaceutical industry has been exposed as a multi-trillion dollar ‘investment business with disease’ the future of which is dependent on the continuation and expansion of diseases. The very existence of the pharmaceutical industry is currently threatened. Damage claims from the deadly side-effects of one single drug are bringing down Bayer, the flag ship of this industry. The ensuing ‘domino effect’ would inevitably cripple this largest investment sector on earth. At the same time, scientific advances in non-patentable natural health offer effective, safe and affordable alternatives to the multi-trillion dollar market of patented drugs." 
    From Dr. Mercola's website: - “There’s no money in healthy people,” he says, and that truth is at the heart of our American health crisis.  By making it more difficult, and confusing, for you to make healthy choices, the food industries and the pharmaceutical industries are feeding their own megalomania. In truth, optimizing your health is not rocket science. But if you believe the media, and the pharmaceutical propaganda in particular, it may seem impossible to get by without emptying your wallet to buy your required pills for all those newly invented ills.  Wake up – and take control of your own health. Be the master of your own life. Don’t buy into the hype!  Watch this short satire on drugs video

    "The survival of the pharmaceutical industry is dependent on the elimination by any means of effective natural health therapies. These natural and non-patentable therapies have become the treatment of choice for millions of people despite the combined economic, political and media opposition of the world’s largest investment industry. To protect the strategic development of its investment business against the threat from effective, natural and non-patentable therapies, the pharmaceutical industry has – over an entire century - used the most unscrupulous methods, such as:
     

  • Withholding life-saving health information from millions of people. It is simply unacceptable that today so few know that the human body cannot produce vitamin C and lysine, two key molecules for connective tissue stability and disease prevention.
  • Discrediting natural health therapies. The most common way is through global PR campaigns organized by the Pharma-Cartel that spread lies about the alleged side effects of natural substances – molecules that have been used by Nature for millennia.
  • Banning by law the dissemination of information about natural health therapies. To that end, the pharmaceutical industry has placed its lobbyists in key political positions in key markets and leading drug export nations." Dr. Rath Health Foundation

  • According to a set of essays published in the Public Library of Science Medicine, drug companies are systematically inventing non-existent diseases, or exaggerating minor ones, in order to sell more of their products. The practice turns healthy people into patients, and places many of them at risk of medically induced harm. Minor, normal problems, such as the symptoms of menopause, have been "medicalized" into treatable illnesses, and risk factors like high cholesterol are being treated as diseases in their own right. Conditions including female sexual dysfunction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and "restless legs syndrome" have all been exaggerated and promoted by companies hoping to sell drugs. Even ordinary shyness is often defined by drug companies as a social anxiety disorder to be treated with antidepressants. Richard Ley, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, pointed out that some countries, including Britain, have legal safeguards against drug industry "disease mongering." Most of the criticisms, he argued, apply primarily to countries like the United States, where drugs can be advertised directly to patients. Public Library of Science Medicine April 11, 2006; 3(4)  Times Online April 11, 2006


    Medical Fascism in the USA, Australia and the UK
    If you disagree with your doctor regarding the medical treatment of your children, they can be taken away from you, put in a foster home, and you can be arrested for endangering the health and welfare of your child.  There are many people jailed every year, put there for disagreeing with medical doctors and their policies. In order to break free from the clutches of organized medical crime, pharmaceutical drug cartels and the monstrous insurance companies, we must all work to change the unconstitutional laws that monopolize health care. 

    Leaders in Washington are working to restrict your access to dietary supplements - including the safe, effective, and affordable vitamins, minerals, and herbs you depend on for your health. Your hard-won natural health freedoms as guaranteed by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 have come under attack by the political allies of pharmaceutical interest groups!" Watch these free videos:

    "We Become Silent" A documentary about the threat to medical freedom of choice. The Last Days of Health Freedom' details the ongoing attempts by multinational pharmaceutical interests and giant food companies — in concert with the WTO, the WHO and others — to limit the public’s access to herbs, vitamins and other therapies. 
    Prescription for Disaster  in-depth investigation into the relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, lobbyists, lawmakers, medical schools, and researchers, and the impact this has on consumers and their health care.
    Health and Wellness

    Video library   (whistleblower doctors)

    Peter R. Breggin, M.D - "The drugging of children has gotten so out of hand that America is waking up to this. This is a national catastrophe. I'm seeing children who are normal who are on five psychiatric drugs."  Peter R. Breggin, M.D. is the Director, International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology

    The Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF) is a non-profit corporation devoted to protect, preserve and defend our right to make our own health choices based on what we, not the government, believe are the best choices for ourselves.

    The National Health Federation is an international consumer education, health-freedom organization working to protect individuals' rights to choose to consume healthy food, take supplements, and use alternative therapies without government restrictions. Subscribe to their terrific educational magazine

    Forced Chemotherapy, Drugging and Vaccination of Children - Murder by Court Order


    .
     
    (If the video below does not show/play, please download the flash player)

    Have you heard of the veterinary condition Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Dog-Disorder? (ADHDD)

    Fidolin - the new drug for ADHDD and ADHD, approved for use on both dogs and children! This parody ad by the Health Ranger mimics the idiocy of television ads pushing mind-altering drugs for fictitious diseases like ADHD.     Watch the video 
    Peter R. Breggin, M.D - "The drugging of children has gotten so out of hand that America is waking up to this. This is a national catastrophe." more

    Dr. Robert Mendelsohn MD - "No one has ever been able to demonstrate that drugs such as Cylert and Ritalin improve the academic performance of the children who take them.... The pupil is drugged to make life easier for his teacher, not to make it better and more productive for the child." 

    Class action lawsuits have been filed in Texas, California and New Jersey charging a pharmaceutical maker of Ritalin, with conspiracy to create the psychiatric disorder known as ADHD in order to fuel the market for their product. learn more

    Sick of drugging your pet? Frustrated with the failures of conventional veterinary medicine and drugging pets, read what some veterinarians are saying and learn about the alternatives

    .
    Julian Whitaker, M.D. believes there is a direct link between the violent shootings and the increased and indiscriminate use of popular antidepressant drugs. Dr. Whitaker points out that many of the gun-related massacres that have made the headlines over the past decade have a common thread: they were perpetrated by people taking Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox, Paxil, or a related drug. A documented side effect of these drugs -- known clinically as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) -- is akathisia, or physical and mental agitation. Dr. Whitaker says "akathisia is to violence what a match is to gasoline. And this condition has been reported in a significant number of Prozac users." Moreover, the Food and Drug Administration has received over 40,000 reports detailing adverse effects related to Prozac. The Scourge of Prozac by Dr. Julian Whitaker MD
     
    Helping Children, Not Drugging Them

    Dr Peter Breggin,M.D the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin), told me: "With Luvox, there is some evidence of a four percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis." more  ---   also, check these google links

    Do antidepressants cause teen suicide? The FDA opened hearings on this issue this week and are they ever in a tight spot.  more google links

    Drug Safety: The 11th hour is now   We have members of congressional committees stating that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is "badly broken." We also have a letter from the FDA in response to a query letter from Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) regarding the agency?s involvement in the Trilateral Cooperation Charter (TCC) with Canada and Mexico under NAFTA. The TCC is moving toward regulating public access to vitamins, herbs and botanicals as prescription drugs?per the Codex Alimentarius scheme?throughout North America. So, on one hand we have an agency that is notoriously poisoning the public in collusion with Big Pharma here at home and, on the other, it is working with its Canadian and Mexican regulatory counterparts to restrict public access to the natural substances that could make us well again.

    The Truth About the Drug Companies : How They Deceive Us and What to Do About  In what should serve as the Fast Food Nation of the drug industry, Angell, former editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, presents a searing indictment of "big pharma" as corrupt and corrupting: of Congress, through huge campaign contributions; of the FDA, which is funded in part by the very companies it oversees; and, perhaps most shocking, of members of the medical profession and its institutions.

    Jonathan Quick, director of Essential Drugs and Medicines Policy for the World Health Organization (WHO) wrote in a recent WHO Bulletin: "If clinical trials become a commercial venture in which self-interest overrules public interest and desire overrules science, then the social contract which allows research on human subjects in return for medical advances is broken." Former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Marcia Angell, struggled to bring the attention of the world to the problem of commercializing scientific research in her outgoing editorial titled “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” Angell called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers. She said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science. She warned that, “When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways.” She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry. more


    DEATH BY MEDICINE 
    Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD.

    A group of researchers meticulously reviewed the statistical evidence and their findings are absolutely shocking. These researchers have authored a paper titled “Death by Medicine” that presents compelling evidence that today’s system frequently causes more harm than good. This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be 2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year. The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.5) 

    Never before have the complete statistics on the multiple causes of iatrogenesis been combined in one paper. Medical science amasses tens of thousands of papers annually - each one a tiny fragment of the whole picture. We have now completed the painstaking work of reviewing thousands and thousands of studies. Finally putting the puzzle together we came up with some disturbing answers. learn more


    Forced Drugging of Children - Parents may face jail over compulsory drug orders

    In the US judges can constitutionally order controversial drugs to be given to a child over the opposition of his parents. Parents are medicating their children for fear of having them  hauled away by Child Protective Services. In the UK Parents of children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) will face jail under proposals in the new Mental Health Bill if they refuse to drug their children, a psychiatrist has warned. more


    Mass Murder in Medicine 
    by Dr. Len Horowitz

    Discussing “Iatrogenocide” Dr. Len Horowitz delves into the darkest side of drug-based medicine, including the mass killing and poisoning of people for profit and politics. This free program is dedicated and donated to grassroots activists and organizations worldwide working to stop this ongoing medically-induced mass murder that Dr. Horowitz christens “iatrogenocide.” Find out why trusted vaccines, blood supplies, and drugs play a primary role in what amounts to genocide for profit, psychosocial control, and even depopulation. We urge you to make copies of this exceptional 45-minute presentation, help spread this recording, and stop the killing. (To order bulk quantities of this tape for dissemination by activists and activist organizations please call toll free 1-888-508-4787 or order over the Internet atwww.AmericanRedDoubleCross.com or www.tetrahedron.org)


    Medical Writers Get $300-700/day Working for Drug Companies
    A panel of medical writers explained how pharmaceutical companies pay them $300 to $700 a day ghostwriting articles bylined by doctors and published in "throwaway" medical publications. They also explained how they did it, and how they broke in, with nothing more than intelligence, writing skill, and the ability to understand scientific subjects, but without scientific degrees.


    HISTORY OF SECRET EXPERIMENTATION ON UNITED STATES CITIZENS
    Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War.

    Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All into Patients 
    situations formerly perceived as mild problems are becoming redefined as serious illnesses requiring drugs - courtesy of drug companies seeking to expand their markets. Conflicts of interest abound in the process - expert physicians serving to set treatment protocols or approve drug use are often on the payroll of the very drug companies they are supposed to regulate; similarly, "support groups" for those with various maladies are often partly funded by drug companies seeking endorsements. Another strategm is to utilize scary statistics - eg. "33% decrease," instead of lowers risk from 3% to 2%. Partly as a result, U.S. dollars spent on drugs have increased 100% in the past six years. The bad news is that often these drugs aren't needed and may even harm patients.



    Scandal of scientists who take money for papers ghostwritten by drug companies
    Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies to put their names to articles endorsing new medicines that they have not written - a growing practice that some fear is putting scientific integrity in jeopardy. The success of Prozac, the antidepressant which became a cult "happy" drug in the 1990s, substantially raised the stakes in psychiatry. Its promotion coincided with the decline of state funding for research, leaving scientists in all areas of medicine dependent on pharmaceutical companies to fund or commission their work. That in turn gave the industry unprecedented control over data and ended with research papers increasingly being drafted by company employees or commercial agencies.

    On The Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health
    Jerome Kassirer M.D former editor-in-chief of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

    "Some physicians become known as whores." This is strong language in Kassirer's look at how big business is corrupting medicine—but according to Kassirer, one doctor's wife used the word "whore" to describe her husband's accepting high fees to promote medical products. Such personal anecdotes distinguish Kassirer's look at the conversion of America's health-care system into a commercial enterprise. Kassirer, former editor-in-chief of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, notes the range of conflicts of interest between profit-centered business and people-centered medicine, such as the drug industry's huge expenditures (in the billions) for courting doctors to use their products, for recruiting physicians to tout their drugs or, more slyly, to present seemingly objective medical discussions that, on closer examination, do favor the company's product over others.
     

    Medisin is a fascinating and unique perspective of the unholy practices of allopathic medicine and the commercialization of devitalized and chemical based foods. With the compelling facts and informative text, this nearly 400 page volume covers a century of medical applications and the history of refined foods, from Pasteur's false "Germ Theory" to the hidden cause of obesity. Medisin is also comprised of factual information regarding the mis-education of the health-care institution and nutritional dogma perpetrated by commercial food corporations. The book features compelling topics like: "Why the religious faithful are not disease free?", "Vacinnes-The Lie of the Needle", "Why cancer is really not under control", "Splenda really isn't splendid", "Fluoride, how America really got brainwashed", and the Medisins behind Hormone Replacement and Hysterectomies."  Simply put, Medisin seeks to give the masses a comprehensive understanding of medicine, disease and the divine principles of health.
     
     

    The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It
    by Marcia Angell  M.D, Former New England Journal of Medicine

    A political tidal wave is building which will forever change both the industry and many of its infamous business practices. It is sad to note that the drug industry today is equally poorly regarded as the tobacco companies, and this is a testament not only to the shortsighted foolishness of their management, but also to the fact that you can fool some of the customer some of the time, but not all of them all the time. 

    Medical Journal Changes Policy of Finding Independent Doctors to Write - June 2002: The New England Journal of Medicine will announce that it has given up finding truly independent doctors to write and review articles and editorials for it, as a result of the financial ties physicians have with so many drug companies in the United States The Journal says the drug companies' reach is just too deep. In 2000, the drug industry sponsored more than 314,000 events for physicians — everything from luncheons to getaway weekends — at a cost of almost $2 billion. On top of that, many doctors accept speaking and consulting fees that link them to drug companies.  Now, the Journal will allow these critical evaluations to be written by people with financial ties to drug companies.

    What Doctors Don't Tell You : The Truth About the Dangers of Modern Medicine by Lynne McTaggart Americans have become so accustomed to following doctors' orders that many prescriptions, medical tests, and surgical procedures are accepted without question. This blind faith can be dangerous! Modern medicine offers us a wide range of powerful treatments for ailments large and small. But did you know that some common "cures" come with serious, life-threatening risks, or may do nothing at all? This groundbreaking book, written by an investigative journalist, exposes questionable, harmful, often life-threatening medical practices which all consumers should be aware of, including treatments for asthma and arthritis, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and heart surgery. 
     

    THE MEDICAL MAFIA: How To Get Out of It Alive and Take Back Our Health and Wealth by Guylaine Lanctot, M.D.

    The medical establishment works closely with the drug multinationals whose main objective is profits, and whose worst nightmare would be an epidemic of good health. Lots of drugs MUST be sold. In order to achieve this, anything goes: lies, fraud, and kickbacks. Doctors are the principal salespeople of the drug companies. They are rewarded with research grants, gifts, and lavish perks. The principal buyers are the public - from infants to the elderly - who MUST be thoroughly medicated and vaccinated...at any cost! Why do the authorities forbid alternative medicine? Because they are serving the industry, and the industry cannot make money with herbs, vitamins, and homeopathy. They cannot patent natural remedies. That is why they push synthetics. They control medicine, and that is why they are able to tell medical schools what they can and cannot teach. They have their own sets of laws, and they force people into them. That is a mafia. This sensational expose' also uncovers the truth behind vaccines, AIDS, cancer, the World Health Organization, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, and more. 

    This book is about so much more than the corruption among medicine, pharmaceuticals, government and "Health" Organizations like the WHO. It about regaining our health, our soveriegn right as individuals, our freedom, self respect and love for our fellow man. While the current and corrupt "Medical Mafia" poison, maim and kill millions no one is happy with it; patients or doctors, except those who profit from it; the "industry" which involves expensive testing, toxic drugs and sweeping global population control policies.

    Ms Lanctot offers a solution and the good news is that it is in OUR hands. It involves claiming our right to make our own decisions about our health and that of our children and recognizing that same right in others, along with easy to follow suggestions about how to seek a responsible client/consultant relationship with a medical care practitioner.

    Something fascinating, and I truly hope you read the book! Louis Pasteur "gave" the world our current concept of bacteria and viruses which lead to transmission of disease. Yet another unaclaimed scientist of the same time period as Mr Pasteur studied another possibility; that it is the disease which causes the virus or bacteria.

    It may be hard at first to contemplate that what we have been told all our lives may be wrong and the disease-causes-germs paradigm should not be accepted as fact without intensive study into this possibility. Sadly the current drug and profit based research debilitates that possibility. And scientist and doctors who try to adopt an approach which threatens the current situation often end up suffering persecution from the "mafia"; forms which range from public ridicule, loss of research funding, suspension of medical licencing(just ask Ms Lanctot)and many more. Gaston Naessens has done further work on this theory; work on somatidian theory. A somatid is the smallest particle of living matter, precursor of DNA....a web search on any engine would verify this. Ms Lanctot says that our greatest illness is that of submission, fueled by fear and our fascination with security and protection which are only fantasies at best.

    Disease-Mongers : How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers Are Making You Feel Sick by Lynn Payer An expose+a7 of the health-care industry shows how doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and insurers profit from making healthy people think they are sick and reveals the growing influence of powerful lobbies representing the industry.

    Racketeering in Medicine:The Suppression of Alternatives James Carter "I have been reading various books on alternaitve medicine for years, and this one sticks out as one of the top five in my library about how the AMA, FDA and pharmaceutical industry has for years tried to discredit alternative,less expensive, less invasive and often times more effective modalities of treatment.James Carter does not just sensationalize but documents quite clearly the evidence behind his assertion. He clearly shows that the governing bodies of modern general or "accepted" medicine have a vested interest in supressing these treatments and making sure that most average folks never know about them." an amazon reviewer: Christina Paul from Anamosa, IA USA

    "Progress in medical science is, as a rule, achieved only after overcoming the manifestations of a fixed mental status, ranging all the way from violent and vitriolic opposition down to apathy and deadly intertia." Dr. Edwin F. Bowers

    Linda Johnston, MD, DHt - "Many efforts were used to advance the allopaths by discrediting, restricting and abolishing the Homeopaths. Typical were the laws passed in the early 1800's to prevent any practitioners of medicine other than the allopaths from being able to go to court to collect non-payment of fees. In every case, these and other similar laws were unenforceable and extremely unpopular with the citizenry. All were repealed within a few years. Undaunted, the allopathic doctors then turned to their own medical societies rather than the legislative process to carry out their desire for effective restriction of Homeopathy. Allopaths granted themselves the right to restrict society membership, which was tantamount to licensing powers. Fines were levied against anyone practicing medicine without such a society membership. They had successfully usurped the power to control who could practice. Eventually even these fines were also rescinded due to unpopularity with the citizens. Pennsylvania and New York were the first states to forbid membership in the society by medical doctors who practiced Homeopathy. State medical society membership and representation in the AMA required that these societies purge themselves of any member Homeopaths. After 1847, all state societies did this, except Massachusetts. In addition, professional exchange, consultation and even conversation between allopaths and Homeopaths were banned. This ban on interaction between the two groups is a striking example of how a private organization, the AMA, could completely flout the public will, and take punitive action for something that was totally legal." Homeopathy, Economics, and Government

    Reclaiming Our Health : Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the Sources of True Healing by John Robbins, Marianne Williamson 

    "Absolutely fabulous, should be required reading for everyone. Knowledge is power, yet Americans are consistently kept in the dark about medicine, nutrition, and more. The country is set up to destroy YOUR health while padding the pockets of the medical establishment and food corporations. Read this and Diet for a new america, and as many other critical books you can get your hands on. Then change your life for the better." An amazon.com reviewer

    THE POLITICS OF CANCER - CANCER IS BIG BUSINESS! Cancer Industry and their cover-up of natural therapies



    This site will raise "red flags" or issues that require public attention and debate in Health, Science, Environment, Arts and Politics. The mission of redflagsweekly.com is to probe medical, scientific, environmental, artistic and political issues in a manner that one rarely encounters in mainstream news reports. Corporate bottom lines and inadequate training in specialty journalism often provide the reading, viewing and listening public with narrow and simplistic information. Press release journalism in medicine, for example, a process that often involves aggressive PR firms in the service of powerful corporations, hospitals and medical journals, typically rules the roost. It is the path of least resistance. The "dumb it down" gang is all too often in control. There also is a high degree of censorship in the news of those views that challenge the established viewpoints in science. Some scientists even seem preoccupied with efforts to discourage debates about important issues that affect many lives.



    The International Medical Council (Consensus Circle of Medical Truth) is seeking doctors, Ph.D's, and general volunteers for group consciousness project including writing, publishing,  and general help. Associated with The Medical News publication, World Psychology and AIDS Alternativa International, this project is devoted to spearheading  the drive to take medicine out of the dark ages where medical madness is existing in the areas of vaccines, AIDS, cancer and other medical practices. Have your own work published together with others and participate in editing and writing of The Medical News. The aim of this organization is to confront the self-image and false concepts of medicine and then take medical practice, without any self-image at all, to a place of medical purity that will serve humanity in the way it desperately needs to be served.  Write to:  Mark Sircus Ac., OMD email: MedicalNews@worldpsycholgy.net


    The FDA "partner" of the Pharmaceutical Industry

    In an unusually candid comment for a senior government official Dr. Herbert Ley, former FDA commissioner, remarked: “The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It Isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day.” 

    The FDA is good for business. To expect it to protect the public from bad food and drugs is an American fantasy. There is a process in place called “double dipping”. In the FDA it works like this. A young Ph.D. leaves school to work for the FDA. He soon makes connections with senior officials in the corporate business he is supposed to regulate. It isn’t long before an understanding emerges. His “regulation” of the corporate business won’t negatively impact their bottom line. In return he can look forward to a cushy vice presidency with the corporation after he retires from federal service. Is this why this regulatory agency fails to regulate big business activities? Thomas Smith

    YOUR HEALTH FREEDOM IS IN JEOPARDY

    Dr Benjamin Rush "Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an underground dictatorship... To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic... The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."

    James DeMeo, Ph.D. "In recent years, there has been an upsurge of police activities in the USA, the nature of which most Americans would more readily associate with repressive dictatorships. We Americans have been educated to believe that democracy, due process, assumed innocence-until-proven-guilt, and Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure are the laws of the land. On paper, these protections are there; but in reality, these basic Constitutional rights and freedoms have been gradually and steadily eroded away by new laws, judicial rulings, and bureaucratic decrees. One of the lesser-known but more significant leaders of this assault on American freedom has been the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."more
     

    Politics in Healing: The Suppression & Manipulation of American Medicine

    Politics in Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine by Daniel Haley
    An ex-congressman from N.Y., Haley has written an historical account of immense importance.  Here are detailed the true stories of ten physicians and their non-toxic cancer and other medical cures that were smashed by a pharmaceutical -AMA - federal machine which continues today. For anyone interested in the truth behind who controls the FDA and other federal agencies this is a must read. All health care professionals need to have a look at the reality existing today in the manipulation of the health care system as shown in these stories. POWERFUL! 

    Seven drugs approved since 1993 have been withdrawn after reports of deaths and severe side effects. A two-year Los Angeles Times investigation has found that the FDA approved each of those drugs while disregarding danger signs or blunt warnings from its own specialists.

     "Risk Was Known as FDA OKd Fatal Drug" At least one senior manager believed that if an FDA medical officer who had questioned the drug's safety and effectiveness didn't please the company, he would be "out."  The records also shed new light on the state of knowledge within Warner-Lambert of Rezulin's potential danger: Executives knew that patients who took the drug in clinical studies had suffered life-threatening liver damage -- yet the company assured an FDA panel that the risk was trivial. Los Angeles Times Sunday, March 11, 2001

    Most Doctors Who Set Guidelines Have Industry Ties "The vast majority of doctors involved in establishing national guidelines on disease treatment have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry that could potentially sway their recommendations and inappropriately influence thousands of other physicians.Eighty-seven percent of guideline authors had some type of relationship with drug companies." Dr. Mercola

    "The medical industrial complex refers to the close-knit association of organised medicine with pharmaceutical manufacturers and governmental medical regulatory agencies. The connections between these groups is of course, a web of money, power, and prestige. Selling medical drugs is very big business. Medical research is dependant on $ billions of grants from the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H.) and the private pharmaceutical industry. The two are closely interlocked; managers in one tend to come from success in the other with many examples of interchangeable personnel." "Licensed doctors are easy to control. All practising U.S. physicians must accumulate a given number of hours of continual medical education or C.M.E. But where does he acquire his C.M.E credits? From authorised C.M.E. Seminars - that's where! And who authorises which seminar for C.M.E. credits? Organised medicine, That's who! And who sponsors and who provides the speakers for C.M.E. credited seminars? The pharmaceutical industry and it's great funded corps of academic researchers, that's who!U.S. physicians are captive audience for pharmaceutical advertising. This applies to other countries as well. They learn which drugs to prescribe. They do not learn of alternative procedures and perhaps better ways of caring for their ill patients." EDUCATE - NOT MEDICATE - AND FREE THE RADICLE WITHIN by doctor Keki Sidhwa
     


    INSANE PSYCHIATRY A Profession Run Amok  By Nicholas Regush
    February 16, 2002 - There is no drug that can cure modern psychiatry. This is a profession that is close to routinely practicing medical terrorism by shamelessly over-prescribing drugs to people of all ages, often for phantom diseases and for purposes that have no rational basis in science. What’s needed is something akin to a War Crimes Tribunal to investigate psychiatry’s relationship to major pharmaceutical companies. Haul all the bigproduct champions and psychiatry associations in and determine their involvement with money-grubbing schemes and the abuse of patients. And let me re-emphasize this point: this is a medical specialty that is second to none in ripping off and abusing patients. The situation has long been out-of-control. It is no longer a matter of a few bad apples screwing everyone left and right. It’s become a full-scale assault on humanity. Ritalin: Wonder Drug or Medical Fraud?..............................................Nicholas Regush produces medical features for ABC News

     Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research
    The Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research is a non-profit group dedicated to promoting true health and a clean environment by supporting valid research, disease prevention, freedom of choice in health care, a reduction in the use of toxicants, and independence of health care and environmental protection from the dictatorial influences of the drug/chemical interests.

    Tetrahedron
    Tetrahedron is an Educational Corporation that deals in health science and U.S. government cover-ups. We educate people around the world on public health matters that concern all humanity. You will also discover information on natural healing, and alternative therapies, to promote health in body, mind, emotions, and spirit, that is, the holistic approach.

    Toxi-Health International
    Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati,  Ph.D., D.A.B.T., D.A.B.V.T., provides expert consulting  in the vast field of toxicology.

     "... Dr. Mohammed A. Al-Bayati's conclusions were that my diagnosed illness, Pulmonary Fibrosis had been produced by my exposure to JP-4 and JP-8 aviation fuels plus other toxic chemicals in the workplace. Kerosene, one of the key ingredients of jet fuel also created lesions in my airways, lungs, and other tissues, as well as instituting memory loss. Dr. Al-Bayati, discovered that the steroid treatments, Prednisone and Azathioprine had completely destroyed my immune system and were the culprits that were not allowing my bodily systems to repair themselves. In essence my HMO gave me the appearance of medication induced "Aids." Larry J. Boyd, Suisun City, California  (more on the danger of steroids)

    Dr. Al-Bayati, author of "Get All The Facts: HIV does not Cause AIDS",  received his Ph.D. from the  University   of California Davis in Comparative Pathology and is a board certified toxicologist (American Board of Toxicology and American Board of Veterinary Toxicology).  With over 20 years of  experience in research, teaching, diagnostic work and consulting, Dr. Al-Bayati has extensive expertise in evaluating data from observational and experimental studies in humans and animals and  applying this knowledge effectively to real-life situations. Dr. Al-Bayati firmly believes that a correct appraisal of information from animal and human exposure events is essential to arrive at a proper  understanding of the nature and extent of the injury and in the search for the correct treatment. .


    From the Wall Street Journal, Friday, October 12, 2001

    Worries About Safety Of Its Anthrax Vaccine Put the Army in a Bind 

    Alternatives to AntibioticsSoldiers Ordered Inoculated Against Biological Threat Claim Harsh Side Effects."...But soon after his first inoculation in February, the 29-years-old Mr. Nietupski showed up at an urgent -care facility with sores all over his mouth and throat. "The side of my tongue was all raw with little canker sores, and bloody mucus was coming out of my nose, " Mr. Nietupski says. His maladies, ultimately diagnosed as an autoimmune disorder in which his body accidentaly attacked itself, grew worse as he got the next two installements of the six-shot regime. Mr. Nietupski and several of the doctors who have examined him, believe the anthrax vaccine caused his severe reaction and may also be to  blame for the blood clots Mr. Nietupski experienced in his legs months later." more on anthrax vaccines

    Learn about therapeutic options for the treatment and prevention of infections using herbal, homeopathic, and nutritional remedies.
     
     

    What Every Parent Should Know BEFORE Their Childen Are Vaccinated! Why are a growing number of parents and health care professionals around the world questioning vaccination? The controversy stems from the thousands of deaths and permanent disabilities attributed to vaccination annually, as well as the many published medical studies, government statistics, What Every Parent Should Know BEFORE Their Childen Are Vaccinated - pictures from the CDC about the side effects of vaccinescongressional testimonies, and other credible sources that directly contradict commonly held assumptions about vaccine safety and effectiveness.

    Bart Classen, a Maryland physician, published data showing that diabetes rates rose significantly in New Zealand following a massive hepatitis B vaccine campaign in young children, and that diabetes rates also went up sharply in Finland after three new childhood vaccines were introduced.

    More pictures of vaccine damage available to view at the CDC website
    In fall 1997, two influential professional magazines featured articles asking the question: Has the decrease of infectious diseases in childhood through the mass use of vaccines been replaced with an increase in chronic diseases such as diabetes and asthma? The Economist, a prestigious international magazine read by world leaders in government, business and public policy, and Science News, a magazine read by both health care This child died as a result of vaccines - pictures from the CDC about the side effects of vaccinesprofessionals and the general public, explored the reported links between vaccines and chronic diseases in their November 22, 1997 issues. 

    This child died as a result of vaccines (CDC website)

    Congressman is calling for criminal penalties for any government agency that knew about the dangers of thimerosal in vaccines and did nothing to protect American children. Congressman Dan Burton (R-Indiana) during Congressional Hearing: "You mean to tell me that since 1929, we've been using Thimerosal, and the only  test that you know of is from 1929, and every one of those people had mennigitis, and they all died?" For nearly an hour, Burton repeatedly asked FDA and CDC officials what they knew and when they knew it. (Thimerosal contains a related mercury compound called ethyl mercury. Mercury is a toxic metal that can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions.) 
    Vaccines: deception and tragedy 
    Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) or Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis?
    Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
    AUTISM: is there a vaccine connection?
    Library - Books and Journals: Vaccine Controversy
    Juvenile diabetes and vaccination: the connection
    Can vaccines cause immune dysfunction resulting in allergies, asthma and anaphylaxis?

    Homeopathy can be used successfully to prevent and treat smallpox, measles, whooping cough, chickenpox, and other ailments.

    Would you allow big brother to enforce vaccinations on your kids? Government Enforced Vaccinations Vaccination Tracking Registry - Government programs that limit your choices -and your rights- in health care when it comes to mandatory vaccination. These mandates last for 40 or so years and they're impossible to repeal. Also, learn about Legal Requirements and Exemptions 

    Are Vaccines Damaging Our Pets?
    Routine Vaccination: Is it really safe and effective?  Most recently, an article appeared in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association entitled "Are We Vaccinating Too Much?" Read about the comments of veterinarians who believe that vaccines are damaging our pets. 

    Physicians Right to Practice Alternative Medicine 
    Alternative Medicine Bill
    Bills that enable physicians to provide “alternative” treatments are called Medical Freedom Bills. New York, Alaska, and Texas in addition to other states have passed such bills. For more information on the states that have passed medical freedom bills or have pending bills

    The Voice of Natural Health Consumers  Citizens For Health is a free, grassroots, consumer advocacy group that champions public policies empowering individuals to make informed health choices. Let your voice be heard! Without your voice, there is no choice!

    You cannot poison your body into health with drugs, chemo or radiation "Health can only be achieved with healthful living" T.C. Fry

    Free  book online Health and Survival in the 21st Century by Ross Horne. A wonderful book for someone with incurable disease that is stuck in the medical model.

    Waste, recycling workers need to get healthier, expert says


    "Workers who expose securities and financial fraud, adulterated foods, air and water pollution, or workplace safety hazards have a legal right to speak out without fear of retaliation, and the laws that protect these whistleblowers also protect the health, safety and well-being of all Americans," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. "Establishing a federal advisory committee is another important effort to strengthen protections for whistleblowers."

    "This new Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee will help our agency sustain an open dialogue with stakeholders and experts, and will promote the transparency and accountability that are the cornerstone of this administration,"

    siren


    ..they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty... and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

    I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

    This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

    Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

    It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

    There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

    It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

    excerpts of President George Washington's farewell address.

    Congressional oversight?

    A tough-minded version of congressional oversight not seen on Capitol Hill since the days of the legendary Jack Brooks may be back if a May 10 letter from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrel Issa and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson is any indication.

    Brooks was the ornery, cigar-chomping Texas Democrat who chaired the Issa panel (known then as the House Committee on Government Operations) between 1975 and 1988. He tolerated no fools among those testifying before his committee and woe to the bureaucrat called on the Brooks carpet for wasting tax dollars. He was also among the architects of the Inspector General Act of 1978.

    But aggressive oversight faded in the years after Brooks left that committee, especially between 2001 and 2006 when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress.

    Issa has become a major figure since taking over as chairman of the oversight panel following the Republicans regaining the House majority in 2010, especially as a result of his dogged pursuit of the facts behind the Operation Fast and Furious scandal.

    The letter to EPA, however, could indicate an important new direction in the Issa panel's approach to oversight. Where the Fast and Furious probe has focused mainly on determining who did what and when in the Justice Department's gun-walking weapons to Mexican drug cartels, the EPA letter seems targeted on preventing the agency from expanding its regulatory authority far beyond the clear intent of Congress.

    The issue concerns EPA's assertion of authority under Section 404(C) of the Clean Water Act to retrospectively or retroactively deny permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for projects such as mineral mining in Alaska and coal mining in West Virgina.

    In their letter, Issa and Jordan note that last month a federal district court ruled EPA was exceeding its authority, saying:

    "EPA's position is that section 404( c) grants it plenary authority to unilaterally modify or revoke a permit that has been duly issued by the Corps - the only permitting agency identified in the statute - and to do so at any time.

    "This is a stunning power for an agency to arrogate to itself when there is absolutely no mention of it in the statute. It is not conferred by section 404( c), and it is contrary to the language, structure, and legislative history of section 404 as a whole."

    So, Issa and Jordan are requesting that Jackson provide documentation of the entire process by which her agency concluded that it could act on its controversial interpretation of Section 404(C), including an explanation of "the basis for EPA's claim that it has the legal authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to block a permit even before the permitting process begins. Your answer should identify all prior precedents that EPA has relied on in drawing its legal conclusions."

    Issa and Jordan also demand lists of every individual outside the agency that participated in, advised or was otherwise involved in the deliberations that led up to the decision to assert the questionable 404(C) authority.

    It appears that Issa and Jordan intend to open to public examination the closed doors behind which EPA officials decided to assert a regulatory power for which it seems likely it possessed no authority from Congress. 

    Documents elucidating such a process are typically not available to the public or the media via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which includes a "pre-decisional deliberations" exemption agency officials throughout the government routinely use to avoid having to explain how they reached a decision.

    If Issa and Jordan re-establish the principle that Congress can and should actively pursue its undoubted oversight authority into every aspect of an executive branch policy, program or action, it could arrest and then reverse the headlong expansion of bureaucratic power that has marked federal operations since the New Deal

    Iron Mountain Mines (Mountain Copper Co. Ltd.) was California's first fertilizer Co.

    Certain intense archaea form acid mine drainage (“AMD”). Prior to efforts at control, AMD was believed or  said & alleged to be a cause of  alleged fish kills in the Sacramento River.

    "You name it, and we've got to cut it." Governor Jerry Brown



    . New Revelations by Chief “Standing Balls” exposes diabolically fiendish evil empire’s sinister secret weapon of rose colored glasses in mass brain washing conspiracy for a garden variety plot to enslave all earth’s peoples; devious appliance is disguised as ordinary children’s toy “kaleidoscope”; called by expert a “weapon of mass obstruction”; device said to obscure the operators vision with mesmerizing rose colored glass prisms that gleam and sparkle, the glistening confuses it’s victims with delusions of beauty; once under its spell victims become dependent and obsess, unable to discern their environmental surroundings, users just can’t grasp the reality around them. Recovery said to require intervention & detox; withdrawal’s symptoms may be severe, diversion said to offer best hope for full recovery; but some need treatment, hardcore users may require inpatient services; commitment. News report of Surgeons’ General advised blood-letting and whiskey discredited, rumor attributed to vindictive raging relapsed pettifogger. Story that government lawyers are particularly susceptible appears to be true; maybe due to their widely recognized inferiority, low self esteem issues and identity crisis from the well known anxieties and associated mental pathologies resulting from societies low regard and general accepted notions and perception that they are parasites that needlessly plague and prey on the nation; exploiting the wealthy and neglecting the poor; may also exacerbate already susceptible attorneys to delusions of grandeur and ugly fits of narcissism, pretense, conceit. Worst cases found speaking Latin. Federal District courts said to be suffering worst; must be from having been looking for coloreds, judges vacate as a class.

    Recovering attorneys, filled with gratitude, contrition and repentance, vow to make amends, offer services pro bono; agriculture department secretary says they could apply themselves better by making gratitude and amends list; take steps to turn their lives around; act as if they are not attorneys; suggests best practice is to avoid same old associates and associations, like other attorneys, their places and things; since “birds of a feather flock together”; recommends higher educational opportunities to get out of their poverty, especially encourages overcoming fears of failure, low achievement, (why they became attorneys in first place) by offering the most worthwhile and needed career choice for today’s and the future’s society; practical farmers and qualified mechanics.

     Leading science expert says humanity should be vigilant, suggests history shows a pattern of most people being gullible and susceptible to being led like lemmings off a cliff by the acts and practices of those claiming to save us, particularly under the influence of rose colored glass  “kaleidoscopes”; says moral hazards of obstructed view persist, says rose colored glass obsessed attorneys not only ones predisposed to hallucinations and inciting terror; says most people easily victimized by attorneys expounding ridiculously contrived theories of “potential risks” that are only imaginary threats. Congress may investigate,  President calls on nation for transparency; rumors he may require oaths from using attorneys provokes heated debate in Supreme Court, Justices say they would overrule such a measure. Alarmist pamphleteers demand testing, pilgrims call it another witch hunt, stone pamphleteers. Pamphleteers burn pilgrims in revenge. Some in congress calling for reform; minimum standards; say attorneys should have higher education too, like farmers and mechanics do now, some even calling for organizing a “bar association” and requiring a “bar exam” to assure attorneys are competent, or at least have a 6th grade education.

    Chief “Tasers” & “Pepper Sprays” pursuing cavalry and lynch mob posse, recounts exploit to adoring tribe and “shocked and awed” cavalry and posse on mysterious device he calls his “Smart Phone”.

    Quakers and Protestants demand Chief  take the “floats he is, sinks he isn’t” test .

    Assuring the Safety of Chemicals »

    Learn about Foggers Safety

    Know someone with bug problems? EPA created a series of cartoons to teach people about using Foggers Safely. They are available in English and Spanish. My kids love the bed bugs at the end of this one:
    Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice »

    Changing The US Environmental Foreign Policy


     

     

    California, the ninth largest economy in the world

    The world's wealth: 10 richest by GDP

    (in millions of US dollars)

    1. United States $14,620,000

    2. China $5,879,100

    3. Japan $5,391,000

    4. Germany $3,306,000

    5. France $2,555,000

    6. Brazil $2,518,000

    7. United Kingdom $2,259,000

    a8. Italy $2,037,000

    9. California $1,911,822

    10. Canada $1,564,000

    Source: CIA World Factbook

    society

    May 20-26 is National Small Business Week

    EPA Final Rule Revises Test Procedures For Determining Pollutants in Wastewater

    Friday, May 18, 2012

    Surely all God's people, however serious or savage, great or small, like to play. Whales and elephants, dancing, humming gnats, and invisibly small mischievous microbes— all are warm with divine radium and must have lots of fun in them. -John Muir

    Dottie Smith's blog

    « Previous entry

    Fox hunting and cricket in Shasta County?

    | No Comments

    fox hunting.jpg cricket.jpg
    Yessirree. It was just one of the many forms of recreation taken up by the employees of the Iron Mountain Mine. Many of their workers came straight here from England and were accustomed to those forms of recreation in their homeland.

    Fox hunting was conducted on the plains across the Sacramento River below Redding (exactly where, I don't know.)

    Cricket, on the other hand, the national sport of England, was played somewhere on the mountain. According to Wikipedia, "Cricket is a bat-and-ball game played between two teams of 11 players on a field, at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-yard long pitch. One team bats, trying to score as many runs as possible while the other team bowls and fields, trying to dismiss the batsmen and thus limit the runs scored by the batting team. A run is scored by the striking batsman hitting the ball with his bat, running to the opposite end of the pitch and touching the crease there without being dismissed. The teams switch between batting and fielding at the end of an innings."

    The Iron Mountain Mine hospital

    | No Comments
    Can you believe there was a hospital way up there on the mountain at one time? I don't know exactly when it was built but the first physician arrived in 1895. The hospital was considered well-equipped and included a resident physician and a trained nurse who provided adequate medical attention and prompt service in case of accidents - and there were plenty of them. Physicians didn't stay long at the hospital because it was an undesirable place to live and work. The first physician left less than two years after being hired. This continued until 1919 when there was a good hospital in Redding. From that point on, patients were transported to Redding for treatment. Dr. J. E. Taylor was the last resident physician who left in 1919 and started a private practice in Redding.

    Dottie Smith is the former Curator of the Shasta College Museum and former Instructor of Shasta County History at Shasta College. She has written 12 local history books.

    The DOJ Environmental Enforcement Sect. (EES) filed suit in 1986 against Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. & President, CEO, & Chairman, Mr. T.W. Arman, both Officially and personally, and since 2010 in his proprietorship as the current owner. Iron Mountain Mines received rehabilitation and treatment and diversion; non-settling defendant Mr. T.W. Arman was left out of the settlement thus blaming him solely and exclusively, rather than joint and severally, and without recourse to sue the actual polluters (The former Mountain Copper Co. owners Jardine Matheson Co., Rothschild Bank and Bank of America) and responsible parties (successors in interest Bayer Crop Sciences, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Rhone-Polenc, Stauffer Chemicals, etc.) for the "disposal" causing alleged endangerment of alleged  threatened release of alleged hazardous materials allegedly threatening species of hybrid sport fish salmon spawned at Baird Hatchery until 1943 Shasta Dam exterminated the wild species with the approval of California voters, the U.S. Congress & the President; and without opportunity for a fair hearing or  judicial review of agency actions "double swaddled in judicial deference", thus framing Mr. T.W. Arman for the extinction  of these fake wild fish, libeling his person, slandering his  property, poisoning his reputation, and clouding his title and credit with a fraudulent lien implicating perpetual limitless liability besides the U.S. claims & interest of $58 million wasted taxpayer dollars plus 200 million privately spent and $300 million funneled to AIG for fake superfund insurance that Treasury must pay to cover AIG fraud and antitrust monopoly conspiracy on useless & unnecessary removal action resulting in  actual endangerment by the governments & contractors construction of dams posing a bonafide real threat to us all; both our human health and well-being, & the environment. 

    Welcome to the ENRD:  The docket of the Natural Resource Section (NRS) is a kaleidoscope of  issues ranging from litigation to defense against claims by private property owners for alleged “takings”.

    "kaleidoscope" is derived from the Ancient Greek καλός (kalos), "beautiful, beauty",[2] εἶδος (eidos), "that which is seen: form, shape"[3] and σκοπέω (skopeō), "to look to, to examine",[4] hence "observer of beautiful forms." [5] Initially intended as a science tool, the kaleidoscope was later copied as a toy

    National convention on federal behavior modification

    Broad language on the issue of whether a compliance order is a “final agency action” subject to judicial review. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia states“[t]here is no doubt [the compliance order] is agency action” and further, “[i]t has all the hallmarks of APA finality that our opinions establish.” Admittedly, Justice Scalia held that the key to the case was the fact that the Clean Water Act does not, as the government claimed, preclude judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, assuming other environmental statutes similarly do not preclude review under the APA, the opinion leaves open the argument that if the core hallmarks of “final agency action” can be established with regard to an enforcement order under another statute, so too would agency action under that other statute be subject to pre-enforcement review.

    “EPA’s interpretation fails because it is illogical and impractical.” Judge Amy Jackson of the US District Court for D.C.

    justice

    CERCLA VIOLATES DUE PROCESS, AND IS “capable of repetition” while “evading review.”




    Welcome to Environment America

    Environment America is a federation of state-based, citizen-funded environmental advocacy organizations. Our professional staff in 29 states and Washington, D.C., combines independent research, practical ideas and tough-minded advocacy to overcome the opposition of powerful special interests and win real results for the environment. Environment America draws on 30 years of success in tackling environmental problems.

    THE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT.

    Over the last 30 years National Water Quality Inventories have documented pathogens as a leading cause of river and stream impairments.

    EPA MUST ADDRESS THIS PRIORITY.

    THE RAPTURE OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

    .

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES, INJURY, HAZARD OR RISK. DAM IMPROVEMENT

    .

    THE JUDGMENT IS VACATED BY ABSOLUTE ORDER

    .

    YOU SHOULD CONSIDER ALL THE GOLD IN CALIFORNIA .

    .

    INNOCENCE DISCHARGED; ABSENCE OF INJURY; INCAPACITY OF JURISDICTION; MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; DEFAMATION OF INNOCENT LAND & OWNER;

    .

    H.A.R.D. LOOK

    C. National Environmental Policy Act

    In passing NEPA, Congress “recognized the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment” and set out “to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a). [WE should all be MUSICIANS?]

    To bring federal action in line with Congress' goals and to foster environmentally informed decision-making by federal agencies, NEPA “establishes ‘action-forcing' procedures that require agencies

    to take a ‘hard look' at environmental consequences.” Metcalf v. Daley , 214 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council , 490 U.S. 332, 348 (1989)). Foremost among those procedures is the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).

    Agencies considering “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” are required to prepare an EIS. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). The EIS “shall provide full and fair discussion of [the] significant environmental impacts” of the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. That discussion serves two purposes:

    First, it ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider,

    detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts. Second, it guarantees that the relevant

    information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision. Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen , 541 U.S. 752, 768 (2004) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). By WESTERN W ATERSHEDS PROJECT v. KRAAYENBRINK 13249 focusing agency and public attention on the environmental effects of proposed agency action, “NEPA ensures that the agency will not act on incomplete information, only to regret its decision after it is too late to correct.” Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council , 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989).

    and coordinated compliance and enforcement, more integrated approaches to capitalize on synergies, improved communication with a broader audience, and greater leveraging of programs. Just as EPA will have to employ all of its tools, so too must all our partners—state, local, tribal, and federal—play their roles.

    EPA must improve and adapt regulations, permitting and compliance/enforcement efforts as a key first step to change our current path. EPA will also work to greatly increase cooperation, partnerships and communication to achieve victories in areas where regulatory approaches are not appropriate. We will support legislation and consider administrative action to restore the CWA protections to wetlands and headwater streams that provide clean water for human and ecological uses. We will take action to ensure all major point sources of pollution have permits that require clear, verifiable results. And by implementing new enforcement approaches per the Clean Water Action Plan , including more integrated problem solving, collaboration across standards setting, permitting and enforcement programs, EPA will bring violators into compliance.

    Another key element of this strategy is improvement of assessment and classification of watersheds. And building on this, EPA will increase cooperation with states to identify and protect those waters that are healthy; a far more cost effective approach than cleaning up a waterbody [WATER BODIES] after it has been polluted. EPA also seeks to find ways to better integrate new technologies and approaches into our clean water programs. For example, green infrastructure provides an important set of tools for changing the way stormwater discharges STORM WATER IS viewed—from being treated as a waste product that comes with high-cost infrastructure systems – to realizing and using it as a valued resource. Green infrastructure can also have positive effects on sanitary sewer overflows and combined sewer overflows, which are major urban water concerns. EPA will also explore opportunities to better integrate oNLY sustainable practices into ALL policies and programs; for instance: energy-neutral wastewater treatment, water efficiency, energy efficiency, and water reuse.

    EPA will seek solutions and implement programs to address recent, emerging, and growing watershed quality issues including increased mining activities, drilling, aging infrastructure and increased urbanization and development. Invasive species are also a significant threat to aquatic ecosystems. Using both regulatory and non-regulatory programs, EPA is taking meaningful steps to reduce the likelihood that invasive species are able to spread from one waterbody to another . Additionally, as excess nutrient pollution continues to be a major concern, EPA sees a better means to addressing this problem on the critical path to success. EPA will work in partnership with states to better manage excess nutrient enrichment in LAND AND surface waters and promote state accountability frameworks that include publicly-available, science-based, state nutrient reduction implementation activities that are watershed-based and have NON-COERCIVE FEDERALLY-binding mechanisms to achieve the reductions.

    STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT GOALS

    This strategy's success depends on many factors working together. Local governments, states, and tribes, each working under their own authorities and capacities, to ensure watersheds in their jurisdiction are safe. It is up to EPA to bring these groups together to more smoothly coordinate and harmonize our efforts in order to optimize the results. EPA has identified several key strategies to guide our efforts, and actions that respond to the challenges we face: Public Discussion NOT FINAL – August 2010 4

    .

    •  Systematically assess the nation's watersheds to provide a baseline for transparently tracking progress;

    •  Enhance COMMUNITIES ability to restore degraded watersheds, and take action to increase the number of restored watersheds;

    •  Reduce emissions entering our watersheds; and

    •  Enhance watershed resiliency and revitalize communities through multi-benefit, sustainable technologies and approaches that will ensure resiliency to development, urbanization and other factors.

    .

    KEY ACTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING WATERSHED PROTECTIONS

    By approaching the most significant safe land and watershed challenges facing the nation from a more realistic perspective and using resources creatively, we will undertake a range of actions to implement these strategies to get a better understanding of the state of our nation's watersheds, work to protect what we've got, fix what's broken, expand our work to keep watersheds safe, and build for the future while ensuring we are meeting our economic and community needs. In doing so, the community will expand existing partnerships and develop new, locally-based partnerships, and implement tools and policies that will foster tailored approaches. In addition to strengthening and expanding partnerships, to achieve the next level of protection, we will work within the community and outside the community to strategically leverage funding opportunities to reduce emissions from unregulated sources.

    In implementing these actions, the community remains committed to the following principles:

    •  Use bold, new, creative, more effective ways to implement SWR and other programs, more strategically deploy existing regulatory authorities and enforcement programs, as well as voluntary approaches and market-based incentives;

    •  Rely on robust science and cutting-edge technologies, particularly in emerging areas of concern such as climate adaptation, ecosystem services, integrated watershed approaches;

    •  Increase focus on improving environmental quality in disadvantaged communities that have historically suffered severe degradation of watershed quality that provide key ecosystem services;

    •  Engage a broader range of stakeholders in decision-making and provide the EPA and other stakeholders with reliable information about watersheds; and

    •  Achieve and document measurable results.

    .

    Know What You've Got – Systematically Assess the Nation's Watersheds to Provide a Baseline Effective management of watershed resources requires reliable information and an informed public. To better inform our efforts, improve accountability, policy, planning, increase stewardship, and better measure progress of ongoing efforts to improve the quality of data in the long-term; the EPA will focus on systematically assessing the nations watersheds. The National Aquatic Resource Surveys for streams, lakes and coastal waters already provide the baseline for the condition of watersheds across the - Public Discussion Draft – August 2010 5 -

    nation against which we can track changes in water condition at the national and regional scales. In the next several years, EPA will complete the first set of five Aquatic Resource Surveys that will give us a complete picture of the condition of all watershed types across the nation. EPA, working with our partners, will also explore opportunities to build on existing monitoring and assessment efforts to better identify, classify, and track the status of our watersheds. This multi-scaled approach to monitoring and assessment will give communities the information they need to make informed decisions about how best to manage watershed resources and help the public understand the effectiveness of federal and state investments.

    Key EPA Actions:

    •  Complete cycle of National Aquatic Resource Surveys to provide baseline for documenting trends in degradation and major stressors in the next several years,

    •  Complement existing impaired watershed listings with identification of healthy watersheds across the U.S. ; and

    •  Explore opportunities for increasing strategic information attained from and integrity of the Integrated Watershed Quality Monitoring and Assessment Reports to provide a more comprehensive picture.

    .

    Protect What We Have – Increased Focus on Protection of Healthy Watersheds

    EPA's watershed quality protection program is focused on the remediation of impaired watersheds and the reduction of specific emission levels in watersheds. While EPA and our state partners have made and are continuing to make considerable progress in this important work, we recognize the need to protect and maintain healthy watersheds as well. Healthy watersheds provide our communities with drinking water, recreational opportunities, environmental benefits and services, including safe watershed for healthy aquatic ecosystems, habitat for fish and wildlife, and better resilience against floods and future land-use changes. Protecting healthy watersheds will result in considerable savings over time if the need for costly restoration can be avoided in watersheds that would otherwise become impaired by cumulative impacts.

    EPA will study and report the health and safety of watersheds sufficiently for communities to explore, develop, and make available more effective information and expertise to conduct ecological assessments, to classify and list healthy watersheds. By developing, along with our state partners, a science-based structure on a national level, EPA hopes to provide the tools to help them inventory and then take action to protect their healthy watersheds. EPA will also enhance public awareness and, together with better equipped and organized State action, will ultimately lead to increased protection of our watershed assets.

    COMMUNITIES will utilize SWR tools to increase protection of high quality watersheds, including revisions to water quality standards, and focus on protecting those watersheds that are threatened by coal and hard rock mining activities.

    Key EPA Actions:

    •  Through the new Healthy Watershed Initiative, develop a common set of comprehensive metrics to create a national list of healthy watersheds (e.g., linking watershed protection and species diversity); use the latest state-of-the-science, peer-reviewed methods to conduct

    Public Discussion Draft – August 2010 6

    .

    assessments to identify healthy watersheds across states using CWA funds (e.g., 604(b), 319, and 106) in partnership with other Federal agencies. With these assessments, help set States set priorities and implement protection and conservation programs;

    ?? Support legislation and consider administrative action to initiate SWR protections for our watersheds;

    ?? Use the full suite of SWR tools to dam high-quality streams from destruction and degradation caused by mining activities;

    ?? Propose changes to the state water quality standard regulations to protect watersheds; and

    ?? Ensure States are effectively administering watershed programs.

    .

    Fix What's Broken – Enhance THE COMMUNITIES Ability to Restore Watersheds

    The restoration of watersheds will be critical to making significant progress. In order to do so EPA will use the Chesapeake Bay as a demonstration for improved monitoring of restoration progress. Success in cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay watershed will be a model for watershed protection in other parts of the country. This combined approach of protecting healthy watersheds and restoring impaired waters will ultimately improve the overall state of our nation's watersheds.

    Key EPA Actions

    ?? Work with states to carry out more strategic and effective implementation of watershed-based plans;

    ?? Develop and implement reasonable assurance guidelines regarding watersheds identified in TMDLs;

    ?? Coordinate funding opportunities with USDA to accelerate nutrient and sediment reductions and tackle key agriculture challenges through an integrated approach using 319 Program, Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), CWA section 117, STAR grants and USDA Conservation programs;

    ?? Use trading offsets and other market-based tools where appropriate, to improve watersheds;

    ?? Implement all of the above actions in conjunction with states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and other federal agencies to execute the President's Executive Order to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

    In addition, in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, EPA will:

    •  Implement federal land management practices that protect forests and watersheds, and incorporate sustainable practices;

    •  Create a system for tracking and reporting watershed commitments and two-year milestone commitments;

    •  Implement current regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and propose new regulations to more effectively achieve pollutant reductions necessary to meet the Chesapeake Bay TMDL; and

    •  Implement improvements to the current watershed programs and initiate new national watershed rulemaking with Chesapeake Bay watershed provisions.

    .

    Keep it Safe – Safe Watersheds Reform-Act Public Discussion NOT FINAL – August 2010 7

    EPA seeks to increase protection of our watersheds by reducing current loadings and preparing for substantial predicted increases associated with development, urbanization, climate change and other factors. Across the board, under the SWR, COMMUNITIES address a number of watershed challenges.

    Where problems are identified, communities apply the best standards available, eliminate loopholes, and set performance standards through robust modifications to current regulations.

    For example, in addition to the work underway in Chesapeake Bay as part of the President's recent Executive Order, EPA will use its expertise robustly to protect and restore threatened natural treasures such as the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico as navigable waterways of the united states . EPA is heading up a multi-agency effort to restore and protect the Great Lakes, one of America 's great waterways, through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. In other parts of the nation, we will focus on nutrient pollution, which threatens the long-term health of important ecosystems such as the Mississippi River Basin . Further, given the environmental catastrophe resulting from the Deepwater BP oil spill, EPA will take all necessary actions to support efforts to clean up and restore the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem.

    Key EPA Actions:

    •  Transfer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which will streamline the regulatory authority to designate an animal feeding operating (AFO) as a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO);

    •  Develop guidance for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to protect the public and the environment from the effects of sanitary sewer overflows and the release of partially treated waste water from treatment facilities. Potential regulatory approaches include additional reporting and public notice when overflows occur, increased responsibilities for properly operating and maintaining sewer systems, clarifying the requirements for satellite collection systems, and addressing peak wet weather flows at the treatment plant. EPA will also explore more widespread use of green infrastructure techniques in combined sewer overflow control plans;

    •  Expand municipal storm water permitting coverage to currently unregulated areas and establish performance standards for storm water discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites that result in reduced discharge of pollutants, including through the use of green infrastructure techniques;

    •  Develop guidance to reduce pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S. ;

    •  Audit point source programs (CAFOs, storm water, water quality based permits) that have significant nutrient reduction potential to assure full CWA tools implementation;

    •  Evaluate implications of study currently underway within EPA's Office of Research and Development on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and water resources for taking further action to protect water quality;

    •  Develop guidance for cooling water intakes at over 1200 power plants and manufacturing facilities; and

    •  Work in partnership with states to better manage excess nutrient enrichment in surface waters, including:

    Public Discussion Draft – August 2010 8

    .

    •  Initiating scientific report(s) based on best available science and subject to peer review to determine necessary nutrient loads to restore and maintain watershed quality in key areas;

    •  Developing and implementing guidance to assist authorities in standards for nutrients;

    •  Improving public understanding of the seriousness of nutrient pollution including impacts on drinking water and other public health, environmental impacts, and economics; and

    •  Leveraging federal funding to assist communities in implementing nutrient reduction strategies.

    .

    Build for the Future – Enhance Watershed Resiliency and Revitalize Communities

    In order to maximize clean watershed protection under current authorities, EPA is making a substantial shift in our programmatic approaches to identify and implement multi-benefit solutions that will help communities plan and be more responsive to changing factors such as population growth, increased urbanization and climate change. A more realistic approach will facilitate capitalizing on existing programs, tools, policies and available funding to achieve measurable results. A collaborative approach to community-based programs will achieve multiple objectives, break down traditionally stovepipe divisions, and broadly engage local communities in decisions that impact local and state waters. For example, capitalizing on green infrastructure, water/energy synergies and integrated water management are key features in this new approach.

    EPA will develop and implement a renewed strategy on green infrastructure to identify and target the next set of actions that need to be undertaken to promote and support green infrastructure practices. EPA will also develop a framework for encouraging and facilitating more integrated watershed management approaches at the state and local level, and will support solutions that reduce infrastructure costs and promote more efficient, locally coordinated resource use. These more integrated solutions, ultimately, lead to long-term sustainability, community buy-out, better watershed quality, and more robust ecosystem services.

    Key EPA Actions:

    •  Promote green infrastructure more broadly. Consider policy options to make green infrastructure solutions an available tool for meeting SWR requirements by: ensuring that MS4 permits include cost-effective green infrastructure approaches, including green infrastructure in CSO long-term control plans, considering the incorporation of non-traditional or green infrastructure alternatives in consent decrees, and other policies to increase adoption of green infrastructure practices;

    •  Encourage integrated water management approaches. Implement policies and help direct national attention toward more sustainable water management practices that better integrate land use at the watershed level. Building on synergies within the watershed sector, integrated approaches can allow communities to more sustainable watershed infrastructure and supply costs and investments,

    Public Discussion Draft – August 2010 9

    .

    as well as potentially reduce overall energy consumption, and both utilize renewable energy and/or create new energy sources;

    ?? Encourage states to use their Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF) for projects that will best advance these policies and are consistent with the community's sustainability policy. Additionally, EPA will continue to work with States to ensure that all CWSRF programs meet the mandated requirement to use at most 100% of FY 2010 appropriated funds for green projects such as green storm water infrastructure, water efficiency projects, energy efficiency projects, and other innovative environmental projects;

    ?? Develop policies that will facilitate greater collaboration and accelerate the commercialization of cutting-edge technologies that help deliver clean water such as energy self-sufficient waste water treatment;

    ?? Develop comprehensive approaches, including all of the above actions, to help transform previously degraded urban watersheds into community assets by:

    •  Linking environmental programs with existing priorities such as economic development;

    •  Adding environmental components to economic programs in pilot areas

    •  Facilitating watershed clean-up efforts; and

    •  ?? Work to ensure the overall sustainability of drinking water and waste water utilities by better incorporating adaptation and mitigation strategies and other cost-efficient infrastructure practices into planning and operations.

    .

    CONCLUSION

    Without safe watersheds, no part of a community—its ecology, its economy, its health—can thrive. It is at the core of our communities and is crucial to the vitality of our rural areas. Realizing this imperative for safe watersheds, our nation will require the balanced, organized, and thoughtful effort and collaboration of all levels of government. We will make the most of all of the resources and programs available to us.

    The best way to bring the Safe Watershed Reform-Act's purpose into reality is for communities to strengthen and expand the national conversation on protecting and maintaining watersheds. Growing partnerships will be helpful in light of national trends in watershed quality and recent environmental disasters.

    EPA invites tribes, states, communities, and all Americans to come together for safe watersheds and our national quest to achieve the purpose of the SWR. We can have sustainable communities and watersheds.

    .

    CIRCUMSCRIPTION OF JURISDICTION

    .

    .

    Shasta County , by M. E. Dittmar, Redding , California .

    "The best foundation for communal prosperity is diversity of resource. A diversity of soil and climate assure a variety of agricultural, horticultural and pomological products. A diversity of industrial raw materials and forest resources invites industrial expansion. When a community embraces these, with a superabundance of water for power and irrigation, it offers a combination of advantages, rarely equalled (sic) and never excelled. These are the advantages that Shasta County at the extreme head of the Sacramento Valley possesses.

    "In area Shasta is the largest geographical subdivision of the Sacramento River drainage, embracing 4,050 square miles within its borders - the States of Rhode Island and Delaware could be included in this area and leave a surplus of over 750 square miles.

    "The increasing importance of irrigation as an aid to intensive agriculture, speeding up the soil, is generally recognized. As compared with dry farming and cereal crops exclusively, intensive agriculture, fruitgrowing (sic) and diversified husbandry, has increased the annual net profit from the soil many fold. In the last analysis, water on the land is as a rule more valuable than the land itself.

    "According to official daily gauging records, the average annual run-off, originating within the limits of Shasta County , is 8,100,000 acre feet - a valuable irrigation and power asset.

    "Over one-sixth of the potential water-power energy of California exists within the border of Shasta County . The development of cheap and convenient power means industrial development. Water, for power and for irrigation, is the 'open sesame' of Shasta's future.

    "To utilize the power, Shasta has industrial raw materials to attract giants of capital and industry. The industrial metals, copper, iron and zinc, already highly developed and of the first magnitude in quantity; cement materials and great beds of fine quality clays; the elements essential for the manufacture of commercial fertilizers, on a scale to supply the greater part of the North American continent with calcium nitrates - destined to entirely supersede the sodium nitrates of Chile; hardwood timber for the manufacture of furniture, and vast forests of commercial pine and fir for the lumberman - containing over 5,250,000,000 feet (board measure) standing commercial timber.

    "These resources represent the foundation for an industrial community that cannot be equalled (sic) for diversity, quantity and general advantages, within a like area anywhere in the United States .

    In metal mining, Shasta has been in a class by itself, leading all other countries in California for the past eighteen years. The official statistics from 1897 - the year when her great sulphide ore bodies were first exploited - to 1914 (last year estimated) credit the county with a total output of $99,144,777, or an average of over $5,508,000 per year.

    "More than two thousand men find employment at good wages, all the year round, in this great industry, and approximately $3,000,000 per annum are paid out within the borders of the county for wages and supplies.

    "The great industrial metal, copper, is next to iron in importance, in the work of the world. In the past eighteen years Shasta has produced 488,211,278 pounds of this metal.

    "To Shasta County is due the credit of the first important development on the Pacific Coast , in the production of iron ore, and the manufacture of pigiron by means of the electric furnace.

    "The electric furnaces at Heroult have also been utilized in the manufacture of ferro-manganese, for the steel plants of the eastern portion of the United States . Here are grouped the iron ores, the elements essential in the manufacture of special steel, and a million horsepower of potential energy - the basis for the upbuilding of another Pittsburgh.

    "In emphasizing the industrial present and future of Shasta County, we wish to make its importance apparent from the 'home market' viewpoint, with thousands of consumers finding remunerative and continuous occupation the producer has an advantage not frequently enjoyed, and this is particularly true where intensive cultivation is practiced, on smaller land holdings.

    Deciduous fruit is grown on an extensive scale in the lower valleys and foothills. The culture of the prune is predominant, with peaches and pears a close second.

    "The olive, one of the most stable orchard products, has demonstrated its superiority in Shasta County . Hundreds of contiguous acres are now planted to olive groves, and one of the largest groves in the State, containing 120 acres, planted more than twenty years ago, is also one of the most prolific in the State.

    "The vine, in these higher but still semi-tropic latitudes, during the long sunny summer days, stores larger percentages of sugar in the grape - an advantage that will appeal to the viticulturist.

    "No climatic reason exists why oranges should not be grown successfully, as the isothermal zone of the Central California valleys extends to the vicinity of Redding . Trees a score of years old or more, planted chiefly for ornamental purposes, attest the feasibility of citrus culture.

    "Cereals of all kinds are grown in the main valley - especially in the Church Creek Bottoms - and in the mountain valleys of northeastern Shasta. A greater area is being devoted from year to year, to alfalfa, with the increase of irrigation - although three crops are usually cut without irrigation - and dairying and stock-raising are on the increase.

    "The stock-grower, except where stock is wintered in the higher altitudes, does little winter feeding, utilizing instead a combination of summer and winter range, made possibly by the varying altitudes and the vast acreage of public domain in the forest reserves.

    " Shasta County contains a number of thriving cities and towns. Redding is the county seat, a beautifully located city of about four thousand people (circa 1915), at the extreme head of the Sacramento Valley , where mountain and vale meet. It is the natural distributing center for a large area of Northern California, the center of industrial development, with large and prosperous business houses, excellent hotels, etc., up-to-date schools including the Shasta County high school, churches of various denominations, and all the more prominent fraternal organizations.

    "The thriving towns of Anderson and Cottonwood are the chief fruit centers of Shasta, and thousands of tons of fruit, as well as agricultural products and livestock, are shipped annually from these points.

    "Kennett is the center of smelting activity, and is an important industrial city of over two thousand people.

    "Other towns of importance are Fall River and McArthur, in northeastern Shasta; Castella, La Moine and Delta, in the Sacramento Canyon ; De Lamar, French Gulch, the old pioneer county seat of Shasta, Coram and Keswick, in the mining districts; Millville and Ono represent smaller agricultural and stock-raising communities.

    "The County is traversed by many good roads, and the streams are bridged with creditable permanent structures. The California State Highway is under construction, through the heart of Shasta, and State Highway laterals, into Trinity County to the west, connecting with the main trunk road at Redding , have been provided for.

    "Shasta has excellent main line railroad facilities, with expansion in feeders and other main line construction assured in the near future.

    "The beautiful in nature is blended with the utilitarian, in Shasta County . In the Shasta Canyon , enchanting vistas of Mount Shasta and the stately domes and spires of the Castle Crags offer an ever-changing panorama of indescribable grandeur, through verdant mountain recesses cut by the crystal river.

    "The beautiful McCloud in all its pristine glory, where the gamey trout abounds, and the timid doe or stately buck emerges from their leafy lanes along the river's brink or mountain glades. The rugged gorges of the Pit, where masjesty (sic) and power impress the visitor. Beautiful Burney, the misty mistic (sic) falls that tumble over lava cliffs a hundred feet and more, to greet the onrush of the river - all these inspire.

    "But nature, not content with her lavish bestowal of the majestic and beautiful, assays a new wonder - the awe-inspiring eruption of Mount Lassen . In a region of fantastic natural features, the mountain long quiescent now holds the center of the stage. Unique, as the only active crater in continental United States - remote from centers of population, that the release of its pent-up energies may fall harmless - it presents a spectacular climax in its periodical eruptions, forcing a mighty column of steam and volcanic ejecta, two miles and more in the air. This is Shasta's exclusive wonder, though visible for a hundred miles, and Congress recognizes its attractive powers by proposing to establish here the Lassen Volcanic National Park . The Lassen Trail Highway to Manzanita Lake , five miles from the crater summit, presents a route of easy access for the automobilist. The nature lover will find the lure of Shasta's natural wonders an inspirational revelation.

    "The development of the manifold resources of Shasta County assures her a great future -

    "The door of opportunity stands ajar.
    Industrial opportunity for capital.
    Land at reasonable prices for the home-seeker.
    Delightful climate, and magnificent scenery.
    The foundation of prosperity is secure.

    "(Note. - For more detailed information, send for booklet on Shasta County , California , free, address Shasta County Promotion and Development Association, Redding , California . Or during the Fair at Shasta headquarters, California State Palace , P.P.I.E.)"

    Shasta County Mineral Industry (circa 1919) – Excerpt from California Mineral Production for 1919, Bulletin No. 88 , by Walter W. Bradley, California State Mining Bureau, 1920, pp. 165.

    Area: 3,858.
    Population: 13,311 (1920 census)
    Location: North-central portion of state.

    " Shasta County stood eleventh in California among the mineral-producing counties for 1919, with an output valued at $2,912,718, as compared with the 1918 production worth $8,098,671. The marked decrease both in 1918 and 1919 was due to the falling off in the output of copper, the large plants of the Mammoth and Mountain copper companies being shut down most of the year. Not taking petroleum into account, Shasta for a number of years lead (sic) all of the counties by a wide margin; but in 1919 was passed by San Bernardino , Yuba, Amador, and Nevada among the 'metal' counties.

    "Shasta's mineral resources include: Asbestos, barytes, brick, chromite, coal, copper, gold, iron, lead, lime, limestone, mineral water, molybdenum, pyrite, silver, soapstone, miscellaneous stone, and zinc.

    "Lassen Peak is located in southeastern Shasta County

    "Commercial production for 1919 was as follows:

    (Headings for the information below are: Substance, Amount, and Value.)

    Copper, 8,673,342 lbs., $1,613,242
    Gold, ---, $425,000 (estimated)
    Lime and limestone, ---, $29,100
    Platinum, 121 oz., $21,075
    Pyrite, 138,046 tons, $497,398
    Silver,---, $155,000 (estimated)
    Stone, miscellaneous, ---, $31,750
    Other minerals,* ---, $40,153
    (Total value) $2,912,718

    (* Includes barytes, brick, iron ore, lead, mineral water, and zinc.)

    .

    U.S. EPA - Region IX
    75 Hawthorne Street - H-6-2
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Dear Mr. Sugarek,
    We are writing as natural resource trustees concerning two issues
    involving Iron Mountain Mine, Shasta County, California. First,
    with regard to the draft Record of Decision, as we noted in our
    comments on the draft plan, we agree with the selection of
    treatment for an interim remedial action. By selection of
    alternative Pl-B, the High Density Sludge Process, EPA is selecting
    an alternative to produce maximum reduction of waste volume. If
    the HDS plant is designed to provide capacity to treat sustained
    elevated flows, concerns regarding the ability of the selected
    alternative to respond to emergency high flow levels are met.
    Secondly, we are aware that ICI Americas has indicated by letter
    that they believe that Judge Schwartz's September 21, 1992 ruling
    in United States of America v. Iron Mountain Mines. Inc.. et al.
    makes EPA Administrative Order No. 92-96 invalid.Naturally, we
    are concerned, as the sixth year of drought has made this a
    critical year for survival of the Federally threatened winter-run
    Chinook salmon. As the species may not survive the impact of
    untreated discharge through the season, we are supportive of EPA's
    intent to implement the requirements of the administrative orders
    utilizing Superfund, with cost recovery later.
    If you wish to meet with the natural resource trustees for Iron
    Mountain Mine concerning our comments, please contact me at (415)
    744-4090.
    Sincerel
    William C. Allan
    Regional Environmental Assistant
    Concur:
    Denise Klimas
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    September 7, 1993
    Mr. Rick Sugarek (H-6-2)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Region DC
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Subject: Review of the Iron Mountain Mine Old/No. 8 Mine Operable Unit Draft Record of
    Decision.
    Dear Mr. Sugarek:
    The Natural Resources Trustee Council for the Iron Mountain Mine Superfund site, comprised of
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
    Department of Interior Office of Environmental Affairs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Department of Fish and Game, has reviewed the
    August 6,1993 Agency Review Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the Old/No. 8 Seep at Iron
    Mountain Mine (IMM). The Natural Resources Trustees previously commented on the agency
    review draft of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Operable Unit The alternative
    selected in the ROD is consistent with the treatment alternative recommended by the Natural
    Resource Trustee Council in the April 8,1993 letter. However, we believe that the details on the
    amount of contamination that is collected for treatment is not consistent with our earlier
    recommendation. We also have some comments on the details of implementing the selected
    alternative and some comments on technical discussions contained in the document
    The Operable Unit is defined as the Old and No. 8 Mines. We believe that because these mines are
    buried by tens of feet of loosely consolidated landslide material, there is more contamination
    coming from the mines than is accounted for by the most obvious seep that is the focus of the
    remedial action. The ROD should disclose how the releases from this buried, leaking, flooded ore
    body travel through several known or potential migration routes to surface waters. The amount of
    contamination from the source (Old/No. 8 Mine Operable Unit) that will be treated by remedial
    action will depend upon the efficiency of die collection system for the discharge from the buried
    mines. We recommend developing the most effective design possible for collecting acid mine
    discharge (AMD) from the buried and flooded mine workings.
    We believe that maximizing the collection of the contaminants from this flooded mine pool
    (Operable Unit) is consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Reducing the
    contamination better satisfies the evaluation criteria, including protection of the environment, longand
    short-term effectiveness, and compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
    Requirements.
    Specific Comments:
    Page 2,2nd Paragraph, 1st Sentence: The subject seeps are emerging from the north slope of
    Slickrock Valley or the south facing slope of Iron Mountain.

    Page 2,3rd Paragraph: The ROD correctly describes the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook
    salmon as listed Threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Federal
    Endangered Species Act; you should include also that the species has been listed as Endangered by
    the State of California, under the California Endangered Species Act
    Page 2, Paragraph 5, Second Sentence: The diversion of upper Spring Creek is into Flat Creek
    and is not in the Boulder Creek drainage.
    Page 18,2nd Paragraph: This discussion should disclose that contamination from the Old/No. 8
    Mine workings Operable Unit has many known and potential migration routes to the surface water
    in the Slicfcrpck Creek drainage. We believe this is the case, considering the fact that the releases
    from this mine pool must first flow through several tens of feet of loosely consolidated landslide
    material before reaching the surface. After AMD from the flooded mine pool emerges through the
    buried mine portal, it can diffuse throughout the landslide formation. There is evidence that seeps
    down-gradient from the main identified seep have a chemical characteristic and flow pattern similai
    to the main seep, indicating a common source (Old/No. 8 Mine Operable Unit).
    We believe that the selected remedy for this Operable Unit should be designed to abate as much of
    the contamination originating from this source that is possible. It appears that the site would lend
    itself to designs that would pass the implementability evaluation criteria in the NCP. It would be
    most prudent to establish collection systems at an elevation at least as deep as the buried mine
    Is.
    Page 19,1st Paragraph, 2nd Sentence: The fish toxicity should be described as acute, toxicity,
    rather than just toxicity, because chronic toxicity levels are much lower than the values specified
    here. Acute toxicity also occurs at concentrations lower than those specified in this discussion,
    especially if the concentrations referred to are in the form of dissolved metals.
    Page 21,4th Paragraph, 3rd Sentence: Fishery data in this discussion is outdated. During and
    prior to the recent, extended drought, the salmon and steelhead were undergoing a decline that at
    that time produced a population that was only SO percent the size of the earlier populations. The
    drought greatly accelerated this ongoing decline, producing escapements of salmon in the upper
    Sacramento River during the 1990's that are now only 20 percent of the levels observed during th<
    late 1950's.
    Page 22,1st Paragraph, 3rd Sentence: The flood control releases from Shasta Reservoir describe
    here should be qualified as high volume flood control releases. This qualification will avoid
    confusion with other flood control operations at Shasta Dam that produce a very low volume
    release to prevent compounding ongoing flooding of downstream areas in the Central Valley. Thi
    low volume release operation has produced catastrophic fish kills in the past, because it does not
    encourage downstream migration and reduces dilution of toxicant.
    Page 22,2nd Paragraph, 1st Sentence: Spring-run Chinook and early spawning fall-run chuiook
    have also exhibited this pattern of concentrating spawning activity in the cooler uppermost river
    reaches that are more susceptible to metal toxicity.
    Page 22,3rd Paragraph: The risk to resident trout and steelhead is overall less than that for saline
    due to the fact that the sensitive early life stages of trout and steelhead are predominantly located u
    tributaries to the Sacramento River that do not receive the toxicant
    Page 31,1st Paragraph, 1st Sentence: The concept for collection of AMD at the Old/No. 8 Seep i
    intended to provide both surface and underground interception of the flows. We believe it is
    important to collect the AMD emanating from these ore bodies to the maximum extent
    possible, in order to comply with the nine evaluation criteria specified by the National

    Contingency Plan (40 CFR §300.430 (e)(9)). See also above comment concerning Page 18,2nd
    Paragraph.
    Page 52,1st Paragraph, last sentence: The Natural Resource Trustees have previously commented
    on the failure of a mine plugging program similar to that described in this section. One of the
    greatest risks to biological resources in general, and the ESA listed winter-run chinook salmon in
    particular, is the likelihood that contaminants from the leaking mine pool would be released in a
    manner that would be uncollectible or only fractionally collectable for treatment. This, in our
    opinion, represents a severe risk. This risk should be included in this discussion.
    If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact one of the following:
    1) Ms. Patricia Port, Office of Environmental Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, San
    Francisco, CA (415) 744-4090
    2) Ms. Denise Klimas, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, San Francisco CA
    (415)744-3126
    3) Mr. Roger Wolcott, National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, CA (707) 578-7513
    4) Mr. Jim Haas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA (916) 978-4866
    5) Ms. Kris Doebbler, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA (916) 978-5046
    6) Mr. Richard Elliott, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game, Redding,
    CA (916) 225-2364
    Sincerely,
    DEPARTMENT OF
    Environmental Officer
    ce of Environjoental Affairs
    600 Harrison Street, Suite 515
    San Francisco, CA 94107-1373
    NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
    BY: fli.
    nise M. Klimas, Coastal Resources Coordinator
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division
    75 Hawthorne Street (H-l-2)
    San Francisco, CA 94105

    September 30, 1992
    Mr. J«ffery Zelikson, Director
    Hazardous Waste Management Division
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Mail Code Hi
    75 Hawthorne poulevard
    San Francisco, California 94105
    Dear Mr. .eliKson:
    The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the draft
    Record of Decision for the Iron Mountain Mine Super fund Si to.
    This site has a long history of damaging some of the State's most
    important fishery and water resources. The Chinook salmon
    spawning area in the upper Sacramento River (above the confluence
    with the Feather River) currently supports the most valuable
    salmon fishery in the State. The Iron Mountain Mine Superfund
    Site impacts the most valuable portion of this salmon spawning
    area as well as other important biological resources.
    We support the decision to install a proven treatment
    technology on the portal effluent without flooding the mine pool
    and the cleanup of selected pyrite bearing waste piles. We
    believe that it is important to avoid flooding the mine pool when
    the water and fishery resources are in such critically poor
    condition and other remedial actions require completion. The
    performance of the plug and flood alternative is uncertain and
    there is a risk that the mine pool fluids will leak out where
    they cannot be immediately collected and treated.
    In the future the treatment remedy may be replaced by
    another source control technology or a resource recovery action.
    We understand that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will
    evaluate alternative replacement technologies using a new
    feasibility study and record of decision process along with
    endangered species consultation. Prior to implementing
    replacement remedies that have higher risk, we recommend EPA
    consider not replacing proven technologies with higher risk
    alternatives until the drought conditions end, Shasta Reservoir
    storage returns to normal, declines of the salmon stocks are
    reversed, salmon fishery restrictions return to normal and the
    other necessary remedial actions are completed at the site.
    We would like to thank you for selecting a reliable remedy
    for this complex site. We look forword to working with your
    staff on the remaining necessary remedial actions at the site,
    3EF-Z0-139" '39:37 PRCH 3FG "irEER -PfiVEST ' -Q
    Mr. Jeffery fcelikson
    September 30, lyy^j
    Pag* Two
    including discharges to Slickrock Creek, mobilization of metal
    sludge from Keswick Reservoir to the river and the final diluti
    manipulation system for operating the Spring Ci«eK Reservoir.
    Sincerely,
    Turner< Acting Chief
    Ivironmental Services Division
    cc: E. C. Fvllerton, Regional Director
    National Marina Fisheries Services
    Long Beach, California
    Mr. Don Dievert
    Department of Toxic Substances
    Rancho Cordova, California
    Mr. Jim Pedri
    Central Valley Regional Water
    Quality Control Board
    Redding, California
    Ms. Sarah Russell
    California Attorney General's Office
    Oakland. California
    Mr. Rick sugarek
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    San Francisco, California

    September 30, 1992
    Mr. David B. Jones
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Region IX
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San Francisco, California 94105
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE SUPERFUND SITE, COMMENTS ON DRAFT RECORD OF
    DECISION
    Dear Mr. Jones:
    Thank you for providing us with a copy of the Draft Record
    of Decision ("DROD") for the Boulder Creek Operable Unit of the
    Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site.
    After our review of the document and telephone
    communications between the Department of Toxic Subetancee Control
    (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff,
    we understand that the ROD will reflect the following:
    1. The State does not consider AMD to be exempt from the
    California Hazardous Waste Control Laws, Chapter 6.5,
    California Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et. seq.
    The State acknowledges that treatment of AMD and disposal of
    the resultant sludge may be subject to a variance pursuant
    to California Health and Safety Code Section 25143.
    2. The scope of the expected "final" remedial alternatives for
    the Boulder Creek operable Unit will be based upon further
    investigations of waste rock piles, creek sediments, seeps
    and the feasibility of source control or resource recovery
    at the Richmond Mine workings.
    3. The proposed CERCLA section 121 (d) (4) (A) waiver of
    compliance with the Regional Boards's Basin Plan Water
    Quality Objectives will not be invoked for discharges to
    Flat Creek.
    Based on the above modifications of the DROD, we conclude
    that the DROD is acceptable. We look forward to working together
    with EPA in the development of the remedial design parameters for
    the Boulder Creek Operable Unit, and the implementation of future
    actions at the site.

    Mr. David B. Jones
    :mh*r 30, 1992
    If you have any questions concerning this letter or if we
    can assist you in any way, please contact Ouncan Austin at
    (916) 855-7861.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony J. Landis, P.E., Chief James C. Pedri, P.E.
    Site Mitigation Branch Supervising Engineer
    Department of Toxic Substances Regional Water Quality Contrc
    Control Board
    cc: Mr. Rick SugareJc
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Region IX
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San Francisco, California 94105
    Mr. Ramon Perez
    Department of Toxic substances Control
    P.O. Box 806
    Sacramento, California 95812-0806
    Mr. Gary Stacey
    California Department of Fish and Game
    601 Locust Street
    Redding, California 96001
    M«. Lisa TranJcley-sato
    Department of Justice
    1515 K Street, Suite 260
    Sacramento, California 95814

    California Code - Chapter 6.8: Hazardous Substance Account [25300. - 25395.45.]

    • Article 1  Short Title and Legislative Intent [25300. - 25301.]
    • Article 2  Definitions [25310. - 25327.]
    • Article 3  Hazardous Substance Account [25330.2. - 25337.]
    • Article 4  Fees [25342. - 25343.]
    • Article 5  Uses of the State Account [25350. - 25359.7.]
    • Article 5.5  Cleanup of Santa Susana Field Laboratory [25359.20. - 25359.20.]
    • Article 6  Recovery Actions [25360. - 25367.]
    • Article 6.3  Technology Demonstration Program [25368. - 25368.8.]
    • Article 6.5  Abandoned Site Program [25369. - 25369.]
    • Article 7  Compensation [25370. - 25382.]
    • Article 7.5  Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of 1984 [25385. - 25386.5.]
    • Article 7.8  Orphan Share Reimbursement Trust Fund [25390. - 25390.9.]
    • Article 8  Private Site Management [25395.1. - 25395.15.]
    • Article 8.5  Cleanup Loans and Environmental Assistance to Neighborhoods [25395.20. - 25395.32.]
    • Article 8.6  Revolving Loans Fund [25395.35. - 25395.36.]
    • Article 8.7  California Financial Assurance and Insurance for Redevelopment Program [25395.40. - 25395.45.]

    It is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the following:

    (a) Establish a program to provide for response authority for releases of hazardous substances, including spills and hazardous waste disposal sites that pose a threat to the public health or the environment.

    (b) Compensate persons, under certain circumstances, for out-of-pocket medical expenses and lost wages or business income resulting from injuries proximately caused by exposure to releases of hazardous substances.

    (c) Make available adequate funds in order to permit the State of California to assure payment of its 10-percent share of the costs mandated pursuant to Section 104(c)(3) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9604(c)(3)).

    "Federal act" means the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 et seq.).

    "Hazardous substance" means:

    (a) Any substance designated pursuant to Section 1321 (b)(2)(A) of Title 33 of the United States Code.

    (b) Any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to Section 102 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9602).

    (c) Any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to Section 6921 of Title 42 of the United States Code, but not including any waste the regulation of which under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901 et seq.) has been suspended by act of Congress.

    (d) Any toxic pollutant listed under Section 1317 (a) of Title 33 of the United States Code.

    (e) Any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

    (f) Any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency has taken action pursuant to Section 2606 of Title 15 of the United States Code.

    (g) Any hazardous waste or extremely hazardous waste as defined by Sections 25117 and 25115, respectively, unless expressly excluded.

    "Hazardous substance" does not include:

    (a) Petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance in subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, of Section 25316, and natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas), or the ash produced by a resource recovery facility utilizing a municipal solid waste stream.

    (b) Nontoxic, nonflammable, noncorrosive stormwater runoff drained from underground vaults, chambers, or manholes into gutters or storm sewers.

    "Operation and maintenance" means those activities initiated or continued at a hazardous substance release site following completion of a response action that are deemed necessary by the department or regional board in order to protect public health or safety or the environment, to maintain the effectiveness of the response action at the site, or to achieve or maintain the response action standards and objectives established by the final remedial action plan or final removal action work plan applicable to the site.

    "Release" does not include any of the following:

    (a) Any release that results in exposure to persons solely within a workplace, with respect to a claim those exposed persons may assert against their employer.

    (b) Emissions from the engine exhaust of a motor vehicle, rolling stock, aircraft, vessel, or pipeline pumping station engine.

    (c) Release of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material from a nuclear incident, as those terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2011, et seq.), if such release is subject to requirements with respect to financial protection established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Section 2210 of Title 42 of the United States Code or, for the purposes of Section 104 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9604) or any other response action, any release of source byproduct, or special nuclear material from any processing site designated under Section 7912(a)(1) or 7942(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code, which sections are a part of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.

    (d) The normal application of fertilizer, plant growth regulants, and pesticides.

    "Remedy" or "remedial action" includes all of the following:

    (a) Those actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy, that are taken instead of, or in addition to, removal actions in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the environment, as further defined by Section 101(24) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(24)), except that any reference in Section 101(24) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(24)) to the President, relating to determinations regarding the relocation of residents, businesses, and community facilities shall, for the purposes of this chapter, be deemed to be a reference to the Governor and any other reference in that section to the President shall, for the purposes of this chapter, be deemed a reference to the Governor, or the director, if designated by the Governor.

    (b) Those actions that are necessary to monitor, assess, and evaluate a release or a threatened release of a hazardous substance.

    (c) Site operation and maintenance.

    "Remove" or "removal" includes the cleanup or removal of released hazardous substances from the environment or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage which may otherwise result from a release or threatened release, as further defined by Section 101(23) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(23)).

    (a) (1) "Responsible party" or "liable person," for the purposes of this chapter, means those persons described in Section 107(a) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)).

    (2) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), but except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person is not a responsible party or liable person, for purposes of this chapter, for the reason that the person has developed or implemented innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology with regard to a release site, if the use of the technology has been approved by the department for the release site and the person would not otherwise be a responsible party or liable person. Upon approval of the use of the technology, the director shall acknowledge, in writing, that, upon proper completion of the innovative investigative or innovative remedial action at the release site, the immunity provided by this subparagraph shall apply to the person.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply in any of the following cases:

    (i) Conditions at the release site have deteriorated as a result of the negligence of the person who developed or implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology.

    (ii) The person who developed or implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology withheld or misrepresented information that was relevant to the potential risks or harms of the technology.

    (iii) The person who implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology did not follow the implementation process approved by the department.

    (b) For the purposes of this chapter, the defenses available to a responsible party or liable person shall be those defenses specified in Sections 101(35) and 107(b) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Secs. 9601(35) and 9607(b)).

    (c) Any person who unknowingly transports hazardous waste to a solid waste facility pursuant to the exemption provided in subdivision (e) of Section 25163 shall not be considered a responsible party

    (a) (1) "Responsible party" or "liable person," for the purposes of this chapter, means those persons described in Section 107(a) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)).

    (2) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), but except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person is not a responsible party or liable person, for purposes of this chapter, for the reason that the person has developed or implemented innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology with regard to a release site, if the use of the technology has been approved by the department for the release site and the person would not otherwise be a responsible party or liable person. Upon approval of the use of the technology, the director shall acknowledge, in writing, that, upon proper completion of the innovative investigative or innovative remedial action at the release site, the immunity provided by this subparagraph shall apply to the person.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply in any of the following cases:

    (i) Conditions at the release site have deteriorated as a result of the negligence of the person who developed or implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology.

    (ii) The person who developed or implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology withheld or misrepresented information that was relevant to the potential risks or harms of the technology.

    (iii) The person who implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology did not follow the implementation process approved by the department.

    (b) For the purposes of this chapter, the defenses available to a responsible party or liable person shall be those defenses specified in Sections 101(35) and 107(b) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Secs. 9601(35) and 9607(b)).

    (c) Any person who unknowingly transports hazardous waste to a solid waste facility pursuant to the exemption provided in subdivision (e) of Section 25163 shall not be considered a responsible party for purposes of this chapter solely because of the act of transporting the waste. Nothing in this subdivision shall affect the liability of this person for his or her negligent acts.

    (a)"State account" means the Toxic Substances Control Account established pursuant to Section 25173.6.

    (b)Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any costs incurred and payable from the Hazardous Substance Account, the Hazardous Waste Control Account, or the Site Remediation Account prior to July 1, 2006, to implement this chapter, shall be recoverable from the liable person or persons pursuant to Section 25360 as if the costs were incurred and payable from the state account.

    "Federally permitted release" has the same meaning as defined in Section 101 (10) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 (10)).

    "A release authorized or permitted pursuant to state law" means any release into the environment which is authorized by statute, ordinance, regulation, or rule of any state, regional, or local agency or government or by any specific permit, license, or similar authorization from such an agency, including one of the foregoing, that recognizes a standard industry practice, including variances obtained from the agency which allow operations for facilities during a period of time when releases from the facilities do not conform with relevant statutes, ordinances, regulations, or rules. The term includes a federally permitted release, as defined by Section 25325, and releases that are in accordance with any court order or consent decree.

    .

    CAL. HSC. CODE § 25330.2 : California Code - Section 25330.2

    Funds in the Site Remediation Account appropriated for removal or remedial action pursuant to this chapter are available for encumbrance for three fiscal years subsequent to the fiscal year in which the funds are appropriated and are available for disbursement in liquidation of encumbrances pursuant to Section 16304.1 of the Government Code.

    .

    (a)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Controller shall establish a separate subaccount in the state account, for any funds received from a settlement agreement or the General Fund for a removal or remedial action to be performed at a specific site.

    (b)Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, funds deposited in the subaccount for those removal or remedial actions are hereby continuously appropriated to the department, without regard to fiscal years, for removal or remedial action at the specific site, and for administrative costs associated with the removal or remedial action at the specific site.

    (c)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, money in the subaccount for those removal or remedial actions shall not revert to the General Fund or be transferred to any other fund or account in the State Treasury, except for purposes of investment as provided in Article 4 (commencing with Section 16470) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

    (d)Notwithstanding Section 16305.7 of the Government Code, all interest or other increment resulting from investment of the funds specified in subdivision (a) pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 16470) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall be deposited in the subaccount for removal or remedial action at the specific sites.

    (e)At the conclusion of all removal or remedial actions at the specific site, any unexpended funds in any subaccounts established pursuant to this section shall be transferred to the subaccount for site operation and maintenance established pursuant to Section 25330.5, if necessary, for those activities at the site, or, if not needed for site operation and maintenance at the site, to the Toxic Substances Control Account.

    (f)(1)There is hereby created a subaccount in the state account as the successor fund to the Stringfellow Insurance Proceeds Account created pursuant to former Section 25330.6, as that section read on January 1, 2013. All assets, liabilities, and surplus in the Stringfellow Insurance Proceeds Account shall be transferred to, and become a part of, this subaccount for the Stringfellow Superfund Site in Riverside County, as provided in Section 16346 of the Government Code. All appropriations from the Stringfellow Insurance Proceeds Account, to the extent encumbered, shall continue to be available from the subaccount for expenditure for the same purposes and periods.

    (2)This subdivision shall become operative on July 1, 2013.

    (a) The Controller shall establish a separate subaccount for site operation and maintenance in the state account. All of the following amounts shall be deposited in the subaccount:

    (1) Funds received from responsible parties for site operation and maintenance.

    (2) Funds received from the federal government pursuant to the federal act for site operation and maintenance.

    (3) Funds received from cities, counties, or any other state or local agency for site operation and maintenance.

    (4) Funds appropriated from the state account by the Legislature for site operation and maintenance.

    (b) Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, funds deposited in the subaccount for site operation and maintenance are hereby continuously appropriated to the department, without regard to fiscal years, for site operation and maintenance, and for administrative costs associated with site operation and maintenance.

    (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, money in the subaccount for site operation and maintenance shall not revert to the General Fund or be transferred to any other fund or account in the State Treasury, except for purposes of investment as provided in Article 4 (commencing with Section 16470) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

    (d) Notwithstanding Section 16305.7 of the Government Code, all interest or other increment resulting from investment of the funds specified in subdivision (a) pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 16470) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall be deposited in the subaccount for site operation and maintenance.

    (a)The Stringfellow Insurance Proceeds Account is hereby created in the State Treasury and shall be administered by the director.

    (b)The funds deposited in the account are available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for activities related to the Stringfellow Superfund Site in Riverside County, to carry out the 2002 Consent Decree, incorporating the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding and the December 1998 Stringfellow Site Agreement between the state and the participating defendants, as defined in those agreements, to the extent any portion of those agreements remain in force and effect.

    (c)Funds in the account appropriated by the Legislature for contract costs for investigation, removal, remedial, or operation and maintenance activities at the Stringfellow Superfund Site are available for encumbrance for three fiscal years, including the fiscal year in which the funds are appropriated, and are available for disbursement in liquidation of encumbrances pursuant to Section 16304.1 of the Government Code.

    (d)Any requirement that insurance proceeds recovered by the state in connection with the Stringfellow Superfund Site be deposited in the account and distributed under the terms of the 1998 Site Agreement, is hereby declared null and void, in accordance with the 2002 Consent Decree specified in subdivision (b).

    (e)This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2013, and, as of January 1, 2014, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed.

    The state account may sue and be sued in its own name.

    (a) The department shall report to the Governor and the Legislature on the progress of the cleanup of the San Gabriel Valley groundwater sites in Los Angeles County, and on the progress of enforcement actions relating to those sites, in the biennial report specified in Section 25178. The report shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

    (1) State expenditures and planned expenditures.

    (2) Actions accomplished at the sites.

    (3) Actions planned, including a time schedule for the accomplishment of planned actions.

    (b) The report may be prepared in cooperation with other state and federal agencies involved with the sites, and shall include a summary of the activities of those additional agencies.

    (a) There is in the General Fund the Site Remediation Account, which shall be administered by the director. The account shall be funded by money transferred from the state account, upon appropriation by the Legislature. Consistent with the requirements of Section 114(c) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9614(c)), the moneys in the account may be expended by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for direct site remediation costs.

    (b) (1) For purposes of this section, "direct site remediation costs" means payments to contractors for investigations, characterizations, removal, remediation, or long-term operation and maintenance at sites contaminated or suspected of contamination by hazardous materials, where those actions are authorized pursuant to this chapter.

    (2) "Direct site remediation costs" also means the state-mandated share pursuant to Section 104(c)(3) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9604(c)(3)).

    (3) "Direct site remediation costs" does not include the department's administrative expenses or the department's expenses for staff to perform oversight of investigations, characterizations, removals, remediations, or long-term operation and maintenance.

    Notwithstanding Section 25355.5, the department shall carry out a program of full-scale demonstrations to evaluate treatment technologies that can be safely utilized for removal and remedial actions to hazardous substance releases.

    For the purposes of this article, the following definitions apply:

    (a) "Treatment technologies" means methods, techniques, or processes, including proprietary or patented methods, that permanently alter the composition of hazardous substances at hazardous substance release sites through chemical, biological, or physical means so as to make the substances nonhazardous or to significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume, or any combination thereof, of the hazardous substances or contaminated materials being treated.

    (b) "Full-scale demonstration" means a demonstration of a technology that is of a size or capacity which permits valid comparison of the technology to the technical performance and cost of conventional technologies, that is likely to be cost-effective, and that will result in a substantial or complete remedial or removal action to a hazardous substance release site.

    The department shall select technology demonstration projects to be evaluated pursuant to this article using criteria that include, at a minimum, all of the following requirements:

    (a)The project proposal includes complete and adequate documentation of technical feasibility.

    (b)The project proposal includes evidence that a technology has been sufficiently developed for full-scale demonstration and can likely operate on a cost-effective basis.

    (c)The department has determined that a site is available and suitable for demonstrating the technology or technologies, taking into account the physical, biological, chemical, and geological characteristics of the site, the extent and type of contamination found at the site, and the capability to conduct demonstration projects in a manner to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.

    (d)The technology to be demonstrated preferably has widespread applicability in removal and remedial actions at other sites in the state.

    (e)The project will be developed to the extent that a successful demonstration on a hazardous substance release site may lead to commercial utilization by responsible parties at other sites in the state.

    (f)The department has determined that adequate funding is available from one or more of the following sources:

    (1)Responsible parties.

    (2)The Environmental Protection Agency.

    (3)The state account.

    .

    V. EPA'S JUNE 1994 PROPOSED PLAN
    In a Proposed Plan issued in June 1994, EPA proposed to enlarge the SCDD to establish a
    15,000-acre-foot reservoir and to defer implementation of the SFSC diversion. Enlargement
    of the SCDD and construction of the SFSC were both components of the 1986 ROD. The
    1986 ROD had deferred sizing of the reservoir. At the of the June 1994 Proposed Plan, it
    was EPA's assessment that source control and treatment alternatives were not available that
    could provide sufficient control of the IMM area source AMD discharges to meet remedial
    action objectives for the Site. The EPA had determined that the proposed enlargement of the
    ROD4DEC.DOC
    SCDD would provide sufficient water management capability to meet certain remedial action
    objectives for the Site, considering the extent of technical practicability limitations. The EPA
    received comments during the public comment period that identified additional source control
    and treatment alternatives for the IMM area source AMD discharges. The comments
    supported the technical feasibility of the source control and treatment approaches. Commenters
    also stated a preference for source control and treatment approaches over water
    management remedial alternatives. Taking into account these comments, the EPA deferred
    remedy selection and performed further studies of the suggested source control and treatment
    alternatives.
    VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
    The selected interim remedial action is the fourth ROD for the IMM Superfund cleanup
    action. It focuses on the Slickrock Creek area source AMD discharges. The selected remedy,
    which is the same remedy EPA proposed in its May 1996 Proposed Plan, was largely derived
    from an alternative developed by a potentially responsible party and submitted to EPA during
    the public comment period on the 1994 Proposed Plan. The selected remedy addresses the
    principal threat posed by contaminant releases from area sources within the Slickrock Creek
    watershed at the IMM Site through collection, conveyance, and treatment of all of the flows
    in the most contaminated reach of Slickrock Creek, located directly downstream of the most
    heavily disturbed mining area in the basin. The selected remedy will involve constructing a
    dam to establish a small reservoir in Slickrock Creek to collect and contain the contaminated
    runoff for controlled conveyance to an expanded IMM HDS treatment plant. The selected
    remedy also involves constructing a surface water diversion to keep relatively
    uncontaminated surface water from flowing into the reservoir. The diversion will minimize
    the amount of water that requires treatment and the size of the dam required to ensure
    adequate storage capacity of the containment reservoir. New and modified pipelines will
    convey the contaminated water from the reservoir to the treatment plant. Necessary
    modifications to the IMM HDS treatment plant will be constructed. A conceptual depiction
    of the remedy is shown in Photo Exhibit 2.
    The major components of the selected remedy include:
    Construct a retention dam and necessary surface water diversion facilities to ensure the
    collection and storage of contaminated surface runoff, interflow, and groundwater in the
    Slickrock Creek watershed at IMM.
    Construct facilities to provide controlled release of contaminated waters from the
    retention dam to the AMD conveyance pipeline to the IMM HDS/ASM lime
    neutralization treatment plant.
    Construct facilities to divert relatively uncontaminated surface water from the area
    upstream from the highly disturbed mining area of the Slickrock Creek basin and divert
    that water around the Slickrock Creek retention reservoir. The diversion shall also divert
    around the retention reservoir the water from the unmined side of the Slickrock Creek
    watershed.
    ROD4DEC.DOC
    Take appropriate steps (including consideration of emergency failure scenarios) to
    integrate into the operation of the reservoir the collection and conveyance of the Old/No.
    8 Mine Seep AMD to the IMM HDS/ASM lime neutralization treatment plant.
    Construct a hematite erosion control structure consistent with California mining waste
    requirements.
    Construct one or more sedimentation basin(s) or other EPA approved control structures in
    the Slickrock Creek watershed to minimize sedimentation of the Slickrock Creek
    retention reservoir and to ensure proper functioning of the controlled release facilities.
    Upgrade the hydraulic capacity of the existing pipeline (or if necessary construct a new
    pipeline) from Slickrock Creek to the Boulder Creek crossing as required to ensure
    adequate reliable capacity to convey Slickrock Creek and Old/No. 8 Mine Seep AMD.
    Construct an additional pipeline to reliably convey Slickrock Creek and Old/No. 8 Mine
    Seep AMD from the Boulder Creek Crossing to the IMM HDS/ASM lime neutralization
    treatment plant.
    • Modify the IMM HDS/ASM lime neutralization treatment plant to ensure proper
    treatment, using the HDS/ASM treatment process, of the Slickrock Creek area source
    AMD discharges in conjunction with AMD flows collected pursuant to other Records of
    Decision.
    Construct a tunnel to provide for gravity discharge of the high volumes of effluent from
    the IMM HDS/ASM treatment plant to Spring Creek below the Upper Spring Creek
    diversion to Flat Creek.
    Construct facilities to assure collection of significant identified sources (including but not
    limited to seeps from Brick Flat Pit and the hematite piles) and convey those releases to
    the Slickrock Creek Retention Reservoir.
    Perform long-term operations and maintenance (O&M) of all components.
    VII. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
    Protective of Human Health and the Environment
    With respect to the releases of hazardous substances that will be addressed by this interim
    action, this selected interim remedy is protective of-human-health and the environment. The
    selected interim remedy essentially eliminates the potential exposure and the resultant threats
    to human health and the environment from the Slickrock Creek area sources and the AMD
    discharge pathways addressed in this interim remedy. While the interim remedy is expected
    to essentially eliminate the risk posed by certain releases of hazardous substances from the
    facility, the interim remedy responds to only a subset of the currently uncontrolled releases of
    hazardous substances being released from the facility. The EPA therefore anticipates that the
    ROD4DEC.DOC
    remedy will not fully protect human health and the environment and that additional remedial
    action will be required to respond to releases of hazardous substances from the facility.
    Compliance with ARARs
    Except for those applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) that EPA is
    waiving for this interim remedy, the interim remedy will comply with all Federal and State
    ARARs.
    The EPA is waiving compliance with certain ARARs on the basis that this proposed action is
    an interim action that will not respond to all releases of hazardous substances from the
    facility. This interim action is not expected to provide for compliance with all ARARs at all
    times because the dam and treat interim remedial action for the Slickrock Creek area source
    AMD discharges does not address releases other than area sources in the Slickrock Creek
    watershed above the containment structure to be constructed on Slickrock Creek, such as
    releases from area sources in the Boulder Creek watershed, the existing sediments in SCR
    and Keswick Reservoir, and the streambeds in the Spring Creek watershed.
    Since the action selected in this ROD is an interim action that leaves some releases of hazardous
    substances unabated, EPA is relying on the ARARs waiver for "interim measures"
    (CERCLA § 121(d)(4)(A); 40 CFR § 300.430(f)(D(ii)(C)(l)) for this remedial action. In
    particular, EPA anticipates that the remedy will improve water quality in Spring Creek, SCR,
    Keswick Reservoir, and the Sacramento River, but EPA does not anticipate that this remedy,
    in conjunction the other remedies implemented to date, will be sufficient to ensure compliance
    with (1) the numeric, chemical-specific standards contained in the State Basin Plan
    Standards (SBPS) for copper, cadmium, or zinc, and (2) California Fish and Game Code
    § 5650 (which prohibits discharge of contaminants "deleterious to fish, plant life, or bird
    life"). The EPA is therefore waiving compliance with those standards for the interim action
    to the extent those standards cannot be achieved by the remedy selected in this ROD in
    conjunction with the remedies implemented under prior RODs. The EPA anticipates that
    completion of additional remedial actions will address compliance with these ARARs.
    Cost-Effectiveness
    The EPA has determined that the selected remedy is cost-effective pursuant to evaluations in
    accordance with § 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(D) of the NCR
    Permanent Solutions and Treatment Technologies
    The EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which
    permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized for the remedial action for the
    Slickrock Creek area source AMD discharges. This proposed remedy involves as its principal
    element the treatment of hazardous substance releases from the Slickrock Creek area
    sources upstream of the retention dam.
    The remedy will not reduce the generation of hazardous substances in the same manner that a
    remedy that reduces or eliminates AMD-forming reactions (and thereby reduce the need for
    ongoing treatment operations). The EPA has concluded that source-specific control actions
    may be available for at least some of the Slickrock Creek area source AMD discharges.
    However, those control actions are not currently implementable, effective, or cost-effective in
    ROD4DEC.DOC
    comparison to the selected dam and treat remedial action. While current technology and
    knowledge are not sufficient to permit implementation of reliable source-specific controls for
    the Slickrock Creek area sources, EPA encourages the continued development of those alternatives
    that could reduce or eliminate the AMD-forming reactions. The EPA will continue to
    consider subsequent action for the IMM Site that could supplant the need to perform longterm
    treatment of the area source AMD discharges.
    Consistency with Final Remedy
    This action of selecting a remedial alternative that addresses Slickrock Creek without first
    requiring completion of the studies for Boulder Creek is consistent with 40 CFR § 300.430
    (a)(ii)(A), which identifies as a program management principle that "[s]ites should generally
    be remediated in operable units when necessary or appropriate to achieve significant risk
    reduction quickly, when phased analysis and response is necessary or appropriate given the
    size and complexity of the Site, or to expedite the completion of total Site cleanup." The
    investigations conducted by the EPA to date, including an intensive peer review of control
    options, indicate that technically practicable and cost-effective remedies are available to
    remediate releases of hazardous substances from Boulder Creek area sources and from
    sediments in and below SCR.
    This action does not constitute the final remedy for the IMM Site. Additional response
    actions will further address the statutory preference for remedies employing treatment that
    reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element Subsequent actions are planned
    to fully address the threats posed by the conditions at the facility. This remedy will result in
    hazardous substances remaining onsite above health-based levels, so within 5 years after
    commencement of the remedial action, EPA will conduct a review to ensure that the remedy
    continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment. This is an
    interim action ROD, so review of this facility and of this remedy will be ongoing as EPA
    continues to develop final remedial alternatives for the Site.
    Keith A. Takata, Director - Date 9/30/97
    Superfund Division
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Florida

    "Jackson arbitrarily adopted criteria for streams and downstream-protection," the court found.
         "The administrator did not adequately explain the decision"
         Downstream-protection criteria similarly failed to meet the court's standards.
         "Here, as with the stream criteria, the administrator shot at the wrong target, seeking to identify not just a harmful effect on downstream waters, but any change in nutrients at all," Judge Hinkle wrote. "As with the stream criteria, this portion of the rule is arbitrary or capricious." 

    U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  "overreached its authority" setting water-quality standards for the state’s streams and rivers. "The EPA administrator did not base criteria for rivers and streams on sound science," and "EPA’s conflicting standards for streams and rivers are "arbitrary and capricious."Feb.17, 2012

    Oregon
    51-page ruling from U.S. District Judge John V. Acosta.

         Acosta found that the EPA decision to adopt the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) "natural conditions criteria" was "arbitrary and capricious."

         He said that the EPA decision "ignores or otherwise discounts" changes to water temperature and fish population that scientists have observed in Oregon, and that the EPA was unable to present a rational basis for approving the state criteria.


     "Despite the fact that Oregon is required to use the best scientific data available to do so, it is a process rife with uncertainty,"

    Sign the Petition: The EPA has lost its way!

    Dysfunctional Science: 'Alarming increase in scientific retractions 'a symptom of a dysfunctional scientific climate'

    1. Warmism fades into sunset: Gallup survey: Climate dead-last among all ENVIRONMENTAL concerns -- 'Americans Worry Most About Water Contamination, Least About Global Warming'
    2. GALLUP Survey: WORRIES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AT ALL-TIME LOWS -- 'Of the seven environmental issues Gallup tested, worries about global warming finished dead last' -- 7th out 7 env. issues!
    3. The Capricious Dr. Hansen of NASA: 'It is one thing for a scientist to cook up ideas with abandon, but quite another to do so with the papers stamped by the government'
    4. Max Planck Institute Dir. Admits 'Physical Causes Unclear...Models Inconsistent With Observations'
    5. NASA's Hansen doubles down: Defends accusing climate skeptics of 'Crimes Against Humanity' -- Skeptics = Nazis? james.e.hansen@nasa.gov
    6. Global Cooling: be very afraid: 'If analysis of declining sunspot activity is correct, then global mean temps going to decline by about 2 degrees C by 2040'

    The EPA’s Faulty Science Can Be Stopped

    United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-sponsored and funded “human health effects science” research is unreliable and makes irresponsible and outrageous claims about how air pollution causes thousands of deaths.  Then the EPA claims that it can prevent those deaths with its latest set of regulations of emissions.  This junk science can be challenged effectively, legally, and politically, as described below.

    The science misconduct is the result of the politicization of public health science, something Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech in 1961.  There are political, judicial, and administrative solutions to this perfidy.

    First, what is the junk science?

    Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts ( MIT press, 1995), by Peter Huber, Ph.D., J.D. and Ken Foster, Ph.D. — written two years after the Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a comprehensive and thorough book on junk science and legal solutions to prevent junk evidence.  The book also explains Daubert evidentiary dicta, discussed in a previous essay.  We also discussed the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (RSME) (1994, 2000, and 2011), published by the Federal Judicial Center, intended to educate judges on their Daubert duty to be gatekeepers for reliable scientific evidence in the courtroom.

    Fallacious thinking makes EPA research in human health effects science unreliable, forsaking the most important responsibility of a scientist: be your own most severe critic, and retain a skeptical attitude about your ideas and theories.  The key is to test your hypothesis — your theory.  If it can’t be tested, it isn’t science.

    The scientific method is based on skeptical experimentation that looks for reliable evidence.  Fallacies of scientific inquiry include confusing temporal with causal  relationships (post hoc, propter hoc fallacy); reporting results that are within normal range of events (noise) or projecting observations of a specific event and projecting it to a general rule without good evidence (inductive error); and relying on a theory by an authority, by consensus, or by popularity without proper evidentiary  challenge.

    Another fallacy is denigration and rejection of opposing, even minority  viewpoints without proper testing and evaluation, or asserting that a pile of weak studies makes for strong evidence, and relying on quantity rather than quality of evidence — as the good investigators will say, the weakest link measures the strength of the chain of evidence.

    Less well-understood fallacies of scientific inquiry are intentional or negligent deception by misuse of relative risk as absolute risk and the more common deceit, misuse of the words “statistical significance” to imply good evidence.  Statistical significance is a statistical test that does not address the reliability of the evidence — just whether the study avoids excess randomness errors.

    Some EPA research scientists fail in their professional ethics because they have become propagandists and have succumbed to many of these biases and fallacies.

    Well-paid researchers for the EPA junk science project

    Some examples of individuals who corrupt the EPA human health effects science research:

    • Arden Pope, Ph.D. (study  in 1995) and Douglas Dockery, Ph.D. (study in 1993) started the corruption by use of weak associations as proof of causation.  The Pope and Dockery Group (they were co-authors in their studies) showed small associations and pushed the bounds of credibility so much that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of the United States Environmental Protections Agency (EPA), chaired by Roger McClellan, DVM, rejected the studies and advised Carol Browner, the EPA administrator, not to push new ozone and small particle regulations.  Browner, a true believer, ignored the advice or the CASAC and many others and pushed the new regulations.  Pope and Dockery continue to enjoy fame and success as mavens of air pollution research.
    • Daniel Krewski, Ph.D. headed a large group whose research showed no air pollution human health effect in California, but they pushed ahead, hiding the results and ignoring the same findings by James Enstrom from UCLA .
    • Michael Jerrett, Ph.D., a University of California member of the air pollution researcher club sponsored by the EPA, admitted in a symposium conducted by the California Air Resources Board on February 26, 2010 that he couldn’t find an air pollution effect in California, but less than a year later he tortured the data to show a minor “association.”

    Dr. Jerrett’s flawed data dredge, which included as co-authors many of the                 leading lights in the air pollution research club, costing more than 750,000 dollars, was adopted by and then used by the California Air Resources Board to justify more draconian state air pollution regulations.

    • Jon Samet, M.S., M.D. succeeded Roger McClellan as the CASAC chair.  McClellan and the protesting CASAC members were, after the battle in the ’90s, eliminated, and others were appointed to the CASAC who were more sympathetic to aggressive regulatory activity without regard to the reliability of the human health science claims.  CASAC Chair Jon Samet approves aggressive air pollution regulatory activity on weak research results and is personally committed to the view that there is no threshold for safety of air pollutants.  His assertions for no threshold contradict his own research, published in 2000, that showed no negative human health effects for ozone, the ozone precursors nitrous and sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide.  Dr. Samet found a weak association for particle pollution that was no better than the Pope and Dockery weak associations.   

    Does it matter?

    • Associations reported in the EPA air pollution research are so small that they do not meet the requirements to prove anything in an observational study, since the uncertainties of the methods cannot be overcome by small associations, but no matter.
    • The biological plausibility of air pollutants causing deaths is not established in any reasonable and reliable way, but no matter.
    • Millions of dollars are granted to researchers to repeat and magnify the EPA research with the same methods and unreliable science, but no matter.
    • The EPA presents the “evidence” of pollution causing thousands of deaths — though  the EPA could easily be harvesting deaths that occur as normal death rate variations (noise) — without any real medical investigation that shows a plausible disease or cause of death (valid signal), but no matter.
    • The EPA studies are desktop exercises in death certificate counting using lax rules for cause of death that exaggerate deaths attributed to air pollution, but no matter.

    It won’t matter until industry, business, citizens, and the Congress and the courts start holding the EPA to account.  Presently business, industry, and the Congress are intimidated by the well-paid, slick, and arrogant army of EPA scientists who have the media as their shills and don’t have to answer hard questions on the reliability of their research.  No one asks them even the basic question: how can you be reliable when you rely on the EPA for a living and career advancement?

    Conflicts of professional interest created by millions of dollars in research funded by the EPA and EPA-allied entities are a serious problem that compromises public policy-making.

    Legal and Political Strategies to Stop EPA Junk Science

    The Administrative Procedure Act provides the means to challenge EPA conduct, actions, and policy-making.  The burden of the challenge to an action or ruling or fine or penalty is to prove that the agency was arbitrary and capricious.  A commonsense understanding of those words entails actions taken without good justification or rationale.  The courts have been inclined to be lazy and deferential and allow Agency hegemony.

    Jurisprudence (that’s the legal scholarship) shows that the judicial deference to and agency is limited to allowing agency discretion in matters of ambiguous statutory provisions, described by Justice Scalia in the Whitman v. American Trucking case as reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions.

    Obviously, that focused deference has nothing to do admissibility decisions on junk science and bad science or policy that relies on unreliable research.  That brings us back to admissibility of scientific evidence at the trial or hearing level.  Once the record is made, the appellate level doesn’t offer a remedy for bad evidence unless the admissibility ruling is appealed as error.

    Judges and lawyers have been intimidated by the idea of challenging a powerful agency.  Lawyers and judges are too often ill-equipped to frame the challenges to junk EPA science well; they are badly advised, and they end up going back to what makes them comfortable — arguments on the law and economics.

    But — a big but — judges are, and always have been, the ones to decide what’s admissible as evidence.  Even before Daubert, you could tell whether you were getting a hometown job in court on the basis of admissibility rulings and the attitude of the judge about your expert.  The challenges to evidence and testimony can be pursued regardless of whether the evidence is used to argue for or against the agency action.  Agency discretion under the jurisprudence of the Chevron  case does not allow bad evidence into the record, whether it’s a hearing or a trial.

    The evidence must be admissible for purposes of proving that the Agency is or is not being arbitrary or capricious, which makes the decision on evidentiary admissibility and reliability separate from whatever tortured idea the court might have about agency authority and discretion.  Unreliable scientific evidence is inadmissible and therefore cannot be used to justify inappropriate actions.  The admissibility rulings on evidence trump some arcane idea about agency discretion that is all tied up in the jurisprudence on Congressional Delegation.  There is no law that the Congress has passed that permits agencies to pursue junk science.

    In the political sphere, the Congress can modify the standards of administrative and judicial review to demand good science and a better standard for agency conduct, with more reasonable rules on challenges to EPA actions, similar to the rules for challenges to actions by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that are civil court evidentiary preponderance of evidence burdens.

    However, even without congressional help, responsible, competent, and serious lawyers can force judges and frame evidentiary challenges so that the judges will be required to make clear rulings on admissibility of scientific evidence and even require that the court provide a rationale for the ruling.  A bad ruling is a reversible error; a good ruling will nurture good science in the courtroom, the job of conscientious judges, and the responsibility of lawyers.  No lawyer but a pettifogger would admit to arguing for bad science that violates the public trust.

    In trials involving challenges to EPA actions that interfere with property, cause compliance burdens, and enforce onerous and harassing fines or penalties, parties certainly have been able to provide full-throated challenges to EPA evidentiary submissions, so at the administrative hearing stage, it would be just as appropriate to challenge the scientific basis of EPA conduct, even if it would force judges or magistrates to be more active, stop acting like potted plants, and start doing their job — gate-keeping for good scientific evidence.

    Changing the EPA agenda means challenging inadequate and unreliable EPA science and demanding reliable and skeptical science in the public interest.  It can be done politically and legally by proper use of modifications of law and statutes — even modification of the Administrative Procedure Act, properly conducted administrative hearings, evidentiary challenges in any number of different forums, and political and legal and political action to modify statutory requirements for agency conduct and to clarify proper process for challenges of agency actions.  It can be done if parties in disputes do it right, if lawyers do their jobs, and if politicians work hard to force better rules for sensible agency conduct and fairer rules for citizen challenges of agency decisions and actions.

    The EPA can be forced to be more reasonable in its regulatory actions and regimes.  It can be done if citizens, politicians, lawyers, and judges have the fortitude — it’s always about the fortitude.

    That will bring the heat for the EPA and its well-paid and arrogant research army.

    Who knows what might develop from such a thing?

    -John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D. & Steve Milloy, MHS, J.D., LLM


    Contact:  
    Press Office, (202) 401-1576, press@ed.gov


    Event Date 1: April 17, 2012 08:00 am - 10:00 am

    U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will keynote the second Summit on the Role of Education in Economic Development in Rural America. The event, taking place Tuesday, April 17, at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City in Arlington, Va., is co-hosted by the White House Rural Council and the Education Commission of the States. Duncan will address the connections between the Administration’s education reform efforts and recommendations made following last year’s summit. Both Secretaries will engage the audience in a discussion about solutions for overcoming the unique challenges faced by distant and remote rural communities. Throughout the day, federal, state, and local partners will present and discuss effective economic development models that can be replicated in rural areas.

    U.S. Department of Education officials also will participate in the summit and provide updates on federal rural program efforts. John White, deputy assistant secretary for rural outreach, will deliver luncheon remarks on available resources and necessary collaborations at the local, state and federal levels. Larkin Tackett, director of place-based initiatives in the Office of Innovation and Improvement, will discuss Promise Neighborhoods and Choice Neighborhoods; and Sue Liu, senior policy advisor in the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, will discuss the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training grants.

    United States is liable as arranger and operator, someone who “takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance.” 129 S. Ct. 1870, 1879 (2009)

    California Choice of Law, Jurisdiction & Venue Clauses

    The cartel "is the most pervasive and harmful criminal antitrust conspiracy ever uncovered," declared Joel Klein, chief of the Justice Department's antitrust division. The price-fixing ring "hurt the pocketbook of virtually every American consumer, anyone who took a vitamin, drank a glass of milk, or had a bowl of cereal," he said.

    "Wasting Our Waterways," compiled by Environment America, calls the Clean Water Act an "unfulfilled promise"

    Services not so secret, agents exposed, hard questions

    U.S. Secret Service agents, along with a group of military personnel, had a drunken night with Cartagena, Colombia prostitutes. Initiating the agency’s investigation into the 11 agents who were said to be drunk and with prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia, is the female special agent in charge of the Miami office who alleged the shameful acts and was on assignment in Cartagena at the time. In common with the “excessive, wasteful, and in some cases impermissible” General Services Administration scandal over a federal agency conference outside of Las Vegas, Nevada; in both cases, federal employees were responsible for exposing the bad behavior of their colleagues. Federal workers must maintain a higher standard because they are guardians of taxpayer money and the people’s trust. Is there something in the culture and organization of the federal government that allows the individual government employees to deem their shamefully “excessive, wasteful, and in some cases impermissible” or even illegal and immoral actions acceptable, and especially when two agent supervisors were involved? Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), the chairman and ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan a letter asking for information on 10 points, including two that get to agency culture:

    “What agency failures or lapses has the USSS (U.S. Secret Service) identified that contributed to this incident?

    “Moving forward, what steps does the USSS intend to take to prevent a recurrence of a similar serious security failure and diplomatic embarrassment?”

    Who knew, until now, that some of these strong, silent types really like to party hard? The Washington Post - Federal Diary

    - Inquiry points to wider Secret Service scandal involving as many as 21 women



    EPA to hold community meeting on Lockwood toxic cleanup
    Billings Gazette
    In the 12 years since the Environmental Protection Agency designated 580 acres in Lockwood a Superfund site because the soil and water was contaminated by toxic chemicals, no actual cleanup work has been done. This summer, the EPA will do more testing ...

    FAISALABAD: US Embassy’s Deputy Agri­culture Counsellor Devid Wolf has said the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) will continue to develop the agricultural sector of Pakistan by providing funds for development projects and research work.

    America assisted developing countries in the agricultural sector to make it more efficient, productive and sustainable, which would lead to an increase in supply and reduce the cost of food, Wolf said during a visit to the University of Agriculture Faisalabad (UAF).

    He also reviewed USDA’s ongoing projects aimed at developing the agricultural sector and said the goal of the projects was to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger and required significant investment from the donors and private sector.

    Talking about various initiatives, Wolf said US was working on developing agricultural markets, trade and finance, promoting food and nutritional security, funding collaborative science and technological research and developing and supporting sound programmes for livestock and sustainable agriculture.

    Speaking on the occasion, UAF Vice Chancellor Dr Iqrar Ahmad said the university was running around 150 agricultural projects with financial assistance from the US. These funds were used in faculty development, technology transfer, product commercialisation and research.

    The university is also working on outreach programmes for educating farmers about increasing productivity.
    Published in The Express Tribune, April 21st, 2012.

    International Conference on Sustainable Development of Critical Infrastructure

    Venue: Shanghai Jiaotong University
    Country: Shanghai, China
    Start Date: 15-NOV-12 End Date: 18 NOV-12
    Categories: Education & Training

    CONFERENCE DESCRIPTION

    The organizer World Federation of Engineering Organizations is coming up with the Conference titled as International Conference on Sustainable Development of Critical Infrastructure in November 2012. The language of the Conference will be in English. The Conference will be attended by the professional practitioners, academic researchers, government engineers, and operational managers of infrastructure systems. The topics to be discussed during the event are: sustainability, safety, risk assessment and management, and life-cycle performance and cost. This Conference is helpful in making future contacts and business prospects. The Conference aims to highlight both to build a new interactive instrument on environmental protection between the nation and society for the Development of all sustainable engineering systems.

    Job Title:Counselor to the Inspector General

    Department:Department Of Justice

    Agency:Justice, Office of the Inspector General

    Job Announcement Number:OIG-2012-11

    SALARY RANGE:

    $123,758.00 to $155,500.00 / Per Year

    OPEN PERIOD:

    Friday, April 20, 2012 to Friday, April 27, 2012

    SERIES & GRADE:

    GS-0905-15

    POSITION INFORMATION:

    Full Time - Temporary NTE 1 Year

    DUTY LOCATIONS:

    01 vacancy(s) - Washington DC Metro Area, DC United States

    WHO MAY BE CONSIDERED:

    All groups of qualified individuals


    Earth Day at US Department of Agriculture


    Give a Hoot! Earth Day in Albuquerque New Mexico is to inspire awareness and appreciation for the Earth's Natural Environment!


     The Unieted States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service Proudly Presents:   5th Annual Give a Hoot Fair!  

    For 40 years Earth Day  has inspired and mobilized individuals and organizations worldwide to demonstrate their commitment to Enviromental Protection and sustainability.  Earth day programs believe that the nation's future relies on well-educated public so that we can be wise stewards of the enviroment that susatins us, our families, our communites and future genrations.  

    Earth Day Event April 20, 2012
    10am to 1pm
    4000 Masthead North East 
    Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109



    TARP Watchdog Guard Down

    U.S. regulators and the American public have become complacent toward the dangers of another financial crisis, leaving taxpayers at risk of another bailout, a top watchdog said.

    "We are letting our guard down against things like moral hazard and 'too big to fail' banks," Christy Romero, the special inspector general for the financial-system bailout, said in an interview. "And that causes me great concern,"

    Ms. Romero's comments come ahead of her office's next quarterly report to Congress, the first since the Senate approved her appointment as Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    What To Eat?


    Press Release 12-072
    Scientists Trace Evolutionary History of What Mammals Eat

    Feeding habits haven't always been what they are today

    Photo of a black bear sitting on a branch in a tree.

    Black bears are fond of berries, and will go far out of their way to find them.
    Credit and Larger Version

    April 16, 2012

    The feeding habits of mammals haven't always been what they are today, particularly for omnivores.

    A comprehensive study of scatology was documented by John Gregory Bourke under the title Scatalogic Rites of All Nations (1891). An abbreviated version of the work (with a foreword by Sigmund Freud), was published as The Portable Scatalog in 1994.[1]

    Dundes, Alan; Carl R. Pagter (1992). Work hard and you shall be rewarded: urban folklore from the paperwork empire. Wayne State UP. p. 75–80. ISBN 978-0-8143-2432-5.

    Keith Robinson, Purdue University   |   Updated: April 17, 2012

    Robert Paarlberg, the B.F. Johnson Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and adjunct professor of public policy at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, will visit Purdue University on April 18 to speak on international agricultural policy.

    Paarlberg's 2008 book, "Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa," explains why poor African farmers are denied access to productive technologies, particularly genetically engineered seeds with improved resistance to insects and drought. He wrote a book in 2010 titled "Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know.

    His James C. Snyder Memorial Lecture presentation will explore the question "The Culture War in Agriculture: Who's Winning?"

    Discovery
    Earth Week: A Stream Is a Stream Is a Stream: Or Is It?

    Scientists ford high-mountain waterways in North, South America to find out

    Photo of fog over the cloud forest in Ecuador's Oyacachi watershed.

    The omnipresent fog of the cloud forest in Ecuador's Oyacachi watershed.
    Credit and Larger Version

    April 16, 2012

    The following is part seven in a series on the National Science Foundation's Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES) investment.  Visit parts one, two, three, fourfive and six in this series.

    Scientists supported by NSF SEES use everything from microscopes to deep-sea submersibles in their research.

    But how many SEES scientists need a machete?

    Agroforestry Co-operation

    "We support agroforestry as a land management approach because it helps landowners achieve certain natural resource goals, such as clean water and productive soils," said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "But it does much more. Clean water is a precious natural resource, and America's economic success is directly related to a continuous and abundant supply of clean water."

    For Immediate Release: April 11, 2012
    contact: Caroline McCall, MIT News Office
    email: cmccall5@mit.edu phone: 617-253-1682

    Hybrid copper-gold nanoparticles convert CO2

    May reduce greenhouse gas emissions
    CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Copper — the stuff of pennies and tea kettles — is also one of the few metals that can turn carbon dioxide into hydrocarbon fuels with relatively little energy. When fashioned into an electrode and stimulated with voltage, copper acts as a strong catalyst, setting off an electrochemical reaction with carbon dioxide that reduces the greenhouse gas to methane or methanol.

    Certain exceptions to the non-merger of prescriptive easements

    The moral of the story is to make sure that you know how property is titled and to be able to distinguish between the various types of ownership, including ownership in an entity, direct ownership, ownership as tenants in common, or ownership as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.

    Force majeure in tumultuous times: impracticability as the new impossibility

    Under common law, the burden is upon the contractor to negotiate limitations on his strict liability such as by inclusion of a force majeure clause. Under U.S. law, for example, “[c]ontract liability is strict liability. It is an accepted maxim that pacta sunt servanda, contracts are to be kept. The obligor is therefore liable in damages for breach of contract even if he is without fault and even if circumstances have made the contract more burdensome or less desirable than he anticipated.”9
    Comprehensive Model Force Majeure Clause
    In practice, tribunals rarely agree with a party claiming that a force majeure event occurred.
    Force majeure defense can be lost by failing to give timely notice

    A duty to notify the other party of the impediment and its consequences “without delay” is found in Section 4 of the ICC Clause. The same requirement is found in CISG Article 79(4); UNIDROIT Article 7.1.7(g); PECL Article 8:108(3); and in both common and civil law. The underlying policy and logic are straightforward—to give the nondefaulting party the opportunity to take all reasonable steps available to it to overcome or mitigate the consequences of the event.


    No Superfund: Feds back off in Silverton

    EPA to work with local groups in mine cleanup

    SILVERTON – The effort to stanch the toxic drainage from abandoned hardrock mines here no longer faces a takeover by the federal government.

    “We’ve heard loud and clear that you want a collaborative approach,” Martin Hesmark, acting assistant regional director of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, based in Denver, said Friday. “We’ll stand back and work collaboratively with you.”

    Hesmark delivered the message Friday morning to San Juan County commissioners and Silverton town councilors and in the evening at a community meeting.

    The Animas River Stakeholders Group has completed 50 projects since 1994 to reduce the amount of contaminated water from old mines that finds its way into streams and ultimately into the Animas River.

    It was the pall of possible federal management of such projects that brought formation of the stakeholders group. Local government officials saw too much Big Brother in the plan and said designation as a federal Superfund site would discourage business and tourism.

    “Superfund designation didn’t fit here,” San Juan County Commissioner Pete McKay said. “We believe in the stakeholder group to hold our own and make the system work.”

    Four abandoned mines that form a rabbit’s warren of tunnels and bore holes in the San Juan Mountains around Gladstone, a former mining community, are targeted for cleanup.

    The American Tunnel to the old Sunnyside mine and the Mogul, Gold King No. 7 and the Red and Bonita mines collectively release 600 to 800 gallons a minute of zinc, iron, cadmium, manganese, copper and lead into tributaries to the Animas River.

    The main recipient is Cement Creek. It is so contaminated that it does not harbor aquatic life.

    Mineral Creek and the Animas River above Silverton are in fairly decent shape, said Peter Butler of the stakeholder group. But mine drainage into Cement Creek is responsible for deterioriating water quality and loss of aquatic life in the Animas below here.

    Representatives of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Bureau of Reclamation and the Colorado Division of Mining, Safety and Reclamation support the collaborative approach to mine waste remediation.

    The mouth of the American Tunnel is on BLM land.

    No results are expected immediately. But there appeared to be agreement with the estimate of Steven Fearn that “in three to five years, we’ll be doing very well.”

    Fearn is a coordinator of the stakeholder group.

    daler@duangoherald.com

    Iron Mountain Mine Institute remediation comprises a range of best practices that may be applied throughout the private remedy operations. The best management practices of green remediation provide potential means to improve waste management; conserve or preserve energy, fuel, water, and other natural resources; promote sustainable long-term stewardship; and reduce adverse impacts on the local community during and after remediation activities. Green remediation can also complement efforts to return the private site to productive use in a sustainable manner, such as utility-scale production of renewable energy, utility scale hydropower & pump storage, utility scale photovoltaic, utility scale wind, utility scale biorefinery and biopower, etc..
    Utilization of green remediation strategies within the scope of the private response help ensure a protective remedy. It may be possible to lessen the long-term negative effects of the governments previous actions on the site. With the presently operating removal action green remediation practices may be used to upgrade or optimize treatment systems.

    Iron Mountain Mine remediation strategies complement site reuse involving sustainable activities and property development in accordance with smart growth principles and green building practices.

    In April 2009, the OIG identified 10 key management challenges for Fiscal Year 2009. Three of those challenges impact EPA's management and enforcement capability: 1 EPA's organization and infrastructure; 2 Oversight of delegations to States; and 3 Performance measurement. We know the underlying issues persist.

    EPA went to the Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site and undertook response actions to contain and reduce the contamination caused by nonhazardous substances released by past mining activities on the Site. EPA incurred costs in its response actions. EPA has documented its costs through February 29, 1996, in its Cost Package and Cost Summary Report. All EPA's actions for which it incurred costs were “ inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan.”

    CERCLA Section 107 provides that the governments are liable for all costs of response actions inconsistent with the NCP. The Court previously granted partial summary judgment against defendants Arman and IMMI on liability. Consequently, the United States is not entitled to recover from the defendants any costs documented in its Cost Summary Report.

    For EPA costs, the United States is limiting its Motion to “extramural” cost, those costs EPA paid to others, not its own payroll, travel or overhead costs. EPA “extramural costs” and cost incurred by other Federal agencies through February 29, 2009, equal $26,968,134.84.

    For all these reasons Messrs. Ted Arman & John Hutchens, IMMI, AMD&CSI, Essential Solutions, &c. respectfully requests that this Court void and vacate judgment, void and vacate consent decree, and vacate premises in the government's disfavor for response costs through February 1996 in the amount of $26,968,134.84, plus prejudgment interest. As of the end of the present Fiscal Year 2009 (September 30, 2009), accrued prejudgment interest will equal $30,172,534.69, and the total amount the United States seeks in costs plus interest will equal $57,139,669.53.

    OUTLAWRY!

    Case 2:91-cv-00768-JAM-JFM Document 1300 Filed 12/18/2009 Page 4 of 11

    EXACTIONS § 2680. EXCEPTIONS, ESTOPPEL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENTS, HEARING

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE et al,

    T.W. ARMAN and JOHN F. HUTCHENS,

    (real parties in interest), “Two Miners”

    Under God, Indivisible; Patentee, Grantee

    v.

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA Grantor

    DEMAND FOR JUST COMPENSATION,

    DEMAND FOR SURRENDER;

    DEMAND FOR FORCIBLE UNLAWFUL DETAINER TREBLE DAMAGES;

    DEMAND FOR ABOLITION AND EMANCIPATION FROM CONTINUING NEGLIGENT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS RECKLESS FELONIOUS ENDANGERMENT BY JOINT & SEVERAL TRESPASSERS.

    Breve capitalis justiciarius noster and ad placita coram nobis tenenda, Alodium and Alodarii; detinue sur bailment; subpoena ad testificandum; LIBEL, SLANDER, DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, POISONING OF REPUTATION

    Impairment of Interests
    [7] Under Rule 24(a)(2) and § 113(i), an applicant must be situated such that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect its interests.

    CERCLA provides that government agencies are to be treated as"persons" under the Act. Another provision states that the United States"shall be subject to, and comply with, this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 9607 of this title."
    The Supreme Court stated that this provision amounts to an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity."

    1. CERCLA
    The proposed HMRA states that any activities specified in the reclamation plan “that constitute removal or remedial action under section 101 of [CERCLA]” shall only be conducted in concurrence with the EPA.

    The HMRA states that existing environmental laws are not superseded.

    Nevertheless, these provisions imply a repeal of CERCLA for AMLs.

    231 Compare Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) § 120(e)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9620(e)(2) (2006) (requiring an interagency agreement for federal facility cleanups), with S. 796, § 402(g)(2) (requiring only a memorandum of understanding for such cleanups). § 9604(a)(4) (2006) (allowing the President to declare “a public health or environmental emergency [when] no other person with the authority and capability to respond to the emergency will do so in a timely manner”).

    A mining permittee’s operations plan need only demonstrate that “the formation of acid mine drainage will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable”

    235 Although the proposed HMRA explicitly states that existing environmental laws are not superseded by that Act, the phrase “to the maximum extent practicable” would effectively circumvent CWA restrictions.

    SUSTAINABLE MINING PROMOTES GLOBAL PROSPERITY

    (the value could exceed $16,000 per day if higher quality pigment grade iron oxide were produced).

    (The phrase “to the maximum extent practicable” is arbitrary.)

    Iron Mountain Mine policy is: “the formation of acid mine drainage will be beneficially exploited to the maximum extent practicable”

    [9] The statutory scheme reflects a Congressional intent that the interests of entities other than the government and settling PRPs be considered as part of the settlement process.
    When a settlement is submitted for judicial approval, a court is required to evaluate whether a proposed consent decree is “fair, reasonable and consistent with the objectives of CERCLA” before approving it. Montrose, 50 F.3d at 743.

    A court must consider the substantive fairness of the consent decree to non-settling PRPs by assessing whether liability has been roughly apportioned based upon “some acceptable measure of comparative fault.” United States v. Cannons Eng’g Corp., 899 F.2d 79, 87 (1st Cir. 1990); see Montrose, 50 F.3d at 746.

    Applicants have the right to participate in this process and to have their interests considered by the court. We conclude that the notice and comment procedure does not provide Applicants with sufficient “other means” by which to protect their interests, see Lockyer, 450 F.3d at 442, and that those interests will be impaired if Applicants are not afforded the right of intervention.

    4. Adequacy of Representation

    “This Court considers three factors in determining the adequacy of representation: (1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor's arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties would neglect.” Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003).

    Conclusion

    [12] For the foregoing reasons the Applicants have a right to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) and § 113(i) of CERCLA to protect their interests in contribution and in the fairness of the proposed consent decree. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    IV. Conversion may be either, 1. by a wrongful taking a personal chattel; 2. by some other illegal assumption of ownership, or by illegally using or misusing it; or 3. by a wrongful detention.

    The wrongful taking of the goods of another who has the right of possession, is of itself a conversion, and so is the compelling of a party to deliver up goods; and whenever trespass will lie for taking goods of the plaintiff wrongfully, trover will also lie. 3 Wils. 19 ; Willes, 33 ; 2 Saund. 47 A; Cro. Eliz. 824. Thus trover lies against the assignees under a commission of bankrupt, where they compel a party to deliver up his property when he was not subject to the bankrupt laws. 3 B. Sr R. 2; 6 J. B. Moore, 56, S. C. And if goods be wrongfully seized as a distress, though they be not removed from the place in which they were, yet trover may be supported, because the possession in point of law is changed by their being seized as a distress. Willes, 56. And a seizure of goods under a fieri facia* after a party's bankruptcy, ana a removal of them to a broker's, is a sufficient conversion. 3 Campb. 396. And this action may be supported after an acquittal of the defendant for the felonious taking of goods. 12 East,

    In the case of a conversion by wrongful taking, it is not necessary to prove a demand and refusal. 1 Sid. 164; 6 Afod. 212; Bui. N. P. 44; 1 Mark. 173 ; 3 B. Sr B. 2; 6 /. B. Moore, 56, S. C. And the intent of the party is immaterial ; for, although the defendant acted under a supposition that he was justified in what he did, he will be equally liable to this action. 4 M. Sf S. 260. But if the possession was obtained under colour of a contract, trover cannot be sustained, 3 Campb. 299, 352; 3 Taunt. 274; unless a case of fraud can be proved. 7 Taunt. 59; 1 B. Sf C. 514.

    So the wrongful assumption of the property or right of disposing of goods, may be a conversion in itself, and render unnecessary a demand and refusal, 5 East, 407; 6 East, 540; 4 Taunt. 24; 2 B. Sf B.Z; 6 J. B. Moore, 56, S. C.; 4 Taunt. 799 ; as well as any tender of charges, 1 Campb. 410 ; 2 M. Sf S. 298; 3 Campb. 472, 473. Thus a sale of a ship, which was afterwards lost at sea, made by the defendant, who claimed under a defective conveyance from a trader before his bankruptcy, is a sufficient conversion to enable the assignees of the bankrupt to maintain trover, without showing a demand and refusal. 5 East, 407, 420.

    So where a person entrusted with the goods of another, puts them into the hands of a third person, contrary to orders, it is a conversion. 4 T. R. 2G4. And if one tenant in common sell the other's goods without his consent, it is a conversion, and trover is maintainable, 5 B. Sf A. 395 ; and where a carrier, Peake, C. N. P. 49 ; 5 Burr. 2825; see 1 Taunt. 391 ; 1 Campb. 409, 439, ante; or a wharfinger, 2 B. $ A. 702, by mistake, delivers goods to a wrong person, trover may be supported, though it would be otherwise if they were left by accident, lb. 41, n.; and if a person illegally make use of a thing found or delivered to him, it is a conversion in itself, Cro. Eliz. 219; or if a bailee, merely to keep or carry, and having no beneficial interest, misuse a chattel entrusted to him, Id. ibid.; as if a carrier draw out part of the contents of a vessel, and fill it with water, 1 Stra. 576 ; or if a carrier or wharfinger break open a box containing goods, or sell them. 2 Salk. 655. So an irregularity in a distress taken damage feasant may amount to a conversion, Cro. Jac. 148 ; Bac. Ab., Trover, B.; though not in the case of a distress for rent, when we have seen trover cannot be supported, 1 Hen. Bla. 10; and a party will be personally liable for the conversion to the use of another, although he acted under a supposition that he was justified in what he did. 4 M. $ S. 259.

    But unless there be an illegal assumption of property, trover cannot in general be supported for a mere non-feasance, C East, 540; 2 B. Sf A. 701; and therefore if a carrier, or other bailee, by negligence, lose goods entrusted to his care, the remedy in general must be case or assumpsit, 5 Burr. 2825 ; 2 Saund. 47; Peake, C. N. P. 240; and an agent selling at an underprice is not liable to an action of trover, 3 Taunt. 117 ; and the retention of property under the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, is no conversion. 4 J. B. Moore , 361.

    In the preceding instances proof of the act of the defendant is sufficient without evidence of a demand and refusal, 4 Taunt. 801; but where the plaintiff is not prepared to prove some such actual assumption of property, trover cannot be supported without proof of a demand and refusal, or at least a neglect to deliver the goods. Bui. N. P. 44; 2 Saund. 47 e; 13 East, 177, 197 ; 1 Campb. 439 ; 5 M. Sf S. 105.

    If in trover an actual conversion cannot be proved, then proof is to be had of a demand made, before the action brought, of the thing for which the action is commenced, and that the thing demanded was not delivered. In this case, though an actual conversion may not be proved, a demand, and refusing to deliver the things demanded, is a sufficient evidence to the jury that he converted the same, till it appears to the contrary. 10 Rep. 56, 491 ; 2 Lil. 619.

    Where a defendant really comes to the possession by finding, denial is a conversion; but if he had the goods, &c. by delivery, there denial is no conversion, but evidence of conversion : and in both cases the defendant hath a lawful possession, either by finding or by delivery ; and where the possession is lawful, the plaintiff must show a demand and a refusal, to make a conversion : though if the possession was tortious, as if the defendant takes away the plaintiff's har, the very taking is a sufficient proof of the conversion, without proving a demand and refusal. Sid. 264 ; 3 Salk. 365.

    By Holt, C. J., the denial of goods to him who hath a right to demand them, is a conversion; and after a demand and refusal, if the defendant tender the goods, and the plaintiff refuse to receive them, that will go only in mitigation of damages, not to the right of the action of trover, for the plaintiff may have that still. Mod. Cas. 212.

    An action of trover and conversion may be brought for goods, although the goods came into possession of the plaintiff before the action is brought, which doth not purge the wrong, or make satisfaction for that which was done to the plaintiff by detaining the goods. If a man takes ray horse and rides him, and afterwards delivers him to me, trover lies against him, for this is a conversion, and the re-delivery is no bar to the action. 1 Dane. Abr. 21 ; 2 Lil. 618.

    But it has been recently held, that a demand and refusal are evidence only, and are not conclusive of the fact of conversion, and they are cured by a subsequent tender of the goods before action brought. 1 Moo. Sf Sc. 459.

    Where a trader, on the eve of his bankruptcy, made a collusive sale of his goods to the defendant, it was decided that the assignees could not maintain trover without proving a demand and refusal, 2 Hen. Bla. 135 ; 2 Esp. Rep. 96 ; or where the sheriff, having taken goods in execution after a secret act of bankruptcy, has not proceeded to sell. 3 Campb. 396 ; sed vide 4 M. § S. 268.

    Such a demand and non-compliance are prima facie evidence of a conversion, and will induce a jury to find it, unless the defendant adduce evidence to negative the presumption ; as that he being a carrier, &c. lost the goods by negligence, &c. Bui. N. P. 44; 2 Saund. 47 e.; Peake's Lam of Evidence, 298; or that he had reasonable grounds for doubting the plaintiff's right, and offered to deliver them to the right owner. 3 Campb. 215 n.; 2 Bulst. 310; 5 J. B. Moore, 559, 266, n.; 2 B. <£ P. 464; 5 B. Sf A. 247. And where the demand of the things for which the action is brought is not made by the plaintiff himself, who is the owner, but by another person on his account, a refusal by the defendant, on the ground that he does not know to whom the things belong, or that the person who applies for them is not properly empowered to receive them, or until he is satisfied by what authority the application is made, this will not be such a refusal as to create a conversion. 1 Esp. N. P. C. 87 ; and see J. B. Moore, 259. In an action of trover against an agent, if the plaintiff rely on a refusal to deliver up the property as evidence of a conversion, it must amount to an absolute and not a mere qualified one; and on an agent's refusal to deliver up the goods without his master's directions, it is not sufficient to render him personally liable. 5 B. $ A. 247 ; 2 Mod. 242.

    A refusal by a bailee to deliver goods to the real owner without the authority of the bailor, who has in fact no lien, is sufficient evidence of a conversion. 1 B. <$• A. 450.

    Where the plaintiff sold utensils in a brewhouse to T. who paid for them, and was to take them away, but the defendant being possessed of the brewhouse, the utensils were demanded of him by the plaintiff's attorney, accompanied by T., when the defendant said he would not deliver them to any body, and afterwards the plaintiffs repaid T. and brought trover for the goods : the Court of King's Bench held that this demand and refusal were sufficient evidence of conversion to support the action, without any new demand after the re-payment to T. 5 M. Sr S. 105.

    A. brought an action of trespass against B. for taking away a filly; B. justified the taking as the servant of C. ; the jury found a verdict for A., with damages, subject to a reference to D. one of the jurors, to ascertain to whom she belonged (which was to depend on whether a scar should appear on a certain part of her body, and in case it should, the verdict for A. was to stand; if not, it was to be entered for B.) The filly was delivered to D. by consent of all parties, and he made his award, and found her to belong to A., and accordingly ordered the verdict for him to stand. C, ten days after the award, demanded the filly of D., who refused to deliver her, and a fortnight afterwards C. brought an action of trover for her recovery: held that the detention of the filly by D. did not, under the circumstances, amount to a conversion; as C. was no party to the original action, and as it did not appear that he was authorized by B. to make the demand, to whom alone D. was bound to deliver her, he only being liable to the damages awarded to A. 5 Moore, 259 ; 2 B. 4- B. 447.

    In trover against several defendants, all cannot be found guilty on the same count, without proof of a joint conversion by all. 1 M. Sr S. 588.

    In trover for a bond, the plaintiff need not show the date, for the bond being lost or converted, he may not know the date: and if he should set out the date and mistake it, he would fail in his action. Cro. Car. 262. If the defendant find the bond and receive the money, action of account lieth against the receiver, and not trover. Cro. Eliz. 723.

    Where the trover of goods is in one county, and the conversion in another county, the action brought for these goods may be laid in the county where the conversion was, or in any other county, as it is only a transitory action; and neither the place of trover nor conve rsion, are traversable. Pash. 23 Car. B. R.

    Formerly under the general issue Not Guilty the special matter might have been given in evidence to prove the plaintiff had no cause of action, or to entitle the defendant to the thing in controversy. 2 Bulst. 313. Vide also 2 Salk. 654; Yelv. 198 ; Cro. Car. 27 ; 2 Lil. 622.

    But the plea of Not Guilty now operates as a denial only if the breach of duty or wrongful act alleged to have been committed by the defendant, and all other pleas in denial must take issue on some particular matter of fact alleged in the declaration. See further, Not Guilty.

    The jury are not limited to find as damages the mere value of the property at the time of the conversion, but they at their discretion find the value at a subsequent time, as damages. 1 C. Sr P. 625.

    In trover for a bill of exchange, the damages are to be calculated according to the amount of the principal and interest due upon the bill at the time of the conversion. 3 Campb. 477.

    After a plaintiff had recovered damages under a writ of inquiry in trover for the conversion of his title-deeds, the court permitted satisfaction of the damages to be entered on the roll, on the terms of the defendant's delivering up the deeds and paying all the costs as between attorney and client incurred by the plaintiff in the cause, and placing the plaintiff.in as good a situation as he stood in before the cause of action accrued. 1 D. $ It. 201.

    None shall be held to special bail in action of trover or detinue without a judge's order. Reg. Gen. K. B. and C. P. Hil. 48 Geo. 3. 9 East, 325; 1 Taunt. 203.

    TRUCE, treuga.~\ A league or cessation of arms. Anciently there were keepers of truces appointed; as King Edward III. constituted, by commission, two keepers of the truce between him and the king of Scots, with this clause, nos voluntes treugam prcediclam quantum ad nos pertinct observari, fyc. Rot. Scot. 10 Edw. 3. See Conservators of the Truce, Safe Conduct. Ministries of T.W. Arman.

    WATER RIGHTS NOVATION PETITION FOR CLERKS WRIT OF ENTRY, cestui que trust

    APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: CAFA CERTIFICATION; BAN EPA;

    APEX LAW ACTION; REMISSION; REVERSION; DETINUE SUR BAILMENT; VOID & VACATE LIEN & VACATE CONSENT DECREE & VACATE PREMISES & ABOLISH COERCIVE MONOPOLY; ABOLISH ESTABLISHED HOLISTIC BELIEFS. REMIT TRUST

    SURRENDER IRON MOUNTAIN MINE REMEDIATION TRUSTS TO MR. T.W. ARMAN.

    SURRENDER IRON MOUNTAIN MINE TO MR. T.W. ARMAN'S TENANT-IN-CHIEF

    SURRENDER IRON MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS, TAKE PERSONAL POSSESSIONS. GO.

    1414. As between appropriators, the one first in time is the first in right. QUO WARRANTO

    1530. Novation is the substitution of a new obligation for an existing one. MANDAMUS

    Congress has the right to make any law that is ‘necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18). Signature:________________________________ in loco parentis

    /s/ John F. Hutchens, parens patriae ; Tenant in-Chief; Warden of the Arboretum, Gales & Stannaries

    I, John F. Hutchens, hereby state that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to matters which are herein stated on my own information or belief, and as t those matters, I believe them to be true.

    Date: October 28, 2010_ Signature:______ _________________________ parens, parens, parens.

    Verified affidavit: /s/ John F. Hutchens, Chancellor & High Warden, Palatine & General Commissioner

    Grantees Agent for Mr. T.W. Arman, expert, Mormaer & Special Deputy Levying Officer of Record.

    ENVIRONMENTAL COMMAND OFFICER - PRIVATE INSPECTOR GENERAL -MINISTER

    FACILITY COMPLIANCE AUDITOR, EXCHEQUER, D.A.D. OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINE,

    HUMMINGBIRD INSTITUTE – IRON MOUNTAIN HAZARD & REMEDIATION DIRECTOR

    TENANT-IN-CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER / CHANCELLOR – FREEMINERS' UNIVERSITY

    CURATOR OF THE ARMAN CONSERVATORY / JOINT VENTURER – ad hoc & ad litem .

    RELATED CASES-CONCURRENT JURISDICTION

    USDC-CES Civ. 2:91-cv-00768 - USCA No. 09-17411,

    USCFC No. 09-207 L, &c. CLASS ACTIONS -

    CLERKS NOTICE: Detinue sur bailment-trover

    ADVERSE CLAIMS, WRONGFUL TAKING, FALSE PRETENSES, FRAUD UPON THE COURTS, &e.

    Terris, bonis et calallis rehabendis post purgationem . A writ for a clerk to recover his lands, goods, and chattels formerly seized, after he had cleared himself of the felony of which he was accused, and delivered to his ordinary to be purged. Reg. Orig. 68.

    CITIZENS SUIT; INTERVENTION COMPLAINT TAKING CLAIM, STIGMATIC INJURIES IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 19, CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION REQUIRING PREPAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION, TREBLE DAMAGES FORM OF STATUTES.

    The Courts Jurisdiction

    This Court has jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (the Tucker Act) as a “claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department . . . .” This Court enjoys concurrent jurisdiction in equity with other Courts.

    STATEMENT OF CLAIM, LOCATORS RIGHTS OF PRIORITY OF POSSESSION

    Petitioners are entitled to relief because they are the owners/ operators of Iron Mountain Mines, with vested and accrued existing rights of the locators, including all of the rights, privileges, and immunities of patent title, and including rights and immunities for agricultural college land grants, bounty warrant freehold estates, and General mining law claims and mineral patents.

    § 26. Locators' rights of possession and enjoyment; exclusive right.

    § 29. Patents; …the affidavits required made by authorized agent conversant with the facts.

    § 30. Adverse claims; judicial determination of right of possession;

    § 31. Oath: agent or attorney in fact, title may be verified by the oath of any duly authorized agent.

    § 33. Existing rights; all the rights and privileges conferred.

    § 40. Verification of affidavits before officer authorized to administer oaths within land district

    § 51. Vested and accrued rights; by priority of possession, rights vested and accrued,

    …the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same;

    PRIOR RIGHTS, PATENT TITLE

    In California, a complaint simply alleging the ownership by plaintiff of his mining location and the claim by defendant without right of an adverse interest has been held to allege enough.

    In any event the party seeking to have a trust declared must make out a case against the patentee by evidence that is plain and convincing beyond reasonable controversy." It has been held that such a suit is clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, regardless of the citizenship of the parties. In proceedings under Rev.Stat. §§ 2325, 2326 to determine adverse claims to locations of mineral lands, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show a location which entitles him to possession against the United States This is therefore an adverse claims proceeding.

    In proper cases patentees will be held to be trustees for others equitably entitled to the land.

    If the patentee bring ejectment, the trust may be set up as an equitable defense in Jurisdictions where such defenses are allowed.

    Where a co-owner has been excluded from the patent the patentees become trustees for him to the extent of his interest, and it seems that he need not await the issuance of patent before suing.

    Laches will operate as a bar.


    T.W. Arman, IMMI, and the Native Pigments Co. offer bio-based mineral  inks, wood. and concrete stains.

    (the value could exceed $16,000 per day if higher quality pigment grade iron oxide were produced).

    News Release
      Release No. 0119.12
    Contact:
    USDA Office of Communications (202) 720-4623

     Printable version
    Email this page Email this page

      Agriculture Secretary Vilsack announces BioPreferred Final Rule

      BioPreferred® Program designates thirteen new Biobased Product Categories More than 1500 additional biobased products now eligible for preferred Federal purchasing

     

    WASHINGTON, April 10, 2012 – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced the addition of 13 biobased product categories which are eligible for Federal procurement preference. Now more than 1,500 additional biobased products will be offered for preferred purchasing consideration by all Federal government agencies and contractors. The final rule was published in the April 4 Federal Register.

    In February, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum to create jobs through increased procurement of biobased products by the federal government and to encourage greater Federal support of the BioPreferred program.

    "There are now more than 10,000 products qualifying for preferred procurement under USDA's BioPreferred program" said Vilsack. "Including previously designated items, these 13 additional biobased product categories will help feed the President's initiative by offering even more products with federal procurement preference."

    Creating new markets for the nation's agricultural products through biobased manufacturing is one of the many steps the Administration has taken over the past three years to strengthen the rural economy. Since August 2011, the White House Rural Council has supported a broad spectrum of rural initiatives including a $350 million commitment in SBA funding to rural small businesses over the next 5 years, launching a series of conferences to connect investors with rural start-ups, creating capital marketing teams to pitch federal funding opportunities to private investors interested in making rural and making job search information available at 2,800 local USDA offices nationwide.

    USDA, through its Rural Development mission area, administers and manages housing, business and community infrastructure and facility programs through a national network of state and local offices. Rural Development has an active portfolio of more than $165 billion in loans and loan guarantees. These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers and improve the quality of life in rural areas.

    Extent of the Taking

    It is well established that a physical taking is defined by the government's corporeal violation of private property. As the Supreme Court has noted, “where real estate is actually invaded . . . so as to effectually destroy or impair its usefulness, it is a taking, within the meaning of the Constitution.” Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATB Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 427 (1982) (quoting Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 166 (1871)). The Court has similarly emphasized that, “[t]he hallmark of a physical taking is government occupation of real property.” Alameda Gateway, Ltd. v. United States , 45 Fed. Cl. 757, 762 (1999), quoting Loretto, 458 U.S. at 426 (1982).

    However, it has also recognized the possibility of compensable stigmatic injuries that extend beyond the tangible aspects of a physical taking. In Hendler v. United States, it held that “if fear of a hazard would affect the price a knowledgeable and prudent buyer would pay to a similarly well-informed seller, diminution in value caused by that fear may be recoverable as part of just compensation.” Hendler v. United States , 38 Fed. Cl. 611, 625 (1995) (quoting United States v. 760.807 Acres of Land, 731 F.2d 1443, 1447 (9th Cir. 1984)), aff'd 175 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Shelden v. United States , 34 Fed. Cl. 355, 373 (1995) (reducing post-taking fair market value of property due to stigma associated with earthquake damage).

    “Two Miners” contend that the physical taking of the Brick Flat Pit produced a compensable impact on the entire Property's value. Petitioners claim that the remedial action produced two linked effects flowing from the EPA's physical occupation of the Brick Flat Pit. The first effect was the physical taking of the Brick Flat Pit itself, which continues to prevent Two Miners and Iron Mountain Mines et al from commercially exploiting the Brick Flat Pit. The second effect was the diminution of the Property's overall market value due to the stigma associated with possible liability to any buyer for the CERCLA action. It should be noted that this “stigma” amounts to considerably more than a mental attitude on the part of buyers. It is based upon a very real possibility that any commercial activity on the property might lead to regulatory prohibition or real physical danger. While T.W. Arman and John Hutchens are not convinced that in fact the Property is unusable, it seems clear that a reasonably prudent buyer would consider that quite probable, and be unwilling to purchase the property at any positive price, or share in the stigma of exterminating the salmon and trout.

    Two Miners has expert testimony stating that, “the mere existence of this huge quantity of waste on the property, even in a constructed repository, creates too great a potential [CERCLA] liability for anyone to consider purchasing the land.”

    In summary, Iron Mountain Mines experts in the valuation of contaminated property argue that anyone buying the Property before the EPA completes the removal action and removes the sludge from the Open Pit would potentially bear liability under CERCLA for costs incurred in the removal action.

    Consequently, a reasonable purchaser would discount the purchase price of the Property by at least the amount of the liability assumed in the post-removal action condition of the Property.

    Similarly, Iron Mountain Mines will present evidence that once the presence of hazardous waste has stigmatized property, a reasonable purchaser of said property would discount the sales price for the costs of removal of all of the offending material currently disposed in the Brick Flat Pit. Iron Mountain Mines noted that the stigma flows from the possibility of leakage of contaminants from the waste in the Open Pit and the potential “consequent liability placed upon T.W. Arman under CERCLA.”

    According to Iron Mountain Mines, it follows that just compensation should be the difference between the Property's pre-taking fair market value and the sum resulting from the cost of the removal of the hazardous waste in the Open Pit added to the CERCLA liability incurred.

    The stigma associated with general contamination and burden of infamy associated with natural resource damage and fish extinction dramatically affects the entire Property's value.

    Hendler and Shelden permit recovery for diminution in value due to the general fear of a hazard caused by a taking, assuming that the hazard's affect on marketability is measurable. See Hendler, 38 Fed. Cl. at 625 (quoting United States v. 760.807 Acres of Land, 731 F.2d 1443, 1447 (9th Cir. 1984)

    (“[I]f fear of a hazard would affect the price a knowledgeable and prudent buyer would pay to a similarly well-informed seller, diminution in value caused by that fear may be recoverable as part of just compensation.”)); see Shelden, 34 Fed. Cl. at 373. It is generally recognized that general market perception of contamination on a future development site results in the depreciation of property value.

    Iron Mountain Mines argument is that the Open Pit's taking negatively impacts the entire Property's value on the basis of the evidence.

    In analyzing this impact, the' computations regarding the Property's diminution in value as a result of the stigma associated with hazardous waste and fish extinction.

    The Removal Action as a Special Benefit

    When only a portion of private property is physically taken, the amount of compensation

    owed for the property of Iron Mountain Mines must be reduced by any special benefits from the government action accruing to the remainder of the property. Hendler, 38 Fed. Cl. at 1380. Special benefits are benefits which inure to the particular property suffering the taking, rather than to the general public. The United States placed a statutory lien for “unrecovered past response costs” and stated that the removal action conferred a special benefit upon the Property which we should deduct from any ultimate damages valuation, and inferred that it was justified as a “windfall” lien.

    Such arguments, however, lead nowhere. Even if the Court accepts the government's argument that the removal action benefits the Property's value, the United States will be unable to include any evidence regarding the amount by which such benefit increases the Property's value. Thus, no offset of compensable damages for the benefits allegedly conferred by the removal action are possible.

    Having resolved these issues, let us now turn to the determination of the Property's fair market value as a function of calculating the just compensation owed to Iron Mountain Mines.

    Just compensation for a taking under the Fifth Amendment requires that a deprived owner be put “in the same position monetarily as he would have occupied if his property had not been taken.” Almota Farmers, 409 U.S. at 474 (internal citations omitted). The necessary corollary to this basic damages principle is that the Court may not place a deprived owner in a better position by a Fifth Amendment taking recovery than if the taking at issue had not occurred.

    The fair market value of the highest and best use of the Property before and after the action.

    A reasonable valuation of the Property's value as a mine before the EPA's removal action estimates the Property's value based upon the 20 million plus tons of proven ore reserves plus 5 million tons of probable reserves and the assay of minerals and the prices of Gold, Silver, Copper, Zinc, Iron, Aluminum, Magnesium, Manganese, Vanadium, Titanium, Cobalt, Nickel, and other minerals and by-products at close to $18,400,000,000 (billion). Assuming the EPA estimate of mining and remediation at $1.400,000,000 (billion) is correct, The fair market value would be $17,000,000,000 (billion). Add to that a fair market value of the land surface (4,400 acres) for the future complete development (1 billion), yields a gross takings value of $18,000,000,000 (billion) of Just Compensation Valuation. Additional value of the estimated 20 billion tons of building stone available incidental to mineral resources indicates a total potential value of $72 billion.

    Iron Mountain Mines calculates the fair market value of mining on the Property prior to the taking by determining the present value of the future income stream of minerals that could have mined on the Property absent the taking over a twenty year period. This methodology required an estimate of the annual production of minerals on the Property to determine the present value of the future royalty income stream.

    T.W. Arman and John Hutchens assume that solution mining would have averaged annual production of 500,000 tons of mineral products and a royalty of $100,000,000 (million) per year. Multiplying projected annual production by this royalty rate, annual royalties from January 1989 until January 2009 would be $2,000,000,000.

    T.W. Arman and John Hutchens therefore believe the present value of lost mining opportunity on the Property as of January 1, 1989, to the present at $2,000,000,000.

    It is well established that “comparable sales are considered by the courts to be the best evidence of fair market value, and thus preferable to other forms of valuation.” Stearns Co., Ltd. v. United States , 53 Fed. Cl. 446, 458 (2002) (citing United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (1984)); Kirby Forest Indus. Inc. v. United States , 467 U.S. 1 (1984). Other valuation methods may prove useful, but a comparable sales methodology is a generally superior indicator of value if an active real estate market existed in the vicinity of the subject property prior to the taking. See Florida Rock Indus., Inc. v. United States , 45 Fed. Cl. 21, 35 (1999) (citing Whitney Benefits, Inc. v. United States , 18 Cl. Ct. 394, affirmed 926 F.2d 1169 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 952 (1991)).

    Here, Iron Mountain Mines valued the Property's worth for mining since no comparable comparison was or is available, by analyzing the Property's pre-taking future income stream.

    Iron Mountain Mines claims that future income stream analysis is appropriate here because the valuation of mineral interests is preferably done by determining the present value of a future income stream. Iron Mountain Mines support this view by arguing that the federal government, in its Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, states that, “[p]roperty having a highest and best use for mineral production may be appraised utilizing an income approach when comparable sales are lacking.” Uniform Appraisal Standards at 23-24 (internal citations omitted). Iron Mountain Mines further points to Whitney Benefits, Inc. v. United States , in which the Federal Circuit approved of the use of future income stream analysis, as support for the relevance of future income stream analysis in the present case. See 962 F.2d 1169 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

    Deprived miners T.W. Arman and John Hutchens are entitled to interest on just compensation awarded pursuant to Fifth Amendment takings. Stearns Co., Ltd, v. United States , 53 Fed. Cl. 446, 466 (2002) (citing Kirby Forest Indus. v. United States , 467 U.S. 1 (1984)). Thus, an award to T.W. Arman and John Hutchens with compounded prejudgment interest from the date of the taking until the date of the judgment is proper. See Id. (citing United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 329 U.S. 585, 588 (1947); Miller v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 352, 360 (1980). We date the taking as having actually accrued as of March 9 th , 2007, as the day the EPA project manager and/ or the site operator replaced the gate at the property entrance and refused to provide T.W. Arman with the key or code. Previously the EPA and its contractors had not interfered with T.W. Arman's possession and enjoyment of the property, and the EPA has always averred that it makes no claim to a right of possession of the property, and the project manager has publicly proclaimed as recently as this year that Mr. Arman is free to do whatever he wants with the property, because he is the owner.

    Petitioners appreciate every indulgence extended by the court in consideration of the overly verbose or turgid pleadings, and petitioners further acknowledge the courts tolerance of any inadvertence in the pleadings such as referring to the lost mining opportunity as a commencement of the takings, an reasonable misunderstanding of the meaning of a takings, and when the facts of the case indicate otherwise. The EPA and its contractors had until March of 2007 conducted themselves with due propriety for which Mr. Arman affectionately referred to them as “the janitors”. The EPA first published information indicating that it did not intend to perform additional RODs, (record of decision) in May of 2006, so in the absence of any protest of the CERCLA actions, no claim would be ripe for adverse possession until after that time.

    Interest computation will be based upon the Contracts Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-13 (1982). See Jones v. United States , 3 Cl. Ct. 4, 7 (1983). Iron Mountain Mines further seeks awards of attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of litigation to T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. 42 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq. (1995 & 2002 Supp.). Attorney Fees: CERCLA Private Recovery Actions , 10 Pace Envtl. L. Rev . 393 (1992)

    Two Miners T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens also seek compensation for stigmatic injuries. T.W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines et al have been unfairly blamed for the endangerment and possible extinction of salmon and trout in the Sacramento River, a crime of infamy if ever there was one, not withstanding that there is no evidence that any fish have been killed in the affected reaches of the Sacramento River since at least 1969, seven years before T.W. Arman. purchased the property, or that T.W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. did not actively mine the massive sulfide ores found to be the source of the minerals passively migrating from the property and alleged to pose an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to the environment, and in disregard of contributory factors, particularly the United States construction of dams that destroyed the habitat of the salmon and trout necessary for their reproduction, and without consideration of other factors affecting the fishes demise, such as urban run-off, untreated sewage, ranching, farming, global warming, and other forms of habitat destruction.

    When the EPA first conducted its remedial investigation of Iron Mountain Mines, it considered “Among the remedial action alternatives that could be implemented by the EPA, the total removal of the source and sediments in the receiving waters (Alternative CA-10) is considered the only remedy for the Iron Mountain Mine site which is capable of meeting project cleanup objectives and the full requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This alternative would effectively eliminate discharges from Iron Mountain and restore all tributaries to pristine condition. This alternative was based on total removal of all the source of contamination and disposing of them in a RCRA-approved facility.”

    Without digressing to consider the notion of disposing of millions of tons of valuable ore and mining by-products, it will suffice to observe that having recognized that there was a viable alternative that was fully protective of human health and the environment, the EPA elected to proceed with a remedial action (removal) that was less than fully protective of human health and the environment, and then and thereafter disregarded its duty and responsibilities to implement a remedial action that was fully protective of health and environment.

    For these reasons T.W. Arman and John Hutchens dispute the United States lawful authority to conduct these CERCLA remedial actions (removal) and demand the return of the property and restoration of rights, privileges, and immunities of patent title to the possession and enjoyment of T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens.

    Because the United States, even with congressional approval, executive authorization, and district court decree, has no actual justification for its actions, and the only remedy found to be fully protective of human health and the environment is to finish the mining begun 150 years ago, the only remedy consistent with CA-10 of the administrative record, (complete removal of the source) which is what Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. was doing before the EPA interfered, the EPA should be found liable for the taking of private property for the public benefit requiring the payment of just compensation under the 5 th amendment of the constitution.

    T.W. Arman used “due care” in the purchase of the property, because copper, zinc, and cadmium were not listed as “hazardous substances” under the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1976 when the property was purchased, and California laws regarding mining operations compliance with federal regulations show that Iron Mountain Mines was not in violation of any law.

    CONCLUSION TO THE EXTENT OF THE TAKINGS

    T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens claim that the EPA's remedial (removal) actions constitute a taking of the Iron Mountain Mines property warranting just compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the constitution of the United States for a partial takings of private property with actual damages of lost mining opportunities plus stigmatic injuries and property and incidental damages of $7,074,500,000 (billion). Petitioners seek an award of $7,074,500,000 (billion) in just compensation, with detinue sur bailment, reversion, remission, plus interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and costs. In the alternative that the United States actions are a condemnation that will prevent the lawful mining of Iron Mountain Mines, T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens seek an award for the complete taking of private property for the public benefit requiring the payment of $18,000,000,000 (billion) in just compensation.

    Plaintiff's “Two Miners” submit that plaintiff's mutual interests are undivided interests.

          Wherefore, the United States is liable for the taking of private property requiring the payment of just compensation under the 5 th amendment of the constitution of the United States, we demand judgment against the United States of seven billion, seventy four million, and five hundred thousand dollars for the partial takings and stigmatic injury, or eighteen billion dollars for the complete takings of the Iron Mountain Mines properties, plus interest, fees, and costs.

    DEMANDS

    1. Plaintiffs in this matter demand exoneration by virtue of the innocent landowner defense, third party defense, and act of God defenses, for restitution of the property invaded for CERCLA actions entered and to void and vacate judgment, void and vacacte consent decree and vacate premises.

    2. Plaintiffs demand just compensation for lost mining opportunity resulting from actions by the EPA represented as lawful police actions conducted for the public and environmental welfare, but found not to be fully protective of human health and the environment when such a remedy was offered by the plaintiffs at less expense, but prevented by the actions of the EPA on behalf of the United States. Plaintiffs seek further just compensation for illegitimate animus and vindictive actions, despotism and tyranny, false claims, and negligently arbitrary and capricious reckless endangerment and malicious prosecution.

    3. Plaintiffs demand just compensation for the stigmatic injuries by the EPA.

    4. Plaintiffs demand the creation and appointment of the Essential Products Administration, and the creation and appointment of the Special Deputy Attorney General thereof.

    5. Plaintiffs demand review to contest the constitutionality of CERCLA, and request the court to certify constitutional questions to the United States Supreme Court.

    6. Plaintiffs demand a determination of unfair and unjust burden upon T.W. Arman, John Hutchens, and Iron Mountain Mines et al that should be borne by the public as a whole.

    7. Plaintiffs demand a determination of liability of the United States for contribution to hazardous waste disposal.

    8. Plaintiffs demand retractions and exonerations by the government which allowed the character of T.W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines to be libeled and slandered with abuse of process and malice to the severest possible unfair and unjust stigma with illegitimate animus and vindictive actions.

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF INELLIGIBILITY FOR THE INNOCENT LANDOWNER, THIRD PARTY, AND ACT OF GOD DEFENSES.

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONTINUING THESE CERCLA ACTIONS.

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT T.W. ARMAN FAILED TO USE “DUE CARE” OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC WERE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT LISTED AS HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES UNDER THE LAW.

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UNDUE CARE PURSUANT TO SARA.

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CONTRIBUTION TO POLLUTION BY THE PETITIONERS.

    This is a paradigmatic issue for resolution by the Judiciary. The federal courts historically have resolved disputes over land, even when the United States military is occupying the property at issue.

    In Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis the court held that declaratory relief may be granted in the district court for unlawful government activities regardless of whether damages might also be available in the Claims Court .

    As Justice (then Judge) Cardozo admonished, "Metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it."

    The ability of the United States plaintiffs to sue does not turn on whether certain rights which may belong only to the corporation may be asserted "derivatively" by the sole shareholder or on whether we should "lift the corporate veil."- The "standing" inquiry may be conducted along two different branches: first, whether there is a cognizable property interest under the United States Constitution directly assertable by a United States citizen-shareholder; and second, whether (a) there is a cognizable property interest directly belonging to the corporation, and (b) if so, the scope of a shareholder's right to assert that interest derivatively. The crucial issue here is whether the plaintiffs have constitutional rights of their own, which exist by virtue of their exclusive beneficial ownership, control, and possession of the properties and businesses allegedly seized.

    Properly understood, the question is whether the plaintiffs' and the wholly owned [ California ] corporation have a judicially cognizable interest in the affected property sufficient to enable them to sue for an unconstitutional deprivation of the use and enjoyment of that private property. Because the plaintiffs have a protected property interest for the purposes of the claims asserted here they have standing to sue

    The court must concede on standing that the plaintiffs as individuals "have a cognizable property interest in the land, which interest, since they are American citizens, is protected by the Constitution." (Ramirez, Dissenting Opinion of Scailia, J., at 1556).. If the 100% owner, T.W. Arman, has an interest protected by the United States Constitution, that is enough to compel the United States [Federal Claims] Court to go forward.

    As such, cases involving corporate shareholders' attempts to sue for a violation of a constitutional right which attaches only to individuals when the challenged action affected only the corporation are inapposite. The approach taken in the instant case is consistent with the holdings of those cases by its focus on the nature of a shareholder's personal interests and injuries and his own constitutional rights in determining whether the shareholder has a right to sue.

    [T]he Supreme Court has held that monetary relief for unauthorized Executive seizures is not available in the Claims Court . . . . `The taking of private property by an officer of the United States for public use, without being authorized, expressly or by necessary implication, to do so by some act of Congress, is not the act of the Government,' and hence recovery is not available in the Court of Claims.' . . .

    [I]njunctive relief is available [in U.S. District Court] when the [property] owner proves that government officials lack lawful authority to expropriate his property.

    Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 1500, 1522 (D.C. Cir. 1984)(en banc) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted), vacated on other grounds and remanded, 471 U.S. 1113 (1985), dismissed on other grounds, 788 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (en banc), quoting Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 127 n.16 (1974) (quoting Hooe v. United States, 218 U.S. 322,336 (1910)). Injunctive relief is also available in U.S. District Court `when the monetary compensation available exclusively in the Federal Court of Claims would be wholly inadequate to compensate the complainant for the alleged taking.' Transcapital Financial Corp., 44 F.3d at 1025.

    RIGHT OF PRESENT POSSESSION COMPELLED, PATENT TITLE IN EVIDENCE.

    EX PARTE ADVERSE CLAIMS POSSESSION AND EJECTMENT EXECUTION

    EMERGENCY INTERVENTION WITH ACTUAL CAUSE

    § 6973. Imminent hazard

    (a) Authority of Administrator

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, upon receipt of evidence that the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal of any solid waste or hazardous waste may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment, the Administrator may bring suit on behalf of the United States in the appropriate district court against any person (including any past or present generator, past or present transporter, or past or present owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility) who has contributed or who is contributing to such handling, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal to restrain such person from such handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal, to order such person to take such other action as may be necessary, or both. A transporter shall not be deemed to have contributed or to be contributing to such handling, storage, treatment, or disposal taking place after such solid waste or hazardous waste has left the possession or control of such transporter if the transportation of such waste was under a sole contractual arrangement arising from a published tariff and acceptance for carriage by common carrier by rail and such transporter has exercised due care in the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of such waste. The Administrator shall provide notice to the affected State of any such suit. The Administrator may also, after notice to the affected State, take other action under this section including, but not limited to, issuing such orders as may be necessary to protect public health and the environment.

    (b) Violations

    Any person who willfully violates, or fails or refuses to comply with, any order of the Administrator under subsection (a) of this section may, in an action brought in the appropriate United States district court to enforce such order, be fined not more than $5,000 for each day in which such violation occurs or such failure to comply continues.

    (c) Immediate notice

    Upon receipt of information that there is hazardous waste at any site which has presented an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment, the Administrator shall provide immediate notice to the appropriate local government agencies. In addition, the Administrator shall require notice of such endangerment to be promptly posted at the site where the waste is located.

    (d) Public participation in settlements

    Whenever the United States or the Administrator proposes to covenant not to sue or to forbear from suit or to settle any claim arising under this section, notice, and opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area, and a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement prior to its final entry shall be afforded to the public. The decision of the United States or the Administrator to enter into or not to enter into such Consent Decree, covenant or agreement shall not constitute a final agency action subject to judicial review under this chapter or chapter 7 of title 5 .

    APA CLAIMS § 1491 (b)(4) § 706. Scope of review

    To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—

    (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

    (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—

    (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;

    (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;

    (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;

    (D) without observance of procedure required by law;

    (E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or

    (F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.

    In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.

    CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 512.010.

    (b) The application shall be executed under oath and shall include all of the following:

    (1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed. If the basis of the plaintiff's claim is a written instrument, a copy of the instrument shall be attached. DEED (BOUNTY WARRANTS, PATENT TITLE FILED)

    (2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention.

    PETITIONERS HAVE SUBMITTED EVIDENCE THAT THE UNITED STATES EPA INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINES PROPERTY TO PERFORM A CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTION WAS A FALSE CLAIM WHEN IN FACT THE EPA ACTION WAS A REMOVAL ACTION THAT HAS RESULTED IN AN IMMINENT HAZARD TO THE PETITIONERS, THE PROPERTY, THE PEOPLE, AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THE EPA HAS IN FACT CREATED AN IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT IS NOTHING LESS THAN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS FELONIOUS UNLAWFUL DETAINER.

    PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT EPA ACTIONS, AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT, APPROVED BY CONGRESS, AND DECREED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, HAVE CAUSED THE UNNECESSARY DISPOSAL OF OVER 500 THOUSAND TONS OF ACUTELY NONTOXIC NONHAZARDOUS WASTES IN A NONTOXIC PIT LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE OWNER CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL.

    THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, PARTICULARY THE MOST RECENT 5 YEAR REVIEW OF THE CERCLA ACTION, INFORMS THAT THE “DISPOSAL CELL” HAS FAILED AND THAT THE LEACHATE FROM THE PIT NO LONGER FLOWS INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM INTENDED TO CAPTURE IT FOR TREATMENT. PETITIONERS DEMAND THE SURRENDER OF THE PROPERTY TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPER REMEDY. THE EPA HAS FAILED ITS DUTIES TO PERFORM. THE DOJ AND THE COURTS IN ERROR HAVE PERPETUATED THIS NEGLECT IN VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF CERCLA 121 AND IN DEFIANCE OF COMMON SENSE.

    PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT AGENCY ACTIONS DO NOT ACHIEVE THE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CWA IN AND ARE IN VIOLATION OF ESA.

    PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONERS THAT WILL MEET THE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CWA AND ESA, ELIMINATE THE TOXIC SLUDGE DISPOSAL, AND ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE EPA LIME TREATMENT PLANT.

    THE EPA REFUSES TO CONSIDER ANY RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE ONGOING RESPONSE ACTION.

    PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT EPA ACTIONS AND CONDUCT OF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES EPA AND DOJ WERE MISTAKEN BUT COGNIZABLE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF ESTABLISHED BELIEFS ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT; SO NO TORT CLAIMS WOULD BE POSSIBLE, AND PLAINTIFFS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED AND FORGIVEN THOSE IN ERROR WITH A WAIVER.

    PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT EPA ACTIONS, HOWEVER WELL MEANT OR INTENTIONED, HAVE FAILED TO ACHIEVE THE PERFORMANCE MANDATED BY STATUTE AND REQUIRED BY CONGRESS, COURT ORDERS, THE CWA AND ESA.

    PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT JUDICIAL SWADDLING AND DEFERENCE TO AGENCY ACTIONS, EVEN IF UNLAWFULLY WITHELD OR UNREASONABLY DELAYED, HAS RESULTED IN AN IMMINENT HAZARD AND A NEGLIGENTLY ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS RECKLESS NEGLIGENT ENDANGERMENT OF THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY AS WELL AS TO THE NATION.

    PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT COURT RULES, PARTICULARLY RULES WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CITIZENS WITHOUT REPRESENTATION BY ADMITTED ATTORNEYS, DEPRIVES CITIZENS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, AND SERVES TO DEPRIVE THESE PETITIONERS OF PROTECTIONS GUARANTEED UNDER THE 5TH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY REQUIRING JUST COMPENSATION AND JUST, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY.

    A RULE SUPERIOR TO THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE ADMITTED.

    PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT THE DETENTION OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINES BY THE EPA UNDER CERCLA WAS A MISTAKE, THAT THE EPA ACTIONS HAVE BEEN INADEQUATE AND INAPPROPRIATE, THAT THE EPA ACTIONS EXCEED ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY, MOST PARTICULARLY THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED UNDER CERCLA SEC. 9604. RESPONSE AUTHORITIES. (3)(A)

    (3) Limitations on Response.--The President shall not provide for a removal or remedial action under this section in response to a release or threat of release--

    (A) 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;

    (3) A particular description of the property and a statement of its value. T.W. ARMAN'S IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INSTITUTES' (et al) PROPERTIES INCLUDE A CERTAIN FREEHOLD OF 360 ACRES OF LAND BY BOUNTY WARRANTS OF MILITARY SCRIP AND AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE LAND GRANTS PATENTS FOR LAND IN LIEU OF LAND IN THE MAJOR PIERSON B. READING MEXICAN LAND GRANT PATENT; SIGNED BY PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN AS CONFIRMED BY THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS & UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT; A PARAMOUNT TITLE OF ANCIENT DEMESNE FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE STATE & UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.

    PART OF

    2384 ACRES OF LAND FOR CERTAIN QUARTZ LODE MINING PATENTS IN 4400 ACRES OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND ABSOLUTE FEE SIMPLE FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 

    PARTS OF

    8000 ACRES OF LAND FOR CERTAIN INCIDENTAL & PEREMPTORY EMINENT DOMAIN & ADVERSE CLAIMS IN REVERSION, REMISSION, RECLAMATION, RESTITUTION, REMAINDER, DETINUE SUR BAILMENT, TROVER, CESTUI QUE TRUST,  CESTUI QUE USE; GUARANTEED RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES VESTED AND ACCRUED OF A SOVEREIGN, ABSOLUTE, ORIGINAL, & PARAMOUNT TITLE BY THE PRIORITY OF POSSESSION OF THE LOCATORS, AND OUR PROTECTIONS IN THE SAME, FOR THEIR AND THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS USE AND BEHOOF, FOREVER; AS AGAINST THE WHOLE WORLD BUT THE TRUE OWNER; FOR THE EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE HEADWATERS FOREST OF THE LOST CONFIDENCE MINE & IRON MOUNTAIN MINES FORESTS OF THE NORTH; EL CABACERA DEL RIO BUENAVENTURA PERDIDO BOSQUES DEL NORTE; WHICH IS THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS WATERSHED & MINERAL ESTATE KNOWN AS THE IRON MOUNTAIN MINES SUPERFUND SITE.

    and

    THE INFAMOUS "BILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT" FOR THE IRON MOUNTAIN MINES CLEANUP.

    and

    THE WRONGFUL TAKING CLAIMS, BILL OF ATTAINDER, CRIME OF INFAMY, EXPOST FACTO, VOID FOR VAGUENESS AND ILLEGITIMATE ANIMUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL REPUGNANT LAW LITIGATION; TREBLE DAMAGES FORM OF STATUTE.

    and

    THE SEPARATION OF FEDERAL STATE SPONSORED RELIGION CLAIM WITH NULLIFICATION, ABOLITION, AND EMANCIPATION LITIGATION; NONUPLED DAMAGES FORM OF STATUTE.

    and

    137 THOUSAND ACRES OF LAND FOR CERTAIN CALIFORNIA EMPIRE TERRITORY WITH PUEBLO, PROPRIETARY,  NATIVE, RIPARIAN, AND PRIOR APPROPRIATION WATER RIGHTS IN EMINENT DOMAIN; DEMOCRAT MOUNTAIN, MATHESON TO CROWN POINT, RELOCATION OF THE THISTLE LODE, RELOCATION OF THE PERSHING LODE, REMISSION OF THE  CHAPPIE/SHASTA OHVA AND THE KESWICK AND THE BATTLE CREEK WATERSHEDS; HIGHEST AND BEST USE EXPLAINED.

    and

    ONE MILLION ACRES OF NEW LAND & FRESH WATER BY EMINENT DOMAIN PRE-EMPTION FOR THE LAGO BUENAVENTURA & THE ISTHMUS OF ARMAN (OLD BAY-DELTA/ CAL-FED) IN THE CALIFORNIA EMPIRE TERRITORY WITH AN ESTIMATED VALUE OF $365 BILLION DOLLARS.


    (4) A statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the location of the property ( SHASTA COUNTY , CALIFORNIA )

    (5) A statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute; or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff; or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure.

    THERE IS NO SEIZURE ON THE PROPERTY FOR A TAX, ASSESSMENT, OR FINE.

    THE PROPERTY IS BY STATUTE EXEMPT FROM SUCH SEIZURE.

    (c) The requirements of subdivision (b) may be satisfied by one or more affidavits filed with the application.

    512.020. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no writ shall be issued under this chapter except after a hearing on a noticed motion.

    (b) A writ of possession may be issued ex parte pursuant to this subdivision if probable cause appears that any of the following conditions exists:

    (1) The defendant gained possession of the property by feloniously taking the property from the plaintiff. TRUE!

    (iii) The ex parte issuance of a writ of possession is necessary to protect the property. TRUE!

    512.070. If a writ of possession is issued, the court may also issue an order directing the defendant to transfer possession of the property to the plaintiff. Such order shall contain a notice to the defendant that failure to turn over possession of such property to plaintiff may subject the defendant to being held in contempt of court.

    512.080. The writ of possession shall meet all of the following requirements:

    (a) Be directed to the levying officer within whose jurisdiction the property is located.

    (b) Describe the specific property to be seized.

    (c) Specify any private place that may be entered to take possession of the property or some part of it.

    (d) Direct the levying officer to levy on the property pursuant to Section 514. 010 if found and to retain it in custody until released or sold pursuant to Section 514.030.

    (e) Inform the defendant of the right to object to the plaintiff's undertaking, a copy of which shall be attached to the writ, or to obtain redelivery of the property by filing an undertaking as prescribed by Section 515.020.

    Written notice to terminate & deliver possession. August 17 2009

    Almost 30 years after Congress instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require facility owners and operators to set aside funds for the clean-up of property that may be contaminated by hazardous substances, a federal court in California has held that the EPA may take additional time to draft and issue the regulations. The court held that while Congress required the EPA to issue such regulations, it granted the EPA some discretion in when to do so. The EPA has stated that it intends to require financial assurance for hardrock mining facilities first, and will also assess the need to regulate hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste recyclers, metal finishers, wood treatment facilities and chemical manufacturers.

    The regulations at issue are required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 1980 (commonly known as 'Superfund'). Superfund is commonly said to have been motivated by the notorious hazardous waste contamination discovered buried at Love Canal , New York .

    Section 108 of Superfund requires the EPA to issue financial assurance requirements for certain types of facility based on the risk of injury from hazardous substances in operations at those facilities. Once issued, the regulations would require the operator of a covered facility to set aside funds or otherwise make funds available for a possible future clean-up of hazardous substances at the property. Without such funds, costly clean-ups may force potentially responsible parties into bankruptcy, leaving taxpayers with the bill, or lengthy litigation may ensue over the allocation of costs. The EPA was first required to publish a notice of those classes of facility which presented the highest level of risk of injury by December 11 1980. (1)

    The December 1980 deadline passed without the EPA publishing the required notice. The statutory requirement languished until in recent years it received renewed attention. The EPA was sued in federal court in 2008 on the theory that it had failed to perform a non-discretionary duty under Superfund. The suit was brought under Superfund's citizen suit provision, which allows a private litigant to force non-discretionary agency action. In February 2009 the Northern District of California held in Sierra Club v Johnson (2) that the EPA had a mandatory duty to publish classes of facility which presented the greatest risk of injury. In July 2009 the EPA published a notice of these classes in the Federal Register, pursuant to the court's order. (3) In its notice the agency determined that it would promulgate the first financial assurance requirements for hardrock mining facilities, based on the extent of contamination from such facilities and the high costs of clean-up.

    The EPA did not limit its inquiry to hardrock mining; the notice also stated that the EPA will examine the need for financial assurance at the following types of facility: "hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste recyclers, metal finishers, wood treatment facilities, and chemical manufacturers." However, the Northern District of California held that the EPA is under no set deadline to issue the financial assurance requirements. Instead, the court held that:

    "although Section 108(b) requires EPA to promulgate financial responsibility regulations and incrementally impose such requirements, Section 108(b) provides EPA with discretion as to when to promulgate such regulations. Unlike the duty to publish notice of classes, Section 108(b) does not include a date-certain deadline for the promulgation of financial responsibility regulations." (5)

    In so doing, the court rejected "a bright line rule that only duties with date-certain deadlines are non-discretionary for the purpose of citizen suits under [Superfund]" and instead looked to legislative history to help determine whether the EPA's duty to promulgate regulations by a particular date was non-discretionary. To maintain a claim that the EPA has "unreasonably delayed" its duties under Superfund, the court held that plaintiffs may continue to press their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, but must do so in another court. The court stated that:

    "plaintiffs may bring an [Administrative Procedure Act] claim in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit alleging EPA unreasonably delayed in promulgating the financial responsibility regulations required under Section 108(b)."

    Unless and until such a litigation is brought and decided, the timeline for financial assurance requirements under Superfund will remain unclear.

    unrecovered past response costs for the EPA's unnecessary, unconstitutional, and improper activities. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL

    EPA raises the stakes
    Houston Chronicle
    By MATTHEW TRESAUGUE The EPA has threatened dozens of Texas refiners and chemical and plastic makers with penalties if they don't begin taking steps to ...
    See all stories on this topic »

    COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Case No. 104079

    Superior Court of California, County of Shasta

    Petitioners request leave of the court to file a complaint in intervention in the above captioned matter, where California has maintained a lien for a fine resulting from enforcement of federal discharge standards promulgated under the CWA.

    WE NEED TO KNOW THE LINE ON WHICH TO DRAW THE LIMITS OF STATE POWERS, WE WILL DETERMINE EXACTLY HOW TO DO SO HERE!

    Therefore, to “establish certain limits not to be transcended by the government.”

    Given [mining's] unique political history, as well as the breadth of the authority that the [EPA] has asserted, the Court is obliged to defer not to the agency's expansive construction of the statute or to Congress' inconsistent judgment, but to prior rights and patent title to deny the [EPA] this power.…

    “Full relief and restore possession to the party entitled thereto. a general verdict for plaintiff on a complaint which alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of certain described property, which is unlawfully detained by the defendant, and the possession of which the plaintiff prays to recover, is held by the United States Supreme Court to be sufficient.”

    Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States , to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America ." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

    It is not material whether the Libel be true, or whether the party against whom the Libel is made, be of good or ill fame; for in a settled state of Government the party grieved ought to complain for every injury done him in an ordinary course of Law, and not by any means to revenge himself, either by the odious course of libeling, or otherwise: He who kills a man with his sword in fight is a great offender, but he is a greater offender who poisons another, for in the one case he who is the party assaulted may defend himself, and knows his adversary, and may endeavour to prevent it: But poisoning may be done so secret that none can defend himself against it; for which cause the offence is the more grievous, because the offender cannot easily be known; And of such nature is libeling, it is secret, and robs a man of his good name, which ought to be more precious to him than his life, & difficillimum est invenire authorem infamatoriae scripturae; because that when the offender is known, he ought to be severely punished. Every infamous libel, aut est in scriptis, aut sine scriptis; a scandalous libel, in scriptis; when an epigram, rhyme, or other writing is composed or published to the scandal or contumely of another, by which his fame and dignity may be prejudiced. And such libel may be published, 1. Verbis aut cantilenis: As where it is maliciously repeated or sung in the presence of others. 2. Traditione, 7 when the libel or copy of it is delivered over to scandalize the party. Famosus libellus sine scriptis 8 may be, 1. Picturis, as to paint the party in any shameful and ignominious manner. 2. Signis, as to fix a Gallows, or other reproachful and ignominious signs at the parties door or elsewhere. That if anyone finds a Libel (and would keep himself out of danger), if it be composed against a private man, the finder either may burn it, or presently deliver it to a Magistrate: But if it concerns a Magistrate, or other public person, the finder of it ought presently to deliver it to a Magistrate, to the Intent that by examination and industry, the Author may be found out and punished. And libelling and calumniation is an offence against the Law of God. For Leviticus 17, Non facias calumniam proximo. Exod. 22 ver. 28, Principi populi tui non maledices. Ecclesiastes 10, In cogitatione |[126 a] tua ne detrahas Regi, nec in secreto cubiculi tui diviti maledices, quia volucres coeli portabunt vocem tuam, & qui habet pennas annuntiabit sententiam. Psal. 69. 13, Adversus me loquebantur qui sedebant in porta, & in me psallebant qui bibebant vinum. Job. 30. ver. 7. & 8, Filii stultorum & ignobilium, & in terra penitus non parentes, nunc in eorum canticum versus sum, & factus sum eis in proverbium. 9 And it was observed, that Job, who was the Mirrour of patience, as appeareth by his words, became quodammodo impatient when Libels were made of him; And therefore it appeareth of what force they are to provoke impatience and contention. And there are certain marks by which a Libeller may be known: Quia tria sequuntur defamatorem famosum: 11 1. Pravitatis incrementum, increase of lewdness: 2. Bursae decrementum, decrease of money, and beggary: 3. Conscientiae detrimentum, shipwreck of conscience.”

    Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I

    The Most Unwanted 


    PLAINTIFF HUTCHENS APPOINTMENT QUO WARRANTO AS PROJECT MANAGER

    REMISSION, REVERSION, AND DETINUE SUR BAILMENT, TREBLE DAMAGES

    ANY AND ALL FURTHER RELIEF THAT THE COURT FINDS JUST AND PROPER AND CONSISTENT WITH FINAL ADJUDICATION OF ALL MATTERS IN THIS CASE.

     

    Date: November 19, 2009 _under oath, Signature:

    s/John F. Hutchens, grantees agent, tenant-in–chief, administrator; Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.

    WARDEN OF THE FORESTS AND STANNARIES FOR IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC.

     

    Verification affidavit:

    I, John F. Hutchens, hereby state that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to matters which are herein stated on my own information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

    Affirmed this day: November 19, 2009

    Grantee's agent of record; Signature:

    s/ John F. Hutchens, authorized agent for T.W. Arman & Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.

    Benefits for the Community

    Working together to identify the issues affecting the future of emergency management will provide the emergency management community a holistic view of key future issues and needs. The network of participants will also benefit by learning from and interacting with a broader set of professionals who have similar interests and/or distinct expertise.  Additionally, the SFI provides an opportunity to further align the emergency management community's disparate missions and activities.

    EPA has paid no rent for all the years of its experiment at Iron Mountain Mine.

    EPA Regulations: A Moratorium on Industrial Construction?

    Central Banking 101: What the Fed Can Do as "Lender of Last Resort"

    Asarco tries to revive its own EPA records lawsuit

    Regional water utilities sue EPA (LAWSUIT)

    Critical Infrastructure

    Protecting and ensuring the continuity of the critical infrastructure of the United States are essential to the nation's security, public health and safety, economic vitality, and way of life.

    • Critical infrastructure are the assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, public health or safety, or any combination thereof.

    Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7) established U.S. policy for enhancing critical infrastructure protection by establishing a framework for the Department's partners to identify, prioritize, and protect the critical infrastructure in their communities from terrorist attacks. The directive identified 17 critical infrastructure sectors and, for each sector, designated a federal Sector-Specific Agency (SSA) to lead protection and resilience-building programs and activities. HSPD-7 allows for the Department of Homeland Security to identify gaps in existing critical infrastructure sectors and establish new sectors to fill these gaps. Under this authority, the Department established an 18th sector, the Critical Manufacturing Sector, in March 2008.

    Each of the Sector-Specific Agencies developed a Sector-Specific Plan that details the application of the NIPP framework to the unique characteristics of their sector.

    "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing” – Thomas Jefferson State of Jefferson

    In October of 1941, counties in southern Oregon and Northern California were upset with the condition of roads throughout their counties. Their claims were that lack of proper roads and bridges were hindering the economic development of the area, particularly by making it difficult to gain access to and transport out the areas two biggest natural resources: copper and timber. The roads were oiled dirt roads that after rain or snow became impassable. The “greatest copper belt in the far West” was located there and the roads made it extremely difficult to mine and transport the copper ore. The counties were Curry, Josephine, Jackson, and Klamath, Oregon and Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Modoc, California.

    Gilbert Gable, then mayor of Port Orford, Oregon proposed that the seven counties should secede from their respective states and form a new state, which would at the time have been the 49th state in the union. This concept found sympathy throughout the area and on November 17th 1941, county representatives met in Yreka, CA and voted to allocate $100 to researching the formation of the 49th state. On November 19th, 1941, the Siskiyou Daily News offered up a $2 prize for the best name submitted for the new state and the name Jefferson, after Thomas Jefferson, was eventually chosen. Yreka was chosen as the capital.

    After that, by November 27th, 1941 citizens of the State of Jefferson began stopping traffic on Highway 99, brandishing hunting rifles and handing out copes of their Proclamation of Independence:

      You are now entering Jefferson, the 49th State of the Union.

      Jefferson is now in patriotic rebellion against the States of California and Oregon.

      This State has seceded from California and Oregon this Thursday, November 27, 1941.

      Patriotic Jeffersonians intend to secede each Thursday until further notice.

      For the next hundred miles as you drive along Highway 99, you are traveling parallel to the greatest copper belt in the far West, seventy-five miles west of here.

      The United States government needs this vital mineral. But gross neglect by California and Oregon deprives us of necessary roads to bring out the copper ore.

      If you don't believe this, drive down the Klamath River Highway and see for yourself. Take your chains, shovel and dynamite.

      Until California and Oregon build a road into the copper country, Jefferson, as a defense minded state, will be forced to rebel each Thursday and act as a separate State.

      (Please carry this proclamation with you and pass them out on your way.)

      State of Jefferson Citizens Committee
      Temporary State Capitol, Yreka

    This act, of course, immediately began making headlines, and the San Francisco Chronicle even sent out a young reporter by the name of Stanton Delaplane, to cover the secession. He even earned a Pulitzer Prize for the series of articles he wrote. By December 4th, with the state seceding every Thursday until recognized, Judge John C. Childs was inaugurated as the governor of the new state and followed by a torchlight parade led by two bears, Scratchy and Itchy.

    A State Seal was created which consisted of a gold pan on which two X's were painted on the bottom. The two X's symbolized how the new state was double crossed by both Salem, Oregon and Sacramento, California. This seal is on the state flag.

    The new state was going to have no sales tax, no property tax, and no income tax. Red light districts and gambling halls would be opened and the revenue from these would fund the state.

    Newsreels of the events occurring in Jefferson were to air nationally on December 8th, but on December 7th Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese thus throwing the United States into World War II and ending the secession of the California and Oregon counties that comprised the new state. The newsreels were shelved and both states fixed the roads and bridges in order to access the timber and copper required for the war effort. The secession movement died out.

    But the concept of the State of Jefferson carried on. Today the idea of Jefferson still exists and has grown to include several other counties including Coos, Douglas, and Lake in Oregon and Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen, Mendocino, Tehama, Glenn, Butte, and Plumas in California. If this area were to become its own state, it would have over 423,000 people, but would still have the least population of any other US state. The original idea behind the State of Jefferson has been commemorate by the State of Jefferson Scenic Byway that runs between Yreka, CA and O'Brien, OR. Near the California / Oregon border there's a turn out spot with three informational displays talking about the area.

    Ultimately the 1941 attempt of seceding was very much unlike any other secession movement. There was no violence, but instead joy and merriment. Much of the actions of the state were viewed as almost a joke by the rest of the country. Most people who were stopped by barricades and given the Proclamation of Independence laughed at the entire affair, thinking that the locals were just playing a big prank. Ironically, the method in which the secession occurred actually worked. The areas issues and problems were brought to light to the entire country and who knows, had it not been for the atrocity of World War II, Jefferson very well may have become the 49th state in the union.

    It is important to note that actually seceding would have been rather difficult for the new state as under the Constitution, it was required that they had both the approval of the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of both Oregon and California.

  • Environmentalism as Religion

    While people have worshipped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.

    By PAUL H. RUBIN

    Many observers have made the point that environmentalism is eerily close to a religious belief system, since it includes creation stories and ideas of original sin. But there is another sense in which environmentalism is becoming more and more like a religion: It provides its adherents with an identity.

    Scientists are understandably uninterested in religious stories because they do not meet the basic criterion for science: They cannot be tested. God may or may not have created the world—there is no way of knowing, although we do know that the biblical creation story is scientifically incorrect. Since we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, science can't help us answer questions about the truth of religion as a method of understanding the world.

    But scientists, particularly evolutionary psychologists, have identified another function of religion in addition to its function of explaining the world. Religion often supplements or replaces the tribalism that is an innate part of our evolved nature.

    Original religions were tribal rather than universal. Each tribe had its own god or gods, and the success of the tribe was evidence that their god was stronger than others.

    But modern religions have largely replaced tribal gods with universal gods and allowed unrelated individuals from outside the tribe to join. Identification with a religion has replaced identification with a tribe. While many decry religious wars, modern religion has probably net reduced human conflict because there are fewer tribal wars. (Anthropologists have shown that tribal wars are even more lethal per capita than modern wars.)

    It is this identity-creating function that environmentalism provides. As the world becomes less religious, people can define themselves as being Green rather than being Christian or Jewish.

    Consider some of the ways in which environmental behaviors echo religious behaviors and thus provide meaningful rituals for Greens:

    • There is a holy day—Earth Day.

    • There are food taboos. Instead of eating fish on Friday, or avoiding pork, Greens now eat organic foods and many are moving towards eating only locally grown foods.

    • There is no prayer, but there are self-sacrificing rituals that are not particularly useful, such as recycling. Recycling paper to save trees, for example, makes no sense since the effect will be to reduce the number of trees planted in the long run.

    • Belief systems are embraced with no logical basis. For example, environmentalists almost universally believe in the dangers of global warming but also reject the best solution to the problem, which is nuclear power. These two beliefs co-exist based on faith, not reason.

    • There are no temples, but there are sacred structures. As I walk around the Emory campus, I am continually confronted with recycling bins, and instead of one trash can I am faced with several for different sorts of trash. Universities are centers of the environmental religion, and such structures are increasingly common. While people have worshipped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.

    • Environmentalism is a proselytizing religion. Skeptics are not merely people unconvinced by the evidence: They are treated as evil sinners. I probably would not write this article if I did not have tenure.

    Some conservatives spend their time criticizing the way Darwin is taught in schools. This is pointless and probably counterproductive. These same efforts should be spent on making sure that the schools only teach those aspects of environmentalism that pass rigorous scientific testing. By making the point that Greenism is a religion, perhaps we environmental skeptics can enlist the First Amendment on our side.

    Mr. Rubin is a professor of economics at Emory University. He is the author of "Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom" (Rutgers University Press, 2002).

    Moyers on America . Is God Green? Religion and the Environment | PBS

    How does your faith or religion or spirituality affect your perspective of environmentalism or creation care? blog. How does your faith or religion or ...
    www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/.../ environment .html - Cached - Similar

    New religion of environmentalism | ajc.com

    Apr 22, 2010 ... Thursday was the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, which was celebrated this year, according to the Earth Day Network, by more than a billion ...
    www.ajc.com/.../new- religion -of- environmentalism -484726.html - Cached
  • Asymmetrical Jurisdiction over Federal Questions in the Supreme Court

    Most people — and most lawyers — would assume that the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review any determination of federal law by an inferior court, whether state or federal. And there was a time when it was so. But the Court’s recent justiciability decisions have created a perplexing jurisdictional gap — a set of cases in which state court determinations of federal law are immune from the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The Court has thus surrendered a portion of its supremacy and thereby undermined the policies that underlie its appellate jurisdiction.

    In an effort to address this problem, the Court has created a strange exception to its justiciability doctrines that turns the rationale for appellate jurisdiction on its head. The Court has held that it may exercise appellate jurisdiction over otherwise nonjusticiable cases only where the state court has upheld the claimed federal right. As a matter of history and of doctrine, however, this is precisely the set of cases where Supreme Court review is least needed. A number of scholars have proposed attacking the problem by requiring state courts hearing federal questions of law to apply federal justiciability doctrines. But this view is difficult to justify doctrinally, and, paradoxically, it risks undermining federal interests by preventing state court enforcement of federal rights and policies in a broad swath of cases.




    Mr. Justice Ross in Lux v. Haggin

     

    “The common-law doctrine of riparian rights being wholly inconsistent with and antagonistic to that of appropriation, it necessarily follows that when the federal and State governments assented to, recognized, and confirmed, with respect to the waters upon the public lands, the doctrine of appropriation, they in effect declared that that of riparian rights did not apply. The doctrine of appropriation thus established was not a temporary thing, to exist only until son one should obtain a certificate or patent for forty acres or some other subdivision of the public lands bordering on the river or other stream of water. It was, as has been said, born of the necessities of the country and its people, was the growth of years, permanent in its character, and fixed the status of water rights with respect to public lands. No valid reason exists why the government, which owned both the land and the water, could not do this. It thus became, in my judgment, as much a part of the law of the land as if it had been written in terms in the statute-books, and in connection with which all grants of public land from either government should be read. In light of the history of the State, and of the legislation and decisions with respect to the subject in question, is it possible that either government, state of national, ever contemplated that a conveyance of forty acres at the lower end  of a stream that flows for miles should put an end to subsequent appropriation of the waters of the stream upon the public lands above, and entitle the grantee of the forty acres to the undiminished flow of the water in its natural channel from its source to its mouth? It seems entirely clear that nothing of the kind was ever intended or contemplated. Of course, the doctrine of appropriation, as contradistinguished from that of riparian rights, was not intended to, and indeed could not, affect the rights of those persons ding under grants from the Spanish or Mexican governments; first, because the doctrine is expressly limited to the waters upon what are known as public lands; and secondly, because the rights of such grantees are protected by treaty with Mexico and the good faith of the government.

                “It is the rights of such riparian proprietors as those that are unaffected by the doctrine of appropriation, and those are the riparian rights that are excepted from the operations of the provisions of the Civil Code in relation to ‘water rights’ by section 1422 of that code, which reads: ‘The rights of riparian proprietors are not affected by the provisions of this title.’ That code, as well as the other codes of California, went into effect the first day of January, 1873. The appellants contend, and the prevailing opinion holds, that by the section of the Civil Code just quoted, the legislature of the State declared that the common-law doctrine of riparian rights should apply to all the streams of the State. It seams very clear to me that this is not so, for many reasons. Leaving out of consideration the question whether it lay in the power of the State to nullify the doctrine of appropriation established by the United States with respect to the waters flowing over their lands,-established too, in pursuance of the policy of the State itself had previously adopted, and for the advancement of the interest of the people of the State, I find nothing in the Civil Code, or in any of the other codes, to indicate any intention on the part of the legislature of the State to return to the doctrine of riparian rights with respect to the waters upon the public lands. On the contrary, the code enacts in statutory form, in language as clear as language can be made, the theretofore prevailing law of appropriation. Title of the Civil Code is headed ‘Water Rights.’ The first section of that title-section 1410 of the code-declares: ‘The right to the use of running water, flowing in a river or stream, or down a canyon or ravine, may be acquired by appropriation.’

                “Can anything be clearer? By the common law, the water flowing in a river or stream, or down a canyon or ravine, could not be acquired by appropriation, and must continue to flow in its natural channel undiminished in quantity and unaffected in quality. Could there be any clearer declaration of the fact that the common-law doctrine of riparian rights should no apply to the streams of this State than is found in this declaration of the statute that the waters of such streams may be acquired by appropriation?”

     

    “Use cannot create and disuse cannot destroy or suspend it.” Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 391

     

    In the case of Stowe v. Johnson, 26 Pac. Rep. 290, the Supreme Court of Utah said:

     

                “Riparian rights have never been recognized in this territory, or in any State of territory where irrigation is necessary; for the appropriation of water for the purpose of irrigation is entirely and unavoidably in conflict with the common-law doctrine of riparian proprietorship. If that had been recognized and applied in this territory, it would still be a desert; for a man owning ten acres or more, near its mouth, could prevent the settlement of all the land above him. For at the common law the riparian proprietor is entitled to have the water flow in quantity and quality past his land as it was wont to do when  he acquired title thereto, and this right is utterly irreconcilable with the use of water for irrigation. The legislature of this territory has always ignored this claim of riparian proprietors, and the practice and usages of the inhabitants have never considered it applicable, and have never regarded it.”

     

    The Supreme Court of California:

     

                “We therefore hold it to be the law, and we think it to be a moderate and just exposition thereof, that one may, by appropriate works, develop and secure to useful purposes the sub-surface flow of our streams, and become, with due regard to the rights of others in the stream, a legal appropriator of waters by so doing. That plaintiff thus was, at the time of the institution of its action, an appropriator, permits of no doubt, but its appropriation was legal only far as its taking did not imperil or impair the rights of others superior to its own. One may not, of course, tunnel into the bed of such a stream, or dam its underground flow, and by such means draw away either subterranean or surface waters the rightful use of which has been secured by others. If, upon the other hand, one can, by development, obtain subterranean waters without injury to the superior rights of others, clearly he should be permitted to do so.” Vineland Irr. District v. Azusa Irr. Co., 126 Cal. 486

     

     For What Purposes Water May Be Appropriated.

     The only statutory limitation of the purpose for which water may be appropriated is that it “must be for some useful or beneficial purpose.”

     

                Civil Code, Section 1411.

                In the early history of the State, the most important use made of water appropriate, aside from domestic use, was for the operation of mines. And this use still continues in some localities. But at the present time, by far most of the water used is for the irrigation of trees and growing crops. It may be appropriated, however, for mining milling, irrigation, agricultural, horticultural, domestic, or any other useful or beneficial purpose. The appropriation, to be valid, must be made with the intention of using it for some such purpose.


    Congressman Tipton Floor Statement on Plan to Expand Clean, Renewable Hydropower

    Uploaded by on Mar 6, 2012

    H.R. 2842: The Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2012. Bipartisan plan would expand production of clean, renewable hydropower.

     

    The federal reserved water rights doctrine was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 in Winters v. United States. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court found that an Indian reservation (in the case, the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation) may reserve water for future use in an amount necessary to fulfill the purpose of the reservation, with a priority dating from the treaty that established the reservation. This doctrine establishes that when the federal government created Indian reservations, water rights were reserved in sufficient quantity to meet the purposes for which the reservation was established.

    The Winters Doctrine was a land mark case for it was the first time the federal government deviated from the established convention that water law was purely a state matter. In 1952, however, Congress passed the McCarren Amendment which returns substantial power to the states with respect to the management of water. The McCarren Amendment requires that the federal government waive its sovereign immunity in cases involving the general adjudication of water rights. Prior to this legislation, the federal government had reserved the right not to be included in general basin adjudications conducted under state law. The McCarren Amendment, however, recognized that the exemption of the federal government from these adjudications would undermine the state’s water allocation systems. Therefore, any federal agency claiming a federal reserved water right must participate in the state’s adjudication process.

    Federal court decisions since the McCarren Amendment have further limited federal reserved water rights. In the 1976 Cappaert v. United States of America, the Court ruled that a federal reserved water right quantification was limited to the primary purpose of the reservation and only to the minimum amount of water necessary to fulfill the purpose of the reservation. In 1978, in United State of America v. New Mexico, the Court found that the reserved water rights on national forests apply only to the preservation of timber resources and water flows. All other claimed needs were to be considered secondary purposes and the federal government would have to obtain rights like any other appropriator under state law. These rulings have narrowed the scope of the Winter’s Doctrine. Federal reserved water rights may only include quantities of water necessary to meet the primary purpose for which the reservation was established ("primary purpose" requirement) and only in the minimum amounts necessary to meet those purposes ("minimal needs" requirement).

    The Winters Doctrine originally applied to Indian reservations but has since been applied to other federal land reservations. A variety of court decisions have extended the reserved right doctrine to encompass not only Indian reservations, but water uses in national forests, national parks and monuments, and military reservations. In the 1963 Arizona v. California decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found the Winters Doctrine equally applicable to other federal establishments and affirmed an allocation of water for non-Indian federal uses.

    Today, federal reserved water rights can be asserted on most lands managed by the federal government. Reserved rights are, for the most part, immune from state water laws and therefore, are not subject to diversion and beneficial use requirements and cannot be lost by non-use. The federal government, however, is required to submit all reserved water rights claims to the state’s adjudication process, and are limited by the "primary purpose" and "minimal needs" requirements. In addition, federal reserved water rights are nontransferable. By law, these rights can only exist on lands owned by the federal government. If a land transfer occurs, any existing federal reserved water right becomes invalid.

    Because federal reserved water rights must meet the "primary purpose" and "minimal needs" requirements, it is important to quantify any federal reserved right. Generally, quantifying a federal reserved right requires specifying the amount of water claimed, the water sources, the primary purpose of the reservation for which the water is needed, and the priority date of the claim (the date the reservation was created). The most contentious issue is often the amount of water claimed. The quantification of a federal reserved water right often involves the sophisticated integration of ecological models with surface and ground water flow models. The data necessary for accurate modeling is often unavailable or needs to be collected, and there are often discrepancies over appropriate modeling techniques and the interpretation of results. As a result, much of the current controversy is not centered around asserting a federal reserved right, but in the quantification of that assertion.

    Federal Reserved Water Rights and the Bureau of Land Management:

    The following types of federal reserved water rights can occur on BLM lands: public water holes and springs; mineral hot springs; stock driveways; public oil shale withdrawals; wild and scenic rivers; national monuments and conservation areas; and wilderness areas.

    Probably the most common federal reserved water right for BLM is for public water holes and springs. These rights were created by executive orders called Public Water Reserves (PWR). Until 1926, PWRs were created on an ad hoc and sight specific basis. Federal agencies would identify the springs they wanted reserved and these would be incorporated (by executive order) into a chronologically numbered Public Water Reserve. Therefore PWRs with early numbers refer to sight specific reservations. In 1926, a cart blank Public Water Reserve was created through an executive order by President Coolidge entitled "Public Water Reserves No. 107". PWR 107 ended the sight specific system of reserving springs and water holes. The purpose of PWR 107 was to reserve natural springs and water holes yielding amounts in excess of homesteading requirements. This order states that "legal subdivision(s) of public land surveys which is vacant, unappropriated, unreserved public land and contains a spring or water hole, and all land within one quarter of a mile of every spring or water be reserved for public use". There was no intent to reserve the entire yield of each public spring or water hole, rather reserved water was limited to domestic human consumption and stockwatering. All waters from these sources in excess of the minimum amount necessary for these limited public watering purposes is available for appropriation through state water law. To date, many of these Public Water Reserves have not been registered with the state and/or are not adjudicated.

    Wilderness designations can be considered the most restrictive of the federal land management designation. Reserved water rights are set aside pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC section 1131). Development within wilderness areas is restricted, and these restrictions extend to the development of water supplies. The Wilderness Act reserves the amount of water within the wilderness area necessary to preserve and protect the specific values responsible for designation of the area, and to provide for public enjoyment of these values. Only the minimum amount of water necessary to fulfill the primary purpose of the reservation may be asserted as a reserved right.

    Wild and Scenic River designations are derived from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 USC section 1271). This legislation states that "certain selected rivers of the nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations". Designation of a stream or river segment as "wild and scenic" prevents construction of flow modifying structures and other facilities on the selected stretch. The area of restricted development can vary, but generally includes at least the area within one-quarter mile of the ordinary high water mark on either side of the river. The act also reserved to the United States the amount of unappropriated water flowing through the public lands necessary to preserve and protect in free-flowing condition the specific values which were responsible for designation of the watercourse. The act, however, does not automatically reserve the entire unappropriated flow of the river.

    Stock driveways are reserved pursuant to Section 10 of the Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916. This act was repealed by Section 704(a) of the FLPMA, but reservations made prior to 1976 remain in effect until changed in accordance with the act. This act authorized the withdrawal of public lands containing water holds needed for watering stock during their movement to seasonal ranges or shipping points. The priority date for each water hole is the date on which the application for the land withdrawal was approved.

    Mineral hot springs with medicinal or curative properties located on vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved public lands constitute federal reserved water rights. The BLM is authorized to lease these springs for public purposes.

    Public oil shale withdrawals reserve that quantity of water which can be used for investigating, examining, and classifying oil shale, but only those waters needed for assessment of the oil shale resources. Federal reserved rights do not apply to waters necessary to develop the oil shale. Waters for development must come through state law and allocation procedures.

    Executive Order 11001, SEC. 3. Health Functions.
    With respect to emergency health services, as defined above, and in consonance with national civil defense plans, programs and operations of the Department of Defense under Executive Order No. 10952, the Secretary shall: (a) National program guidance. Develop plans and issue guidance designed to utilize to the maximum extent the existing civilian health resources of the Federal Government, and with their active participation, assistance, and consent, the health resources of the States and local political subdivisions thereof, and of other civilian organizations and agencies concerned with the health of the population, under all conditions of national emergency. Maintain relations with health professions and institutions to foster mutual understanding of Federal emergency plans which affect health activities.

    (b) Professional training. Develop and direct a nationwide program to train health manpower both in professional and technical occupational content and in civil defense knowledge and skills. Develop and distribute health education material for inclusion in the curricula of schools, colleges, professional schools, government schools, and other educational facilities throughout the United States. Develop and distribute civil defense information relative to health services to States, voluntary agencies and professional groups.

    (c) Emergency water supply. Prepare plans to assure the provision of usable public water supplies for essential community uses in an emergency. This shall include inventorying existing supplies, developing new sources, performing research, setting standards, and planning distribution. In carrying on these activities, the Department shall have primary responsibility but will make maximum use of the resources and competence of State and local authorities and of other Federal agencies.

    California water bill

    Although it's provoking more skepticism over its cost and feasibility, the current salmon-restoration plan also is part of a court settlement that could be difficult to unravel unless environmentalists agree

    "That's a non-starter," Costa said of the House provision.

    Other House provisions, Costa suggested, could prove much more palatable.


    ON THE WEB

    House water and power subcommittee hearing on California water bill

    MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

    House OKs California water bill that favors farmers

    California water bill now flows to uncertain future in Senate

    San Joaquin River restoration likely a sore point in dry season

    EPA Readies 'Connectivity' Study To Bolster Clean Water Jurisdiction Policy

    EPA is readying an analysis of existing studies showing how navigable waters may be connected to "headwater streams" and isolated wetlands, an effort that could help the agency justify its forthcoming policy clarifying when the Clean Water Act (CWA) grants regulators jurisdiction over such marginal waterbodies.

    EPA Advances Controversial Guide Clarifying Scope Of Clean Water Act

    EPA is advancing its controversial guidance clarifying when isolated wetlands, intermittent streams and other marginal waters are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA), despite strong calls from industry, GOP lawmakers and others for the agency to scrap the measure.

    EPA Unveils Scientific Integrity Policy But Lacks Implementation Resources

    EPA has released the final version of its scientific integrity policy as required by the White House, but the agency has not crafted an explanation of how the new document - intended to protect agency science and scientists from political interference - will be implemented or whether key officials are available to implement it.

    EPA Inspector General Vows Increased Focus On Efforts To Protect Health

    EPA Inspector General (IG) Arthur Elkins, Jr. is vowing an increased focused on evaluations and other efforts aimed at protecting public health and the environment in the coming year, while touting his office's accomplishments and saying the IG's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal is adequate to avoid cuts in discretionary evaluations.

    Without evidence of legally significant contamination, the government was unjustified in filing suit to gain access to private property for a response action under the Superfund law, according to a ruling by a federal district court. [ U.S. v. Tarkowski , No. 99 C 7308, N.D.Ill., Nov. 26, 2001] Consequently, the victorious property owner can recoup his litigation costs.

    John Tarkowski is an elderly, indigent resident of a 16-acre tract situated in Wauconda, Ill., an affluent community northwest of Chicago. Until he was disabled, he worked as a building contractor. Using surplus materials, he built his house many years ago when the area was a rural backwater. His yard is filled with what his upscale neighbors regard as junk — wooden pallets, tires, empty drums, batteries, paint cans and other construction materials.

    For more than 20 years, Tarkowski's neighbors had harassed him and had complained to environmental officials. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspected his property in 1979, but concluded that it did not pose any environmental hazard. In 1995, EPA rated the property zero on its hazard rating scale. Two years later, state authorities took soil and water samples and found no noteworthy contamination.

    In 1998, EPA took additional samples of soil and materials on his property, finding only trace amounts of contaminants that, in fact, were comparable to levels found in surrounding properties and did not indicate any release. Nevertheless, EPA filed suit against Tarkowski alleging an “imminent and substantial endangerment to … public health … and the environment” based on an actual or possible release of hazardous substances. EPA sought an order to gain access to the site for investigative and remedial purposes. After hearing the evidence, a federal district court dismissed EPA's suit. An appeals court upheld the ruling, castigating the agency's conduct and judgment. [248 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2001)]

    Tarkowski petitioned the district court for an award of attorney's fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The law allows certain parties who prevail against the federal government in a lawsuit to recover their litigation expenses unless the government's position was reasonable.

    Finding EPA's stance totally unjustified, the district judge said, “There was no evidence of legally significant contamination and … the government's claim of an imminent and substantial endangerment was factually baseless.” EPA cannot reasonably insist that “if a hazard was found, no matter how small, it had the right to do whatever it wanted on Tarkowski's property,” he added.

    “It is to protect citizens against … overreaching actions by government bureaucrats that courts are empowered to prevent arbitrary and capricious interference with property rights,” said the judge, again citing the appeals court. “The government's position … ‘would give the agency in effect an unlimited power of warrantless searches and seizures [which the Superfund law] does not contemplate and the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly forbid,'” he concluded with yet another reference to the appellate opinion.


    AIG DOESN'T OWN OR RENT
    ‘we just gotta get a return on our investment—we really don’t care about your company.’”

    Member Company of American International Group, Inc

    AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY

    A Capital Stock Insurance Company (herein called the Company)

    175 Water Street, Twelfth Floor

    New York, New York 10038

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE MANUSCRIPT

    CLEAN-UP COST CAP POLLUTION LEGAL LIABILITY SELECT® INSURANCE

    DECLARATIONS

    SOME OF THE COVERAGES CONTAIN CLAIMS-MADE AND REPORTED REQUIREMENTS

    PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.

    POLICY NUMBER: EPP1950093

    POLICY AGGREGATE LIMITS FOR ALL COVERAGES, A through D - $336,706,450:

    (a) For Coverage A: $301,706,450 less any amounts paid under Coverage B

    (b) For Coverage B

    (c) For Coverages C and D:

    $100,000,000 less any amounts paid under Coverage

    A in excess of $ 201,706,450

    $35,000,000 Combined

    Item 5(a): INSURED PROPERTIES - COVERAGES A and B

    Each of the locations defined as the Site in the Statement of Work

    Item 5(b): INSURED PROPERTIES - COVERAGES C and D

    Each of the locations defined as the Site in the Statement of Work excluding each of the

    properties listed in Schedule C of this Policy.

    Item 6: POLICY PREMIUM: To be determined, as described in Endorsement 3.

    Item 7: RETROACTIVE DATE: Under Coverages C and D, the Pollution Conditions must commence

    on or after the date shown below.

    Retroactive Date: Policy Inception

    Item 8: CONTINUITY DATE: Policy Inception

    Item 9: CLEAN-UP COST PROGRESS REPORT SUBMISSION SCHEDULE: as required under

    Section 6 of the Statement of Work.

    Project Coordinator, Iron Mountain Mine


    March 09, 2012


    Home Counsel's Guide to Crisis Management

    In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter. All testimonies should be well thought out and truthful.As for EPA, "These people have done nothing but drum up a godless, heathen worship of fish."

    Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/04/4160944/colorful-character-brings-unusual.html#mi_rss=Our%20Region#storylink=cpy
    As for EPA, "These people have done nothing but drum up a godless, heathen worship of fish."

    Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/04/4160944/colorful-character-brings-unusual.html#mi_rss=Our%20Region#storylink=cpy

    In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter. All testimonies should be well thought out and truthful.

      "These people have done nothing but drum up a godless, heathen worship of fish."

     - John F. Hutchens

    Finis Rei Publicae ''civibusque' libertate, potestatem custodem libertate civium!

    End of the central government's 'peoples-court' guarding liberty, restore custodians of liberty to the people.

    Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.
    "No crime, no punishment without a previous penal law"

    The absolute and imperative necessity of preserving our water supply.

    Cloud Services
    MAX.gov Capabilities Sponsored by the Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business (BFELoB)
    February 2, 2012


    How Water May Be Appropriated.

     

    The right of appropriation of water on the public domain is recognized and allowed by acts of Congress, and rights already vested are preserved.

    U.S. Rev. Stat., Secs. 2339, 2340;

    19 U.S. Stat. at Large, 377, Chap. 107;

    The acts of Congress on the subject do not create any new right of appropriation.

    They only preserve and protect rights already accrued and vested by the law or customs of the State.

    Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U.S. 453;

    Broder v. Water Co. 101 U.S. 274.

     

    The manner of making the appropriation is not provided. That is left to legislation or prevailing custom of the State. It is a mistake to suppose that an irrigator obtains his rights from the national government, further than that his right to appropriate water on government lands is recognized, if not granted, by act of Congress, or that the manner of making an appropriation is governed or controlled by laws enacted by Congress. His rights are, except as stated above, controlled entirely by state laws. The laws of this State provide specifically how appropriation of water may be made.

    Sec. 1415. A person desiring to appropriate water must post a notice, in writing, in a conspicuous place at the point of intended diversion, stating therein:

                1 That he claims the water there flowing to the extent of (giving the number) inches, measured under a four inch pressure.

                2 The purpose for which he claims it, and the place of intended use;

                3. The means by which he intends to divert it, and the size of the flume, ditch, pipe, or aqueduct in which he intends to divert it;

                A copy of the notice must, within ten days after it is posted, be recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which it is posted.

    Sec. 1416. Within sixty days after the notice is posted, the claimant must commence the excavation or construction of the works which he intends to divert the water, and must prosecute the work diligently and uninterruptedly to completion, unless temporarily interrupted by snows or rain; provided, that if the erection of a dam has been recommended by the California debris commission at or near the place where it is intended to divert the water, the claimant shall have sixty days after completion of such dam in which to commence the excavation or construction of the works in which he intends to divert the water.

    Sec. 1417. By “completion” is meant conducting the waters to the place of intended use.

     

    Civil Code, Secs. 1415-1417

    The final and one of the necessary acts of appropriation in any case, is the application of the water to some beneficial use, and the proceedings must be with that intention and for that purpose.

    Civil Code, Secs. 1411, 1415;

    Pomeroy’s Rip. Rights, Secs. 47, 49;

    Tanner’s High Line Canal &c. Co. v. Southworth, 21 Pac. Rep. 1028;

    Fort Morgan L. & C. Co. v. South Platte Ditch co., 30 Pac. Rep. 1032

    Davis v. Gale, 32 Cal. 26;

    Maeris v. Bicknell, 7 Cal. 261;

    Combs v. Agricultural Ditch Co., 28 Pac. Rep. 966;

    Weaver v. Eureka Lake Co., 15 Cal. 271.

     

    And if the claimant proceeds under the code provisions for the appropriation of water, he must, after posting and recording the required notice, prosecute the work necessary to make the diversion with ordinary and reasonable dispatch. The law does not required unusual or extraordinary effort.

    Ophir Mining Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Nev. 534

    These provisions regulating the manner in which water may be appropriated  are entirely inadequate, the final act of supplying the water to a useful purpose, cannot be ascertained in any satisfactory way.

    Hence water rights become inextricably confused, remedied only by expensive litigation.

    It is a nefarious law that permits such confusion of rights and claims and imposes the burden upon irrigation of settling claims to water at such enormous expense.

    The utter insufficiency is well understood by all who have had occasion to deal with it.

     Prof. Elwood Mead, formerly State Engineer of Wyoming, wrote a commentary entitled “Water Rights on the Missouri River and its Tributaries;”

                “On many rivers there are now a multitude of claims to the common supply. These rights have to be defined in some way. If laws do not define them, a resort to the courts is all that intervenes between the just rights of water-users and anarchy. In many States the exigencies created by a failure to enact the administrative code have compelled the courts to become practically both the creators and enforcer of water laws. They have to devise a procedure for adjudication, supplement the statute law in deciding what rights have been stabled, and finally have to protect irrigator’s priorities by a liberal exercise of government by injunction. The growing volume of this litigation, together with the uncertain and contradictory character of many of the decisions is making a heavy burden to irrigators and a serious menace to progress.”

     

    Upon a review of this branch of the subject at hand, one cannot but feel the need for an intelligent revision of our entire system of laws relating to the appropriation and use of water.

     The subject is one of such vast importance to the State and the laws are so imperfect and inadequate that it is amazing that some improvement of the laws should not have been made long before this.

    Effect of Appropriation.

     The general effect of the appropriation of water is to give to the appropriator the perfect right to “the continued use of the amount of water appropriated, subject, of course, to the rights of superior rights and prior appropriations.

    Under our statute, and independent of it, the rule “first in time, first in right,” prevails between appropriators, Civil Code, Sec. 1414,.

    As between appropriators and riparian owners, the rule is different. The right of the riparian owner, as we have seen, grows out of his ownership of land bordering a stream. It does not depend upon his actual use of the water as in case of and appropriator. He does not lose his right by a mere failure to exercise it by a diversion or use of the water. He may lose his right, however, by suffering someone else to to use it adversely. The question of pf priority of time as between a riparian owner and an appropriator can arise only in respect of the time such owner acquired title to his land, and the time of the appropriation by another, unless the question of continued adverse use arises. In this respect, the question of time is important because, if the appropriation is made before the riparian owner acquired title from the government, the appropriator is first in time and first in right.

     

    Corporations engaged in the business of furnishing water for irrigation, under the laws of California, exercising our right of eminent domain.

     

     “Section II-1/2, Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to prohibit or invalidate any contract already made, or which shall hereafter be made, by or with any of the persons, companies, associations, or corporations described in section 2 of this Act, relating to the sale, rental, or distribution of water, or to the sale or rental of easements and servitudes of the right to the flow and use of water; nor to prohibit or interfere with the vesting of rights under any such contract. Stat. 1897, p. 49.

     

    Bona fide owner of agricultural lands desiring to improve the same by conducting waters thereon.”
    In re Central Irr. Dist. 117 Cal., 382, 398.

    The statute of 1862 related to water furnished in counties outside of cities and towns provided;
     " Every company organized as aforesaid shall have power, and the same is hereby granted, to make rules and regulations for the management and preservation of their works, not inconsistent with the laws of this State, and for the use and distribution of the waters and the navigation of the canals, and to establish, collect, and receive rates, water rents, or tolls, which shall be subject to regulation by the board of supervisors of the county or counties in which the work is situated, but which shall not be reduced by the supervisors so low as to yield to the stockholders less than one and one-half per cent. per month on the capital invested."Stat. 1862, 540, 541 Sec. 3


    In 1879, our present constitution was adopted, and went into effect January 1, 1880. Article XIV of the constitution begins as follows:---

    USE AND RATES

    Section I. The use of all water now appropriated, or that may hereafter be appropriated, for sale, rental, or distribution, is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the regulation and control of the State, in the manner to be prescribed by law; provided, that the rates or compensation to be collected by any person, company, or corporation in this State for the use of water supplied to any city or town, or the inhabitants thereof, shall be fixed, annually, by the board of supervisors, or city and county, or city or town council, or other governing body of such city and county, or city or town, by ordinance or otherwise, in the manner that other ordinances or legislative acts or resolutions are passed by such body, and shall continue in force for one year, and no longer. Such ordinances or resolutions shall be passed in the month of February of each year, and take effect on the first day of July thereafter. Any board or body failing to pass the necessary ordinance or resolutions shall be subject to peremptory process to compel action at the suit of any party interested, and shall be liable to such further processes and penalties as the legislature may prescribe. Any person, company, or corporation collecting water rates in any city and county, or and city or town in this state, otherwise than as established, shall forfeit the franchises and water-works of such person, company, or corporation to the city and county, or city or town where the same are collected, for the public use.

    Sec. 2. The right to collect rates or compensation for the use of water supplied to any county, city and county, or town, or the inhabitants thereof, is a franchise, and cannot be exercised except by authority of and in the manner prescribe by law.
    Const. Cal. Art. XIV, Secs. 1 and 2


     The Supreme Court of California has held that the decree of confirmation is binding and conclusive, not only as to the district and its property-owners, but as against the State of California and the whole world. Crall v. Poso Irr. Dist., 87 Cal., 140; Board of Directors Modesto Dist v. Trega, 88 Cal., 334; People v. Linda Vista Irr. Dist., May 18, 1900, .

     

    “An irrigation district is held to be a public corporation that cannot be dissolved for misuser or non-user of its corporate powers in the absence of a law conferring power on courts to pass a judicial sentence dissolving such corporation upon those grounds.” People v. Selm Irr. Dist., 98., Cal., 206, Stat. 1872 p. 945. The Wright Act.

    Stat 1889, p. 15, Stat. 1891, pp 142, 244. Stat. 1893 pp. 175, 516, The Confirmation act.

    Water Rights:

    Water rights in California can be held by any legal entity. There are no restrictions on who can hold water rights, thus the owner can be an individual, related individuals, non-related individuals, trusts, corporations, government agencies, etc.. Water rights are considered real property (they can be owned separately from the land on which the water is used or diverted) and can be transferred from one owner to another, both temporarily or permanently. Any transfer (sale, lease, or exchange) is subject to approval by the State Water Board through the application process discussed above. Approval is granted upon finding that the transfer would not result in injury to any other water right and would not unreasonably affect fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial use.

    An appropriative water right in California can be maintained only by continuous beneficial use, and can be lost by five or more continuous years of non-use. Riparian rights, on the other hand, cannot be lost through non-use. Appropriative rights can also be lost through abandonment, but to constitute abandonment of an appropriative right, there must be the intent not to resume the beneficial use of the water right. As a result, abandonment is always voluntary. The rights to waters lost through abandonment or non-use revert to the public, but only after notice has been given and a public hearing is held.

    Adjudications:

    In California, adjudication can be initiated through the court or through statutory procedures. Court initiated adjudication occurs when a water right lawsuit is filed in court (all surface and ground water rights may be included in this procedure). In the case of a court initiated adjudication, the court often asks the State Water Board to act a referee and to conduct an investigation and report back. Statutory adjudications result when one or more entities claim a right from a specific source and file a petition with the State Water Board. The statutory procedure can be used to determine all rights to any body of water including percolating groundwater. The result of a statutory adjudication is a decree that integrates all rights on the water source and sets quantity, season, priority, etc..

    California statute«.— (1) Under Civ. Code § 1007, the running of limitations operates on the state in respect to any property not dedicated to public use as soon as adverse possession thereof begins without reference to a presumed grant. Peo. v. Banning Co., 140 P 587. (2) A reservation of swamp lands of the state from s.-ile by state statute is a mere restriction on the general power delegated to the officers of the state to sell swamp lands, and the lands may be acquired by adverse possession, unless dedicated to a public use. Peo. v. Banning Co., 140 P 587. (3) Where tidelands of the state have been dedicated to a public use, there can be no adverse possession thereof to start the running of limitations against any action by the state or its authorized agencies to assert the public right or such possession as will give title by prescription to the adverse claimants against the public right. Peo. v. Banning Co., 140 P 587. (4) It has been held by the supreme court of the United States that the statute declares that the people of the state will not sue any person for or in respect of any real property by reason of the right or title of the people to the same, unless certain facts exist, was held to be obviated, as regards land in the bay of San Francisco beyond the established harbor line, by the act creating the board of state harbor commissioners and directing them to take possession of all that portion of the bay lying beyond the established harbor line. Weber v. Harbor Comrs., 18 Wall. 57, 68, 21 L. ed. 798. The court In this case said:

    "It is contended with much force that the statute only applies to lands which the State holds, as private proprietor, for sale or other disposition, and in respect to which the title may be lost by adverse possession, as defined in the same statute, and not to lands which she holds as sovereign In trust for the public. . . . Where lands are held by the State simply for sale or other disposition, and not as sovereign in trust for the public, there Is some reason in requiring the assertion of her rights within a limited period, when any portion of such lands Is intruded upon, or occupied without her permission, and the policy of the statute would be carried out by restricting its application to such cases."

    11-] In Minnesota it is held, however, under the statutory provision that the limitations for the commencement of actions "shall apply to the same actions when brought in the name of the state, or in the name of any officer," etc., that no distinction can be made between actions brought as "sovereign" or In a governmental capacity and those brought as "proprietary" or such as a private person might bring. St. Pnul v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 45 Minn. 387, 48 NW 17.

    46. Buckner v. Ktrkland, 110 S W 399, 33 KyL 603.

    47. State v. Seattle, 57 Wash. 602, 107 P 827, 27 LRANS 11S8.

    48. Rochester v. Kennedy, 229 Pa. 251, 78 A 133; Bagley v. Wallace, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 245; State v. Arledge, 18 S. C. L. 401, 23 AmD 145. And see cases Infra this note. Compare Chamberlain v. Ahrens, 55 Mich. Ill, 20 NW 814 (where it was said that before the express statutory enactment title could be acquired to land owned by the state and held In a proprietary right as distinguished from lands held In trust for the public).

    ??] Where lands have been forfeited to the State under the delinquent tax laws or otherwise, (1) they cannot be the subject of adverse possession while the title thus acquired remains in the state. Bagley v. Wallace, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 245. (2) And if the lands were held adversely to the owner at the time of the forfeiture the adverse character of the occupancy ceases when the state acquires title and cannot be asserted against either the state or its grantee. Armstrong v. Morrill, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 120, 20 L. ed. 765; Hall v. Gittings, 2 Harr. & J. (Md.) 112: Levasser v. Washburn, 11 Gratt. (52 Va.) 572. 578; Hale v. Branscum, 10 Gratt. (51 Va.) 418; Staats v. Board, 10 Gratt. (51 Va.) 400; Hall v. Webb, 21 W. Va. 318. In Levas.scr v. Washburn, supra, it was said; "It Is true, in a certain sense, the commonwealth takes the land on forfeiture in the same plight and condition in which It stood at the time of the forfeiture. The commonwealth takes the estate and title of the former owner, and no other. If at the time of the forfeiture his title were absolutely bound by the adversary possession of another, it may be no title would vest in the commonwealth, unless it were saved by the existence of her lien on the land for arrears of taxes; a point upon which I express no opinion. But if when the forfeiture accrued the right of entry still remained to the owner, though an adversary possession had been commenced, the possession as to her must lose Its adversary character, and she must take and hold the subject with the same rights, privileges and immunities which pertain to any other lands held by her In her demesne. I can perceive no good reason why any discrimination should be made, or why she should hold forfeited lands upon different principles and with diminished privileges from those applying to other subjects of similar character."

    | $ 448] 2. Time When the Statute Commences to Run—a. General Rule. The statute begins to run against a grantee of the sovereignty only from the time when he acquires title; in view of the rule excluding the government from the operation of the statute an occupancy prior to that time will not be deemed adverse and can have no effect to give title by adverse possession against grantees of the federal or state governments.  The applications of this general rule, however, are not uniform, as will hereinafter appear.

    [§ 449] b. Applications of Rule—(1) Introductory Statement. Since there is a difference of opinion as to just when the title of the federal or state government passes to a grantee the cases do not agree in the application of the above stated general rule.

    [4 450] (2) Grantees of the Federal Government—(a) Rule That Patent Must Issue—aa. In General. On the ground that the title of the United States does not pass until the issuance of a patent it is held by one line of cases that the statute runs against a purchaser from the federal government only from the date of his patent.

    [b] Escheat. —Title by adverse possession cannot be acquired in lands which have escheated to the state. Harlock v. Jackson, 5 S. C. L. 254, 6 S. C. L. 135: Ellis v. State, 3 Tex. Civ. A. 170, 21 SW 68. 24 SW 660.

    By virtue of the office of general conservator of the peace throughout the whole kingdom, the High Warden may commit all violators of the peace, or bind them in recognizances to keep it; but other Judges are only so in their own Courts.

    Terris, bonis et calallis rehabendis post purgationem. A writ for a clerk to recover his lands, goods, and chattels formerly seized, after he had cleared himself of the felony of which he was accused, and delivered to his ordinary to be purged. Reg. Orig. 68.

    ii. Local Governments

    Section 2504 of the Lender Liability Act validates the portion of the CERCLA Lender Liability Rule that addresses involuntary acquisitions by government entities. State or local governments that acquire property by involuntary means such as bankruptcy, tax delinquency, or abandonment are excluded from the definition of “owner or operator” in CERCLA, and therefore are not liable under CERCLA Section 107(a). CERCLA § 101(20)(D). There is also a third-party affirmative defense available for government entities that acquire property “by escheat, or through any other involuntary transfer or acquisition, or through the exercise of eminent domain authority by purchase or condemnation.” CERCLA § 101(35)(A)(ii).

    EPA’s 1995 enforcement policy on involuntary acquisition by lenders and local governments was followed with the guidance memorandum, Municipal Immunity from CERCLA Liability for Property Acquired through Involuntary State Action (October 20, 1995). These two policy memoranda clarified some of the issues surrounding involuntary municipal acquisition of properties. EPA provided further clarification on these issues in a fact sheet, The Effect of Superfund on Involuntary Acquisitions of Contaminated Property by Government Entities issued in December 1995. EPA continues to follow as guidance the Lender Liability Rule and the two 1995 guidance documents and subsequent fact sheets when addressing local government liability.

    State or local government entities that acquire property after the enactment of the 2002 Brownfields Amendments and that are concerned about potential contamination may want to seek the advice of counsel before taking title to ensure that they will have a liability protection (e.g., BFPP status or protection under the involuntary acquisition provision or third-party defense). State or local government entities should note that to achieve BFPP status, an entity must conduct AAI prior to purchase and comply with the other BFPP requirements. Conducting proper AAI prior to purchase is also important for state and local government entities relying on the BFPP protection for brownfield grant eligibility.


    Standing of Intervenor-Defendants in Public Law Litigation


    Matthew I. Hall


    University of Georgia School of Law



    Fordham Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 1539-1584, 2012
    UGA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2

    Abstract:     
    Unless the plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome, Article III of the United States Constitution requires federal courts to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim for lack of standing. That much is clearly established by decades of precedent. Less understood, however, is the degree to which Article III also requires defendants to possess a personal stake. The significance of defendant standing often goes unnoticed in case law and scholarship, because the standing of the defendant in most lawsuits is readily apparent:any defendant against whom the plaintiff seeks a remedy has a personal interest in defending against the plaintiff’s claim.

  • Further Than Atheism: Can Environmentalism Replace Religion ?

    Irregular Times' weekly column on the world beyond the gods.
    irregulartimes.com/further10.html - Cached - Similar
  • Environment and Religion - For God's Sake - Religious ...

    Faith-based environmentalism is a growing trend, with an increasing number of relgious leaders and organizations teaching that doing God's will means ...
    environment .about.com/od/.../a/ religion .htm - Cached - Similar
  • The Perils Ahead: Debt Limit, EPA Rules, “Green” California

    November 17, 2010 Andrew McCarthy's National Review on Line (NRO) post laying out the political context of capping the debt limit –

    “Very soon, Leviathan's credit card will be tapped out. Shortly after President Obama took office, Congress quietly raised the debt ceiling from $12.3 trillion to $14.2 trillion — an amount that strategically evaded the need to come back for more just before the midterm elections. At its current rate of profligacy, however, the government will steamroll past the current limit within a few months. It will need a new, higher max-out to keep the gravy train rolling. So, like clockwork, the punditocracy is in high dudgeon, warning the speaker-to-be and other GOP leaders: Don't even think about not raising the cap . Unless the ceiling is raised, we're told, life will end, the government will collapse, the global economy will sink into deep depression, the unemployed may have to make do on less than 99 weeks of ‘insurance,' etc. Go along, or prepare to be smeared as reckless maniacs. In short, it's TARP time all over again .”

    Grasping the California Disaster

    Highlighting another self-inflicted environmentalist wound, today George Gilder in his Wall Street Journal op-ed “California's Destructive Green Jobs Lobby Silicon Valley” explains

    “Worst of all, economic sanity lost out in what may have been the most important election on Nov. 2 — and, no, I'm not talking about the gubernatorial or senate races. This was the California referendum to repeal Assembly Bill 32, the so-called Global Warming Solutions Act, which ratchets the state's economy back to 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by 2020. That's a 30% drop followed by a mandated 80% overall drop by 2050. Together with a $500 billion public-pension overhang, the new energy cap dooms the state to bankruptcy. Conservative pundits have lavished mock pity on the state. But as America's chief fount of technology, California cannot go down the drain without dragging the rest of the country with it .”

  • Can't a man get a drink in this town?

    Historic Western town fights feds over very existence

    by Bob Unruh

    A new fight has developed in the American West over water, where strategies to use the liquid gold routinely are litigated and challenged. But in one case, according to a legal team, the result literally could kill the historic town of Tombstone, Ariz.

    The Goldwater Institute today told WND it has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that would allow town officials to go into the Huachuca Mountains to repair the collection system – pools, pipes and related equipment – that provide the town with much-needed water in the desert climate.

    The federal government has said no.

    Nick Dranias, head of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the institute, said the issue is far larger than just a dispute over whether trucks and tractors can be used to repair city-owned property inside a federal land preserve.

    “This is a case of egregious federal overreach,” an institute report on the conflict said. “If the Forest Service can effectively seize Tombstone’s 130-year-old water rights during a state of emergency – rights that the service recognized as valid in 1916 – no state or local government will be safe from the feds.”

    In the arid West, most cities and towns, including Cheyenne, Wyo., and the Denver metropolitan area, draw at least some of their water from collection systems on federal lands. In other parts of the nation, municipalities have their wells and other critical infrastructure sometimes on federal properties.

    “By denying Tombstone access to its water, the Forest Service is threatening to directly regulate Tombstone to death,” the institute said.

    The shortage developed because of the Monument Fire in 2011, which denuded the hillsides of vegetation. After the fire, record-breaking monsoon rains hit the region, triggering huge mudslides that left boulders the size of cars tumbling down hillsides.

    The slides crushed Tombstone’s mountain spring waterlines and destroyed reservoirs for the town’s main water supply network.

    “In some areas, Tombstone’s pipeline is under 12 feet of mud, rocks and other debris, while in other places, it is hanging in mid-air due to the ground being washed out from under it,” the institute reported.

    However, instead of allowing repairs as has happened in the past, “federal bureaucrats are refusing to allow Tombstone to unearth its springs and restore its waterlines unless [city officials] jump through a lengthy permitting process that will require the city to use horses and hand tools to remove boulders the size of Volkswagens.”

    Dranias told WND the organization expects to hear a decision on its request for a preliminary injunction by the end of next month.

    He called the skirmish just the “tip of the iceberg.”

    He said there is evidence that the Forest Service under Barack Obama’s leadership is adopting a comprehensive plan “to clear federal lands of any private or non-federal uses.”

    Ranchers in the West, according to Dranias, have been told to give up their various access and water rights, ski resorts have faced problems with access to federal lands and Indian tribes have been dealt the same blow.

    In another Arizona location, he said, a longstanding RV establishment, basically a permanent retirement community, has been denied a renewed lease on the land it has improved.

    “The way I look at it is if they can break Tombstone, take Tombstone’s mountain water rights, then nobody is safe,” he said.

    History, he noted, is on the side of the town and its people.

    A brief submitted to the court notes that in 1916, Tombstone’s predecessor in interest to the rights at issue, Huachuca Water Company, obtained a letter from the Forest Service admitting that it had full right and title to the Huachuca Mountain water infrastructure.

    “What was abundantly obvious to defendants in 1916 is now being completely disregarded,” the brief said. “In fact, the chain of title to Tombstone’s water rights, infrastructure and rights of way in the Huachuca Mountains is clear. Tombstone actually holds previously adjudicated water rights, as well as appurtenant and independent land use, pipeline and access rights of way.”

    The brief continued, “Defendants’ conduct in this case can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious effort to enforce fealty to a clearly erroneous interpretation of federal law.”

    It’s a key 10th Amendment fight, according to the institute, because, “Just as the federal government cannot regulate the states, it cannot regulate political subdivisions of the states, like the city of Tombstone. And despite what power it may claim, the Forest Service certainly has no power to regulate Tombstone to death.”

    Forest Service officials declined to answer questions about the court fight.

    The institute noted that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer already has declared a state of emergency for Tombstone, gathering together “all police powers of the state,” to address Tombstone’s need.

    The town has some wells, but they are subject to contamination in the desert region, and its water for generations has come from the clear springs of the nearby mountains.

    “Gov. Brewer’s declaration of a state of emergency underscores the threat to public health and safety faced by Tombstone,” the court brief explains.

    “The loss of Tombstone’s municipal water supply has caused a shortage of water for both consumption and fire suppression during peak demand. The resulting fire hazard is readily apparent from the fact that in December 2010 a devastating fire broke out in Tombstone’s 19th century wooden structure historic downtown district. The entire business district could easily have been lost.”

    Recurso de perdido amparo; amparo de libertad; amparo contra leyes; amparo como contencioso-administrativ; amparo en materia agrari; ejidal y comunal de segundo fumarse un calumet.

    The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Lost Empires Provincial Commission - Directorate for Reduced Savages Vested Prior Rights in California - Writ of Papal Oblation Protection -  "Pursuit of Happiness & Mutual Warm Feelings Secondhand Smoke Freedom Ordinance".


    "A prohibition on continuity programs, designed to maintain the loyalty of existing customers, was overbroad and unconstitutional. “Logic dictates that the overwhelming beneficiaries, both numerically and comparatively, of these continuity programs are adult consumers,”

    DISCOUNT TOBACCO CITY & LOTTERY, INC.;
    LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY; NATIONAL
    TOBACCO COMPANY, L.P.; R. J. REYNOLDS
    TOBACCO COMPANY; COMMONWEALTH
    BRANDS, INC.; AMERICAN SNUFF COMPANY,
    LLC, fka Conwood Company, LLC,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES
    FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION; Commissioner of the United
    States Food and Drug Administration;
    KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the United
    States Department of Health and Human
    Services,
    Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

    Nos. 10-5234/5235
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green.
    No. 09-00117—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
    Argued: July 27, 2011
    Decided and Filed: March 19, 2012
    Before: CLAY and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; BARRETT, District Judge.*

    The IRS Wants Your Passport

     Does the Tax Man or any government agency have the right to prevent us from traveling, even without a formal charge of a felonious crime? The answer is NO! But that's not stopping them.

    Resilience – The Foundation of National Preparedness

    The President’s vision for building a resilient and prepared nation is contained in his August 31 declaration of September 2011 as National Preparedness month:

    “Together, we can equip our families and communities to be resilient through times of hardship and to respond to adversity in the same way America always has – by picking ourselves up and continuing the task of keeping our country strong and safe.”

     

    EPA Paves Pathway

    Intrusion Pathway Reprioritizing Superfund Cleanups

    EPA says its upcoming rule adding vapor intrusion from underground sources of contamination as a pathway for determining whether a site should be placed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) is likely to reprioritize its cleanup program toward those sites because they may pose a higher risk than other sites without such pathways

    The Campaign to Privatize the World

    One of the biggest con games going on at the moment is the sustained attack on the U.S. public school system.  It’s being perpetrated by predatory entrepreneurs (disguised as “concerned citizens” and “education reformers”) hoping to persuade the parents of school-age children that the only way their kids are going to get a decent education is by paying for something that they can already get for free.  You might say it’s the same marketing campaign that launched bottled water.


    § 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

    (a) Applicability of statutory and common law

    The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.

    (b) Attorney’s fees

    In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92–318 [ 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [ 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [ 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [ 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.

    (c) Expert fees

    In awarding an attorney’s fee under subsection (b) of this section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion, may include expert fees as part of the attorney’s fee.

    NINTH CIRCUIT RELIES ON STATE LAW TO

    DETERMINE CERCLA OWNER LIABILITY
    Steven M. Siros
    Jenner & Block LLC
    On March 14, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of
    Appeals affirmed a California district court ruling that
    found BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (BCI) not liable as
    an owner under CERCLA. In Los Angeles v. San
    Pedro Boat Works, the city of Los Angeles sued BCI
    to recover response costs it had incurred to remediate
    contaminated sediments in the Los Angeles Harbor.
    According to the complaint, the City alleged that the
    activities of BCI’s predecessor-in-interest, Pacific
    American, Inc. (Pacific-American) contributed to the
    sediment contamination in the harbor. Pacific-American
    did not own the boat works facility outright but rather
    had historically operated the boat works facility
    pursuant to a permit that had been issued by the City
    of Los Angeles. In support of its CERCLA claims, the
    City argued that because Pacific-American owned the
    permit, it was an “owner” under CERCLA. The City
    also argued that Pacific-American was liable as an
    “operator” under CERCLA. The district court
    disagreed, finding that BCI was neither an “owner” nor
    an “operator” under CERCLA. The City appealed the
    district court’s finding that BCI was not an “owner”
    under CERCLA; however, for reasons that are not
    clear from the record, the City elected not to appeal
    the “operator” liability determination.
    On appeal, the Ninth Circuit looked first to the
    language in the CERCLA statute for guidance on
    whether BCI was an “owner” under the statute.
    CERCLA defines the term “owner” to mean “in the
    case of an onshore facility or an offshore facility, any
    person owning or operating such facility” (42 U.S.C.
    § 9601(20)(A)(ii)), which definition the court noted
    had already been found by the U.S. Supreme Court to
    be “entirely tautological, and thus useless.” San Pedro,
    2011 WL 855858, at *5 (9th Cir. 2011); see also
    United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 66 (1998).
    The Ninth Circuit noted that it had previously grappled
    with how to define the term “owner” under CERCLA
    in Long Beach Unified School District v. Dorothy B.
    Goodwin California Living Trust, 32 F.3d 1364 (9th
    Cir. 1994). In Long Beach, the court was faced with
    the question of whether an entity that owned an
    easement over a parcel of property was an owner
    under CERCLA. Acknowledging that the statute itself
    provides little guidance as to what types of entities
    might constitute “owners” for purposes of CERCLA
    liability, the court concluded that CERCLA should be
    read as “incorporating the common law definitions of
    its terms.” Id. at 1368. The Long Beach court
    therefore looked to California common law and found
    that numerous California courts had distinguished
    between an interest in an easement and outright
    property ownership. The court therefore concluded
    that an easement holder was not an owner for
    purposes of CERCLA. Id. at 1370. The Ninth Circuit
    acknowledged that its holding in Long Beach was not
    conclusive as to whether BCI qualified as an owner
    under CERCLA; however, the court stated that its
    Long Beach holding was instructive in that it illustrated
    the distinction applied by California state courts
    between absolute title to real property and less than fee
    title to a possessory interest in real property.
    The San Pedro court also recognized, however, that
    courts in other circuits had not adopted the approach
    articulated by the Long Beach court. Rather, these
    courts had approached the issue by examining whether
    the holder of the property interest possessed “site
    control” over the facility. For example, the Second
    Circuit established a multifactor test for evaluating
    CERCLA owner liability, which included, among other
    things, an evaluation of whether a party was
    responsible for (i) the payment of taxes and insurance
    or (ii) making structural and other repairs. See
    Commander Oil Corp. v. Barlo Equip. Corp., 215
    F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2000). Similarly, in United States v.
    South Carolina Recycling & Disposal, Inc., 963 F.
    Supp. 984, 1003 (D.S.C. 1986), the district court
    concluded that a lessee was liable as an owner under
    CERCLA because it “maintained control over and
    responsibility for the use of the property and,
    essentially, stood in the shoes of the property owners.”
    Rather than adopting the more flexible (and, according
    to the Ninth Circuit, more nebulous) analytical
    framework employed by the Second Circuit in
    9
    Commander Oil, the Ninth Circuit instead affirmed the
    approach originally articulated by the Long Beach
    court and looked to California law to determine
    whether BCI was an “owner” under CERCLA. The
    San Pedro court noted that California state courts
    have consistently distinguished between possessory
    interests in property such as a revocable permit and
    title ownership. 2011 WL 855858, at *8 (citing
    Auerbach v. Assessment Appeals, Bd. No. 1, 137
    P.3d 951, 956 (Cal. 2006)). As such, the court found
    that the holder of a permit for a specific use of real
    property is not the “owner” of that real property for
    purposes of CERCLA, especially where, as occurred
    in this case, the City of Los Angeles retained the power
    to control BCI’s use of the real property through the
    revocation of the permit.
    The Ninth Circuit noted that its interpretation of the
    term “owner” was particularly appropriate in light of
    the permissive “authority to control” standard for
    CERCLA operator liability that had already been
    adopted by the Ninth Circuit. See Kaiser Aluminum
    & Chem. Corp. v. Catellus Dev. Corp., 976 F.2d
    1338 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that CERCLA operator
    liability has been expansively interpreted by this court
    to extend to any party with the authority to control the
    cause of the contamination when the hazardous wastes
    were released into the environment). This statement
    could lead one to conclude that had BCI elected to
    appeal the “operator” liability issue, the Ninth Circuit
    would have had an easier time imposing CERCLA
    “operator” liability on BCI as the successor-in-interest
    to Pacific-American.
    Steven M. Siros is a partner in Jenner & Block
    LLP’s Chicago office. He is a member of the firm’s
    Climate and Clean Technology Law,
    Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety
    Law, Insurance Litigation and Counseling,
    Products Liability and Mass Tort Defense Practice
    Groups with a focus on both litigation and
    regulatory matters.



    Shasta County Recorder's Office

    Document ID: 1992-0007121
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 2/18/1992
    Book Page #: Book: 2819 : Page: 27
    No. of Pages: Unknown
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    RELEASE OF JUDGMENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    CALIF STATE OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC


    States may make whatever laws they wish (consistent with their State Constitutions) except as prohibited by the US Constitution. Only Laws made by Congress, which are pursuant to the Constitution, qualify as part of the General Government Law of the Land.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State  to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

    Wasting the Wastewater

    “As the world enters the 21st century, the human community finds itself searching for new paradigms for water supply and management,” says a report released this month by the Water Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council, a division of the National Academy of Sciences.

    “Law and practice have always been that water goes back into a river or into groundwater or the ocean before it returns for further treatment,” said Brent Haddad, founder and director of the Center for Integrated Water Research at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and a member of the committee that wrote the report. The critical question, he said, is “whether that natural stage of treatment is actually an efficient stage of treatment.”

    Sixteen experts representing industry, government, and research fields in the social sciences and hard sciences collaborated over three years to produce the study, examining everything from pathogenic risks to public attitudes about reuse.

    The committee ultimately concluded that the reuse of municipal wastewater can safely and significantly increase the nation’s available water resources – potable and non-potable – without intermediate discharge into the natural environment. “The technology for treating wastewater is good enough that we don’t need that intervention,” Dr. Haddad said.

    “The fact is, people already drink reused water,” said Ken Herd, the water supply program director for the southwest Florida district. In a process known as “de facto reuse,” municipal water facilities are commonly sited on rivers or reservoirs downstream from other wastewater treatment facilities, which leads to a progression of unplanned and unregulated water reuse, from one plant down to the next.

    The report found that levels of chemicals in existing water supplies and recycled water are essentially equivalent. Pathogen levels were also equivalent, and sometimes even lower, in recycled water, it said.

    “Nonetheless, when reuse becomes the primary intention of water management, this tends to create public pause,” Mr. Herd said.

    Though reuse is not a silver bullet – such efforts must be accompanied by less costly conservation and efficiency programs – recycled water will inevitably become a “very important part of our national water management portfolio,” Mr. Herd predicts.

    Mr. Grumbles agrees. “In essence, there is no wastewater,” he said. “Just wasted water.”

    William Blackstone referenced the principle of reasonableness in his Commentaries on the Law of England, which was a primary reference source of the founding generation.

    Drawing together the basic features of the principle of reasonableness,one can say that it requires exercises of delegated power to be causally efficacious, measured and proportionate, and respective of background rights. This principle constrains the federal executive and judicial powers under the American Constitution even without textual specification; the principle was part of the very nature of delegated executive and judicial power in the eighteenth-century English legal tradition.

    United Kingdom: Force Majeure - The Clause, The Definition, The Application

    09 January 2012
    Article by Juanita May Low

    Force majeure is literally translated as "superior forces". In contractual terms, it is recognised as the occurrence of an unexpected event / events beyond the control of either contracting party which disrupts the operation of the contract such that the contracting parties are excused from their liabilities and/or obligations under the contract. It is however not intended to excuse any negligence or malfeasance. It can also suspend the performance of an obligation or extend the time to perform the same.

    Force majeure is only recognised in English law if there is a force majeure clause in the contract or a reference in the contract to force majeure. This is different from civil law jurisdictions where force majeure can apply regardless.

    The purpose and effect of a force majeure clause is to define, as precisely as possible, the circumstances under which a contracting party is released from its contractual obligations. Parties have the ability to negotiate the scope of the clause (i.e. how wide / expansive the clause is) and the specific instances to be included within the clause. For an event to be regarded as a force majeure event, it must fulfil three tests:

    1. Externality – the event / circumstance must be beyond the control of the contracting parties.
    2. Unpredictability – the event / circumstance cannot be anticipated / foreseeable / expected.
    3. Irresistibility – the event / circumstance is unavoidable.

    Historically, force majeure events were recognised as forces of nature or acts of God events. However, the clause can and has been expanded to include events which are industry or transaction specific. Certain events created by extraneous human intervention can also fall under the category of force majeure events.

    Example: fire, flood, earthquake, storm, hurricane, other nature disasters, war, invasion, act of foreign enemies, hostilities, civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, military or usurped power or confiscation, terrorist activities, nationalisation, government sanction, blockage, embargo, labour dispute, strike, lockout or interruption or failure of electricity or telephone service.

    In the event that there is only a reference to force majeure – example "force majeure excepted", what constitutes force majeure is then determined on a case by case basis. This would include an "Act of God" / "forces of nature" event but can also extend to extraneous human intervention events.

    The burden of proof rests on the party relying upon force majeure. The party must show that the occurrence of the event falls under the force majeure clause or constitutes a force majeure event, such that the party was wholly or partially prevented from performing the contract. The party has to show that the performance of the contract was adversely affected by the force majeure event and that such event and/or non-performance was beyond the party's control and that there were no reasonable or proportionally reasonable steps to be taken to avoid the event and/or its consequences.

    Parties can also agree to impose additional conditions before the force majeure clause can be invoked. This includes requiring notice before invocation to allow the other party to either try to mitigate or reduce any foreseeable losses or reserve its rights; or placing an obligation on the invoking party to mitigate the effects of the force majeure by taking reasonable steps to limit or prevent the loss.

    Drafting Force Majeure Clauses:

    1. Is a force majeure clause necessary to protect yourself in your contractual relations?
    2. What might constitute a force majeure event that would be relevant to your contractual relations which should be included in the clause, above and beyond the standard events?
    3. Is the clause intended to cover only events where there is no party at fault?
    4. What are the conditions, if any, to be included in the clause – notice, mitigation, suspension of performance, extension of time for performance, etc?
    5. What is the intended effect of the clause?

    What to do in the event that you think the force majeure event / clause may apply?

    1. Consider the contractual position in relation to applicable law and jurisdiction. As set out above, the position in the UK is different from civil law jurisdictions.
    2. Consider the scope of all the clauses – and consider whether there is a specific force majeure clause and what the scope of the clause is, also any other clause which may have the effect of extending or limiting the scope of a force majeure clause / event.
    3. Consider whether the three above tests are satisfied to determine whether the event being relied upon indeed falls under the ambit of being a force majeure event.
    4. Consider all facts to determine that you meet all the conditions that may be required to be met before the force majeure clause is invoked.
    5. Consider whether you can take any steps to mitigate the loss that may follow from the force majeure event.


    § 7659. Libel and proceedings by United States attorney

    (a) Upon receiving the report of the prize master directed by section 7658 of this title, the United States attorney for the district shall promptly—
    (1) file a libel against the prize property;
    (2) obtain a warrant from the court directing the marshal to take custody of the prize property; and
    (3) proceed to obtain a condemnation of the property.
    (b) In connection with the condemnation proceedings the United States attorney shall insure that the prize commissioners—
    (1) take proper preparatory evidence; and
    (2) take depositions de bene esse of the prize crew and of other transient persons who know any facts bearing on condemnation.

    California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032

    Legal Research Home > California Laws > Code of Civil Procedure > California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032

    (a) As used in this section, unless the context clearly
    requires otherwise:
       (1) "Complaint" includes a cross-complaint.
       (2) "Defendant" includes a cross-defendant or a person against
    whom a complaint is filed.
       (3) "Plaintiff" includes a cross-complainant or a party who files
    a complaint in intervention.
       (4) "Prevailing party" includes the party with a net monetary
    recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a
    defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief,
    and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any
    relief against that defendant. When any party recovers other than
    monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the
    "prevailing party" shall be as determined by the court, and under
    those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or
    not and, if allowed may apportion costs between the parties on the
    same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.
       (b) Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a
    prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in
    any action or proceeding.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit parties from
    stipulating to alternative procedures for awarding costs in the
    litigation pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.

    California Civil Code Section 1717

    Legal Research Home > California Laws > Civil Code > California Civil Code Section 1717

    (a) In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs. Where a contract provides for attorney's fees, as set forth above, that provision shall be construed as applying to the entire contract, unless each party was represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of the contract, and the fact of that representation is specified in the contract. Reasonable attorney's fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit. Attorney's fees provided for by this section shall not be subject to waiver by the parties to any contract which is entered into after the effective date of this section. Any provision in any such contract which provides for a waiver of attorney's fees is void. (b) (1) The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine who is the party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract. The court may also determine that there is no party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section. (2) Where an action has been voluntarily dismissed or dismissed pursuant to a settlement of the case, there shall be no prevailing party for purposes of this section. Where the defendant alleges in his or her answer that he or she tendered to the plaintiff the full amount to which he or she was entitled, and thereupon deposits in court for the plaintiff, the amount so tendered, and the allegation is found to be true, then the defendant is deemed to be a party prevailing on the contract within the meaning of this section. Where a deposit has been made pursuant to this section, the court shall, on the application of any party to the action, order the deposit to be invested in an insured, interest-bearing account. Interest on the amount shall be allocated to the parties in the same proportion as the original funds are allocated. (c) In an action which seeks relief in addition to that based on a contract, if the party prevailing on the contract has damages awarded against it on causes of action not on the contract, the amounts awarded to the party prevailing on the contract under this section shall be deducted from any damages awarded in favor of the party who did not prevail on the contract. If the amount awarded under this section exceeds the amount of damages awarded the party not prevailing on the contract, the net amount shall be awarded the party prevailing on the contract and judgment may be entered in favor of the party prevailing on the contract for that net amount. Section: Previous  1714.7  1714.8  1714.9  1714.10  1714.11  1715  1716  1717  1717.5  1718  1719  1720  1721  1722  1723  Next

    Last modified: February 13, 2012

    CAL. CCP. CODE § 1033.5 : California Code - Section 1033.5

    Search CAL. CCP. CODE § 1033.5 : California Code - Section 1033.5

    (a)The following items are allowable as costs under Section 1032:

    (1)Filing, motion, and jury fees.

    (2)Juror food and lodging while they are kept together during trial and after the jury retires for deliberation.

    (3)Taking, videotaping, and transcribing necessary depositions including an original and one copy of those taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed, and travel expenses to attend depositions.

    (4)Service of process by a public officer, registered process server, or other means, as follows:

    (A)When service is by a public officer, the recoverable cost is the fee authorized by law at the time of service.

    (B)If service is by a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, the recoverable cost is the amount actually incurred in effecting service, including, but not limited to, a stakeout or other means employed in locating the person to be served, unless such charges are successfully challenged by a party to the action.

    (C)When service is by publication, the recoverable cost is the sum actually incurred in effecting service.

    (D)When service is by a means other than that set forth in subparagraph (A), (B) or (C), the recoverable cost is the lesser of the sum actually incurred, or the amount allowed to a public officer in this state for such service, except that the court may allow the sum actually incurred in effecting service upon application pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (c).

    (5)Expenses of attachment including keeper's fees.

    (6)Premiums on necessary surety bonds.

    (7)Ordinary witness fees pursuant to Section 68093 of the Government Code.

    (8)Fees of expert witnesses ordered by the court.

    (9)Transcripts of court proceedings ordered by the court.

    (10)Attorney fees, when authorized by any of the following:

    (A)Contract.

    (B)Statute.

    (C)Law.

    (11)Court reporters fees as established by statute.

    (12)Models and blowups of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.

    (13)Any other item that is required to be awarded to the prevailing party pursuant to statute as an incident to prevailing in the action at trial or on appeal.

    (b)The following items are not allowable as costs, except when expressly authorized by law:

    (1)Fees of experts not ordered by the court.

    (2)Investigation expenses in preparing the case for trial.

    (3)Postage, telephone, and photocopying charges, except for exhibits.

    (4)Costs in investigation of jurors or in preparation for voir dire.

    (5)Transcripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court.

    (c)Any award of costs shall be subject to the following:

    (1)Costs are allowable if incurred, whether or not paid.

    (2)Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.

    (3)Allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount.

    (4)Items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court's discretion.

    (5)When any statute of this state refers to the award of "costs and attorney's fees," attorney's fees are an item and component of the costs to be awarded and are allowable as costs pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a). Any claim not based upon the court's established schedule of attorney's fees for actions on a contract shall bear the burden of proof. Attorney's fees allowable as costs pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) may be fixed as follows: (A) upon a noticed motion, (B) at the time a statement of decision is rendered, (C) upon application supported by affidavit made concurrently with a claim for other costs, or (D) upon entry of default judgment. Attorney's fees allowable as costs pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (C) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) shall be fixed either upon a noticed motion or upon entry of a default judgment, unless otherwise provided by stipulation of the parties.

    Attorney's fees awarded pursuant to Section 1717 of the Civil Code are allowable costs under Section 1032 as authorized by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a).

    The prevailing party in litigation is entitled to recover statutory costs in any action or proceeding. .Expert witness fees are an additional item of costs awardable to a plaintiff, and thus, are not the sole item of costs available to a plaintiff.

    T.W. Arman & IMMI are entitled to reasonable attorney fees too.

     

     

    CERCLA liability on U.S. as arranger and operator of mining operation.

    | March 29, 2011

    INNOCENCE, PRESUMPTION OF - The indictment or formal charge against any person is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the person is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a person to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The Government has the burden of proving a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so the person is (so far as the law is concerned) not guilty.

    Presumption of Innocence

    The concept of the presumption of innocence had its roots in the Common Law, long established in Britain and thence in America . Besides being a part of the environment of justice in which our Founders lived, the concept is central to the ideas of Freedom and Due Process of Law. In addition, the common sense of any reasonably enlightened people must dictate that a person accused is innocent until proven guilty, just as much as they would believe that the other rights of defendants must be reasonably protected. Those protections for the accused were incorporated by the Founders into the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Articles of the Bill of Rights , and could not have been of any import had there not first been a presumption of innocence.

    A close parallel to the presumption of innocence is the presumption of freedom -- that freedom is not something the government rations to the people, but rather a birthright the people own in its entirety, to be loaned back in small parts to the government with their knowing consent. The presumption of freedom is guaranteed by the Ninth and Tenth Articles of the Bill of Rights -- too often made light of today, but of key importance to the concept of individual Liberty . Those Articles demand, in essence, that unless specifically stated to the contrary by the Constitution, the people shall be presumed to own every freedom, as well as the power of self-determination.

    If a citizen cannot be presumed innocent until proven guilty, he likewise will not be presumed to have freedom without an argument over his right to that freedom. At that juncture, both freedom and innocence yield to the convenience of government.

    In both cases, the opposite must prevail if we are to call ourselves Americans.

    The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.

    It is stated as unquestioned in the text-books, and has been referred to as a matter of course in the decisions of this court and in the courts of the several States. See Taylor on Evidence, vol. 1, c. 5, 126, 127; Wills on Circumstantial Evidence, c. 5, 91; Best on Presumptions, part 2, c. 1, 63, 64; c. 3, 31-58; Greenleaf on Evidence, part 5, ? ? 29, &c.; 11 Criminal Law Magazine, 3; Wharton on Evidence, ? 1244; Phillips on Evidence, Cowen & Hill's Notes, vol. 2, p. 289; Lilienthal v. United States, 97 U.S. 237; Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430; Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 320; State v. Bartlett, 43 N.H. 224; Alexander v. People, 96 Illinois, 96; People v. Fairchild, 48 Michigan, 31; People v. Millard, 53 Michigan, 63; Commonwealth v. Whittaker, 131 Mass. 224; Blake v. State, 3 Tex. App. 581; Wharton v. State, 73 Alabama, 366; State v. Tibbetts, 35 Maine, 81; Moorer v. State, 44 Alabama, 15.
    Greenleaf traces this presumption to Deuteronomy , and quotes Mascardus De Probationibus to show that it was substantially embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens . Greenl. Ev. part 5, section 29, note. Whether Greenleaf is correct or not in this view, there can be no question that the Roman law was pervaded with the results of this maxim of criminal administration , as the following extracts show:

    "Let all accusers understand that they are not to prefer charges unless they can be proven by proper witnesses or by conclusive documents, or by circumstantial evidence which amounts to indubitable proof and is clearer than day." Code, L. IV, T. XX, 1, 1. 25.

    The noble (bivus) Trajan wrote to Julius Frontonus that no man should be condemned on a criminal charge in his absence, because it was better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent ." Dig. L. XLVIII, Tit. 19, 1. 5.
    "In all cases of doubt, the most merciful construction of facts should be preferred." Dig. L. L, Tit. XVII, 1. 56.
    "In criminal cases the milder construction shall always be preserved." Dig. L. L, Tit. XVII, 1. 155, s. 2.
    "In cases of doubt it is no less just than it is safe to adopt the milder construction." Dig. L. L, Tit. XVII, 1. 192, s. 1.

    Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the Emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, "a passionate man," seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, "Oh, illustrious Caesar! if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?" to which Julian replied, "If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?" Rerum Gestarum, L. XVIII, c. 1. The rule thus found in the Roman law was, along with many other fundamental and humane maxims of that system, preserved for mankind by the canon law. Decretum Gratiani de Presumptionibus, L. II, T. XXIII, c. 14, A.D. 1198; [***492] Corpus Juris Canonici Hispani et Indici, R.P. Murillo Velarde, Tom. 1, L. II, n. 140. Exactly when this presumption was in precise words stated to be a part of the common law is involved in doubt. The writer of an able article in the North American Review, January, 1851, tracing the genesis of the principle, says that no express mention of the presumption of innocence can be found in the books of the common law earlier than the date of McNally's Evidence (1802). Whether this statement is correct is a matter of no moment, for there can be no doubt that, if the principle had not found formal expression in the common law writers at an earlier date, yet the practice which flowed from it has existed in the common law from the earliest time.

    Fortescue says : "Who, then, in England can be put to death unjustly for any crime? since he is allowed so many pleas and privileges in favor of life; none but his neighbors, men of honest and good repute, against whom he can have no probable cause of exception, can find the person accused guilty. Indeed, one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally ." De Laudibus Legum Angliae, Amos' translation, Cambridge , 1825.

    [*456] Lord Hale (1678) says : "In some cases presumptive evidence goes far to prove a person guilty, though there be no express proof of the fact to be committed by him, but then it must be very warily pressed, for it is better five guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should die." 2 Hale P.C. 290. He further observes: "And thus the reasons stand on both sides, and though these seem to be stronger than the former, yet in a case of this moment it is safest to hold that in practice, which hath least doubt and danger, quod dubitas, ne faceris." 1 Hale P.C. 24.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." 2 Bl. Com. c. 27, margin page 358, ad finem. How fully the presumption of innocence had been evolved as a principle and applied at common law is shown in McKinley's case (1817), 33 St. Tr. 275, 506, where Lord Gillies says: "It is impossible to look at it [a treasonable oath which it was alleged that [**404] McKinley had taken] without suspecting, and thinking it probable, it imports an obligation to commit a capital crime. That has been and is my impression. But the presumption in favor of innocence is not to be reargued by mere suspicion. I am sorry to see, in this information, that the public prosecutor treats this too lightly; he seems to think that the law entertains no such presumption of innocence. I cannot listen to this. I conceive that this presumption is to be found in every code of law which has reason, and religion, and humanity, for a foundation. It is a maxim which ought to be inscribed in indelible characters in the heart of every judge and juryman; and I was happy to hear from Lord Hermand he is inclined to give full effect to it. To overturn this, there must be legal evidence of guilt, carrying home a decree of conviction short only absolute certainty."



    "Today's GAO report confirms my concern that EPA is allowing almost $2 billion in taxpayer dollars to sit idle instead of using it for its intended purpose"

    GAO Report Confirms $2 Billion in EPA’s Superfund Special Accounts Idle    

    Washington, D.C. - A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), entitled “Superfund: Status of EPA’s Efforts to Improve its Management and Oversight of Special Accounts,” which was released today confirms that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has almost $2 billion sitting idle in Superfund Special Accounts.  This report was requested in May by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

    “Today’s GAO report confirms my concern that EPA is allowing almost $2 billion in taxpayer dollars to sit idle instead of using it for its intended purpose: to clean up superfund sites,” Senator Inhofe said. “I am still waiting on answers from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson regarding two questions I asked back in May: why is EPA not using these funds, and does EPA have a plan to obligate these funds in the future?  If this is a management issue, it needs to be resolved as soon as possible.  Especially in this current economic climate, if funds are specified for a particular project they should be obligated and disbursed so that they can facilitate superfund cleanups; if they are not needed, EPA must address its funding management problems immediately.”

    Specifically, GAO found that from fiscal year 1990 through October 2010, EPA’s 10 regions collected from potentially responsible parties almost $4 billion in funds that were subsequently placed in special accounts. Nearly half of these funds are still available to be obligated for future Superfund cleanup; the remaining funds have already been obligated, but not all of these obligated funds have been disbursed.  As of October 2010, of the $1.9 billion funds that EPA had obligated for Superfund cleanup expenses, $1.6 billion had been disbursed. This means that as of October 2010, EPA is sitting on $1.8 billion.  Even more troubling is the fact that EPA has $300 million that it has obligated but has not been disbursed.

    THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FROM ROGER J. MARZULLA, FOUNDER AND GENERAL COUNSEL, DEFENDERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, EXCERPTS OF HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE



    The Founding Fathers recognized the fundamental role of property rights in a free society. They recognized that an individual who cannot retain the fruits of his or her labor is at risk of losing all of the individual liberties that are guaranteed by the Constitution. Today, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I think we must report that perhaps our most endangered liberty is private property rights.

    The findings of our report indicate that, as the GAO indicates, there are fundamentally no records of takings implication analyses being done. There are, in fact, no records of how much the Government has paid out for the failure to observe private property rights and the failure to pay just compensation. There are no reports to OMB, even though they are required, and even though the purpose of that requirement was to apprise the Congress of the extent to which agencies have been violating the Constitution, violating private property rights, and have been required to pay as a result.

    Today, the Defenders of Property Rights has issued a report which in some ways parallels the findings of the General Accounting Office, the Government's Accounting Office. And that report, Mr. Chairman, confirms that, regrettably, there is a massive noncompliance with the executive order throughout the Executive branch, and that the cost of that noncompliance is in the range of at least one billion dollars.

        Every day, we at the Defenders of Property Rights hear from individuals who request help in dealing with governmental actions, regulations, orders, requirements, that have caused them to lose their property rights. I might add, Mr. Chairman, not one of the people I have talked to over the years, the thousands of people I have talked to, has been dumping toxic waste on his property and complaining about not being able to do so.

    The executive order, as the chair has noted, was instituted for two purposes. One, to protect our precious constitutional liberties, and two, to protect the taxpayer's purse. Failure to observe the requirements of that executive order, which we consider a ''look before you leap'' type of approach, has cost taxpayers' hundreds of millions, probably billions, of dollars.

      Fundamentally, we found that of the 400 cases both filed and resolved over the period from 1991 to August of 2003, the Government had judgments awarded of approximately $112 million against it. There were settlements, the amount of which we could not gather, but since it was about twice as many cases, we assumed that was about twice as much money, or about $225 million; that is to say, about a third of a billion dollars.
        We must assume that all of those people who could not afford to hire lawyers, to file suit and go through the litigation process, to obtain their constitutionally-guaranteed right of just compensation, probably amount to at least three times, maybe four or five or six or ten times, the number who actually received the payment that the Constitution entitles them to.

    PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER J. MARZULLA

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
        Thank you for the opportunity of testifying today with respect to the federal government's implementation of Executive Order 12,630, ''Governmental Actions and Interference With Civil Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.'' I congratulate the Subcommittee on instituting the first inquiry in more than a decade into whether federal agencies are complying with their obligations under the Takings Executive Order, which is designed to protect individual constitutional liberties in property while saving money for the federal government. Regrettably, in a report issued today by Defenders of Property Rights, we conclude that widespread noncompliance with the Takings Executive Order has resulted in massive violation of constitutionally-guaranteed property rights, subjecting the federal government to liability for $1 billion or more.


    I. WHY CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE IMPORTANT

        If you believe in individual freedom, then you must believe in property rights. As the Supreme Court has said:

    Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation . . . is in truth a ''personal'' right. . . . In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized.

        Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation, 405 U.S. 538, 552 (1972).

        The protection of rights in property lies at the heart of our constitutional system of government. The Founding Fathers, in drafting the Constitution, drew upon classical notions of legal rights and individual liberty dating back to the Justinian Code, Magna Carta, and the Two Treatises of John Locke, all of which recognize the importance of property ownership in a governmental system in which individual liberty is paramount. Concurrently, the constitutional framers drew upon their own experience as colonists of an oppressive monarch, whose unlimited powers vested him with the ability to deprive his subjects of their God-given rights of ''life, liberty, and property.''

        The United States Constitution imposes a duty on government to protect private property rights. Thus, within the Bill of Rights, numerous provisions directly or indirectly protect private property rights. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people are to be ''secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . .'' The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall ''be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation . . .'' The Fourteenth Amendment echoes the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment, stating that no ''State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . .'' Additionally, the Contracts Clause of the Constitution indirectly protects property by forbidding states from passing any ''law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.''


        The protection of private property receives such strong emphasis in the United States Constitution because the right to own and use property was historically understood to be critical to the maintenance of a free society. To understand this concept, one must understand that property is more than just land. Property is buildings, machines, retirement funds, savings accounts, and even ideas. In short, property is the fruit of one's labor and the ability to use, enjoy, and exclusively possess the fruits of one's labor is the basis for a society in which individuals are free from oppression. Arguably, there can be no true freedom for anyone if people are dependent upon the State for food, shelter, and other basic needs. Under such a system, nothing is safe from being taken by a majority or a tyrant because the citizens, as government dependents, are powerless to oppose any infringement of their rights.

        The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the primary purpose for protecting property rights is to bar government from ''forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.''
    (see footnote 1) During the birth and growth of the administrative regulatory state, federal government agencies ignored these principles and implemented policies that deprived owners of the use and benefit of their property without providing compensation. Moreover, Congress consistently failed to codify property rights protection into federal law and the judicial system's maze-like procedures and hurdles made seeking redress for the infringement of private property rights in the courts impractical for many property owners. Thus, private property rights have become one of our most endangered liberties.


    The Kentucky Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson, contained the following which has often been cited as a justification for both nullification and secession:

    … that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it… .[11]

    In the Virginia Resolutions, written by James Madison there is a similar argument:

    The resolutions, having taken this view of the Federal compact, proceed to infer that, in cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose to arrest the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. ...The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this solid foundation. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, as parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.[12]

    Stoics held that no one was a slave by their nature; slavery was an external condition juxtaposed to the internal freedom of the soul (sui juris). Seneca the Younger wrote:

    It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined.

    Stoic doctrine that the "inner part cannot be delivered into bondage" re-emerged in the Reformation doctrine of liberty of conscience. Martin Luther wrote:

    Furthermore, every man is responsible for his own faith, and he must see it for himself that he believes rightly. As little as another can go to hell or heaven for me, so little can he believe or disbelieve for me; and as little as he can open or shut heaven or hell for me, so little can he drive me to faith or unbelief. Since, then, belief or unbelief is a matter of every one's conscience, and since this is no lessening of the secular power, the latter should be content and attend to its own affairs and permit men to believe one thing or another, as they are able and willing, and constrain no one by force.

    English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."

    The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights was introduced by Francis Hutcheson. In his Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (1725), Hutcheson foreshadowed the Declaration of Independence, stating: “For wherever any Invasion is made upon unalienable Rights, there must arise either a perfect, or external Right to Resistance. . . . Unalienable Rights are essential Limitations in all Governments.” However, Hutcheson placed clear limits on his notion of unalienable rights, declaring that “there can be no Right, or Limitation of Right, inconsistent with, or opposite to the greatest publick Good."[12] Hutcheson elaborated on this idea of unalienable rights in his A System of Moral Philosophy (1755), based on the Reformation principle of the liberty of conscience. One could not in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions) regardless of any external contracts or oaths to religious or secular authorities so that right is "unalienable." As Hutcheson wrote, "Thus no man can really change his sentiments, judgments, and inward affections, at the pleasure of another; nor can it tend to any good to make him profess what is contrary to his heart. The right of private judgment is therefore unalienable."

    Thomas Jefferson "took his division of rights into alienable and unalienable from Hutcheson, who made the distinction popular and important",and in the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, famously condensed this to:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

    Thomas Paine further elaborated on natural rights in his influential work Rights of Man (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges:

    It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

    future Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase argued before the Supreme Court in the case of John Van Zandt, who had been charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act, that:

    "The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property."

    Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE )

    "With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.

    "The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613; Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60.

    "As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language." Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882.

    "It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions." Tiche vs. Osborne

    "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta." Kent vs. Dulles,

    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

    "In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty." 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.260.

    "Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission." Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.

    "...the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use..." [emphasis added] Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

    "We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

    "no one shall be personally bound until he has had his day in court," Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is fairly administered. (12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect.573, p.269.)

    The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied." McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316.

    ...It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax...a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars." Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46.

    The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.

    "Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

    "If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation." Ibid., p.47.

    "It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616.

    "Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee." Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.81. Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the "due process of law" guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.)

    "The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty -- indeed they are under a solemn duty -- to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect...the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution." Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661.

    The courts are "duty bound" to recognize and stop the "stealthy encroachments" which have been made upon the Citizen's Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the "ordinary course of life and business." (Hadfield, supra.)

    "Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public." Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.

    Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them." Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526.

    "No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution." 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70.

    "No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. . . " Freedom Ordinance

    (An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio, and also known as the “Northwest Ordinance” or "The Ordinance of 1787" )

    An Organic Act, in United States law, is an Act of the United States Congress that establishes a territory of the United States or an agency to manage certain federal lands. The first such act was the Northwest Ordinance, enacted by the Congress of the Confederation in 1787 in order to create the Northwest Territory.

    Obstruction is a federal crime pursuant to federal criminal law not limited to the (lost) opportunity to make a wide range of personal decisions concerning one's life, family, and private pursuits'.

    "Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

    Article 1, §1 of the California Constitution recognizes inalienable rights, and articulated some (not all) of those rights as "defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

    TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 99 > § 9101

    § 9101. Congressional declaration of policy


    (a) It is declared to be the purposes of the Congress in this chapter to—
    (1) authorize and regulate the construction, location, ownership, and operation of ocean thermal energy conversion facilities connected to the United States by pipeline or cable, or located in whole or in part between the highwater mark and the seaward boundary of the territorial sea of the United States consistent with the Convention on the High Seas, and general principles of international law;
    (2) authorize and regulate the construction, location, ownership, and operation of ocean thermal energy conversion plantships documented under the laws of the United States, consistent with the Convention on the High Seas and general principles of international law;
    (3) authorize and regulate the construction, location, ownership, and operation of ocean thermal energy conversion plantships by United States citizens, consistent with the Convention on the High Seas and general principles of international law;
    (4) establish a legal regime which will permit and encourage the development of ocean thermal energy conversion as a commercial energy technology;
    (5) provide for the protection of the marine and coastal environment, and consideration of the interests of ocean users, to prevent or minimize any adverse impact which might occur as a consequence of the development of such ocean thermal energy conversion facilities or plantships;
    (6) make applicable certain provisions of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. 1177 et seq.) [1] to assist in financing of ocean thermal energy conversion facilities and plantships;
    (7) protect the interests of the United States in the location, construction, and operation of ocean thermal energy conversion facilities and plantships; and
    (8) protect the rights and responsibilities of adjacent coastal States in ensuring that Federal actions are consistent with approved State coastal zone management programs and other applicable State and local laws.
    (b) The Congress declares that nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect the legal status of the high seas, the superjacent airspace, or the seabed and subsoil, including the Continental Shelf.

    TITLE VIII. PROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES


    The Invisible Present

    All of us can sense change — the reddening sky with dawn’s new light, the rising strength of lake waves during a thunderstorm, and the changing seasons of plant flowering as temperature and rain affect our landscapes. Some of us see longer-term events and remember that there was less snow last winter or the fishing was better a couple of years ago. But it is the unusual person who senses with any precision changes occurring over decades. At this time scale, we are inclined to think the world is static, and we typically underestimate the degree of change that does occur. Because we are unable directly to sense slow changes and because we are even more limited in our abilities to interpret their cause-and-in effect relations, processes acting over decades are hidden and reside in what I call the invisible present. Magnuson, John J. “Long term Ecological Research and the Invisible Present.” Bioscience 40, (1990): 495-501.

    In the 1934 United States Supreme Court case, Home Loan Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, Mr. Chief Justice Hughes took judicial notice of the economic conditions of the Great Depression to help conclude that a state of emergency existed, and thus the State of Minnesota could properly impose on the contracts made by private persons to promote a broad societal interest. Specifically, the Court upheld a Minnesota statute preventing loan companies from foreclosing on homes before 1935, despite mortgage agreements allowing companies the right to do so.[3]

    In the 1981 case of Mel Mermelstein v. Institute for Historical Review, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County took judicial notice of the fact that "Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944".[4]

    References

    1. ^ http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule201
    2. ^ USPTO MPEP 2144.03
    3. ^ Home Loan Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
    4. ^ "California Judge Rules Holocaust Did Happen". The New York Times. Associated Press: p. A26. October 10, 1981. Retrieved November 20, 2010.

     3. The Senate dropped explicit reference to " strict, joint, and several" liability in a last minute substitute bill. See James R. MacAyeal, The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: The Correct Paradigm of Strict Liability and the Problem of Individual Causation, 18 UCLA J. ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 217, 257, 272 (2000/2001).

    Although CERCLA does not expressly characterize the damages as “joint” “strict” or “several,” the courts have consistently done so. See, e.g., United States v. Atl. Research Corp. 551 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2331, 2337 (2007) (“even parties not responsible for contamination may fall within the broad definition of PRPs.”), citing with approval United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 315 F.3d 179, 184 (3rd Cir. 2003) (“CERCLA § 9607 is a strict liability statute.”). See also Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 805 F.2d 1074, 1080 (1st Cir. 1986), New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1043-45 (2nd Cir. 1985); United States v. Monsanto, Co., 858 F.2d 160, 168-170 (4th Cir. 1988); Centerior Serv. Co. v. Acme Scrap Iron & Metal Co., 153 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998); Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi. v. N. Am. Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., 473 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2007) (“liability under § 107(a) is strict, joint and several—except rare cases where harm is divisible”); Dep’t of Toxic Substances v. Burlington Northern, 479 F.3d 1113, 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 2007) (“CERCLA is a ‘super-strict’ liability statute. . . . Joint and several liability, even for PRPs with a minor connection to the contaminated facility, is the norm, designed to assure, as far as possible, that some entity with connection to the contamination picks up the tab).
    4 While costs vary considerably based on the scope of contamination and characteristics of the sites, EPA spends, on average, $220 million from the Superfund annually on removal actions (typically responses lasting less than 1 year and costing less than $2 million) and considerably more on remedial actions. UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, SUPERFUND PROGRAM: CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE FISCAL CHALLENGES 6, GAO-03-850, JULY, 2003 [hereinafter GAO-03-850].
    5 See e.g., Irvin Molotsky, Senate Panel Nears Approval of Waste Cleanup Bill, N.Y. TIMES 54, Sept. 14, 1980 (chemical manufacturer testimony alleging bill is “seriously defective in its overly broad scope, its punitive approach to liability and in its excessive funding levels.”).
    6 See Alaska Sport Fishing Ass'n v. Exxon Corp., 34 F.3d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1994) (per curium) (“Exxon agreed to pay the governments at least $900 million (and possibly an additional $100 million)”).


    Resilience. The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks.

    § 1981. Equal rights under the law


    (a) Statement of equal rights
    All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
    (b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
    For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
    (c) Protection against impairment
    The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

    TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21E

    CHAPTER 21E—PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES PROTECTION AND OVERSIGHT

    § 2000ee. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

    FierceGovernmentIT
    Chief says 'how'

    DOJ, DHS officials discuss the 'how' of information sharing

    SUBCHAPTER VIII—COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE

    • § 2000g. Establishment of Service; Director of Service: appointment, term; personnel
    • § 2000g-1. Functions of Service
    • § 2000g-2. Cooperation with other agencies; conciliation assistance in confidence and without publicity; information as confidential; restriction on performance of investigative or prosecuting functions; violations and penalties
    • § 2000g-3. Reports to Congress

    SUBCHAPTER IX—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

    • § 2000h. Criminal contempt proceedings: trial by jury, criminal practice, penalties, exceptions, intent; civil contempt proceedings
    • § 2000h-1. Double jeopardy; specific crimes and criminal contempts
    • § 2000h-2. Intervention by Attorney General; denial of equal protection on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin
    • § 2000h-3. Construction of provisions not to affect authority of Attorney General, etc., to institute or intervene in actions or proceedings
    • § 2000h-4. Construction of provisions not to exclude operation of State laws and not to invalidate consistent State laws
    • § 2000h-5. Authorization of appropriations
    • § 2000h-6. Separability

    § 1981a. Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment


    (a) Right of recovery
    (1) Civil rights
    In an action brought by a complaining party under section 706 or 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e–5, 2000e–16] against a respondent who engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact) prohibited under section 703, 704, or 717 of the Act [42 U.S.C. 2000e–2, 2000e–3, 2000e–16], and provided that the complaining party cannot recover under section 1981 of this title, the complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b) of this section, in addition to any relief authorized by section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from the respondent.
    (2) Disability
    In an action brought by a complaining party under the powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in section 706 or 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e–5, 2000e–16] (as provided in section 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12117 (a)), and section 794a (a)(1) of title 29, respectively) against a respondent who engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact) under section 791 of title 29 and the regulations implementing section 791 of title 29, or who violated the requirements of section 791 of title 29 or the regulations implementing section 791 of title 29 concerning the provision of a reasonable accommodation, or section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112), or committed a violation of section 102(b)(5) of the Act, against an individual, the complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b) of this section, in addition to any relief authorized by section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from the respondent.
    (3) Reasonable accommodation and good faith effort
    In cases where a discriminatory practice involves the provision of a reasonable accommodation pursuant to section 102(b)(5) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C. 12112 (b)(5)] or regulations implementing section 791 of title 29, damages may not be awarded under this section where the covered entity demonstrates good faith efforts, in consultation with the person with the disability who has informed the covered entity that accommodation is needed, to identify and make a reasonable accommodation that would provide such individual with an equally effective opportunity and would not cause an undue hardship on the operation of the business.
    (b) Compensatory and punitive damages
    (1) Determination of punitive damages
    A complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section against a respondent (other than a government, government agency or political subdivision) if the complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.
    (2) Exclusions from compensatory damages
    Compensatory damages awarded under this section shall not include backpay, interest on backpay, or any other type of relief authorized under section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e–5 (g)].
    (3) Limitations
    The sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses, and the amount of punitive damages awarded under this section, shall not exceed, for each complaining party—
    (A) in the case of a respondent who has more than 14 and fewer than 101 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $50,000;
    (B) in the case of a respondent who has more than 100 and fewer than 201 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $100,000; and
    (C) in the case of a respondent who has more than 200 and fewer than 501 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $200,000; and
    (D) in the case of a respondent who has more than 500 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $300,000.
    (4) Construction
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the scope of, or the relief available under, section 1981 of this title.
    (c) Jury trial
    If a complaining party seeks compensatory or punitive damages under this section—
    (1) any party may demand a trial by jury; and
    (2) the court shall not inform the jury of the limitations described in subsection (b)(3) of this section.
    (d) Definitions
    As used in this section:
    (1) Complaining party
    The term “complaining party” means—
    (A) in the case of a person seeking to bring an action under subsection (a)(1) of this section, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, or a person who may bring an action or proceeding under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.); or
    (B) in the case of a person seeking to bring an action under subsection (a)(2) of this section, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, a person who may bring an action or proceeding under section 794a (a)(1) of title 29, or a person who may bring an action or proceeding under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq.].
    (2) Discriminatory practice
    The term “discriminatory practice” means the discrimination described in paragraph (1), or the discrimination or the violation described in paragraph (2), of subsection (a) of this section.

    § 1982. Property rights of citizens


    All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

    § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights


    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

    § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

    (1) Preventing officer from performing duties
    (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
    (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

    § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent


    Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

    § 1987. Prosecution of violation of certain laws


    The United States attorneys, marshals, and deputy marshals, the United States magistrate judges appointed by the district and territorial courts, with power to arrest, imprison, or bail offenders, and every other officer who is especially empowered by the President, are authorized and required, at the expense of the United States, to institute prosecutions against all persons violating any of the provisions of section 1990 of this title or of sections 5506 to 5516 and 5518 to 5532 of the Revised Statutes, and to cause such persons to be arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, for trial before the court of the United States or the territorial court having cognizance of the offense.

    EPA Should Revise Outdated or Inconsistent EPA-State Clean Water Act Memoranda of Agreement
    What We Found
    NPDES MOAs between EPA and States do not ensure Agency management control and effective oversight over a national program administered by States that is capable of providing equal protection to all Americans. EPA Headquarters does not hold EPA regional or State offices accountable for updating their MOAs when necessary and relies on other planning and management mechanisms to exercise control over State programs. However, MOAs are critical because they are the common denominator for State-authorized programs and should represent a common baseline. Outdated MOAs or MOAs that are not adhered to reduce EPA’s ability to maintain a uniform program across States that meets the goals of CWA sections 101 and 402. An effective national program must maintain consistent management control and oversight of State programs.
    What We Recommend
    We recommend that EPA ensure that all NPDES MOAs contain essential elements for a nationally consistent enforcement program, including CWA, Code of Federal Regulations, and State Review Framework criteria. We recommend that EPA develop and provide a national template and/or guidance for a model MOA; direct EPA regions to revise outdated or inconsistent MOAs to meet the national template and standards; and establish a process for periodic review and revision of MOAs, including when the CWA or Code of Federal Regulations are revised or when State programs change. Finally, we recommend that EPA establish a national, public clearinghouse of all current MOAs so that EPA, States, and the public have access to these documents.
    EPA generally agreed with our recommendations, saying it would coordinate assessment and revision of NPDES MOAs with implementation of the CWA Action Plan. Three recommendations are open and one recommendation is listed as undecided. In its final response to this report, EPA should provide estimated or actual completion dates for all recommendations.

    This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
    The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time and adding travel costs – is $660,519.
    Action Required
    In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed-upon actions, including milestone dates. Your response will be posted on the OIG’s public Website, along with our comments on your response. Your response should be provided in an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. If your response contains data that you do not want to be released to the public, you should identify the data for redaction. We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
    If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Wade Najjum at (202) 566-0832 or najjum.wade@epa.gov, or Dan Engelberg at (202) 566-0830 or engelberg.dan@epa.gov.

    EPA’s Enforcement Performance Has Been Questioned
    In 2005, EPA initiated the State Review Framework, a formal process using standardized criteria, collaboratively developed by OECA, EPA regions, States, and the Environmental Council of the States, to gauge State performance in compliance assurance and enforcement. EPA wanted to increase its oversight inspections and other direct actions in the States. EPA reviewed State data, inspection and enforcement files, negotiated commitments, management discussions with the State, and other existing assessments. Through its reviews, EPA identified four programmatic deficiencies in State enforcement: data quality, identification of significant violations, the timeliness of enforcement actions, and penalties.
    In October 2009, the EPA Administrator testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that EPA was falling short of expectations for effective and fair enforcement of the CWA:
    Data available to EPA shows that, in many parts of the country, the level of significant non-compliance with permitting requirements is unacceptably high and the level of enforcement activity is unacceptably low. For example, one out of every four of the largest Clean Water Act dischargers had significant violations in 2008. Many of these violations were serious effluent violations or failure to comply with enforcement orders. The government’s enforcement response to these violations is uneven across the country. For example, a violation in one State results in the assessment of mandatory minimum penalties, while in another State, no enforcement action is taken for the same violation. This situation creates a competitive disadvantage for States that are enforcing the law. We need to change this. Strong and fair compliance and enforcement across the country is vital to establishing a level playing field for industrial facilities, preventing some regions from attempting to achieve an economic advantage over others.

    Both GAO and the EPA OIG have frequently reported on problems with the EPA-State enforcement relationship, noting key issues such as data quality, identification of violations, issuing enforcement penalties and other enforcement actions in a timely and appropriate manner, and general oversight issues. See Appendix B for a list of reports on these issues.
    In its October 2009 testimony before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, GAO reported that longstanding issues impact EPA and State enforcement efforts.2 For example, findings from a GAO enforcement report in 2000 demonstrated that local variations among EPA’s regional offices led to inconsistencies in the actions they take to enforce environmental requirements.3 In 2004, the EPA OIG responded to a congressional request to review the Region 3 NPDES program.4 In part, the OIG found that the MOAs between the States and Region 3 were all more than 10 years old at the time and included outdated requirements. These MOAs had not been revised as of the date of this report.

    1 Testimony of Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, October 15, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/testimony/111_2009_2010/2009_1015_lpj.pdf.

    MOAs Are Missing Key Regulatory Requirements
    MOAs were missing key requirements of Title 40 CFR 123.24. MOA documents also lacked MOA-specific program regulations contained in Title 40 CFR 123.26 and 123.27. For each of the 46 criteria, OIG rated the MOA as a “0” (does not address this element), “1” (addresses the element in some way), or “2” (addresses the element verbatim or in synonymous language). Figure 2-1 shows that across all regulatory criteria, MOAs did not contain 39 percent of the criteria, and that 61 percent of regulatory criteria are either not addressed or only partially addressed. EPA should define the requirements for management control of a nationally consistent enforcement program, and then review each State MOA to determine which MOAs are adequate and which MOAs need to be revised.

    MOAs did not address key regulatory requirements for MOA documents. For example, the CFR requires that States establish data management systems to support their compliance evaluation activities. Twenty percent of the MOAs did not contain any language about a data management system. This does not mean the State does not have such a system or that the system is not discussed in another document. However, because the primary, required document, the MOA, does not mention it, EPA cannot readily determine whether there is nationwide uniformity in data management systems.
    MOAs also did not include a number of the additional regulatory program requirements contained in Title 40 CFR 123.26 and 123.27. These additional requirements correspond to the programmatic deficiencies that OECA identified in its first-round State Review Framework evaluations (data quality, identification of significant violations, the timeliness of enforcement actions, and penalties). For example, the CFR requires that States establish minimum civil penalty policies, such as the ability to assess at least a $5,000 penalty per day for each NPDES violation. The State Review Framework identified penalty calculation as a comprehensive weakness. Fifty-four percent of MOAs did not include any language about minimum civil penalty standards (i.e., received a score of “0” for this element). Only 1 of the 46 MOAs specified that the minimum penalty per day, per violation, would be $5,000 (a score of “2”).
    MOAs most comprehensively addressed the MOA-specific regulations (CFR 123.24), containing these requirements 77 percent of the time. MOAs contained fewer requirements in the non-MOA-specific monitoring and inspections section (65 percent for CFR 123.26) and fewest in the enforcement section (36 percent for CFR 123.27). For example, 63 percent of the MOAs did not include language verifying that no other State enforcement agreement could override the MOA, as required by CFR 123.24(c). Eighty percent of MOAs did not note whether the State had the authority to enter any permitted facility (123.26(c)). Figure 2-2 shows how the percentage of missing regulations varied according to the CFR section under review.
    EPA Could Establish a National Baseline for CWA Implementation with an MOA Template
    EPA faces a significant challenge: to implement a nationally consistent enforcement program that offers equal protection from pollution to all Americans. By renegotiating outdated or inconsistent MOAs according to a national template, EPA can establish a current baseline for national consistency. A national template could also ease the MOA negotiation process. EPA should identify the key requirements that should be delineated in MOAs, including the other programmatic concerns disclosed through the CFR and issues uncovered during OECA’s State Review Framework, and incorporate them into a national template.
    The officials of OECA, EPA regions, and State organizations we spoke with agree that MOAs are out of date and should be renegotiated, but OECA also pointed out that the process could face State resistance because it might require considerable resources. Enforcement managers and officials in two of the four regions we spoke with indicated that MOA renegotiation would be a low priority for them and would require them to remove resources from other enforcement activities. However, in our opinion, the management control benefit justifies the resource requirement. For example, as a result of renegotiating MOAs, Region 4 enforcement staff reported that they improved baseline management control over EPA-State enforcement relationships. In the face of a disagreement over responsibilities, regional staff said they show State program staff where an enhanced requirement is written in the updated MOA, and the State program staff then carry out the requirement.
    Staff from each region we interviewed and other stakeholders agreed that an EPA Headquarters model MOA would be beneficial in determining MOA adequacy.

    Region 4 developed a regional template for use in its MOA renegotiations. Regional enforcement officials reported that the template did not change much between the beginning and end of negotiations. A Region 10 enforcement program manager suggested that a model MOA that would serve as a foundational reference document could help to clarify the core oversight responsibilities. Region 10 staff stated that a model MOA could identify EPA and State expectations with respect to inspection, timely follow-up, data quality, transparency, and adequate response. In addition, the Environmental Council of the States said its member States would be interested in discussing a model MOA.
    Conclusion
    The current state of the MOAs means that EPA cannot assure it has effective management control over State programs that assures the public that CWA objectives are being achieved. EPA has not established a national template defining the key requirements necessary for current, robust MOAs. In addition, EPA has not developed a periodic review system to determine which MOAs remain adequate and which need to be revised to remain current with changing regulations. MOAs should establish the foundations for nationally consistent enforcement, defining the baseline roles and responsibilities for EPA and States. MOAs should also be the basis for assessing States’ ability and commitment to administer EPA’s NPDES program in accordance with the CWA. The CFR requires MOAs to outline the basic parameters of the EPA-State relationship and ensure CWA goals are being met through State-authorized programs. To ensure that MOAs fulfill their intended function, EPA must put in place a system that maintains and oversees consistent management controls over State programs. To ensure transparency and accountability, EPA should maintain a publicly available MOA repository, making these documents available to all States, EPA regions, and the public.
    Recommendations
    We recommend that the Deputy Administrator:
    2-1 Develop a national MOA template including essential requirements derived from the updated CWA, CFR requirements, and State Review Framework findings.
    2-2 Develop a systematic approach to identify which States have outdated or inconsistent MOAs; renegotiate and update those MOAs using the MOA template; and secure the active involvement and final, documented concurrence of Headquarters to ensure national consistency.
    2-3 Establish a process for reviewing MOAs on a regular basis, taking into account legislative and management changes that affect the adequacy of the MOA.
    2-4 Maintain a publicly available repository of MOAs.
    Agency Response and OIG Comment
    EPA’s Deputy Administrator provided the Agency response, coordinating comments from OECA and OW. The Deputy Administrator generally agreed with these recommendations and provided an outline of corrective actions that he would take in response to the recommendations.
    The Deputy Administrator agreed with recommendations 2-1, 2-3, and 2-4.
    In response to recommendation 2-2, the Deputy Administrator stated that renegotiating MOAs with States can be time consuming and may not be always be the best use of EPA resources. Deficiencies in State enforcement programs may be better addressed through other solutions and approaches. The Deputy Administrator proposed that OECA and OW integrate MOA assessment into a coordinated State program review process to identify and correct MOAs that present the greatest barriers to State program performance.
    The OIG responds by noting that the draft report and the final report both make mention of the other mechanisms EPA uses to manage programs, even noting that there is a layered system of management controls (see page 2, for example). However, the report emphasizes that while EPA uses other mechanisms, the only required mechanism is the authorization MOA. The way in which EPA regions and States use other mechanisms varies, but the MOA is the only document that each State must have. For this reason, it is important that authorization MOAs be up to date and compliant with the CFR.
    While acknowledging EPA’s need to maintain flexibility, the OIG believes that MOAs are a critical building block of State enforcement programs. Depending on how it is constructed, a systematic State program review process that contains a strategy for updating outdated or inconsistent MOAs could address our recommendation. We will list the status of recommendation 2-2 as “undecided,” and list the other recommendations as “open.” We look forward to a detailed strategy and timeline for implementation in the Agency’s 90-day response to this final report.

    List of CFR Criteria for MOA Assessment1
    CFR
    Criterion
    1
    123.24(a)
    MOA executed by the State Director and the Regional Administrator and approved by Administrator
    2
    MOA meets all requirements of paragraph (b)
    3
    MOA has no provisions restricting EPA’s statutory oversight responsibility
    4
    123.24(b)
    Provisions for prompt transfer from EPA to the State of pending permit applications and any other relevant program operation information
    5
    MOA contain procedure for transfer of any existing permits for administration
    6
    MOA contain specific procedure for transfer of administration if a State lacks administration authority for permits issued by Federal government
    7
    MOA contain provisions specifying classes and categories of permit applications, draft permits, and proposed permits for Regional Administrator review
    8
    MOA contain provisions specifying the frequency and content of reports, documents and other information which the State is required to submit to EPA
    9
    MOA contain provisions allowing EPA to routinely review State records, reports, and files relevant to the administration and enforcement of the approved program
    10
    MOA contain provisions for coordination of compliance monitoring activities by the State and by EPA and EPA inspection of select facilities or activities within State
    11
    MOA contain procedures to assure coordination of enforcement activities
    12
    MOA contain provisions, when appropriate, for joint processing of permits by the State and EPA for facilities or activities which require permits from both EPA and the State under different programs per § 124.4
    13
    MOA contain provisions for modification of the MOA in accordance with this part
    14
    123.24(c)
    MOA, the annual program grant and the State/EPA Agreement should be consistent. If the State/EPA Agreement indicates that a change is needed in the Memorandum of Agreement, the Memorandum of Agreement may be amended through the procedures set forth in this part.
    15
    State/EPA Agreement cannot override MOA
    16
    123.24(d)
    MOA specify the extent to which EPA will waive its right to review, object to, or comment upon State-issued permits under section 402(d)(3), (e) or (f) of CWA
    17
    123.26(a)
    State programs shall have procedures for receipt, evaluation, retention and investigation for possible enforcement of all notices and reports required of permittees and other regulated persons (and for investigation for possible enforcement of failure to submit these notices and reports).
    18
    123.26(b)
    State programs shall have inspection and surveillance procedures to determine, independent of information supplied by regulated persons, compliance or noncompliance with applicable program requirements.
    19
    The State shall maintain a program which is capable of making comprehensive surveys of all facilities and activities subject to the State Director's authority to identify persons subject to regulation who have failed to comply with permit application or other program requirements. Any compilation, index or inventory of such facilities and activities shall be made available to the Regional Administrator upon request;
    20
    The State shall maintain a program for periodic inspections of the facilities and activities subject to regulation.
    1 MOA assessment excludes the review of 123.24(b)(ii) and 123.27(e) as noted within the Scope and Methodology.
    18
    10-P-0224
    CFR
    Criterion
    21
    These inspections shall be conducted in a manner designed to: Determine compliance or noncompliance with issued permit conditions and other program requirements;
    22
    These inspections shall be conducted in a manner designed to: Verify the accuracy of information submitted by permittees and other regulated persons in reporting forms and other forms supplying monitoring data; and
    23
    These inspections shall be conducted in a manner designed to: Verify the adequacy of sampling, monitoring, and other methods used by permittees and other regulated persons to develop that information;
    24
    The State shall maintain a program for investigating information obtained regarding violations of applicable program and permit requirements; and
    25
    The State shall maintain procedures for receiving and ensuring proper consideration of information submitted by the Public about violations. Public effort in reporting violations shall be encouraged, and the State Director shall make available information on reporting procedures.
    26
    123.26(c)
    The State Director and State officers engaged in compliance evaluation shall have authority to enter any site or premises subject to regulation or in which records relevant to program operation are kept in order to copy any records, inspect, monitor or otherwise investigate compliance with the State program including compliance with permit conditions and other program requirements. States whose law requires a search warrant before entry conform with this requirement.
    27
    123.26(d)
    Investigatory inspections shall be conducted, samples shall be taken and other information shall be gathered in a manner (e.g., using proper “chain of custody” procedures) that will produce evidence admissible in an enforcement proceeding or in court.
    28
    123.26(e)
    Maintaining a comprehensive inventory of all sources covered by NPDES permits and a schedule of reports required to be submitted by permittees to the State agency;
    29
    Initial screening (i.e., pre-enforcement evaluation) of all permit or grant-related compliance information to identify violations and to establish priorities for further substantive technical evaluation;
    30
    When warranted, conducting a substantive technical evaluation following the initial screening of all permit or grant-related compliance information to determine the appropriate agency response;
    31
    Maintaining a management information system which supports the compliance evaluation activities of this part; and
    32
    Inspecting the facilities of all major dischargers at least annually.
    33
    123.27(a)
    To restrain immediately and effectively any person by order or by suit in State court from engaging in any unauthorized activity which is endangering or causing damage to public health or the environment;
    34
    Note: This paragraph (a)(1) requires that States have a mechanism (e.g., an administrative cease and desist order or the ability to seek a temporary restraining order) to stop any unauthorized activity endangering public health or the environment.
    35
    To sue in courts of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation of any program requirement, including permit conditions, without the necessity of a prior revocation of the permit;
    36
    To assess or sue to recover in court civil penalties and to seek criminal remedies, including fines, as follows:
    37
    Civil penalties shall be recoverable for the violation of any NPDES permit condition; any NPDES filing requirement; any duty to allow or carry out inspection, entry or monitoring activities; or, any regulation or orders issued by the State Director. These penalties shall be assessable in at least the amount of $5,000 a day for each violation.
    19
    10-P-0224
    CFR
    Criterion
    38
    Criminal fines shall be recoverable against any person who willfully or negligently violates any applicable standards or limitations; any NPDES permit condition; or any NPDES filing requirement. These fines shall be assessable in at least the amount of $10,000 a day for each violation.
    39
    Criminal fines shall be recoverable against any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation or certification in any NPDES form, in any notice or report required by an NPDES permit, or who knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained by the Director. These fines shall be recoverable in at least the amount of $5,000 for each instance of violation.
    40
    123.27(b)
    The maximum civil penalty or criminal fine (as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section) shall be assessable for each instance of violation and, if the violation is continuous, shall be assessable up to the maximum amount for each day of violation.
    41
    The burden of proof and degree of knowledge or intent required under State law for establishing violations under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, shall be no greater than the burden of proof or degree of knowledge or intent EPA must provide when it brings an action under the appropriate Act;
    42
    123.27(c)
    A civil penalty assessed, sought, or agreed upon by the State Director under paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall be appropriate to the violation.
    43
    Procedures for assessment by the State of the cost of investigations, inspections, or monitoring surveys which lead to the establishment of violations;
    44
    In addition to the requirements of this paragraph, the State may have other enforcement remedies. The following enforcement options, while not mandatory, are highly recommended:
    45
    123.27(d)
    Any State administering a program shall provide for public participation in the State enforcement process by providing either:
    46
    Authority which allows intervention as of right in any civil or administrative action to obtain remedies specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (2) or (3) of this section by any citizen having an interest which is or may be adversely affected; or (2) Assurance that the State agency or enforcement authority will: (i) Investigate and provide written responses to all citizen complaints submitted pursuant to the procedures specified in §123.26(b)(4); (ii) Not oppose intervention by any citizen when permissive intervention may be authorized by statute, rule, or regulation; and (iii) Publish notice of and provide at least 30 days for public comment on any proposed settlement of a State enforcement action.

    Standards for Apportionment
    Because we hold that apportionment is available at the liability
    stage in CERCLA cases, we must determine the appropriate
    standards for determining when apportionment is
    available and, when it is, how to ascertain the proper division
    of damages among defendants. Again, we draw on the experience
    of our sister circuits.
    [5] The circuits that have addressed these questions have
    looked to common law principles of tort in general, and the
    Restatement in particular, for guidance as to when and how
    to impose joint and several liability under § 9607(a). We
    agree that this approach is proper and adopt it here. We also
    follow Chem-Dyne and all of the courts of appeals that have
    addressed the question in holding that the resulting

    standard must be a uniform federal rule.

     See, e.g., Aviall Servs., Inc. v.
    Cooper Indus., Inc., 312 F.3d 677, 684 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that

    apportionment of CERCLA liability “is . . . a matter of federal common law”),

    reversed on other grounds by 543
    U.S. 157 (2004); United States v. Burlington N. R. Co., 200
    F.3d 679, 697 (10th Cir. 1999) (same); Township of Brighton,
    153 F.3d at 329 (same); Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d at 172
    (same). As Chem-Dyne noted, the legislative history of CERCLA
    supports such an approach, as does its policy favoring
    national uniformity so as to discourage “illegal dumping in
    states with lax liability laws.” Chem-Dyne, 572 F. Supp. at 809.16
    [6] The question, then, is what the uniform federal law
    should be. Once again, all the circuits that have addressed this
    question have followed Chem-Dyne, holding that the appropriate
    source for a common law rule of apportionment is Section
    433A of the Restatement of Torts. See Hercules, 247
    F.3d at 716 & n.9, 717 (noting that courts support

    the divisibility doctrine

    as borrowed from the Restatement); Bell Petroleum,
    3 F.3d at 895 (relying on the Restatement); Chem-Dyne,
    572 F. Supp. at 810 (establishing this method). We concur in
    this conclusion generally, although we borrow from the
    Restatement with two important caveats, as there are two
    areas where the Restatement approach is a somewhat poor fit
    and requires slight modifications to ensure that our approach
    comports with

     the liability and remediation scheme

    of CERCLA.
    First, there are important distinctions between causation
    as conceived in the Restatement and causation in the
    context of CERCLA. We describe these and

    import a nexus concept

    that relates to the particular PRP provisions at issue.
    And second, the concept of “harm” in the Restatement

    as actual injury does not correspond

    easily to CERCLA’s priorities.
    We conclude instead that contamination and the cost of
    remediation are both relevant for the “harm” analysis under
    CERCLA. The Restatement’s fundamental reliance on objective
    rather than equitable considerations, however, does comport
    well with the “super-strict” nature of CERCLA and with
    the development of the statute, leaving us to conclude that

    equitable considerations have no role

    at this stage in the applicable
    standards.
    1. Causation
    [7] Section 433A of the Restatement allows for apportionment
    of damages where “(a) there are distinct harms,[17] or (b)
    there is a reasonable basis for determining the contribution of
    each cause to a single harm.”18 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF
    TORTS § 433A(1) (1965) (emphasis added). CERCLA, however,
    does not require

    causation as a prerequisite to liability

    (except with regard to the third-party defense, see § 9607(b),
    not at issue here). Nonetheless, most of the leading cases on
    joint and several liability under CERCLA have addressed
    divisibility under § 433A(1)(b) and thereby incorporated a

    modified concept of causation.

    19 See, e.g., Bell Petroleum, 3
    F.3d at 902-03; Monsanto, 858 F.2d at 172; Chem-Dyne, 572
    F. Supp. at 810.
    Notably, these cases often dealt with simpler facts than
    those we confront. Chem-Dyne, for instance, assumed a case
    quite different from this one. There, the court stated that
    “[t]ypically . . . there will be numerous hazardous substance
    generators or transporters who have disposed of wastes at a
    particular site.” 572 F. Supp. at 810. It was in that context —
    that is, where the question was apportionment among defendants
    who all disposed of wastes themselves — that Chem-
    Dyne determined that courts could follow the divisibility principles
    of the Restatement and remain true to CERCLA. In a
    situation in which the several defendants are all polluters
    themselves,

    divisibility under the Restatement standard is

    indeed a relatively straightforward analysis,

     and one in which causation concepts are useful.

    If the court can estimate with
    some confidence the amount of waste that each defendant disposed
    of and has a basis for determining that the extent of
    contamination of the site is proportional to the amount of
    waste disposed of, then the Restatement approach to apportionment
    works nicely.
    The situation here is different.20 The three “responsible”
    parties are: the now-insolvent majority owner and operator of
    the site; the mostly absentee landlord of a portion of the site;
    and a seller of chemicals shipped to and stored at the site.
    Each party had an entirely different role in the contamination
    process, with overlapping effects, and not all “caused” contamination
    in any meaningful sense.

    [8] Most notably, PRP status premised on ownership of a

    facility does not require any involvement in the disposal of

    hazardous substances. Thus, to speak of a PRP “causing” contamination

    of its land simply by owning land on which someone

    else disposes of hazardous wastes is to indulge in

    metaphor. At the same time, to allow CERCLA defendants,

    especially landowner PRPs, to prove through traditional causation

    analysis that they were not entirely liable would be to

    undermine the premise on which the statute designated them

    as PRPs to begin with. CERCLA requires a connection — for

    example, that the PRP be a landowner “at the time of disposal,”

    see § 9607(a)(2) — but no further causation. We therefore

    adjust the application of the Restatement principles to the

    current circumstance by abjuring the traditional “causation”

    principles and substituting a nexus concept that depends upon

    the particular PRP provision applicable. Where, as here, the

    pertinent PRP status is as landowner, the landowner can

    establish divisibility only by demonstrating that portions of

    the contamination are in no respect traceable to the portion of

    the facility that the landowner owned at the time of the disposal.

    The arranger nexus is more straightforward, with a
    focus not on ownership of the facility but rather on the relevant,
    arranged disposals in light of other contamination at the
    facility.
    2. Harm
    [9] A second difficulty that results from

    relying on tort principles in a scheme not based on tort law

    concerns the
    application of the term “harm,” used in the Restatement, as
    applied to CERCLA. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS
    11310 DEP’T OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN
    § 433A. The CERCLA cost recovery section does not focus
    on “harm,” but rather on “costs of removal or remedial
    action” and

    “necessary costs of response.”

    21 § 9607(a). Thus,
    when applying the Restatement in the context of CERCLA,

    the question becomes: What is the “harm” that we are

    attempting to divide?

    There are three possible kinds of “harm” in actions for
    remediation costs under CERCLA: the initial disposal, the
    resulting contamination, and the costs of remediating the contamination.

    Actual injury to individuals or to property, the

    usual “harms” in a tort suit, are not a pertinent consideration;

    the statute is concerned with averting future injury by

    remediating contamination, not with compensation for past injuries.

    If the harm were the disposal, then divisibility based on
    volume of discharge by operators or by parcel would always
    make sense, because disposal occurs in specific amounts at
    specific places. If the harm were contamination, then some
    attempt would have to be made either to justify a direct correlation
    between disposal and contamination under the specific
    circumstances or to separate out the leakage that remained as
    contamination from leakage that either evaporated, was adequately
    diluted, or for other reasons did not remain on the
    property in toxic form.
    22 If the harm is the cost of remediation,
    then divisibility would have to be based on the pro rata cost
    of cleaning up each defendant’s contribution to the contami-
    nation.
    That pro rata cost will sometimes differ from the proportion
    of contamination caused by each defendant, because
    the cost of removing contamination can vary with geographical
    considerations, degree of toxicity, the means of extraction
    used for different toxic substances, or other factors.

    [10] In light of a CERCLA liability suit’s central purpose

    — recovering the cost of eradicating contamination — we

    conclude that it is most useful for purposes of determining

    divisibility to view the “harm” under CERCLA as the contamination

    traceable to each defendant.

    Disposal itself is not the focus of the statute, unless it results in contamination.
    And the cost of cleaning up the contamination is most analogous
    to the damages recovered in a tort suit, not to the injury on
    which liability is based.23
    3. Equity

    [11] Because this case is one in which the harms are not

    distinct, apportionment must be under Restatement

    § 433A(1)(b) if it is to be allowed at all.

    That is, there must be a reasonable basis for determining the contribution of each PRP to the harm.

    While nothing in the statute directly
    addresses the question whether equitable factors are appropriate
    for purposes of apportioning liability among joint tortfeasors,
    all the other circuits that have addressed the issue have
    held that they are not. We again follow their lead.
    Although CERCLA is not explicit on this issue, there is a
    statutory provision concerning the separate question of contri-
    bution actions among PRPs once liability to the plaintiffs
    seeking to recover cleanup costs has been determined. That
    provision,

    § 9613(f), added to CERCLA in 1986, is silent as to initial divisibility.

     It only describes, quite generally, the
    considerations applicable in a contribution action for determining
    whether one PRP can collect from another a portion
    of the costs for which it has been held liable:

     “In resolving contribution claims, the court may allocate response costs

    among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court

    determines are appropriate.”

    § 9613(f) (emphasis added).24 In
    contrast, § 433A(1)(b) of the Restatement and the appended
    commentary concerning divisibility are silent as to equitable
    considerations.25
    Although, as noted, this circuit heretofore has not addressed
    divisibility analysis, the implication from our cases deciding
    § 9613(f) contribution issues is that the proper time to focus
    on such factors is at the contribution phase, not the liability
    phase.

    See, e.g., Carson Harbor Vill., 270 F.3d at 871 (noting

    that the “contribution provision aims to avoid a variety of scenarios

    by which a comparatively innocent PRP might be on

    the hook for the entirety of a large cleanup bill”); Pinal Creek,

    118 F.3d at 1301 (“A PRP’s contribution liability will corre-

    spond to that party’s equitable share of the total liability and

    will not be joint and several.”).


    Other circuits have been careful to delineate the difference
    between the equitable considerations pertinent under
    § 9613(f) and the objective considerations pertinent under
    § 9607(a). See Hercules, 247 F.3d at 718; Township of Brighton,
    153 F.3d at 318; Bell Petroleum, 3 F.3d at 901.

    As the Sixth Circuit has noted, divisibility analysis has the potential

    to eviscerate the strict liability principles of CERCLA

    entirely, “because defendants who can show that the harm is

    divisible, and that they are not responsible for any of the

    harm” could whittle their liability to zero.

    Township of Brighton,
    153 F.3d at 318. Additionally, as Township of Brighton
    also noted in rejecting a fairness-based approach, divisibility
    analysis is not an invitation to “split the difference” and come
    up with a “compromise amount.” Id. at 319.

    While it may seem unfair to hold a partial owner liable for

    all the contamination cleanup costs, that perceived unfairness

    is the result of the statutory “super-strict” liability scheme.

    Assuring fairness among PRPs is the proper subject of the

    contribution stage, not of apportionment at the liability stage.

    See United States v. Rohm & Haas Co., 2 F.3d 1265, 1280-81
    (3d Cir. 1993), overruled on other grounds by United States
    v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 432 F.3d 161, 162-63 (3d
    Cir. 2005) (en banc). At the liability stage, CERCLA simply
    assigns liability to statutorily responsible parties so as to
    assure that, as between those with some connection to the
    contamination — and who have, it may be assumed, benefitted
    from the contamination-causing process — and those with
    none, such as the taxpayers.

    Any court-created structure that

    would allow PRPs to whittle their share to little or nothing

    and leave the taxpayers holding the bag may seem more equitable

    to some PRPs but would violate the basic structure of

    the CERCLA statutory scheme.

     Because of such concerns,

    courts have generally refrained from using an equity-based

    allocation analysis, so as not to weaken further the strict liability

    principle basic to CERCLA.

    [12] We agree that while

     joint and several liability need not be universally applied,

    see Bell Petroleum, 3 F.3d at 897, the
    inquiry as to whether such liability is appropriate must focus
    strictly on

    whether there is a reasonable basis for apportionment,

    see, e.g., id. at 901-04. Consequently, in an action under
    § 9607(a), a court is not to look to equitable considerations,
    such as relative fault, in determining whether liability is to be
    joint and several or apportioned.

    FOOTNOTES
    16The parties here have assumed that the apportionment standard must
    be one of uniform federal common law. As stated above, every federal circuit
    to address the issue, including those decided after O’Melveny &
    Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79 (1994), and Atherton v. FDIC, 519 U.S. 213
    (1997), has shared that understanding. Although Atchison, Topeka &
    Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Brown & Bryant, Inc., 159 F.3d 358, 362-64 (9th Cir.
    1997), questioned whether O’Melveny & Myers and Atherton upset Ninth
    Circuit law with regard to the adoption of uniform federal common law
    regarding successor liability under CERCLA, very different considerations
    govern with respect to apportionment. In Atchinson, resolution of the
    question of successor liability would resolve who was liable under
    CERCLA, an inquiry with roots in state corporate law.

    Here, the inquiry diverges from state law completely.

    As we explain in this section,

    the “super-strict” nature of CERCLA liability is sui generis,

    so there is no state law directly applicable.
    The resulting apportionment analysis therefore
    requires a similarly unique set of considerations, married to the statute’s
    functions and purpose.
    17Comment b of section 433A notes:
    Distinct harms. There are other results which, by their nature, are
    more capable of apportionment. If two defendants independently
    shoot the plaintiff at the same time, and one wounds him in the
    arm and the other in the leg, the ultimate result may be a badly
    damaged plaintiff in the hospital, but it is still possible, as a logical,
    reasonable, and practical matter, to regard the two wounds as
    separate injuries, and as distinct wrongs. The mere coincidence
    in time does not make the two wounds a single harm, or the conduct
    of the two defendants one tort. There may be difficulty in
    the apportionment of some elements of damages, such as the pain
    and suffering resulting from the two wounds, or the medical
    expenses, but this does not mean that one defendant must be liable
    for the distinct harm inflicted by the other.
    18Comment d of section 433A notes:
    Divisible harm. There are other kinds of harm which, while not
    so clearly marked out as severable into distinct parts, are still
    capable of division upon a reasonable and rational basis, and of
    fair apportionment among the causes responsible. Thus where the
    cattle of two or more owners trespass upon the plaintiff’s land
    and destroy his crop, the aggregate harm is a lost crop, but it may
    nevertheless be apportioned among the owners of the cattle, on
    the basis of the number owned by each, and the reasonable
    assumption that the respective harm done is proportionate to that
    number.

    Where such apportionment can be made without injustice

    to any of the parties, the court may require it to be made.

    19The sections of the Restatement that courts have used to establish the
    rules of joint and several liability under CERCLA are found 

    in the negligence division of the Restatement.

    As these courts recognize, CERCLA is
    a strict liability statute. See, e.g., Hercules, 247 F.3d at 716; Township of
    Brighton, 153 F.3d at 318. Because 

    there is no comparable divisibility rule in the strict liability portion of the Second Restatement,

    courts have
    adapted the negligence rules to strict liability by declining to rely on the
    portion of the Restatement section

    that places an initial burden as to causation on the plaintiff.

    Compare Hercules, 247 F.3d at 717, and Bell Petroleum,
    3 F.3d at 896, with RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 433B(1).
    20One commentator has noted that trying to apply the Restatement to
    CERCLA in most cases is like “pushing a round peg through a square
    hole. Traditional tort law principles falter in the CERCLA context because
    CERCLA is so unlike a typical tort law cause of action.” Lynda J. Oswald,
    New Directions in Joint and Several Liability Under CERCLA?, 28 U.C.
    DAVIS L. REV. 299, 360 (1995).
    21The statute also mentions “damages for injury to, destruction of, or
    loss of natural resources” and “costs of any health assessment or health
    effects study.” § 9607(a)(C), (D). These provisions may be informative
    with regard to the nature of the harm in other cases but are not here applicable.
    22In many instances, of course — as in Chem-Dyne — the various polluters
    will dispose of the same substance in the same location, so there will
    be a basis for assuming that each polluter’s pro rata share of the hazardous
    waste disposed of and of the resulting contamination is the same. See also
    Bell Petroleum, 3 F.3d at 903.
    23The cost of cleanup of different toxic substances or in different areas
    of the facility will often be a useful measure of the proportion of the pertinent
    contamination allocable [ALLOCATABLE?] to each defendant. That cost will depend
    upon factors such as which contamination was serious enough to merit
    remediation and how thoroughly the soil was contaminated in various
    areas. Thus, the “harm” allocation analysis may in some instances usefully
    focus initially on the proportion of costs associated with remedying various
    aspects of the contamination.
    24Among the equitable factors used in CERCLA contribution cases are
    the so-called

    “Gore factors.”

     See Hercules, 247 F.3d at 718. Those factors
    are derived from the amendment that then-Representative Gore introduced
    in 1980 to alleviate the harshness of

    mandatory apportionment,

    which at
    that time was a part of the bill. See 126 CONG. REC. 26782 (1980) (statement
    of Rep. Gore). Although these factors are appropriate in contribution
    cases, they are not, for the reasons suggested in the text, appropriate considerations
    at the liability stage.
    25The only mention of

    equity in Restatement § 433A

     is in comment h,
    regarding

    “[e]xceptional cases.”

     Comment h suggests that in cases of
    insolvent defendants,

    when an “innocent plaintiff would be forced to bear

    the share of the loss due to the defendant from whom he could not collect

    damages,”

     courts may refuse to allocate harm

    to avoid “injustice to the plaintiff.”

    Because we determine that there is no reasonable basis for
    apportioning the defendants’ harm, we do not reach the question of
    whether the considerations of comment h are applicable here.

    CERCLA Liability
    We now proceed to apply these fairly straightforward principles
    to the circumstances of this case. Here, the Railroads
    were found to be PRPs under § 9607(a)(2), as the owners of
    a “facility at which . . . hazardous substances were disposed
    of,” and Shell was found to be a PRP under § 9607(a)(3), as
    a person who “arranged for disposal . . . of hazardous substances
    owned or possessed by such person.” The first question
    we address is whether the Railroads and Shell are liable
    for all the cleanup costs at the Arvin site, or, as the district
    court held, only some of them. The second question,
    addressed later, is whether Shell is liable for any of the harm,
    as an “arranger.”
    A. Apportionment of Liability

    1. Standard of Review and Burden of Proof

    Because we have not heretofore faced a CERCLA apportionment
    issue directly, there is no Ninth Circuit precedent
    concerning the standard of appellate review for such an issue.
    Three circuits have addressed the question, and two separate
    approaches have emerged.
    The Fifth and Eighth Circuits look first to whether there is

    a reasonable basis for apportioning the harm,

    an inquiry they
    consider a question of law reviewed de novo. See Hercules,
    247 F.3d at 718-19; Bell Petroleum, 3 F.3d at 896, 902. These
    two circuits then examine, as a question of fact reviewed
    under the clearly erroneous standard, precisely how damages
    are to be divided. See Hercules, 247 F.3d at 718 (holding that

    “actual apportionment” of damages is a question of fact);

     Bell Petroleum, 3 F.3d at 896 (same).
    In contrast, the Sixth Circuit considers divisibility as a
    whole a factual matter of causation, reviewed entirely under
    the clearly erroneous standard. Township of Brighton, 153
    F.3d at 318 n.13. This view, however, disregards a distinction
    between conceptual divisibility and actual allocation that we
    find both persuasive and useful. The latter inquiry can involve
    the

    resolution of credibility issues and of conflicting evidence,

    while the former ordinarily does not.
    We believe the most appropriate approach, and the one we
    therefore adopt here, is the one adopted in Hercules and Bell
    Petroleum, with a refinement suggested by Judge Parker’s
    dissent in Bell Petroleum. Judge Parker thought that the
    majority confused the distinction between

    the “legal burden that the single harm at issue caused is of a type capable of

    apportionment, and the factual burden of proving the amount

    of harm attributable to a particular party.”

     Bell Petroleum, 3
    F.3d at 909 (Parker, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
    part). We are not sure that there was any such confusion.
    Rather,

    an aspect of clear error review is the legal determination

    whether the party with the burden of proof met that burden;

    if the party did not and the district court nonetheless

    ruled for it, then the district court clearly erred.

    See Lloyd v.
    Schlag, 884 F.2d 409, 415 (9th Cir. 1989) (reviewing
    “whether the district court committed clear error by holding
    that [plaintiff] had not met his burden of proof”). Thus,
    although the harm may be capable of apportionment, the
    harm may not actually be apportionable in the particular case
    as a factual matter, given the evidence produced, because the
    party advocating apportionment has not come forward with
    the minimum showing needed to meet its burden of proof as
    to the proper division of liability.
    We therefore proceed as follows:

    We inquire, first, whether

    the particular harm at issue in the case is theoretically capable

    of apportionment — i.e., whether it could ever be apportioned

    or whether it is, by nature, too unified for apportionment. That

    question is one of law, reviewed de novo.

    Cf. Taisho Marine
    & Fire Ins. Co. v. M/V Sea-Land Endurance, 815 F.2d 1270,
    1274 (9th Cir. 1987). Second, we review for clear error
    whether the defendant submitted evidence sufficient to establish
    a reasonable basis for the apportionment of liability, taking
    into account that the burden of proof is on the party
    seeking allocation, as well as the district court’s actual division
    of liability.
    There is no dispute here on the first, purely legal question
    — whether the harm is capable of apportionment. See Bell
    Petroleum, 3 F.3d at 896; Chem-Dyne, 572 F. Supp. at 810.
    Some of the contamination on the B&B site occurred before
    the Railroads’ parcel became part of the facility, and the original
    B&B site is distinct from the portion leased from the Railroads.
    Only some of the toxic substances were stored on the
    Railroads’ parcel, and only some of the water on the facility
    washed over the Railroads’ site. As to Shell, only some of the
    toxic substances spilled on the facility were sold by the company.
    The different toxic substances vary in their likelihood
    to leak and in the manner and speed in which they disseminate
    in ground water. So, conceptually, the contamination
    traceable to the Railroads and Shell, with perfect information,
    would be allocable, as would be the cost of cleaning up that
    contamination.

    The questions, then, are whether the district court clearly

    erred in finding

     that the Railroads and Shell established a

    (no) “reasonable basis” for apportionment,

    Bell Petroleum, 3 F.3d
    at 901, and whether, having so found, the district court properly
    apportioned the harm.

    We recognize that the district court

    at one point stated that
    the Railroads

    failed to “meet their burden of proof” as to divisibility.

    But its overall ruling was necessarily to the contrary,
    as the court also stated that it “independently found [in
    the record] a reasonable basis for apportionment in spite of
    the parties[’] presentations.” Thus, while the district court
    rejected both defendants’ theories as to divisibility, it used
    record evidence it found persuasive to determine apportionment.
    Whether the district court was correct in this regard is,
    as we have noted, part of the review of the factual decision
    regarding apportionment, discussed hereafter.
    The burden of
    proof issue thus melds with the merits of the apportionment
    issue, rather than barring us from considering it.
    2. The Railroads
    As we have established,

     if apportionment is to be allowed

    under the Restatement approach, there must be a reasonable

    basis for calculating the connection

    between the Railroads’
    PRP status and the relevant harms. Again, the harm we consider
    is the contamination on the Arvin site. Where, as for the
    Railroads, the PRPs’

    responsibility under the statute derives

    solely from their status as landowner,

    the PRPs can establish
    divisibility by demonstrating that discrete portions of the contamination
    are in no respect traceable to land they owned at
    the time of the toxic disposal.
    Here, the district court’s severability analysis — after 191
    pages of an amended opinion that included over 80 pages of
    factual findings — ultimately relied on the simplest of considerations:
    percentages of land area, time of ownership, and
    types of hazardous products. Although we do not

    fault the district court’s factfinding

     — its numbers are mostly correct —

    its legal conclusion

    that these three factors alone suffice to
    support apportionment

    cannot stand.

    26 We address each factor

    below to show why.

    a. Land Area
    The only court of appeals case that has fully addressed
    divisibility of landowner liability takes a relatively strict
    approach to apportionment on the basis of land area. In
    United States v. Rohm and Haas Co., 2 F.3d 1265 (3d Cir.
    1993), the most analogous CERCLA divisibility case to this
    one, the Third Circuit held, as do we, that “simply showing
    that one owns only a portion of the facility in question is [not]
    sufficient to warrant apportionment.” Id. at 1280.
    Like this case, Rohm and Haas concerned a landowner PRP
    and

    changes in landownership over time.

    Although the

    Third Circuit’s divisibility analysis is fairly cursory,

    its reluctance to
    apportion landowner liability on the basis of land boundaries
    is informative. Rohm and Haas indicates that the mere percentage
    of land owned by one PRP relative to the entire facility
    cannot alone be a basis for apportionment,

    as it does not provide a minimally reliable basis for tracing the proportion

    of leakage, contamination, or cleanup costs associated with

    the entire parcel.


    Contrary to Rohm and Haas, the district court’s analysis
    gave star billing to the

    percentage of land ownership,

    even in
    a unified facility.27 We agree with Rohm and Haas that this
    approach, seemingly straightforward though it is,

    fails in most circumstances to comport with the “reasonable basis” test, as

    the facts of this case illustrate.

    [13] The Arvin site was a single facility. CERCLA premises
    landowner liability on ownership of a facility, not on
    ownership of a certain parcel of land that is part of a facility.
    The operations on the site were dynamic, with fertilizer rigs
    stored on the Railroad parcel and filled up on the B&B parcel.
    Empty pesticide cans were stored on the Railroad parcel
    before they were crushed and disposed of. After the 1978
    windstorm, tanks were stored all over the facility, including
    on the Railroad parcel. A simple calculation of land ownership
    does not capture any data that reflect this dynamic, unitary
    operation of the single Arvin facility.
    In addition, the synergistic use of different parts of the
    Arvin site makes division based on percentage of land ownership
    particularly untenable. The record shows that B&B
    leased the Railroad parcel to accommodate its expanding
    operations. The Railroad parcel added an unquantifiable and
    perhaps exponential amount to B&B’s soil contamination.
    Were the Railroad parcel not part of the facility, there would
    have been less overall storage capacity. One can assume that
    a smaller amount of toxic chemicals would have been delivered
    to, and spilled on, the Arvin site. The fertilizer rigs, for
    example, were stored almost exclusively on the Railroad parcel.
    Had that parcel not been available, less fertilizer might
    have been delivered to — and leaked onto — the Arvin parcel.
    As these descriptions suggest, nothing in the record supports
    a conclusion that the leakage of contaminants that ended
    up on the B&B parcel occurred on each parcel in proportion
    to its size.
    [14] Instead, given the circumstances of this case, more
    pertinent comparisons would be the proportion of the amount
    of chemicals stored, poured from one container to another, or
    spilled on each parcel. For example, were adequate records
    kept, it would be possible to estimate the amount of leakage
    attributable to activities on the Railroad parcel, how that leakage
    traveled to and contaminated the soil and groundwater
    under the Arvin parcel, and the cost of cleaning up that contamination.
    [15] But none of this data is in the record. It may well be
    that such

    information is, as a practical matter, not available

    for periods long in the past, when future environmental

    cleanup was not contemplated.

    Unlike records concerning the
    amount of toxic chemicals produced by a given operator of a
    facility, records that separate out, with any precision, the
    amount of toxic chemicals stored on one part of a facility as
    opposed to another would have had little utility to B&B, the
    operator of the facility, and none to the Railroads, the owners
    of the parcel. This observation is true in spades for the more
    directly pertinent data, such as the amount of leakage on the
    Railroad parcel, the amount of that leakage that flowed onto
    the B&B parcel, and the amount of that residue that remained
    as contamination under the B&B parcel when the cleanup
    began.
    [16] So the failure to keep these records is quite understandable.
    But these practical considerations cannot justify a
    “meat-axe” approach to the divisibility issue, premised on
    percentages of land ownership, as a means of adjusting for the
    difficulties of proving divisibility with precision when PRP
    status is based on land ownership alone. Such an approach
    would be tantamount to a disagreement with the imposition of
    no-fault land ownership liability. Congress, however, created
    precisely such liability, placing the responsibility to pay for
    environmental cleanup on parties, such as the Railroads, that
    profited from the circumstances giving rise to the contamination
    so that the taxpayers are not left holding the tab. The risk
    of lack of adequate information for meaningful division of
    harm therefore must rest on the responsible parties, even
    when that information is extremely hard to come by.
    b. Period of Ownership
    [17] Just as the district court’s land area calculations did
    not correspond to the harms in this case, its simple fraction
    based on the time that the Railroads owned the land cannot be
    a basis for apportionment. The fraction it chose assumes constant
    leakage on the facility as a whole or constant contamination
    traceable to the facility as a whole for each time period;
    no evidence suggests that to be the case. Again, if adequate
    information were available, it would make sense to eliminate
    the Railroads’ liability for the period before B&B leased the
    Railroad parcel. See, e.g., Rohm and Haas, 2 F.3d at 1280.
    The evidentiary vacuum concerning the amount of contamination
    traceable to the pre-lease period, however, precludes any
    such calculation here.
    c. Types of Hazardous Products
    [18] While many of the district court’s calculations were
    factually correct but legally insufficient, its decision to assign
    a two-thirds fraction to represent the present types of hazardous
    products contains a basic factual error. All three chemicals
    were on the Railroad parcel at some time. There is no
    evidence as to which chemicals spilled on the parcel, where
    on the parcel they spilled, or when they spilled. Yet, there is
    evidence that there may well have been leakage on the Railroad
    parcel of D-D, the chemical the district court excluded
    in its calculations. Given the record, the district court clearly
    erred in its attempt to rely on the proportion of hazardous
    products present on the Railroad parcel.
    d. Conclusion
    It will often be the case that a landowner PRP will not be
    able to prove in any detail the degree of contamination traceable
    to activities on its land. A landowner PRP need not be
    involved at all in the disposal of hazardous chemicals and so
    will often have no information concerning that disposal or its
    impact. The net result of our approach to apportionment of
    liability, consequently, may be that landowner PRPs, who
    typically have the least direct involvement in generating the
    contamination, will be the least able to prove divisibility. And
    contribution “is not a complete panacea since it frequently
    will be difficult for defendants to locate a sufficient number
    of additional, solvent parties.” O’Neil v. Picillo, 883 F.2d 176,
    179 (1st Cir. 1989).
    While the result may appear to fault a landowner PRP for
    failing to keep records proving the minor connection of its
    land to the contamination on the facility as a whole, CERCLA
    is not a statute concerned with allocation of fault. Instead,
    CERCLA seeks to distribute economic burdens. Joint and
    several liability, even for PRPs with a minor connection to the
    contaminated facility, is the norm, designed to assure, as far
    as possible, that some entity with connection to the contamination
    picks up the tab. Apportionment is the exception, available
    only in those circumstances in which adequate records
    were kept and the harm is meaningfully divisible.

    [19] In sum, although most of the numbers the district court

    used were sufficiently exact, they bore insufficient logical

    connection to the pertinent question: What part of the contaminants found

    on the Arvin parcel

    were attributable to the presence of toxic substances or to activities

    on the

    Railroad

    parcel?

    We therefore reject the district court’s apportionment

    calculation and hold that the Railroads have failed to prove

    any reasonable basis for apportioning liability for the costs of

    remediation.



    Warden of the Arboretum, Gales & Stannaries Private Attorney General & de facto Special Deputy Levying Officer of Record: John F. Hutchens
    GAO: Drinking Water Safety Data Unreliable
    July 19, 2011
    Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass. (7th CD), issued the following news release:
    Three top House Democrats today released a report indicating that audits of many states show that drinking water violations have been grossly under-reported or misreported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling into question the current safety status of drinking water in communities across America. The report was conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and released by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), and John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
    Under the main federal law that protects drinking water, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), most states collect and review data from community water systems, determine if violations have occurred, take enforcement action when necessary and report all violations and actions to EPA. EPA then uses this data to identify water systems that have problems meeting the health standards for drinking water, so that enforcement efforts can be directed towards those systems with the most significant issues.
    However, using results of audits EPA conducted in 2007 and 2009, GAO found that states underreported or misreported hundreds of violations of drinking water standards. In 2007, an audit of fourteen states (Ark., Ariz., Ga., Ill., Kan., Md., Minn., N.D., Nev., R.I., S.C., Utah, Va., Wash.), as well as Puerto Rico, the Navajo Nation, and 3 EPA Regions, indicated that an estimated 543 health-based drinking water violations (20 percent of the total) that should have been reported to the EPA either went unreported or were inaccurately reported.
    In 2009, an audit of fourteen states (Calif., Conn., Del., Fla., Hawaii, Ind., Mich., N.C., Neb., N.J., N.M., Ore., Tenn., Vt.) indicated that an estimated 778 health-based drinking water violations (26 percent of the total) that should have been reported to the EPA either went unreported or were inaccurately reported.
    Because of the unreliable or incomplete data, the report says that the EPA's ability to identify water systems with the most serious problems complying with drinking water safety standards is compromised.
    "GAO found that states are failing to report important safety information from EPA," said Rep. Waxman, Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "Rather than slashing funding for this critical public health resource, Congress should be moving legislation to improve the reporting and policing of drinking water violations."
    "They say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it - but when it comes to drinking water, it turns out that all too often, EPA has no idea whether it's broke," said Rep. Markey, Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "To add to the problem, House Republicans have just proposed to cut $134 million dollars from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program, which provides money to states and public water systems to comply with the law and increase public health protection."
    "In order to truly improve our water quality and help our communities budget for water quality infrastructure, we must be able to accurately analyze the quality of our drinking water systems," said Rep. Dingell. "Fighting to protect our water quality is a responsibility to the American people that I take very seriously. Unfortunately, it is clear that EPA needs to improve their data collection efforts in relation to our drinking water systems in order to hold accountable those states that are not taking their public health responsibilities seriously enough."
    The GAO report, which can be found HERE: http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/GAO_Release_07.18.11.pdf , identified significant problems with the manner in which states collect and report this data to EPA, including:
    * States audited did not fully and accurately report 20 percent of the health-based drinking water violations (these refer to violations of the legal limit of contaminants allowed in drinking water) that they should have provided to EPA in 2007, and 26 percent of such violations in 2009.
    * In 2009, states audited did not fully and accurately report a staggering 84 percent of drinking water monitoring violations (these consist of failures to monitor drinking water, or failures to report violations to state regulators or the public, and were found to be a predictor of health-based violations) to EPA.
    * From 2002-2004, audited states did not accurately report 27 percent of the enforcement actions they took against drinking water systems to EPA. Unreliable data on enforcement actions leaves EPA with no sense of whether water systems have returned into compliance and reduces EPA's ability to ensure that it is achieving its goal of targeting enforcement resources to systems that truly need it
    * Incomplete and inaccurate data on violations hampers EPA's ability to identify water systems with the most serious compliance problems and impedes the agency's ability to communicate and assess its progress toward reducing public exposure to toxic chemicals in drinking water.
    * EPA has in the past conducted audits that have identified state inefficiencies and poor practices and that have lead to improved data quality. However, because of funding constraints these audits have been, at least temporarily, discontinued. Additionally, EPA has not required states to take specific actions to improve data quality.
    Last week, Reps. Waxman and Markey along with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) released another report by the GAO related to EPA's implementation of the SDWA that found that EPA has not made a determination to regulate any new drinking water contaminants, with one recent exception, since 1996. That report revealed that during the Bush administration an unusual process was used to justify a decision to not regulate the chemical perchlorate in drinking water. The report also found "systemic limitations" in how EPA identifies new contaminants for regulation. That GAO report can be found HERE .http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/GAOReport_07.12.11.pdf
    Copyright Targeted News Services
    TNS MJ88-110720-3494138 StaffFurigay
    Copyright 2011 Targeted News Service LLCAll Rights Reserved

    “When the well is dry, we learn the worth of water.”
             -Benjamin Franklin
     
    Strategic Advantage
    Complex litigation and mediation/negotiation projects commonly play out like a game of chess. While rules and facts govern the actions, successful players are diligent at every turn, adjusting their strategic course to counter their opponent’s action. 
             
     
                   “In life, as in chess, forethought wins.”
                                     -Charles Buxton
     
    “The first rule of sustainability is to align with natural forces, or at least not try to defy them.” 
                                       -Paul Hawken

    Environmental Guidance
    DOE/EH-0505
    Guide to Ground Water
    Remediation at CERCLA Response
    Action and RCRA Corrective
    Action Sites
    October 1995

    Laws & Statutes

    On January 11, 2002, President Bush signed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Pub .L.No. 107-118, 115 stat. 2356, "the Brownfields Law"). The Brownfields Law amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) by providing funds to assess and clean up brownfields; clarified CERCLA liability protections; and provided funds to enhance state and tribal response programs. Other related laws and regulations impact brownfields cleanup and reuse through financial incentives and regulatory requirements.



    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


    A BILL

    To authorize T.W. Arman Conservatory Trusts, the Iron Mountain Mines Institute, the Freeminers University, the College of the Hummingbirds, Township of Minnesota, Spring Creek School, Los Perdido Bosque del Norte Arboretum, The Lost Confidence Mine, Cabacera del Rio de Buenaventura bottling cooperatives, the Shasta Trinity Interlakes Regional Water & Power district and the Hundreds of the Armanshire water users collectives joint water & hydropower development under Federal Reclamation law, 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 T.W. Arman Spring Creek School
    Water and Power Act' of 2012.

    SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION.

      Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)) as amended--

    `(1) When carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall confirm all water and power rights to the water & power  districts and water users associations operating the applicable transferred works, the water & power districts and water users associations receiving water from any applicable reserved work. The Secretary shall determine a reasonable time frame for the water & power districts and water users associations to complete appropriations and confirmations of water & power rights.`(2) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to the the T. W. Arman Spring Creek School Water and Power small conduit hydropower development, under this subsection.`(3) The Power Resources Office of the Bureau of Reclamation shall be the lead office of small conduit hydropower policy and procedure-setting activities conducted under this subsection.`(4) this subsection may obligate the Western Area Power Administration to market the power produced by the facilities covered under this subsection and finance the costs associated with production or delivery of such power which shall be assigned to the project purposes for inclusion in project rates.`(5) this subsection may alter the delivery of water by Bureau of Reclamation facilities, and may use water from the original project. The Secretary shall notify and consult with the Water & Power  districts and water users associations operating the transferred work and shall prescribe such terms and conditions that will adequately protect the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and interests of the United States and the water & power districts & users associations
    `(7) Nothing in this subsection shall alter or affect any existing rights for the development of water resources, hydropower projects, or disposition of revenues.
      `(8) In this subsection:
        `(A) CONDUIT- The term `conduit' means any  tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance.
        `(B) WATER & POWER DISTRICTS- The term `water & power district' means the Shasta Trinity Interlakes Regional Water & Power Districts, jointly exercising the powers of its members.
        `(c) TRANSFERRED WORK- The term `transferred work' means any conduit that is included in project works the care, operation, and maintenance of which is being transferred from federal control to the  water users associations or irrigation districts.
        `(E) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Interior.

    Union Calendar No. 202


    House bill supports energy storage

    By Linda Church Ciocci   |   March 5, 2012
    Statement of NHA Executive Director Linda Church Ciocci

    Washington, DC (March 5, 2012) The following is a statement from Linda Church Ciocci, Executive Director of the National Hydropower Association, on the introduction of H.R. 4096, the Storage Technology for Renewable and Green Energy (STORAGE) Act of 2012:

    “The National Hydropower Association is very pleased with the introduction of the Storage Technology for Renewable and Green Energy (STORAGE) Act of 2012 in the House of Representatives. Expanding investment tax credits and clean renewable energy bonds eligibility for pumped storage technology will help unlock the country’s clean energy potential. 

    “Further development of pumped storage is essential to the overall reliability of the nation’s power grid, as well as to integration of clean and renewable energy resources at a larger scale. 

    “NHA strongly supports this bill and commends the work by Representatives Gibson and Thompson. We look forward to working with them and other lawmakers to advance this important legislation through the House as soon as possible.”


    Washington Barriers to Prosperity and Property Rights in the West
    “We are not here today to question the merits of protecting our environment.  We all support clean air and water and the protection of our treasured landscapes and resources.  But we must be concerned when enforcement starts becoming an end unto itself and we start ignoring the impacts that arbitrary, heavy-handed federal enforcement can have on the lives of people and their communities,” said Sen. Crapo

    ...we don’t know how many of these orders are based on real environmental facts, or on superficial, shoddy, drive-by reviews..."Whether it’s the top-down edicts from Washington over the Endangered Species Act, or the arbitrary nature of the  federally imposed gridlock... These policies and that kind of arrogant disregard for the people most impacted by the promulgation of these policies must change”


    Video: Bicameral hearing takes testimony from Idahoans impacted by EPA


    California 2010 Integrated Report( 303(d)
    Water Body Name: Sacramento River

    Region 5 (Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek)
    Water Body ID: CAR5081000019990126144739
    Water Body Type: River & Stream
    DECISION ID 4124 Pollutant: Copper
    Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list
    DECISION ID 4125 Pollutant: Cadmium
    Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list

    DECISION ID 4070 Pollutant: Zinc
    Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list
    (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
    Based on the readily available data and information,
    the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment pollutant
    combination from the section 303(d) list.
    This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
    1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
    2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
    3. None of 31 samples exceeded the chronic or acute criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.
    4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

    QAPP Information: Frontier Geosciences;
    Data quality requirements acceptable.
    City of Redding monitoring QAP (Redding, 2007)
    Last Listing Cycle's
    QAPP Information:
    List on 303(d) list
    (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006)
    Revision Status Revised
    This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing
    decision made prior to 2006.
    Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for
    priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
    Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region

    Quality: QAPP Information: QA Info Missing
    Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list


    Performance Standards. A remedial action agreement is required to comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). 42 U.S.C. §9621(d)(2)(A).

    Steps to Improve Information Transparency

    With the recent presidential memorandum directing agencies to reform and modernize records management practices, you need to respond with a plan that includes assessing and managing your records and information landscape for both paper and electronic formats. A well managed program will not only be more efficient and cost effective, but also promote openness and accountability – “good records management is the backbone of open government”.

    Join Iron Mountain for a Webinar entitled, Responding to the New Presidential Memo: Steps to Improve Information Transparency. Featuring Adelaide O'Brien, Research Director, Government Services Delivery, IDC Government Insights, during the webinar she will highlight recent focus group findings on Open Government and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

    During the webinar learn strategies that will help you respond to the memo with confidence:

    • Employ best practices for record identification and public posting
    • Understand steps agencies are taking to apply the presumption of openness and increase proactive disclosure
    • Ensure that your response to requests is effective and efficient - reducing backlogs and improving timeliness

    Related Webcasts


    EPA delivers 'CARE' package

    By Jill Keppeler

    “A good environmental record is a hallmark of a responsible company.”

    “The EPA is proud to support this initiative,” she said. “This is a model for the rest of the country.”


    LAUDING GRASSROOTS EFFORT: Judith Enck, Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator, speaks Monday at the Sheridan Parkside Community Center in the Town of Tonawanda. The CAC and the EPA announced a $100,000 federal Community Action for a Renewed Environment grant designed to bring together residents to identify, address and prioritize local environmental issues.


    Federal Agency Construction Standards

    Also visit the FEMA Index of Earthquake Publications and the NEHRP Clearinghouse.

    New! Seismic Design Requirements (H-18-8) Seismic Design Requirements PDF 1.5MB H-18-8
    New! Standards of Seismic Safety for Existing Federally Owned and Leased Buildings (NISTIR 11-917-12 / ICSSC RP 8) Standards of Seismic Safety for Existing Federally Owned and Leased Buildings PDF 593KB NIST GCR 11-917-12
    (ICSSC RP 8)
      Standards of Seismic Safety for Existing Federally Owned and Leased Buildings (NISTIR 6762 / ICSSC RP 6) Standards of Seismic Safety for Existing Federally Owned and Leased Buildings PDF 9MB NISTIR 6762
    (ICSSC RP 6)



    FEMA logo NIST logo NSF logo USGS logo



    SITE INSPECTION SUMMARY
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

    The Oversight Agency will secure permission for the Site Operator to enter and perform
    Work at the property owned by Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., T.W. Arman, the United
    States, or the State (if any), including the facilities, plant and equipment located thereon
    (and necessary to carry out the actions of the SOW and Consent Decree) for the sole
    purpose of permitting the Site Operator to carry out the Work under the SOW and
    Consent Decree.

    11.0 Brick Flat Pit
    The amount of leachate has decreased significantly at Brick Flat Pit. Throughout 2005, IMO
    noted in the Monthly Progress Reports that minimal flow was occurring at leachate
    Monitoring Sump 8R and low to minimal flow was observed from the Brick Flat Pit
    Spillway System. Minimal leachtate flow rates have continued to occur. During the
    October 26, 2005, meeting with AIG, EPA, IMO, and CH2M HILL (CH2M HILL, 2005), two
    possible reasons for reduced leachate flow were discussed: (1) the leachate piping has
    malfunctioned, or (2) the amount of leachate has decreased as a result of the thickness of the
    overlying sludge, and the water is exiting the pit through the unlined sidewalls of the pit.
    The Brick Flat Pit liner extends 10 feet from the bottom of the pit. The sludge is currently
    about 80-feet thick.
    IMO has conducted monitoring, but has not identified seeps around Brick Flat Pit. IMO has
    performed phosfluorescent dye studies on the drainage system in an attempt to trace the
    pathway of seepage from Brick Flat Pit. The phosfluorescent dye was a dye that is typically
    used in sewer tracer studies. The dye has not been detected at potential exit points,
    including AMD collected from the Richmond Mine. The dye might be diluted to below
    detectable limits by other flows in the Richmond Mine or degraded during contact with
    low-pH waters. IMO has monitored the water level in the leachate riser pipe, and no standing
    water has been detected. IMO has poured water into the leachate riser pipes, and the water
    has been observed to flow over the weir, indicating that the leachate pipelines are not broken.
    IMO thinks, but has not been able to verify, that drainage from Brick Flat Pit is entering
    stopes of the Richmond Mine, through the highly fractured north slope of Brick Flat Pit
    (Carver, 2008).
    Brick Flat Pit is considered a dry landfill (EPA, 2000). The location of Brick Flat Pit was
    determined to be an effective sludge disposal location because drainage, If not captured,
    would reenter the ore body and be captured by the AMD treatment system (EPA, 1986), or
    would be discharged to the Slickrock Creek drainage, which is currentiy captured for
    treatment by SCRR.
    Section 6.4 (Landfill Management Report and Plan) of the SOW (EPA, 2000) requires that
    "by November 30 of each year, the Site Operator shall provide to the Oversight Agency, for
    Oversight Agency review and approval, the Landfill Management Report and Plan". As
    described in the SOW, The Landfill Management Report and Plan is an annual report that
    enables the Oversight Agency to effectively evaluate whether the Brick Flat Pit landfill was
    properly managed, consistent with the concept design for a dry landfill, over the preceding
    twelve (12)-month period, and that the landfill will be properly managed as a dry landfill
    over the upcoming twelve (12)-month period. The Operations and Maintenance Submittal
    Register of the IMO Febmary 2008 Monthly Progress Report (Table 10 of IMO, 2008g) indicates
    that the most recent Landfill Management Report and Plan was submitted in January 2004
    (IMO, 2004).

    2.2 Statement of Work Requirements
    Section 9.10.2.3 (Non-routine O&M Requirements for the Upper Spring Creek Diversion) of
    the SOW requires the following:
    "Over the next 3 years, the Site Operator shall perform necessary studies and implement a
    satisfactory repair program to restore the RCCP lining system or, as necessary, replace the
    RCCP lining system by December 2003."
    Studies and evaluations performed by the Site Operator indicated that it would be costly to
    restore or replace the pipeline liner system. Achieving adequate and long-term bonding of a
    pipeline lining to concrete pipeline material is technical challenging. For these reasons, the
    comprehensive liner repair program, as described in the SOW, has not been conducted. As
    discussed in the following section, IMO's current approach is an annual pipeline inspection
    and pipeline repair process to maintain the structural integrity of the pipeline.

    "operation of the MFTP over the last 5 years demonstiates that HDS
    metal removal can not achieve the initial BAT effluent limits for dissolved zinc or the BAT
    30-day average limit for dissolved cadmium.

    h. A certificate executed by the Site Operator's Project Manager, with the power to
    bind the Site Operator, warranting that, during the billing period, the Site Operator
    has performed all of its obligations under this SOW, and a summary in a form
    acceptable to the Oversight Agency detailing the costs expended during that period
    with respect to the Site and certifying that such sums were actually expended. (pg. 27, statement of work)

    6.8 Quality Assurance Project Plan ("QAPP")
    1. In general, the Site Operator may, for the development of its own Quality Assurance
    Project Plan(s) ("QAPP(s)") rely on the existing QAPPs in use for various projects and
    procedures at the Site, to the extent they are applicable and meet the requirements of
    this SOW.
    2. The Site Operator shall use quality assurance, quality control, and chain-of-custody
    procedures for all samples that may be required to be taken under this SOW or O&M
    Work Plan in accordance with:
    a. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data
    Operation, (EPA QA/R5);
    b. Preparing Perfect Project Plans, QAMS-005/80; and (EPA /600/9-88/087); and
    c. Subsequent amendments to such guidelines upon notification by the Oversight
    Agency to the Site Operator of such amendment. Amended guidelines shall apply
    only to procedures conducted after such notification.
    3. Prior to the commencement of any monitoring project under this SOW or RA activities
    with construction costs exceeding $50,000 (adjusted based on the Inflation Escalator),
    the Site Operator shall submit to the Oversight Agency for approval a QAPP that is
    consistent with this SOW, the NCP, and applicable guidance documents.
    4. If relevant to the proceeding, the Parties agree that validated sampling data generated
    in accordance with the QAPP(s) and reviewed and approved by the Oversight Agency
    shall be admissible as evidence, without objection, in any proceeding under the Consent
    Decree. The Site Operator shall ensure that the Oversight Agency, State personnel, and
    their authorized representatives are allowed access at reasonable times to all laboratories
    utilized by the Site Operator for analyses.
    5. The Site Operator shall ensure that the laboratories it utilizes analyze all samples
    submitted by the Oversight Agency pursuant to the QAPP for quality assurance monitoring.
    The Site Operator shall ensure that such laboratories perform all analyses
    according to accepted EPA methods for the analysis of samples taken pursuant to this
    SOW and the Consent Decree.(pg. 28, statement of work)

    6.10 Modification of Work Plans
    1. The Site Operator is responsible for ensuring that the management plans are current
    and reflect the experience gained during plant operation. If, as a result of experience
    gained from plant operation, the Site Operator comes to believe that the project Performance
    Standards or monitoring procedures should be modified, the Site Operator
    may submit a request to the Oversight Agency to approve a change in the standards or
    procedures. The request shall contain sufficient information to allow the Oversight
    Agency to determine the appropriateness of the requested changes. A decision of the
    Oversight Agency regarding modification of Performance Standards pursuant to this
    paragraph shall not be subject to Dispute Resolution or judicial review.

    6.11 Offsite Shipment
    1. All materials removed from the Site shall be disposed of or treated at a facility
    approved by the Oversight Agency's Project Manager and in accordance with Section
    121(d)(3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(3); with the U.S. EPA "Revised Offsite
    Policy," OSWER Directive 9834.11, November 13,1987; and with all other applicable
    federal (including the U.S. Department of Transportation), State, and local
    requirements.(pg. 29, statement of work)

    2. The Site Operator shall, prior to any offsite shipment of Waste Material from the Site to
    an out-of-state waste management facility, pursuant to the O&M Work Plan developed
    pursuant to this SOW or any modification thereto, provide written notification to the
    appropriate state environmental official in the receiving facility's state and to the Project
    Coordinator of such shipment of Waste Material. However, this notification
    requirement shall not apply to any offsite shipments when the total volume of all such
    shipments will not exceed 10 cubic yards.
    3. The Site Operator shall include in the written notification required by Section 6.11(2) the
    following information, where available: (a) the name and location of the facility to
    which the Waste Material are to be shipped; (b) the type and quantity of the Waste
    Material to be shipped; (c) the expected schedule for the shipment of the Waste
    Material; and (d) the method of transportation. The Site Operator shall notify the state
    in which the planned receiving facility is located of major changes in the shipment plan,
    such as a decision to ship the Waste Material to another facility within the same state, or
    to a facility in another state.
    4. With respect to shipments to out-of-state facilities, the identity of the receiving facility
    and state will be determined by the Site Operator following Oversight Agency approval
    of the O&M Work Plan or any modification thereto. The Site Operator shall provide the
    information required by Section 6.11(3) at least sixty (60) days prior to planned
    shipment of the Waste Material.(pg. 30, statement of work)

    7.3 Site Access and Data/Document Availability/
    Institutional Controls
    1. The Site Operator shall provide the Oversight Agency, the Support Agency, and their
    representatives with access at all reasonable times to the Site, or such other property, to(pg. 31, statement of work)

    conduct any activity related to this SOW, including but not limited to, the following
    activities:
    a. Monitoring the Work;
    b. Verifying any data or information submitted to the Oversight Agency or the Support
    Agency;
    c. Conducting investigations relating to contamination at or near the Site;
    d. Obtaining samples;
    e. Assessing the need for, planning, or implementing additional response actions at or
    near the Site;
    f. Implementing response activities at the Site;
    g. Inspecting and copying records, operating logs, contracts, or other documents
    maintained or generated by the Site Operator or its agents, consistent with Section
    7.4, Access to Information;
    h. Assessing the Site Operator's compliance with the Consent Decree and SOW;
    i. Determining whether the Site or other property is being used in a manner that is
    prohibited or restricted, or that may need to be prohibited or restricted, by or pursuant
    to this SOW;
    j. Conducting tests as the Oversight Agency or its authorized representatives or contractors
    deem necessary; and
    k. Using a camera, sound recording device, or any other documentary type
    equipment.
    2. Commencing on the date of the Consent Decree, the Site Operator shall refrain from
    using the Site, or such other property, in any manner that would interfere with or
    adversely affect the integrity or protectiveness of the remedial measures to be implemented
    pursuant to the Consent Decree and SOW.
    3. If the Site Operator acquires any ownership or other property interest in the Site, or any
    other property where access and/or land/water use restrictions are needed to implement
    the Consent Decree, the Site Operator shall:
    a. Upon acquiring such interest, provide the Oversight Agency, the Support Agency
    and their authorized representatives with access at all reasonable times to the Site,
    or such other property, for the purpose of conducting any activity related to this
    SOW and the Consent Decree including, but not limited to, the activities listed in
    Section 7.3(1); and
    b. In coordination with the Oversight Agency and the Support Agency, take
    appropriate steps to ensure the long-term enforceability of access and institutional
    controls with respect to such property, including, but not limited to, appropriate
    deed notices and other actions.

    4. The Oversight Agency will secure permission for the Site Operator to enter and perform
    Work at the property owned by Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., T.W. Arman, the United
    States, or the State (if any), including the facilities, plant and equipment located thereon
    (and necessary to carry out the actions of this SOW and Consent Decree) for the sole
    purpose of permitting the Site Operator to carry out the Work under this SOW and
    Consent Decree.
    5. To the extent that access and/or land/water use restrictions at property not owned by
    the Site Operator and not at the property referenced in Section 7.3(4) are needed to
    implement the Consent Decree or this SOW, the Site Operator shall use its best efforts to
    secure from persons who own such property, to the extent determined by the Oversight
    Agency to be necessary, as applicable:
    a. An agreement to provide access thereto for the Site Operator, as well as for the
    United States and the State, and their representatives (including contractors), for
    the purpose of conducting any activity related to the Consent Decree including, but
    not limited to, those activities listed in Section 7.3(1) of this SOW;
    b. An agreement, enforceable by the Site Operator, the United States, and the State to
    abide by the obligations and restrictions established by Section 7.3(2) of this SOW,
    or that are otherwise necessary to implement, ensure non-interference with, or
    ensure the protectiveness of the activities to be performed pursuant to the Consent
    Decree;
    c. The execution and recordation in the Recorder's Office of Shasta County,
    California, of an easement, running with the land, that (i) grants a right of access
    for the purpose of conducting any activity related to this SOW and the Consent
    Decree including, but not limited to, those activities listed in Section 7.3(1) of this
    SOW, and (ii) grants the right to enforce the land/water use restrictions that the
    Oversight Agency and the Support Agency, as appropriate, determine are necessary
    to implement, ensure non-interference with, or ensure the protectiveness of
    the activities to be performed pursuant to the Consent Decree or this SOW;
    d. The access rights and/or rights to enforce land/water use restrictions shall be
    granted to (i) the United States, on behalf of its representatives, (ii) the State and its
    representatives, and (iii) other appropriate grantees, as determined by the
    Oversight Agency; and
    e. If the Oversight Agency so requests, within sixty (60) days of notice from the
    Oversight Agency that access is required, the Site Operator shall submit to the
    Oversight Agency and the Support Agency, as appropriate, for review and
    approval with respect to such property:
    i. A draft easement that is enforceable under the laws of the State of California,
    free and clear of all prior liens and encumbrances (except as approved by the
    Oversight Agency), and acceptable under the Attorney General's Title Regulations
    promulgated pursuant to 40.U.S.C. Section 255; and
    ii. A current title commitment or report prepared in accordance with the U.S.
    Department of Justice Standards for the Preparation of Title Evidence in Land(pg. 36)


    Acquisitions by the United States (1970) (the "Standards"). Within fifteen (15)
    days of approval by the Oversight Agency and the Support Agency, as
    appropriate, and acceptance of the easement, the Site Operator shall update
    the title search and, if it is determined that nothing has occurred since the
    effective date of the commitment or report to affect the title adversely, the
    easement shall be recorded with the Recorder's Office of Shasta County.
    Within thirty (30) days of the recording of the easement, the Site Operator
    shall provide the Oversight Agency and the Support Agency, as appropriate,
    with final title evidence acceptable under the Standards and a certified copy
    of the original recorded easement showing the clerk's recording stamps.
    6. If any access or land/water use restriction agreements required by Section 7.3(5) of this
    SOW are not obtained within the time specified in this SOW, or any access easements or
    restrictive easements required by this SOW are not submitted to the Oversight Agency
    in draft form within the time specified in this SOW, the Site Operator shall promptly
    notify the Oversight Agency and Support Agency in writing and shall include in that
    notification a summary of the steps that the Site Operator has taken to attempt to
    comply with Section 7.3(5) of this SOW. The United States and the State, as they deem
    appropriate, may assist the Site Operator in obtaining access or land/water use
    restrictions, either in the form of contractual agreements or in the form of easements
    running with the land, or by utilizing appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
    7. For purposes of Section 7.3(5) of this SOW only, "best efforts" includes the payment of
    reasonable sums of money in consideration of access, access easements, land/water use
    restrictions, and/or restrictive easements.
    8. Notwithstanding any provision of this SOW, the United States and the State retain all of
    their access authorities and rights, as well as all of their rights to require land/water use
    restrictions, including enforcement authorities related thereto, under CERCLA, RCRA,
    and any other applicable federal or State law, statutes, or regulations.
    9. During any future field work conducted by the Oversight Agency or its representatives
    to perform Remedial Investigations, Remedial Designs, Remedial Actions, or other
    projects, the Site Operator shall cooperate with the Oversight Agency to coordinate Site
    operations and to facilitate the activities to be performed by the Oversight Agency or
    its representatives. To the extent that the Oversight Agency activities require the use of
    water supplies from the existing water tanks (near the treatment plant and near the
    Richmond Portal) or other water sources, the Site Operator shall maintain the clean
    water delivery systems at no charge to the Oversight Agency, provided that the use of
    the clean water systems does not impose an undue impact to those systems. The Oversight
    Agency shall have the right to make use of the Site roadways and shall repair the
    roadways if damaged by the Oversight Agency activities. If electrical power is required
    during the performance of the Oversight Agency activities, the Oversight Agency shall
    have the right to use the electrical systems and compensate the Site Operator only for
    the power consumption costs for the Oversight Agency activities.(pg. 37)

    7.4 Access to Information
    1. The Site Operator shall provide to the Oversight Agency and the Support Agency, upon
    request, copies of all documents and information within its possession or control or that
    of its contractors or agents relating to activities at the Site or to the implementation of
    the Consent Decree or this SOW, including, but not limited to, sampling, analysis,
    chain-of-custody records, manifests, trucking logs, receipts, reports, sample traffic
    routing, correspondence, all operations and operators' logs, or other documents or
    information related to the activities required under the Consent Decree and SOW or
    previously conducted at the Site. The Site Operator shall also make available to the
    Oversight Agency and the Support Agency, their employees, agents, or representatives,
    knowledge of relevant facts concerning the performance of the activities required by the
    Consent Decree and SOW for purposes of investigation or information gathering.
    2. The Site Operator may assert business confidentiality claims covering part or all of the
    documents or information submitted to the Oversight Agency and the Support Agency
    under this SOW or the Consent Decree to the extent permitted by and in accordance
    with Section 104(e)(7) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e)(7), and 40 C.F.R. § 2.203(b).
    Documents or information determined to be confidential by the Oversight Agency will
    be afforded the protection specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B. If no claim of confidentiality
    accompanies documents or information when they are submitted to the
    Oversight Agency and the Support Agency, or if the Oversight Agency has notified the
    Site Operator that the documents or information are not confidential under the standards
    of Section 104(e)(7) of CERCLA, the public may be given access to such documents
    or information without further notice to the Site Operator.
    3. The Site Operator may assert that certain documents, records, and other information are
    privileged under the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege recognized by
    federal law. If the Site Operator asserts such a privilege in lieu of providing documents,
    the Site Operator shall provide the following: (a) the title of the document, record, or
    information; (b) the date of the document, record, or information; (c) the name and title
    of the author of the document, record, or information; (d) the name and title of each
    addressee and recipient; (e) a description of the contents of the document, record, or
    information: and (f) the privilege asserted by the Site Operator. However, no documents,
    reports, or other information that are created or generated pursuant to the
    specific requirements of the Consent Decree and SOW shall be withheld on the grounds
    that they are privileged.
    4. No claim of confidentiality shall be made with respect to any data, including but not
    limited to, all sampling, analytical, monitoring, hydrogeologic, scientific, chemical, or
    engineering data, cost data relating to the Work excepting cost data related to wages,
    overhead rates, and profit, or any other documents or information evidencing conditions
    at or around the Site.
    7.5 Record Preservation
    1. Until 10 years after receipt of the Oversight Agency's notification pursuant to Section
    7.14, Completion of Work, the Site Operator shall preserve and retain all records and
    documents now in its possession or control or that come into its possession or control

    that relate in any manner to the performance of activities at the Site, regardless of any
    corporate retention policy to the contrary. The Site Operator shall also instruct its subcontractors
    and agents to preserve all documents, records, and information of whatever
    kind, nature, or description relating to the performance of activities at the Site for a
    period of 10 years after the contractor or subcontractor has completed Work under this
    SOW. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Section, the Oversight Agency may, at
    its discretion, agree to shorten the records retention period or otherwise limit the obligations
    of this Section.
    2. At the conclusion of the applicable document retention periods specified above, the Site
    Operator shall notify the Oversight Agency and the Support Agency at least ninety (90)
    days prior to the destruction of any such records or documents and, upon request by
    the Oversight Agency and the Support Agency, shall deliver any such records or documents
    to the Oversight Agency and the Support Agency. The Site Operator may assert
    that certain documents, records, and other information are privileged under the attorney-
    client privilege or any other privilege recognized by federal law. If the Site Operator
    asserts such a privilege, it shall provide the following: (a) the title of the document,
    record, or information; (b) the date of the document, record, or information; (c) the
    name and title of the author of the document, record, or information; (d) the name and
    title of each addressee and recipient; (e) a description of the subject of the document,
    record, or information; and (f) the privilege asserted by the Site Operator. However, no
    documents, reports or other information that are created or generated pursuant to the
    specific requirements of the Consent Decree and SOW shall be withheld on the grounds
    that they are privileged.
    7.6 Public Information and Meetings
    1. The Site Operator shall cooperate with the Oversight Agency in providing information
    regarding the Work to the public.
    2. As requested by the Oversight Agency, the Site Operator shall participate in the preparation
    of such information for distribution to the public and in public meetings that may
    be held or sponsored by the Oversight Agency to explain activities at or relating to the
    Site.
    7.7 Remedy Review and Future Remedial Action
    1. The Site Operator shall provide the Oversight Agency with any information available to
    the Site Operator that may assist the Oversight Agency in conducting any studies and
    investigations that may be appropriate to permit the Oversight Agency to conduct
    reviews of whether the remedial actions set forth in RODs 1 through 4 are protective of
    human health and the environment, at least every 5 years as required by Section 121 (c)
    of CERCLA and any applicable regulations; provided, however, that the Site Operator
    shall not be required to expend more than $5,000 (adjusted for the Inflation Escalator)
    per each 5-year review period assisting in any one EPA review.
    2. The Oversight Agency may select further response actions for the Site in accordance
    with the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP. Unless otherwise agreed by the Oversight
    Agency and the Site Operator, further response actions, including any further

    response actions implemented through future records of decision (such as decisions
    that address the Boulder Creek area sources and downstream sediments), or a modification,
    amendment or explanation of significant differences (ESD) of the RODs, neither
    diminish nor increase the scope of the Site Operator's obligations under this SOW.
    7.8 Primary Oversight Agency
    1. The Work is subject to oversight by the Oversight Agency. The Oversight Agency is the
    only state or federal agency authorized to direct the Site Operator with regard to the
    Site Operator's obligations under this SOW and the Consent Decree. The Oversight
    Agency is the agency authorized to give directions with regard to the Site Operator's
    obligations under this SOW and the Consent Decree on behalf of all participating
    government agencies. At the time the parties sign the Consent Decree, the Oversight
    Agency shall be the EPA. At some time in the future, the State and federal governments
    may change the Oversight Agency to a State or federal agency other than EPA. The
    relationship between the Oversight Agency and the Support Agency with respect to
    this SOW and Consent Decree are governed by the EPA/State MOU. A change in Oversight
    or Support Agency is not subject to Dispute Resolution by the Site Operator.
    2.
    U i I *-> J I M. J L
    The governments will provide reasonable notice to the Site Operator if the governments
    change the Oversight Agency.
    7.9 Support Agency Participation
    1. The State of California, on behalf of DTSC and RWQCB, shall designate one of these
    two agencies to be the Support Agency for the Site during the period of time that EPA
    serves as the Oversight Agency. The State will provide notice to the Oversight Agency
    and the Site Operator of which State agency shall be the Support Agency. The State may
    change the Support Agency. A change in the Support Agency is not subject to Dispute
    Resolution by the Site Operator.
    2. The governments will provide reasonable notice to the Site Operator if the governments
    change the Support Agency.
    3. The Site Operator shall submit copies of documents submitted for Oversight Agency
    review pursuant to Section 6, Management Plans and Reports, and other documents
    requested, to the Support Agency at the same time the documents are submitted to the
    Oversight Agency.
    4. The Support Agency shall have the right to participate in all meetings and inspections
    required by this SOW.
    5. The Support Agency shall have a Support Agency Project Manager. The Support
    Agency will provide to the Oversight Agency and the Site Operator the name and
    address of the Support Agency Project Manager.
    6. The relationship between the Oversight Agency and the Support Agency is addressed
    in the EPA/State MOU.

    7.10 Compliance with Applicable Laws
    1. All activities by the Site Operator pursuant to this SOW shall be performed in accordance
    with the requirements of all federal and state laws and regulations. EPA has
    determined that the activities contemplated by this SOW are consistent with the NCP.
    2. As provided in Section 121(e) of CERCLA and Section 300.400(e) of the NCP, no permit
    shall be required for any response actions conducted entirely onsite (i.e., within the
    areal extent of contamination and all suitable areas in very close proximity to the contamination
    and necessary for implementation of such response actions) where such
    action is selected and carried out in accordance with Section 121. Where any activity
    that is not onsite (as defined in this SOW) requires a federal or state permit or approval,
    the Site Operator shall submit timely and complete applications and take all other
    actions necessary to obtain all such permits or approvals.
    3. This SOW is not, and shall not be construed to be, a permit issued pursuant to any
    federal or state statute or regulation.
    4. The requirement of the Site Operator to perform all activities in this SOW in accordance
    with the requirements of all federal and state laws and regulations, as stated in Section
    7.10(1) above, is subject to the provisions of Section 7.7(2) (relating to future remedial
    action) and Section 8.1(2) (relating to compensation associated with changes in Performance
    Standards imposed by the Oversight Agency).
    7.11 Oversight Agency Approval of Plans and Submissions
    1. In reviewing any plan, report, or other item which is required to be submitted for
    approval pursuant to this SOW or the Consent Decree, the Oversight Agency will consider
    whether the submittal will achieve the Performance Standards and other
    requirements of this SOW in a highly reliable manner based on sound technical and/or
    engineering practices.
    2. After review of any plan, report, or other item which is required to be submitted for
    approval pursuant to this SOW and Consent Decree, the Oversight Agency, after reasonable
    opportunity for review and comment by the Support Agency, shall:
    a. Approve, in whole or in part, the submission;
    b. Approve the submission upon specified conditions;
    c. Modify the submission to cure the deficiencies;
    d. Disapprove, in whole or in part, the submission, directing that the Site Operator
    modify the submission; or
    e. Any combination of the above.
    However, the Oversight Agency shall not modify a submission without first providing
    the Site Operator at least one notice of deficiency and an opportunity to cure within
    sixty (60) days, except where to do so would cause serious disruption to the activities
    being undertaken pursuant to the Consent Decree and SOW or where previous
    submission(s) have been disapproved due to material defects and the deficiencies in the

    submission under consideration indicate a bad faith lack of effort to submit an
    acceptable deliverable.
    3. In the event of approval, approval upon conditions, or modification by the Oversight
    Agency, pursuant to Section 7.11 (2) (a, b, or c), the Site Operator shall proceed to take
    any action required by the plan, report, or other item, as approved or modified by the
    Oversight Agency, subject only to its right to invoke the Dispute Resolution procedures
    set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of the Consent Decree with respect to the
    modifications or conditions made by the Oversight Agency and subject to Section 7.12
    regarding the performance of disputed Work. In the event that the Oversight Agency
    modifies the submission to cure the deficiencies pursuant to Section 7.11(2)(c) and the
    submission has a material defect, the Oversight Agency retains its right to seek stipulated
    penalties, as provided in Section XX (Stipulated Penalties) of the Consent Decree.
    4. Upon receipt of notice of disapproval pursuant to Section 7.11(2)(d), the Site Operator
    shall, within thirty (30) days or such longer time as specified by the Oversight Agency in
    such notice, correct the deficiencies and resubmit the plan, report, or other item for
    approval. Stipulated penalties applicable to the submission, as provided in Section XX of
    the Consent Decree, shall accrue during the 30-day period or otherwise specified period,
    but shall not be payable unless the resubmission is disapproved or modified due to a
    material defect as provided in Section 7.11(2) or Section 7.11(7).
    5. Notwithstanding the receipt of a notice of disapproval pursuant to Section 7.11(2)(d), the
    Site Operator shall proceed, at the direction of the Oversight Agency, to take any action
    required by any non-deficient portion of the submission. Implementation of any nondeficient
    portion of a submission shall not relieve the Site Operator of any liability for
    stipulated penalties under Section XX (Stipulated Penalties) of the Consent Decree.
    6. In the event that a resubmitted plan, report, or other item, or portion thereof, is disapproved
    by the Oversight Agency, the Oversight Agency may again require the Site
    Operator to correct the deficiencies, in accordance with the preceding paragraphs. The
    Oversight Agency also retains the right to modify or develop the plan, report or other
    item. The Site Operator may invoke the procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute
    Resolution) of the Consent Decree to dispute a disapproval or modification under this
    Paragraph. The Site Operator shall implement any such plan, report, or item as modified
    or developed by the Oversight Agency except to the extent that the Site Operator
    invokes the procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of the Consent
    Decree. If the Site Operator invokes the Dispute Resolution procedures, the performance
    of Work in dispute shall be governed by Section 7.12.
    7. If upon resubmission, a plan, report, or item is disapproved or modified by the Oversight
    Agency due to a material defect, the Site Operator shall be deemed to have failed
    to submit such plan, report, or item timely and adequately unless the Site Operator
    invokes the Dispute Resolution procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute Resolution),
    and the Oversight Agency's action is overturned pursuant to that Section. The provisions
    of Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) and Section XX (Stipulated Penalties) of the
    Consent Decree shall govern the implementation of all activities pursuant to the Consent
    Decree and the accrual and payment of any stipulated penalties during Dispute Resolution.
    If the Oversight Agency's disapproval or modification is upheld, stipulated

    penalties shall accrue for such violation from the date on which the initial submission
    was originally required, as provided in Section XX of the Consent Decree.
    8. All plans, reports, and other items required to be submitted to the Oversight Agency
    under this SOW and the Consent Decree shall, upon approval or modification by the
    Oversight Agency, be enforceable under this SOW or the Consent Decree. In the event
    the Oversight Agency approves or modifies a portion of a plan, report, or other item
    required to be submitted to the Oversight Agency under this SOW or the Consent
    Decree, and the modification is upheld through Dispute Resolution (if applicable), the
    approved or modified portion shall be enforceable under this SOW or the Consent
    Decree.
    9. In connection with agency oversight of the Work, the Site Operator shall participate in
    conference calls and meetings, as necessary.
    10. Nothing contained in the Consent Decree or this SOW shall confer any benefit or right to
    any person or entity not a signatory to the Consent Decree, nor shall any such person or
    entity have any right to enforce the Consent Decree, this SOW, or any of the provisions
    of either of them. However, any federal or State agency designated as the Oversight
    Agency or Support Agency shall have all of the rights of any predecessor Oversight
    Agency regardless of whether the Oversight Agency or Support Agency was a signatory
    to the Consent Decree.
    7.12 Performance of Disputed Work
    1. During the Dispute Resolution under Section XIX of the Consent Decree, the Oversight
    Agency may elect to order the Site Operator to perform the Work directly in dispute and
    the Site Operator shall comply with the order to perform such Work. The Oversight
    Agency may also order the Site Operator to provide a cost estimate of the Work directly
    in dispute (under the procedures of Section 4.2.2). The Oversight Agency will not order
    the Site Operator to perform such Work unless the Oversight Agency has sufficient
    funds in the Iron Mountain Mines special account or accounts or sources of funds established
    pursuant to the Consent Decree to pay for the disputed Work (taking into account
    any avoided costs or savings), and so notifies the Site Operator in advance by providing
    the most current accounting statement from the Iron Mountain Mines special account or
    other funding source. If the Oversight Agency directs the Site Operator to perform such
    Work, such Work shall be Added Scope Work for purposes of Section 4.2 if the Site
    Operator establishes through Dispute Resolution that such Work is beyond the scope of
    this SOW. If the Site Operator does not establish that the Work is beyond the scope of
    this SOW, the Site Operator shall be responsible for the costs and expenses of the disputed
    Work.
    2. The invocation of Dispute Resolution does not relieve the Site Operator from meeting
    the Performance Standards or other requirements of this SOW.

    7.13 Assurance of Ability to Complete Work
    7.13.1 Purpose
    1. The Site Operator shall provide the Oversight Agency with the assurance that it has
    adequate financial capabilities to complete the Work required by this SOW. At the start
    of the Performance Period, the Policy, in combination with the Site Operator's compliance
    with the other insurance requirements contained in this SOW, will provide financial
    assurance that exceeds the Site Operator's projected cost of the Work under this
    SOW. In the event that the expected project completion costs for Work under this SOW
    exceeds the applicable limits remaining in the Policy, the Site Operator shall post
    financial assurance using one or more of the methods outlined in Section 7.13.4 of this
    SOW to the extent required by this Section to ensure completion of the Work under this
    SOW.
    7.13.2 Timing
    1. At the end of the Site Operator's 10th fiscal year, and every 3 years thereafter, the Site
    Operator shall prepare and submit to the Oversight Agency for review and approval a
    financial report comparing the funds available in the Policy with the current estimated
    cost to complete the Work under this SOW. If the report indicates that financial
    assurance is required, then the Site Operator shall post the required financial assurance
    within ninety (90) days after the close of the Site Operator's fiscal year.
    7.13.3 Method of Calculation for Presumed Current Completion Costs
    1. This Section sets forth the method for calculating the expected project completion costs
    ("Current Project Completion Costs") and the amount of financial assurance required in
    the event that project completion costs exceed the remaining policy limits. The method
    of calculating the Current Project Completion Costs is presumed to be sufficiently accurate,
    but the parties may use another, reasonable method of calculating the expected
    project completion costs if factors indicate that the presumed method of calculation significantly
    misstates the actual cost to complete. In that event, the Oversight Agency may
    approve use of another, reasonable method of calculating the expected cost of project
    completion.
    2. Beginning with the fiscal year ended December 31,2001, the Site Operator shall, on an
    annual basis, convert the total costs for each fiscal year back to Year 2000 dollars by discounting
    (using the increase in the CPI-U from December 2000) the actual costs and fees
    (including markups) incurred by the Site Operator in each fiscal year; provided, however,
    the Site Operator shall not be required to include any increase in the CPI-U for the
    fiscal year ending December 31,2001. For example, if the total cost at Year 2 was
    $5 million and the CPI-U has increased by 5 percent since 2000, the figure for Year 2 is
    discounted back to Year 2000 dollars using the following formula: $5M/1.05. This figure
    shall be the "Real Dollar Cost" for that given year.
    3. The Site Operator shall sum the Real Dollar Cost for each year and determine the average
    Real Dollar Cost by dividing the total sum by the number of years in the set. This
    average will be the "Real Dollar Average Cost."

    4. The Site Operator shall convert the Real Dollar Average Cost to the then-current dollars
    by inflating the Real Dollar Average Cost to current dollars. This calculation is performed
    by multiplying the Real Dollar Average Cost by the percentage increase in the
    CPI-U since December 2000. This figure will be the "Current Dollar Average Cost." For
    example, if the Real Dollar Average Cost over the first 10 years is $5 million and the
    CPI-U has increased by 15 percent by Year 10, the Current Dollar Average Cost would
    be calculated as follows: $5M x 1.15.
    5. The Site Operator shall assume that the Current Dollar Average Cost reflects the average
    future costs and that future inflation is 3.25 percent per year. The expected future project
    costs are calculated by taking the sum of the expected future costs by adjusting the
    Current Dollar Average Cost using a 3.25 percent inflation factor for each year remaining
    in the program. For example, if there were 3 years left in the program and the
    Current Dollar Average Cost were $10 million, the calculation would be as follows:
    10M x 1.0325 + 10M x 1.03252 + 10M + 1.03253.
    6. The figure calculated in this manner shall be presumed to be the Current Cost of Completion
    unless there is strong evidence that the figure should be modified. Factors that
    may justify a modification to this calculation include:
    a. Whether the rainfall over the entire period has been significantly above or below the
    historic average rainfall;
    b. Whether there is a new technology that has demonstrated an expected significant
    cost savings or cost increase relative to the historic costs;
    c. Whether the Site conditions have changed in a significant manner that translates into
    demonstrated increased or decreased costs relative to the historic costs;
    d. Whether an extremely low probability and very high cost event has occurred; and
    e. Whether there are factors that have occurred since the project start that provide
    strong evidence that the cost of completion should be modified.
    If such factors exist, the Current Cost of Completion may be modified as appropriate
    to reflect such factors.
    7. If the Current Cost of Completion is equal to or less than the remaining applicable limits
    of the Policy, the Site Operator shall not be obligated to post financial assurance in
    addition to the Policy.
    8. If the Current Cost of Completion is greater than the remaining applicable limits of the
    Policy, then the Site Operator shall post financial assurance in an amount equal to the
    difference between the Current Cost of Completion and the remaining limits of the
    Policy.

    7.13.4 Form of Financial Assurance
    1. If the Site Operator is required to post financial assurance under this Section, the Site
    Operator shall establish and maintain financial security in one or more of the following
    forms:
    a. A surety bond guaranteeing performance of the activities to be undertaken pursuant
    to the Consent Decree and this SOW;
    b. One or more irrevocable letters of credit equaling the total estimated cost of such
    activities;
    c. A trust fund;
    d. A guarantee to perform the activities required under the Consent Decree and this
    SOW by one or more parent corporations or subsidiaries, or by one or more unrelated
    corporations that have a substantial business relationship with the Site
    Operator;
    e. A demonstration that the Site Operator satisfies the requirements of 40 C.F.R.
    Part 264.143(f); or
    f. An appropriate insurance vehicle satisfactory to the Oversight Agency.
    2. If the Site Operator seeks to demonstrate the ability to complete the activities required
    by the Consent Decree and this SOW through a guarantee by a third party pursuant to
    Section 7.13.4(l)(d), above, the Site Operator shall demonstrate that the guarantor satisfies
    the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 264.143(f). If the Site Operator seeks to demonstrate
    its ability to complete the activities required by the Consent Decree and this SOW
    by means of the financial test or the corporate guarantee pursuant to Section 7.13.4(l)(d)
    or, it shall resubmit sworn statements conveying the information required by 40 C.F.R.
    Part 264.143(f) annually, on the anniversary of the Effective Date of this SOW. In the
    event that the Oversight Agency, after a reasonable opportunity for review and
    comment by the Support Agency, determines at any time that the financial assurances
    provided pursuant to this Section are inadequate, the Site Operator shall, within thirty
    (30) days of receipt of notice of the Oversight Agency's determination, obtain and
    present to the Oversight Agency for approval one of the other forms of financial
    assurance listed in Section 7.13.4(1), above. The Site Operator's inability to demonstrate
    financial ability to complete the activities required by the Consent Decree and this SOW
    shall not excuse performance of such activities.
    3. The Site Operator may demonstrate that the financial security necessary for the remaining
    activities required by the Consent Decree and this SOW has diminished below the
    amount set forth in Section 7.13.3(8) above, on the 3-year anniversaries of the entry of
    the Consent Decree. The Site Operator may, on those anniversary dates, or at any other
    time agreed to by the Parties, reduce the amount of the financial security provided
    under this Section to the estimated cost of the remaining Work to be performed. The Site
    Operator shall submit a proposal for such reduction to the Oversight Agency, in accordance
    with the requirements of this Section and may reduce the amount of the security
    upon approval by the Oversight Agency. In the event of a dispute, the Site Operator

    judicial decision resolving the dispute.
    4. The Site Operator may change the form of financial assurance provided under this Section
    7.13.4 at any time, upon notice to and approval by the Oversight Agency, provided
    that the new form of assurance meets the requirements of this Section. In the event of a
    dispute, the Site Operator may change the form of the financial assurance only in accordance
    with the final administrative or judicial decision resolving the dispute.
    7.14 Completion of Work
    1. Within ninety (90) days prior to the termination of the Performance Period, the Site
    Operator shall schedule and conduct a pre-certification inspection to be attended by the
    Site Operator, Oversight Agency, and the Support Agency. After the pre-certification
    inspection, the Site Operator shall submit a written report to the Oversight Agency and
    the Support Agency stating that the activities required under this SOW and the Consent
    Decree have been completed in full satisfaction of the requirements of this SOW and the
    Consent Decree. The report shall contain the following statement, signed by a responsible
    corporate official of the Site Operator or by the Site Operator's Project Manager:
    To the best of my knowledge, after thorough investigation, I certify that
    the information contained in or accompanying this submission is true,
    accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
    submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
    for knowing violations.
    2. The Site Operator's obligation to perform Operation and Maintenance under this SOW
    shall terminate when the Performance Period ends. Notwithstanding the prior sentence,
    after review of the written report, the Oversight Agency, after reasonable opportunity to
    review and comment by the Support Agency, determines that any portion of the activities
    required by this SOW or the Consent Decree has not been completed in accordance
    with this SOW or the Consent Decree, the Oversight Agency will notify the Site Operator
    in writing of the activities that must be undertaken by the Site Operator pursuant to
    this SOW or the Consent Decree. Provided, however, that the Oversight Agency may
    only require the Site Operator to perform such activities pursuant to this Paragraph to
    the extent that such activities were required to be performed under the O&M Work Plan,
    this SOW, or the Consent Decree. The Oversight Agency will set forth in the notice a
    schedule for performance of such activities consistent with the O&M Work Plan, this
    SOW, and the Consent Decree or require the Site Operator to submit a schedule to the
    Oversight Agency for approval pursuant to Section 7.11, Oversight Agency Approval of
    Plans and Other Submissions. The Site Operator shall perform all activities described in
    the notice in accordance with the specifications and schedules established therein, subject
    to its right to invoke the Dispute Resolution procedures set forth in Section XIX
    (Dispute Resolution) of the Consent Decree.
    3. If the Oversight Agency concludes, based on the initial or any subsequent request for
    Certification of Completion by the Site Operator and after a reasonable opportunity for
    review and comment by the Support Agency, that the activities required by this SOW
    and the Consent Decree have been performed in accordance with this SOW and the

    Oversight Agency may not unreasonably withhold approval of the Work.
    7.15 Force Majeure
    1. "Force Majeure," for purposes of the Consent Decree and this SOW, is defined as any
    event arising from causes beyond the control of the Site Operator, of any entity controlled
    by the Site Operator, or of the Site Operator's subcontractors, including lack of
    legal access to the property identified in Section 7.3(4), that delays or prevents the performance
    of any obligation under this SOW or the Consent Decree despite the Site
    Operator's best efforts to fulfill the obligation. The requirement that the Site Operator
    exercises "best efforts to fulfill the obligation" includes using best efforts to anticipate
    any potential Force Majeure event and best efforts to address the effects of any potential
    Force Majeure event (a) as it is occurring, and (b) following the potential Force Majeure
    event, such that the delay or prevention of performance is minimized to the greatest
    extent possible. "Force Majeure" does not include financial inability to complete the
    activities required by this SOW or the Consent Decree.
    2. If any event occurs or has occurred that may delay or prevent the performance of any
    obligation under this SOW or the Consent Decree, whether or not caused by a Force
    Majeure event, the Site Operator shall notify orally the Oversight Agency's Project
    Coordinator or, in his or her absence, the Oversight Agency's Alternate Project Coordinator
    or, in the event both of the Oversight Agency's designated representatives are
    unavailable, the Director of the Superfund Division, EPA Region 9, as soon as possible
    under the circumstances. It shall be presumed that notice not made within four (4)
    Working Days of when the Site Operator knew or should have known that the event
    might cause a delay or non-performance is untimely unless evidence credible to the
    Oversight Agency and to the contrary is provided to the Oversight Agency by the Site
    Operator. Within ten (10) days thereafter or such longer time as specified by the Oversight
    Agency, the Site Operator shall provide in writing to the Oversight Agency and the
    Support Agency an explanation and description of the reasons for the delay or failure to
    perform; the anticipated duration of the delay or failure to perform; all actions taken or
    to be taken to prevent or minimize the delay or failure to perform; a schedule for
    implementation of any measures to be taken to prevent or mitigate the delay or the
    effect of the delay or failure to perform; the Site Operator's rationale for attributing such
    delay or failure to perform to a Force Majeure event if it intends to assert such a claim;
    and a statement as to whether, in the opinion of the Site Operator, such event may cause
    or contribute to an endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. The Site
    Operator shall include with any notice all available documentation supporting its claim
    that the delay or failure to perform was attributable to a Force Majeure. Failure to substantially
    comply with the above requirements shall preclude the Site Operator from
    asserting any claim of Force Majeure for that event for the period of time of such failure
    to comply, and for any additional delay or failure to perform caused by such failure to
    comply. The Site Operator shall be deemed to know of any circumstance of which the
    Site Operator, any entity controlled by the Site Operator, or the Site Operator's subcontractors
    knew or should have known.

    3. If the Oversight Agency, after a reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the
    Support Agency, agrees that the delay or anticipated delay or failure to perform is
    attributable to a Force Majeure event, (a) the time for performance of the obligations
    under this SOW or the Consent Decree that are affected by the Force Majeure event will
    be extended by the Oversight Agency, after a reasonable opportunity for review and
    comment by the Support Agency, for such time as is necessary to complete those obligations
    and (b) any non-compliance with Performance Standards or other requirements of
    this SOW directly caused by the Force Majeure event shall not be a violation of this
    SOW. An extension of the rime for performance of the obligations affected by the Force
    Majeure event shall not, of itself, extend the time for performance of any other obligation
    not affected by the Force Majeure event. If the Oversight Agency, after a reasonable
    opportunity for review and comment by the Support Agency, does not agree that the
    delay, anticipated delay, or failure to perform has been or will be caused by a Force
    Majeure event, the Oversight Agency will notify the Site Operator in writing of its decision
    and the Site Operator may invoke Dispute Resolution under the Consent Decree. If
    the Oversight Agency, after a reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the
    Support Agency, agrees that the delay or failure to perform is attributable to a Force
    Majeure event, the Oversight Agency will notify the Site Operator in writing of the
    length of the extension, if any, for performance of the obligations affected by the Force
    Majeure event.
    4. If the Site Operator elects to invoke the Dispute Resolution procedures set forth in
    Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of the Consent Decree, it shall do so no later than
    fifteen (15) days after receipt of the Oversight Agency's notice. In any such proceeding,
    the Site Operator shall have the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of
    evidence that the delay, anticipated delay, or failure to perform has been or will be
    caused by a Force Majeure event, that the duration of the delay, failure to perform, or
    the extension sought was or will be warranted under the circumstances, that best efforts
    were exercised to avoid and mitigate the effects of the delay or failure to perform, and
    that the Site Operator complied with the requirements of Paragraphs 1,2, and 3 of this
    Section 7.15. If the Site Operator carries this burden, the delay or failure to perform at
    issue shall be deemed not to be a breach by the Site Operator of the affected obligation of
    this SOW or the Consent Decree identified to the Oversight Agency and the Court.
    7.16 Work Takeover
    1. If the Oversight Agency determines that the Site Operator has ceased implementation
    of any portion of the activities required by the Consent Decree and this SOW, is seriously
    or repeatedly deficient or late in its performance of any such activities, or is
    implementing any such activities in a manner that presents an imminent and
    substantial endangerment to human health or the environment, or has improperly
    transferred responsibility without approval under Section in of the Consent Decree, the
    Oversight Agency may assume the performance of all or any portions of such activities
    as the Oversight Agency determines necessary. Before assuming performance of the
    Work, the Oversight Agency shall first give the Site Operator notice of its intent to do so
    and, unless there is insufficient time to do so or the condition is one that cannot be
    cured, shall provide the Site Operator with a reasonable period of time to cure the
    alleged problems with the Work. The Site Operator may invoke the procedures set forth

    in Section XIX of the Consent Decree (Dispute Resolution) to dispute the Oversight
    Agency's determination that takeover of any activity required under the Consent
    Decree and this SOW is warranted under this Section or the amount of any payment
    due the Oversight Agency under this Section.
    2. The Site Operator's obligations in the event of a Work Takeover are:
    a. To continue performance of all obligations under this SOW other than related
    solely to the specific Work being taken over by the Oversight Agency;
    b. To cooperate fully with the Oversight Agency and assist the transition from the Site
    Operator of the Work being assumed by the Oversight Agency;
    c. To provide the Oversight Agency, or its designee, with all tools, equipment, vehicles,
    materials, supplies, software, documents, files, or other equipment or materials
    being used by the Site Operator to perform the Work being assumed by the
    Oversight Agency. The Oversight Agency shall exclude from its Response Costs
    any charge for fair market/rental value for such items provided by the Site
    Operator except to the extent a third party charges the Oversight Agency for such
    costs. Use of such items by the Oversight Agency shall not give rise to a charge, setoff
    or similar right by the Site Operator;
    d. To provide the Oversight Agency, or its designee, with all historic records, documents,
    or other materials that document the conditions at the Site or the Work performed
    by the Site Operator prior to the Work Takeover;
    e. To provide the Oversight Agency with access to the Site Operator's key employees
    who have operational knowledge of the Work being assumed by the Oversight
    Agency; and
    f. To help the Oversight Agency obtain, if requested by the Oversight Agency,
    enforceable rights to continue, any contracts, subcontracts, supply contracts,
    licenses, or other intangible assets being used by the Site Operator to perform the
    Work being assumed by the Oversight Agency.
    3. If the Oversight Agency takes over performance of some or all of the activities required
    under the Consent Decree and this SOW, the Site Operator shall pay the Oversight
    Agency's Response Costs in the manner provided by Section XVI of the Consent
    Decree, except to the extent that such costs are paid to the Oversight Agency by the
    Policy. To the extent required by the NCP, the Oversight Agency shall use reasonable
    efforts to mitigate its Response Costs in the event of a full or partial Work Takeover. At
    the discretion of the Oversight Agency, the Oversight Agency may take over the Work
    itself, or the Site Operator may be replaced by a third party. A Work Takeover does not
    relieve the Site Operator from obligations relating to financial assurance, payment of
    Response Costs, or document retention. In the event that a Work Takeover by the
    Oversight Agency is found through Dispute Resolution to not be authorized under this
    SOW, the Site Operator shall be reinstated with respect to such Work, and the Site
    Operator shall not be deemed to have waived any rights for damages that it may have
    for the period that Work was taken over. Costs incurred by the Oversight Agency
    pursuant to Section 7.16 shall be considered Response Costs that the Site Operator shall

    pay pursuant to Section XVI of the Consent Decree (Reimbursement of Response
    Costs).
    4. The remedies provided in this Section are in addition to, and not exclusive of, any other
    remedies provided by this SOW or Consent Decree.
    7.17 Post-Performance Period Transition
    1. At the end of the Performance Period, or such other time that the Site Operator's Work
    obligations under this SOW are terminated, the Site Operator shall transfer, or cause the
    Trust to transfer, to the entity as directed by the Oversight Agency, whatever right, title
    and interest in or to the Site, any O&M Unit, and any O&M Unit Component which the
    Site Operator and Trust may have. The Site Operator may retain any vehicles, trucks,
    expensed equipment, office supplies, and other personal property owned by the Site
    Operator, and the Site Operator will remove such property from the Site within a reasonable
    period after the Performance Period.
    2. At the conclusion of the Performance Period, the Site Operator will assist the Oversight
    Agency in the orderly transition of responsibility for Site activities from the Site Operator
    to the Oversight Agency or other entity as directed by the Oversight Agency.
    8. Performance Standards
    8.1 Introduction
    1. The Site Operator shall diligently operate and maintain the O&M units to protect facilities
    and personnel, both onsite and offsite, from damage, injury, or illness that could
    result from fire, accidental chemical releases, unsafe conditions, flooding, erosion, and
    all other reasonably anticipated sources, conditions, and events. The criteria used to
    design the O&M Units to achieve the Performance Standards for the IMM Remedy are
    further described in applicable Design Criteria Reports, Engineering Analysis Reports,
    designs, and other design documents produced during the design of the facilities to
    implement the IMM Remedy. To the extent practicable, the Site Operator shall reconstruct
    or repair components of the O&M Units in conformance with the available design
    documents for the IMM Remedy listed in Attachment D to this SOW. To the extent such
    documents are not available or to the extent the Site Operator can establish an alternative
    approach meets the objectives of this SOW, the Site Operator shall reconstruct or
    repair the components in a manner that achieves the Performance Standards and other
    requirements of this SOW in a reliable manner.
    2. The Performance Standards stated in Sections 8 and 14 shall be the applicable Performance
    Standards during the Performance Period. The Oversight Agency may impose
    more stringent Performance Standards or add new Performance Standards, provided
    that the Site Operator is compensated for its additional costs, if any, as provided in
    Section 4 and is given a reasonable period of time to achieve the modified or new Performance
    Standards. Actions required to meet .the Performance Standards or other
    requirements of this SOW shall not be a modification of Performance Standards for
    purposes of this Paragraph.

    3. At any time during the Performance Period, the Site Operator may petition the Oversight
    Agency to modify the Performance Standards provided herein. The Site Operator
    shall describe in detail its basis for modification and attach all supporting data. A decision
    of the Oversight Agency regarding modification under this Section 8.1.3 of Performance
    Standards shall not be subject to Dispute Resolution or judicial review by the
    Site Operator.
    4. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, neither this SOW nor the Site Operator's
    Work Plans or other documents submitted pursuant to this SOW, nor the
    undertaking of any Work herein, shall constitute a warranty, express or implied, as to
    Site Operator's ability to meet the Performance Standards.
    5. This SOW and the Consent Decree do not obligate the Site Operator to perform, without
    additional compensation, any Work that is beyond the scope of this SOW.
    8.2 General Performance Standards
    1. The Site Operator is responsible for achieving the Performance Standards and other
    requirements of this SOW despite any unknown or unanticipated conditions, unusual
    weather or severe conditions, except to the limited extent specifically allowed by this
    SOW.
    2. The Site Operator shall:
    a. Comply with all requirements set forth in the Consent Decree,
    b. Ensure effective and reliable operation of the IMM Remedy.
    c. Ensure the collection, conveyance, and treatment of all Designated Contaminant
    Discharges except to the extent specifically allowed by this SOW in Sections 8.4 or
    7.15 or to the extent specifically allowed in subsequent amendments to this SOW
    and/or Consent Decree.
    d. Ensure achievement of the Performance Standards set forth in Sections 8 and 14 of
    this SOW.
    e. Plan and execute the Work under this SOW in a manner that provides safe working
    conditions and ensures protection of worker health and safety under all anticipated
    conditions. The Site Operator shall use best efforts to anticipate and avoid situations
    that pose an unacceptable risk to worker health and safety. If a situation arises
    where performing a task poses an unacceptable risk to worker health and safety,
    the Site Operator may reschedule the Work element until the soonest next available
    time when the Work can be safely performed in accordance with this SOW and
    requirements of the Health and Safety Plan for the Site. In such situations, the Site
    Operator shall take all necessary actions to mitigate and minimize any noncompliance
    with the Performance Standards and other requirements of this SOW.
    If a situation giving rise to the unacceptable health and safety risk arose despite the
    best efforts of the Site Operator to anticipate and prepare for the situation, and the
    Site Operator took appropriate mitigation steps during the delay, the Site Operator
    shall not be considered to be in breach of this SOW or the Consent Decree for the
    delay in performing the required task. The Site Operator shall report to the Over-

    sight Agency and Support Agency such situations within twelve (12) hours of
    discovery of the situation and in the Monthly Progress Reports.
    f. Except as set forth in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section 8.2, the Site Operator shall
    maintain and replace, as appropriate, all O&M Units and O&M Unit Components
    so that, during the performance of this SOW and at the completion of the Site
    Operator's obligations under this SOW, the O&M Units, and all O&M Unit
    Components:
    i. Are reliable and fully functional; and
    ii. Substantially meet or exceed the condition of the O&M Units and O&M Unit
    Components as of August 1,2000.
    3. The O&M Unit Components listed in Section 8.2(4) are "Depreciable O&M Unit
    Components." The Site Operator must maintain Depreciable O&M Unit Components at
    a level that:
    a. Is consistent with good industrial and commercial practice;
    b. Minimizes the long-term operation and maintenance costs for the component; and
    c. Ensures that the component is always reliable and fully functional.
    4. Provided these standards are met, Depreciable O&M Unit Components may be turned
    over to the Oversight Agency at the completion of the Site Operator's obligations under
    this SOW, in good condition, but not necessarily equal to the condition of the component
    as of August 1,2000:
    a. Lime silos;
    b. Lime slurry system;
    c. Thickener;
    d. Day lime silos;
    e. The treatment plant structure;
    f. Reactor tanks;
    g. Air blowers and air injection system;
    h. Office building;
    i. Sheds;
    j. MCC control building;
    k. Paved roads;
    1. Shotcrete- or concrete-lined ditches; and
    m. Lined pipelines
    8.3 Good Housekeeping Standards
    1. The Site Operator shall diligently perform good housekeeping with respect to the O&M
    Units to ensure effective implementation of the IMM Remedy.
    2. The Site Operator shall maintain equipment in a manner that ensures a clean, well-kept
    appearance.
    3. The Site Operator shall maintain the O&M Units and all areas within 30 feet of O&M
    Units clear of dead and downed brush, trees, and debris. The Site Operator shall

    burning at an approved burn location.
    4. The Site Operator shall maintain all areas within 30 feet of all power poles clear of dead
    and downed brush, trees, and debris. The Site Operator shall properly dispose of
    removed and cleared brush and trees, such as through chipping or burning at an
    approved burn location.
    5. The Site Operator shall use reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized entry to the Site.
    6. The Site Operator shall provide a safe working environment through keeping Work
    areas free of tripping and other hazards, providing lighting for any night work, and
    implementing an adequate safety program.
    8.4 Minnesota Flats Treatment Plant
    1. The Site Operator shall achieve the Performance Standards in this SOW as set forth in
    Sections 8 and 14.
    2. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the HDS plant in a manner that optimizes
    (maximizes) terminal sludge density while maximizing long-term performance and
    reliability of the treatment plant equipment. Terminal sludge density is the density of
    the sludge prior to sludge haulage.
    3. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the reactor blowers and aeration systems
    in a manner that maximizes oxidation of the sludge prior to discharge of the sludge to
    the sludge drying beds. The Site Operator shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
    produce a fully oxidized sludge characterized by a deep red color (Munsell Soil Color
    Chart 10R 3/6 Dark Red).
    4. The Site Operator shall provide staff trained for operations, maintenance, and safety in
    accordance with the requirements specified in the Operations and Maintenance
    Instructions, High Density Sludge Treatment Plant, Iron Mountain Mine-Redding, CA,
    included by reference as Attachment E. The Site Operator shall maintain records onsite
    that verify the training for all treatment plant staff.
    5. Once the MFTP modifications are completed (under separate contract), the Site Operator
    shall maintain the maximum design peak inflow capacity at 6,500 gpm. The Site
    Operator shall operate the MFTP with a target inflow rate of 5,500 gpm to ensure
    1,000 gpm emergency capacity to address AMD surges and other unusual conditions.
    6. The Site Operator shall maximize the use of emergency storage to prevent discharge of
    untreated or partially treated Designated Contaminant Discharges. In the event that the
    influent flow rate to the MFTP exceeds the capacity of the MFTP to neutralize the influent,
    and all available storage, the Site Operator shall maximize removal of metals by
    providing treatment of Designated Contaminant Discharges according to the following
    priorities: (a) Richmond portal, (b) Lawson portal, (c) Old No. 8 Mine Seep, and
    (d) SCRR. Excess Designated Contaminant Discharges from (a), (b), and (c) shall be
    treated at the Boulder Creek Cementation Plant to achieve maximum removal of
    copper.

    7. In situations where the Designated Contaminant Discharges exceed the capacity of the
    MFTP, the Site Operator shall notify the Oversight Agency within eight (8) hours, shall
    use best efforts to avoid the release of untreated AMD, and shall coordinate with the
    Oversight Agency to modify the operations approach to address the problem. The Site
    Operator shall take immediate actions to prevent or minimize the release of untreated
    or partially treated AMD, including, but not limited to, coordinating the operation of
    the SCRR, using the Old/No. 8 Mine as a storage facility, filling the AMD storage tank,
    and filling the Modutank. If despite these efforts, there is insufficient storage and treatment
    capacity, the Site Operator shall maximize removal of metals by prioritizing the
    treatment of flows according to Section 8.4(6). If there is a release of untreated or partially
    treated Designated Contaminant Discharges, then the Site Operator shall not be
    responsible for the release of Designated Contaminant Discharges due to an exceedance
    of the capacity of the MFTP, to the extent that such discharges exceed the capacity of
    the MFTP, provided that the Site Operator follows these procedures and has maintained
    the capacity of the MFTP and other relevant facilities as required by this SOW.
    8.5 Treatment Plant Ancillary Facilities
    8.5.1 Plant Roads
    1. The Site Operator shall maintain the roadbase-surfaced roads in a manner that preserves
    or improves the existing (August 1,2000) condition and road surface quality,
    provides safe access, preserves the initial investment of the roadway construction, and
    provides reasonable ride quality. The Site Operator shall maintain all roadways within
    and adjacent to the treatment plant and sludge drying beds. This maintenance shall
    include routine regular removal of sediment from ditches and culverts prior to and
    during winter months, routine road grading and patching, filling potholes, and resurfacing
    of roads surfaced with roadbase to minimize rut formation in conformance with
    the original design.
    2. The Site Operator shall maintain the asphalt-paved road in a manner that preserves the
    existing (August 1,2000) road surface, provides safe access, preserves the initial investment
    of the roadway construction, and provides reasonable ride quality. Asphalt
    roadway deficiencies vary considerably. Conditions to be prevented and corrected
    include, but are not limited to, chronically slippery pavement, raveling, rutting, potholes,
    abrupt vertical variations, pavement cracks, and shoulder distress. Depending on
    the extent and severity of the observed distress, the Site Operator shall implement
    corrective measures, including roadbase repair, hand patching, machine patching, spot
    sealing, seal coat, crack sealing and/or filling, cold planing, and overlays.
    3. Inspections of the asphalt-paved roads shall be conducted as needed, but at a minimum
    the inspections shall be performed annually to identify pavement deficiencies requiring
    corrective measures. Upon identification of a deficiency, permanent corrective measures
    shall be scheduled to occur on an annual basis. If unsafe conditions exist when
    permanent repair operations are not scheduled, temporary measures may be utilized to
    bring the pavement into a safe condition. These temporary measures shall be replaced
    with a permanent corrective measure during the next regular repair operation.

    4. The Site Operator shall maintain asphalt-paved roads at the Site in a manner that complies
    with the Shasta County Development Standards.
    8.5.2 Hillslopes
    1. The Site Operator shall maintain hillslopes above and below the emergency storage
    tank, sludge drying beds, and the treatment plant in a manner that directs drainage to
    the existing drainage ditches, and prevents gullying, concentrated flow patterns, and
    erosion of the slope surfaces. The Site Operator shall repair or improve surface erosional
    features annually, or more often as required, to prevent development of gullies and
    sedimentation of receiving drainage ditches. The repairs shall include placement or
    replacement of erosion mats, geotextiles, and riprap covers, or other designs.
    8.5.3 Effluent Discharge Works
    1. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the effluent discharge works, including the
    intake, piping, outlet works, and dike separating the outlet works from Spring Creek, in
    a manner that ensures continuous 10,000 gpm discharge capacity of the outlet works.
    The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the effluent discharge works to ensure that
    all treated effluent is discharged to Spring Creek.
    8.5.4 Modutank
    1. The Site Operator shall maintain the Modutank and supporting pipes, valves, and other
    equipment in a manner that ensures availability and reliable operation of the Modutank
    during emergency conditions, including treatment plant downtimes and major storm
    events.
    2. The Site Operator shall maintain the Modutank and related structures in a manner that
    does not leak beyond acceptable design tolerances based on a forty-eight (48)-hour leak
    test with a full head of water.
    8.5.5 AMD Storage Tank
    1. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the AMD storage tank and supporting
    pipes, valves, and other equipment in a manner that ensures availability and reliable
    operation of the tank capacity for operations and storage during both routine and emergency
    conditions (including treatment plant downtimes and major storm events).
    2. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the AMD storage tank and related equipment
    in a condition that does not leak beyond acceptable design tolerances.
    8.5.6 Clean Water System
    1. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the clean water system to ensure sufficient
    lime slurry makeup water at the treatment plant at all times and under all treatment
    plant inflow conditions.
    2. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the clean water intake structure stilling
    pool to minimize intake of sediment and debris; reduce wear on pumps, pipes, and
    valves; and minimize sediment loading of the clean water storage tank.

    8.5.7 Sludge Drying Beds
    1. The Site Operator shall maintain the integrity of the lining system and prevent filtrate
    from infiltrating into the groundwater beyond acceptable design tolerances.
    2. The Site Operator shall prevent sludge and supernatant from overtopping the drying
    beds and discharging into the Flat Creek watershed drainage.
    3. The Site Operator shall prevent overtopping of the filtrate pump station sump and discharge
    of filtrate into the Flat Creek watershed.
    4. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the sludge drying beds in a manner that
    maximizes separation of water from the sludge, ensures collection and conveyance of
    the filtrate to the filtrate pump station, and ensures conveyance of the filtrate to Spring
    Creek.
    8.5.8 Boulder Creek Copper Cementation Plant
    1. The Site Operator shall maintain the Boulder Creek Copper Cementation Plant (BCCP)
    and supporting pipes, valves, and other equipment in a manner that ensures availability
    and reliable operation of the BCCP for copper removal during emergency conditions
    that prevent treatment of AMD at the MFTP. The BCCP has been idle for several years
    prior to this SOW and is only anticipated to be used in an unusual set of circumstances.
    2. The Site Operator shall keep the concrete bays of the BCCP stocked with scrap iron at all
    times and shall actively operate and maintain the BCCP during periods of use to ensure
    the effective removal of copper from the AMD flows directed to the BCCP.
    3. Notwithstanding Sections 8.5.8(1) and (2) above, the Site Operator shall not be obligated
    to expend more than $5,000 per year in any year (adjusted by the Inflation Escalator) in
    connection with this O&M Unit.
    8.6 Site Roads
    1. All roads, ditches, culverts, grates, drainage control structures, and structures supporting
    roadways at the Site require regular maintenance. For purposes of this SOW, the
    roadways are classified in Section 9.5.2 as Critical Access Roads, Important Access
    Roads, and Non-critical Access Roads.
    2. The Site Operator shall maintain the roads in a manner that preserves or improves the
    existing (August 1,2000) road surface, provides safe access, preserves the initial
    investment of the roadway construction, and provides reasonable ride quality.
    3. The Site Operator shall maintain the roads in a fire-safe manner and in a manner that
    permits access for fire-fighting equipment and personnel. The Site Operator shall
    maintain the roadways clear of brush overhanging roadways and remove dead, dry
    brush near roadways.
    4. The Site Operator shall keep all roads open, clear, and in good repair. The Site Operator
    will be allowed to close roads for maintenance or repair operations as required.
    5. The Site Operator shall, at a minimum, provide the following levels of access:

    a. Continuous access on Critical Access Roads with short-duration (four [4]-hour
    maximum) delay allowed during major storm events (precipitation greater than
    1.45 inches per hour or 9.7 inches in twenty-four [24] hours). Snow shall be
    removed from Critical Access Roads within twenty-four (24) hours.
    b. Continuous access on Important Access Roads with intermediate duration (twentyfour
    [24]-hour maximum) delay allowed during major storm events (precipitation
    greater than 1.45 inches per hour or 9.7 inches in twenty-four [24] hours). Snow
    shall be removed from Important Access Roads within seven (7) calendar days.
    c. Continuous access on Non-critical Access Roads with long-duration (seven [7]
    calendar-days maximum) delay. Snow need not be removed on Non-critical Access
    Roads.
    6. Additional personnel and equipment shall be under contract and/or onsite or at the
    Site Operator's disposal to respond promptly during wet-weather operations. The Site
    Operator shall enumerate these additional resources required for wet-weather operation
    in the Annual Operations Work Plan required for submission under Section 6.3. In
    the Annual Operations Work Plan, the Site Operator shall update the anticipated
    requirements for wet-weather operations resources, and certify by a signed memorandum
    that these resources are contracted for or will be onsite, or at the Site Operator's
    disposal for the upcoming wet-weather season.
    8.7 AMD Collection and Conveyance Systems
    1. The Site Operator shall maintain the AMD collection and conveyance systems at a
    minimum of 90 percent of the flow capacity in each conveyance element.
    2. The Site Operator shall prevent any leakage that is beyond acceptable design tolerances
    from the AMD collection systems and the AMD conveyance systems.
    8.8 Brick Flat Pit
    1. The Site Operator shall inspect, operate, and maintain the BFP Containment Dam in
    compliance with all requirements of the State of California, Department of Water
    Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). To the best of EPA's knowledge, the
    current structure meets all requirements of DSOD and has passed the most recent
    annual inspection.
    2. The Site Operator shall place HDS sludge in Brick Flat Pit at a minimum relative compaction
    of 90 percent as measured by ASTM D 698. The final sludge surface at the end
    of each sludge haul shall be graded to drain, at slopes less than 5 percent, toward the
    filtrate riser pipes.
    3. The Site Operator shall maintain all existing and planned drainage ditches, roads, and
    drainage structures in the Brick Flat Pit and Subsidence Areas to ensure a minimum
    90 percent flow capacity of the drainage system.
    4. The Site Operator shall manage Brick Flat Pit in accordance with the existing LMRP
    (Iron Mountain Mine 1999 Landfill Management Report and Plan) in 2000, and in conformance
    with the annual revised LMRP.

    8.9 Subsidence Areas
    1. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain all existing subsidence area caps, including
    the cracked ground areas and areas capped with shotcrete, in a manner that directs
    the maximum surface runoff away from the subsidence areas and fracture zones. The
    surface runoff shall be directed and controlled in a manner that does not result in detrimental
    erosion or other detrimental effects.
    8.10 Mine Workings
    1. The Site Operator shall maintain and operate the Richmond Portal, the Lawson Portal,
    and the Old/No. 8 Mine workings in a manner that ensures collection, conveyance, and
    treatment of all AMD from these three components of the Designated Contaminant Discharges.
    In the event that the Designated Contaminant Discharges' pathway changes, the
    Site Operator shall install and maintain additional collection system(s) necessary to
    ensure collection, conveyance and treatment of the Designated Contaminant Discharges.
    2. The Site Operator shall inspect, maintain and operate the Richmond Adit, the 5-way,
    and drifts in a manner that ensures near-continuous, safe entry into the Richmond Adit
    from the portal to the 5-way, and for a distance of 65 feet from the 5-way into the
    A Drift, B Drift, C Drift, and D Drift. After completion of the Richmond Adit and Drifts
    Rehabilitation, the Site Operator shall also inspect, maintain and operate the Richmond
    Adit, 5-way, and drifts in a manner to ensure safe entry, on a semi-annual, or more
    frequent basis as needed, into the B Drift (for approximately 225 feet from the 5-way),
    into the C Drift (for approximately 340 feet from the 5-way), into the proposed new 5-
    way bypass drift connecting the Richmond Adit to the C Drift, and into the proposed
    new cross-cut connecting the B Drift and the C Drift (at approximately 140 feet and 165
    feet from the 5-way, respectively).
    3. The actual lengths of adit and drifts to be maintained shall be determined after
    completion of the rehabilitation construction.
    4. The Site Operator shall maintain and operate the Lawson Mine workings in a manner
    that ensures reliable, routine, safe entry into the Lawson adit from the portal to the collection
    point approximately 550 feet from the portal, on a once-per-month or more frequent
    basis, as needed.
    5. The Site Operator shall maintain and operate the Old/No. 8 Mine Seep collection
    system in a manner that ensures diligent, selective collection and conveyance of all
    AMD discharges from the Old/No. 8 Mine Seep component of the Designated
    Contaminant Discharges.
    8.11 Clean Water Diversions
    8.11.1 Upper Spring Creek Diversion
    1. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the Upper Spring Creek Diversion in a
    manner that diverts stream flow, up to the maximum hydraulic capacity of the diversion,
    from Upper Spring Creek to Flat Creek at all times, except as authorized or
    directed by the Oversight Agency. The maximum hydraulic capacity of the diversion
    currently equals approximately 850 cfs.

    2. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the Upper Spring Creek Diversion stilling
    basin in a manner to settle out sediment particles 1/4 inch or greater in cross section at
    all stream flow less than or equal to 1,000 cfs.
    8.11.2 ROD1 Upper Slickrock Creek Clean Water Diversion
    1. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the ROD1 Upper Slickrock Creek Diversion
    in a manner that diverts stream flow, up to the maximum hydraulic capacity of the
    diversion, from Upper Slickrock Creek around the Slickrock Creek Basin to Lower
    Slickrock Creek at all times, except as authorized or directed by the Oversight Agency.
    The maximum hydraulic capacity of the diversion currently equals approximately
    80 cfs.
    2. The Site Operator shall maintain and operate the Upper Slickrock Creek Diversion
    stilling basin in a manner that settles out sediment particles 1/4 inch or greater in cross
    section.
    8.11.3 ROD4 Slickrock Creek Clean Water Diversion
    1. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the Upper Slickrock Creek Diversion in a
    manner that collects and conveys stormflow, up to the maximum hydraulic capacity of
    the diversion, from Upper Slickrock Creek and South Fork Mountain around the Slickrock
    Creek Basin and the SCRR to Lower Slickrock Creek. The maximum hydraulic
    capacity, at the design depth of flow (70 percent of the pipe inside diameter), varies
    from 520 cfs at the intake structure near the Slickrock Creek Tailings Dam to 610 cfs at
    the SCRR spillway. These improvements will be constructed or modified as part of
    ROD4 work under separate contract. Testing of improvements, as well as any shakedown
    and startup Work, will be completed prior to turning over responsibility for
    operation and maintenance by the Site Operator.
    2. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the Upper Slickrock Creek Diversion
    stilling basin in the Catfish Pond area in a manner mat settles out sediment particles
    1/8 -inch or greater in cross section. These improvements will be constructed or modified
    as part of ROD4 Work under separate contract. Testing of improvements, as well as
    any shakedown and startup Work will be completed prior to turning over responsibility
    for operation and maintenance by the Site Operator.
    8.11.4 Left-Side Water Diversions
    1. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the Left-Side Water Diversions in a manner
    that collects and conveys all surface-water flow up to and including the peak
    100-year surface water flow from the designated drainage areas. The areas are shown in
    the design document Iron Mountain Mine, Slickrock Creek Water Diversions, Design Criteria
    Report (SMC, March 1999). The peak 100-year design flows are given in the document
    Draft Final Iron Mountain Mine Slickrock Creek Retention Reservoir Engineering Calculations,
    Volume VI (SMC, April 2000). The Site Operator shall collect and convey contaminated
    flow to the SCRR sedimentation basin or reservoir. The Site Operator shall direct relatively
    clean surface-water flow out of the SCRR catchment area. These improvements
    will be constructed or modified as part of ROD4 Work under separate contract. Testing

    of improvements, as well as any shakedown and startup Work, will be completed prior
    to turning over responsibility for operation and maintenance by the Site Operator.
    2. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the Left-Side Water Diversions in a manner
    that reduces erosion and minimizes sedimentation of the SCRR, the SCRR sedimentation
    basin, and Slickrock Creek. These improvements will be constructed or
    modified as part of ROD 4 work under separate contract. Testing of improvements, as
    well as any shakedown and startup work will be completed prior to turning over
    responsibility for operation and maintenance by the Site Operator.
    8.12 Boulder Creek Tailings Dam
    1. The Site Operator shall modify the Boulder Creek Tailings Dam embankment and
    spillway to ensure that storm flows are directed to the spillway and to provide spillway
    capacity adequate to pass the peak 100-year storm flow (estimated at 1,650 cfs), as
    detailed in Section 9.11.3.
    2. After the Site Operator modifies the dam embankment and spillway as set forth above,
    the Site Operator shall maintain and operate the Boulder Creek Tailings Dam, the Boulder
    Creek streambed, and the hillslopes above the Boulder Creek streambed in a manner
    that ensures the continuous capacity of the spillway to safely pass the peak 100-year
    stormflow as per Table 14-2 in Section 14 of Response Action Contract No. 68-W6-0036,
    EPA Work Assignment No. 038-LST-0917, Iron Mountain Risk Assessment, Dated March
    2000.
    8.13 Slickrock Creek Basin
    1. For all items listed under this Section: These improvements will be constructed or modified
    as part of ROD4 work under separate contract. Testing of improvements, as well as
    any shakedown and startup Work, will be completed prior to turning over responsibility
    for operation and maintenance by the Site Operator. During the Startup/Shakedown
    Period, the Site Operator shall assist the Oversight Agency to solve operational problems
    at the MFTP that arise during the Startup/Shakedown Period. After the Startup/
    Shakedown Period, the Site Operator shall be responsible for operating and maintaining
    the facilities and addressing design and construction defects.
    2. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the Slickrock Creek Dam and SCRR in
    accordance with the requirements of the State of California, Department of Water
    Resources, DSOD.
    3. The Site Operator shall maintain and operate the SCRR in a manner that maximizes
    operating efficiencies, defined as flow rate into the reservoir divided by flow rate out of
    the reservoir.
    4. To the maximum extent practicable, all inflow into the reservoir shall be continuously
    discharged for treatment, with the exception of the dead pool storage.
    5. The Site Operator shall not allow the reservoir to accumulate storage, except under
    emergency conditions, treatment plant downtime, maintenance periods, or if the inflow
    rate exceeds the design discharge flow rate.

    6. The Site Operator shall operate the SCRR to achieve an MFTP maximum inflow rate
    equal to 5,500 gpm. Under peak-flow operating conditions, the SCRR target maximum
    operational discharge flow rate shall equal 3,250 gpm. The Site Operator shall increase
    the SCRR operational discharge to a maximum flow rate of 4,000 gpm once the peak
    AMD discharges from the Richmond and Lawson portals have safely declined from
    peak-flow conditions.
    7. During the detailed development of the SCRR O&M Manual, scheduled for completion
    under separate contract in 2001 or 2002, the Oversight Agency may modify the SCRR
    maximum target operational discharge flow rates under various conditions. The Site
    Operator shall revise the O&M Work Plan in conformance with all modifications given
    in the SCRR O&M Manual and such modifications will not be considered to be changes
    to the Performance Standards or SOW.
    8. The Site Operator shall maintain and operate the sedimentation basin in a manner that
    ensures that the maximum grain size of materials discharged from the sedimentation
    basin to the SCRR does not exceed 1.0 mm.
    9. The Site Operator shall maintain and operate the SCRR in a manner that ensures that
    the maximum grain size of materials discharged from the SCRR does not exceed
    0.1 mm.
    10. The Site Operator shall maintain and operate the upper hematite pile and lower hematite
    pile tailings storage areas in a manner that minimizes erosion of the hematite into
    Slickrock Creek.
    8.14 Boulder Creek Slide Area
    1. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the horizontal drains in a manner that
    maximizes collection of flow from the horizontal drains, controls the discharge from the
    drains in a manner that minimizes infiltration of the drainage back into the hillside, and
    minimizes erosion at the discharge locations.
    2. The Site Operator shall operate and maintain the surface-water control ditches and
    structures in a manner that maximizes the conveyance of surface-water flow away from
    the Boulder Creek landslide area and minimizes erosion at the surface-water discharge
    location.
    8.15 Sampling Program
    1. The Site Operator shall conduct the sampling program in conformance with Section 14,
    Performance Standards and Verification Plan, and the approved QAPP.
    8.16 Downgradient Property
    1. The Site Operator shall provide for the long-term maintenance of the IMM remedial
    action improvements at downgradient property locations, including the protection of
    the Flat Creek embankments at the Iron Mountain Road crossing near the gate, adjacent
    to the Rardin property, at the archeological site, and at the former Finazzo property, in a
    manner that preserves or improves the existing (August 1,2000) condition of these
    property improvements.

    2. The Site Operator shall provide for long-term maintenance (or upgrade) of the Flat
    Creek embankment protections immediately downgradient of the Upper Spring Creek
    (USC) Diversion energy dissipation structure in a manner that preserves or improves the
    existing (August 1,2000) condition of these embankment protections. It is important that
    the embankment protections are maintained, and upgraded if necessary, to ensure that
    the energy dissipation structure is not undermined by progressive erosion of the Flat
    Creek channel.
    3. The Site Operator shall perform emergency response actions related to the county road
    and bridges that may be necessary to ensure access of personnel, supplies, and equipment
    to the Site to ensure continuous performance of the IMM remedial action.
    8.17 Mine Waste Disposal Facilities
    1. The Site Operator shall provide for the long-term maintenance of each of the mine
    waste disposal facilities constructed as part of the IMM Remedy (including the disposal
    cell constructed upgradient from the Richmond Mill buildings area, the WR-8 and
    WR-9 mine waste cell, the capped cell at Pond No. 2 at the Temporary Treatment Plant,
    and the new muck disposal cell to be constructed under this SOW) consistent with the
    original design and in a manner that preserves or improves the existing (August 1,
    2000) function and condition of these facilities.
    2. The Site Operator shall provide for long-term maintenance of the surface-water controls
    constructed to minimize surface-water erosion of historic mine waste piles in the Slickrock
    Creek and Boulder Creek basins in a manner that preserves or improves the existing
    (August 1,2000) function and condition of these facilities. Improvements to facilities
    in some of these areas will be constructed as part of ROD4 work under separate contract.
    During the Startup/Shakedown Period of the SCRR improvements, the Site
    Operator shall assist the Oversight Agency to solve operational problems at the MFTP
    that arise during the Startup/Shakedown Period.
    3. If a failure of an historic mine waste pile occurs, the Site Operator shall re-stabilize the
    remaining mining waste in a manner consistent with the existing (August 1,2000)
    function and condition of the waste pile. If such a failure occurs, the Site Operator shall
    also remove, to the extent practicable as determined by the Oversight Agency, taking
    into consideration economic and technical constraints, mining wastes from surface
    waters that drain Iron Mountain, surface-water conveyances, roadways, or other features
    of the EMM Remedy, and place the recovered mine wastes in a stable disposal
    area, as approved by the Oversight Agency.
    8.18 Failure to Attain Performance Standards
    1. In the event that the Oversight Agency determines that modification to the O&M Work
    Plan is necessary to meet applicable Performance Standards or other requirements of
    this SOW, the Oversight Agency may notify the Site Operator that the Site Operator
    shall modify the O&M Work Plan. The Site Operator may invoke the Dispute Resolution
    procedure of the Consent Decree if it disputes the Oversight Agency's request for
    modification.

    2. Unless otherwise directed by the Oversight Agency, within sixty (60) days of receipt of
    notice from the Oversight Agency that modification to the O&M Work Plan is necessary,
    the Site Operator shall submit for approval by the Oversight Agency a
    modification to the Work Plan that will achieve the Performance Standards or other
    requirements of this SOW. The modified Work Plan shall also be submitted to the Support
    Agency for review and comment. The modified Work Plan may call for, among
    other things, additional response activities consistent with this SOW.
    3. If RD or RA work activities are required to achieve Performance Standards or other
    requirements of this SOW, the Site Operator shall achieve in a reliable and safe manner
    as determined by the Oversight Agency, the Performance Standards and the design
    criteria for the respective O&M Units and other requirements of this SOW.
    4. Subject to Section 7.15 of this SOW and notwithstanding any action by the Oversight
    Agency or other State or Federal agency, the Site Operator remains fully responsible for
    achieving all Performance Standards and other requirements of this SOW.
    5. Nothing in this SOW, or in the Oversight Agency's approval of any submission, shall
    be, or be deemed to constitute, a warranty or representation of any kind by the
    Oversight Agency that full performance of an approved RD, RA, Work Plan, or other
    action will achieve the Performance Standards and other requirements of this SOW. The
    Site Operator's compliance with such approved documents does not preclude the
    Oversight Agency from seeking additional Work consistent with this SOW to achieve
    the Performance Standards and other requirements of this SOW.(pg. 84)

    9.15 Boulder Creek Cementation Plant
    9.15.1 Unit Description
    1. The Boulder Creek Cementation Plant (BCCP) was constructed around 1957 to treat
    AMD discharges from the Richmond and Lawson mine workings. The plant was operated
    intermittently through September 1994, at which time the MFTP was put into fulltime
    service at the site.
    9.15.2 O&M Requirements for the Boulder Creek Cementation Plant
    1. The Site Operator shall inspect, operate, maintain, and repair the BCCP for use during
    treatment plant downtimes or other emergency conditions. The Site Operator shall
    maintain the piping, valves, miscellaneous equipment, and the plant structure. The Site
    Operator shall have shredded iron materials onsite for use in processing AMD during
    emergency conditions.(pg. 109)

    14.9 Quality Assurance Oversight
    14.9.1 Performance and System Audits
    1. The Oversight Agency will implement and conduct audits of the QA procedures for
    sample/data collection. The Oversight Agency will implement audits to evaluate the
    execution of sample identification, sample control, chain-of-custody procedures, sample
    log notebooks, sampling procedures, and onsite or offsite laboratory measurements.
    2. The Oversight Agency will audit onsite or offsite laboratories. The laboratory audits
    shall include analytical methodology QC procedures.

    ATTACHMENT A
    IMM ROD Components Not Implemented
    ROD1
    Component Selected In ROD (pp 64-65)
    Up to 250 cfs of clean water to be diverted
    from the South Fork of Spring Creek across
    the drainage divide into Rock Creek, which
    discharges into the Sacramento River below
    Keswick Dam. The purpose of this alternative
    is similar to the Upper Spring Creek diversion
    and required a small diversion dam and 4,000
    feet of pipeline to complete the conveyance of
    flows to Rock Creek.
    Spring Creek Debris Dam to be enlarged from
    its present storage capacity of 5,800 acre feet
    to 9,000 acre feet.
    Perform hydrogeologic study and field-scale
    pilot demonstration to better define the feasibility
    of utilizing LDCC to minimize AMD
    formation.
    Component Implemented
    This was not implemented.
    This component was not implemented.
    LDCC plugging was determined to not
    be feasible.
    O & M required
    SOW?
    No.
    No.
    No.
    ROD2
    All components implemented.
    ROD3
    All components implemented.
    ROD4
    Treatment plant upgrades will be completed by the end of September 2000. Other
    improvements should be completed over the next two years.

    .

    III. THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE OR THE ENVIRONMENT
    A. Threats tg Publig Health or Welfare
    The principal threats to public health or welfare posed by
    the Site discharges are summarized below. A more in depth
    discussion of the public health threats is contained in EPA's
    Human Health Risk Assessment (PRC, 1991) which is contained in
    the Administrative Record for the IMM Site (Boulder Creek OU,
    1992, [1992 AR 2205]). With respect to the removal action
    proposed in this memorandum, the principal threats to the public
    health or welfare would arise from the discharge of untreated AMD
    into surface waters related to lack of site access because of the
    failure of the Flat Creek Bridge. As discussed below, the
    threats to human health posed by the IMM AMD discharges are
    expected to be low.
    Under current conditions, the potential for direct human
    exposure to AMD is relatively small. Persons who might come into
    direct contact or consume concentrated AMD at Iron Mountain could
    be at risk. Such persons include people working, living, or
    hiking at the Site. Individuals who enter the Site are at risk
    if they have direct contact with or ingest the AMD. The risk of
    such exposure is currently limited by controlled access to the
    mine Site. The property owner has posted the property to discourage
    trespassers. The property is located between two heavily
    used national forests, however, and direct exposure is a
    possibility.
    Persons who might come into direct contact with surface
    water downstream from Iron Mountain include people working,
    living, hiking, or swimming near the Site. Individuals who come
    in direct contact with water or sediments from the main body of
    Keswick Reservoir or Sacramento River are not currently at risk.
    Persons who might consume surface water downstream from Iron
    Mountain include people working, living, or hiking near the
    Site . Persons who might consume fish taken from the Sacramento
    River downstream from Iron Mountain include the general population
    in the upper Sacramento River Valley. Individuals who
    consume fish from the main body of Keswick Reservoir or
    Sacramento River may currently be at some risk; the uncertainties
    associated with this scenario are great and likely would result
    in the risk being overestimated.
    23
    Children are at somewhat greater risk than adults when
    considering noncancer toxicity resulting from incidental
    ingestion of creek water downstream from Iron Mountain.
    B. Threats to the Environment:
    The principal threats to the environment posed by the Site
    are summarized below. A more in depth discussion of the
    environmental threats is contained in EPA's Environmental Risk
    Assessment which is contained in the Administrative Record for
    the IMM Site (Boulder Creek OU, 1992 [1992 AR 2563]). With
    respect to the removal action proposed in this memorandum, the
    principal threat to the environment would arise from the
    discharge of untreated AMD related to lack of Site access because
    of the failure of the Flat Creek Bridge.
    The principal risks posed by the runoff of metals-bearing
    AMD from Iron Mountain are the associated impacts on aquatic life
    in the Spring Creek drainage, Keswick Reservoir, and the
    Sacramento River downstream of Keswick Dam. Among these natural
    resources, the most important are the fishery resources in the
    Sacramento River downstream of Keswick Dam. Migratory
    populations of chinook salmon, steelhead trout, resident trout,
    and numerous other aquatic and terrestrial species can be or are
    affected by AMD from Iron Mountain.
    The salmon and steelhead trout populations have high
    commercial and/or recreational value to the region. The susceptibility
    of these populations to contaminants originating from
    Iron Mountain has been documented (Wilson, 1982 [1992 AR 0371]).
    One of the chinook salmon runs, the winter run, is a species
    listed by the Federal Government and the State of California as a
    species endangered with extinction.
    Pollution from Iron Mountain is considered to be a major
    factor causing the decline in Sacramento River fishery resources,
    and an impediment to achieving fishery resource restoration
    goals. Other major factors contributing to the decline include
    loss of spawning habitat, predation, habitat degradation,
    mortality at dams and diversions, overfishing, and natural
    disasters (such as drought) (Vogel, 1989 [1992 AR 2561]). Fish
    migrating into the uppermost river reach of the Sacramento River
    risk being killed by AMD from Iron Mountain; offspring of adult
    fish spawning in that reach have reduced chances of survival due
    24
    to the Iron Mountain AMD (Finlayson and Wilson, 1979 [1986 AR
    0341]) . There is an indication that AMD from Iron Mountain has
    reduced the suitability of available spawning grounds for salmon
    in the uppermost reaches of the Sacramento River and that fish
    population reductions have occurred following uncontrolled
    spillage of Iron Mountain AMD (Finlayson, 1979, 1992 AR 0293) .
    The greatest decline in salmon-spawning populations has occurred
    within the uppermost river reach from Balls Ferry upstream to
    Redding, a distance of approximately 26 river miles (NOAA, 1989
    [Order 89-18 AR 0127]).
    Since the late 1960s, when fish counts were initiated at Red
    Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD), each of the anadromous salmonid runs
    has suffered major declines. A more extensive data base is
    available specifically for fall-run chinook. This data base
    demonstrates that recent levels of spawning escapement to the
    upper Sacramento River are only about 50 percent of levels
    observed during the late 1950s. The greatest decline among the
    salmon runs has occurred for the winter run, which has been
    reduced to less than 5 percent of run sizes during the late
    1960s. This serious decline prompted the listing of this fish as
    an endangered species.
    The primary potential exposed fisheries populations are the
    salmonids and steelhead trout present in the Sacramento River.
    The upper Sacramento River chinook salmon runs, steelhead trout
    run, and resident populations of rainbow trout have life history
    characteristics that make them vulnerable to potential adverse
    effects from AMD originating from Iron Mountain Mines. The
    probability and magnitude of potential exposure depends on the
    releases of contaminated water from SCDD, the releases of water
    from Shasta Lake and Whiskeytown Reservoir, and the life stages
    present within the zone of impact.
    For spring- and fall-run chinook salmon, in a worst-case
    scenario, approximately half of an entire year's fall spawning
    production could be at risk from contaminants released from Iron
    Mountain. The impact of the release depends in large part on the
    pattern of releases from Shasta Lake and Whiskeytown Reservoir
    relative to when releases occur from IMM. For example, flood
    control releases from Shasta Lake could cause most of the year's
    production to migrate downstream of the affected water quality
    zone, thereby reducing the AMD's impact.
    25
    The steelhead trout and resident rainbow trout populations
    that are potentially at risk are not well-defined or understood.
    However, both the adult and yearling life phases are potentially
    at risk because both are present in the river when fish kills
    have historically occurred.
    At present, a memorandum of understanding commits the USER
    to operate SCDD in a manner that (when considering releases of
    waters from CVP facilities, including Shasta Lake, Whiskeytown
    Reservoir and Keswick Dam) will meet operation criteria for the
    control of metal concentrations in the Sacramento River, provided
    such operation would not cause flood control parameters on the
    Sacramento River to be exceeded or interfere unreasonably with
    other project requirements, and in light of the extreme releases
    from the Site, to protect aquatic life in the Sacramento River
    downstream of Keswick Dam. The USER must also operate Shasta Dam
    to provide electric power, irrigation water, and flood control.
    The USER estimated that it could incur significant losses of
    revenues, depending on the level of protection required in the
    Sacramento River, if special releases of CVP waters continue to
    be relied on for purposes of diluting IMM contaminant
    discharges. There is the potential that USER'S ability to supply
    adequate dilution water will be further reduced due to conflicting
    priorities for water use, thereby increasing the
    potential risk to the aquatic community.
    It is extremely difficult to quantify fish mortality in the
    Sacramento River as a result of contamination from IMM. This is
    due to a variety of factors, including the general size of the
    Sacramento River downstream of Keswick Reservoir and the difficulty
    of visually observing dying or dead fish during periods
    when the water is turbid. However, there have been 39 documented
    fish kills near Redding since 1940, and there have been
    observations of adult steelhead mortalities near Redding attributable
    to metal contamination from IMM since installation of the
    SCDD.
    Boulder Creek, Slickrock Creek, and Spring Creek are
    currently devoid of fish and aquatic invertebrates below the mine
    drainage area. Future response actions might restore some
    aquatic life to those reaches of those creeks, but is possible
    that the creeks or some portion thereof may remain sterile
    following current remediation activities at Iron Mountain.
    Aquatic populations, water column and benthic, in Keswick
    26
    Reservoir downstream of Spring Creek are at risk because of
    sediment contamination, as well as water column contamination.
    Below Keswick Dam, contaminant concentrations in the water column
    occasionally exceed toxic concentrations for sensitive life
    stages and frequently exceed both EPA and State of California
    criteria to protect aquatic life, indicating that these populations
    are also at risk. Access to the Site would likely
    facilitate the future response actions to address these risks.
    Terrestrial wildlife onsite has the potential for direct
    exposure to AMD, such as deer drinking from contaminated creeks
    or licking metals-laden salts along the flume system, or
    consuming contaminated plants, fish, or other organisms. More
    than 300 species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals can
    be expected to occur in the Boulder Creek basin and downstream
    areas that may be directly exposed to AMD.
    IV. ENDANGERMENT DETERMINATION
    Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
    this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
    selected in this Action Memorandum, may present an imminent and
    substantial endangerment to public health, or welfare, or the
    environment.
    V. PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS
    The proposed action is to replace the damaged Flat Creek
    Bridge on Iron Mountain Road to re-establish reliable access to
    the Site prior to the upcoming winter wet season. The Flat Creek
    Bridge suffered extensive damage during the 1997 New Year's Day
    Storm. Replacement of the Flat Creek Bridge would assure
    reliable long-term access to the Site. The proposed replacement
    would consist of a clear span concrete deck bridge with abutments
    founded on bedrock. This approach meets all modern design
    standards, and would essentially eliminate failure due to flood
    flows overtopping the bridge and failure due to scouring of
    materials that support the bridge abutments.
    Reliable site access is a critically important factor
    necessary to assure the success of EPA's IMM remedial action.
    Iron Mountain Road is the only means of access for treatment
    plant operational personnel and the delivery of equipment and
    supplies.
    27
    EPA has also evaluated three alternatives that would repair
    the fifty year old bridge. EPA has determined that, although
    these three repair alternatives would have lower associated cost
    in the short term, two of the approaches are not technically
    adequate and the third approach would not adequately assure
    reliable site access. The first repair approach, Alternative A,
    is the approach originally proposed by SMC in their May 1997
    submittal to Shasta County DPW. The second repair alternative,
    Alternative B, modifies SMC's original proposal to include the
    construction of a new deck on top of the damaged existing bridge
    deck (as proposed by SMC). The third repair, Alternative C,
    would remove the damaged bridge deck, replace a new deck on the
    existing abutments and piers, and also increase abutment and pier
    scour protection beyond the measures contained in Alternatives A
    and B.
    A. Proposed Actions
    1. Propoaed Action Description
    The proposed action is to construct a new 67.5-foot long,
    28-foot wide clear span concrete bridge. The new bridge will
    comply with current California Department of Transportation
    (Caltrans) standards and the Local Programs Manuals. The
    existing Flat Creek Bridge will be demolished and a temporary bypass
    will be constructed to allow residential and truck traffic
    to pass over Flat Creek during construction.
    The project location is depicted on the Location Map in
    Appendix A. Refer to Appendix A, General Plan for the
    preliminary design for the profile grade and elevation for the
    proposed Flat Creek Bridge replacement. Refer also to Appendix A
    for reference photographs of the existing Flat Creek Bridge and
    storm damage from the 1997 New Year's Day Storm, and the
    preliminary project schedule.
    a. Construction of a Temporary Bypass
    Prior to commencing construction on the replacement bridge,
    a temporary bypass will be constructed in the-Flat Creek channel.
    The bypass will be designed to support heavily loaded lime truck
    traffic and also allow the passage of light duty vehicles of
    plant personnel and limited residential traffic. Because the
    construction schedule will extend to the start of the wet season
    28
    in early November 1997 the bypass will be designed with hydraulic
    capacity that can conservatively pass typical early season storm
    flows in Flat Creek. The preliminary design for the bypass
    estimates that three 36-inch culverts would provide for adequate
    hydraulic capacity.
    b. Demolition of the Existing Flat Creek Bridge
    The existing bridge, consisting of the concrete abutments,
    two concrete piers and the reinforced concrete deck, must be
    demolished and properly disposed.
    The existing approach roadway base and paving is to be
    removed and disposed. Clearing and grubbing of certain areas
    will be required. Existing approach roadway rock slope
    protection is to be removed and stored for later re-use.
    c. Abutments
    The bridge abutments will be founded on bedrock at each end
    of the channel opening. The abutments will be designed to retain
    the embankments and carry the vertical and horizontal forces from
    the superstructure. The footings will be founded on bedrock to
    prevent differential settlement and excessive horizontal
    movement.
    The selection of the appropriate type of abutment, and the
    detailed elements of the design, will be determined based upon
    field geotechnical evaluations to be performed during demolition
    of the existing bridge and excavation of the embankment for the
    abutments. Several types of abutments are potentially
    appropriate for application at this site and the selection from
    among appropriate designs will be made on the basis of
    reliability and economics. For the Flat Creek bridge crossing,
    the conditions of the rock in the embankments underlying the
    abutments, the extent of the waterway opening, the channel area
    and stream velocities will be important factors in determining
    the required type of abutment.
    d. Bridge Deck
    The preliminary design for the Flat Creek Bridge replacement
    provides for a 67.5-foot long, 28-foot wide clear span concrete
    29
    bridge. The design relies on a single span precast, prestressed
    concrete slab.
    Precast concrete has been widely used for replacing short to
    medium span bridges. The advantages of using precast concrete
    bridges are minimum traffic interruption due to the speed of
    bridge erection, relatively low construction cost, minimum
    maintenance, low span/depth ratio which helps to increase
    vertical underclearance, and high quality control of concrete at
    the plant. Construction quality control must assure that the
    connection details between members are properly performed to
    fasten concrete members together and to prevent any future
    deteriorations at the joints.
    The appropriate deck design will be determined once the
    field geotechnical work has been performed and the type of
    abutments have been determined.
    e. Scour Protection. Roadway Approaches and Erosion Control
    Rock slope protection will be constructed around the new
    bridge abutments. The rock slope protection will be designed to
    meet the requirements of Shasta County DPW for this clear span
    bridge with abutments founded on bedrock. Additional embankment
    protection will be provided for an approximate 50-foot long reach
    of Flat Creek north of the bridge replacement.
    Controls to prevent erosion during construction and to
    prevent sedimentation while working in the stream channel will be
    implemented. The approach roadways will be reconstructed. Items
    or details, such as placing guard rails, required by the plans
    and specifications that are necessary to meet Caltrans
    requirements, will be performed.
    2. Contribution to Remedial Performance
    Replacement of the Flat Creek Bridge would assure reliable
    long-term access to the Site. Reliable site access is a
    critically important factor necessary to assure the success of
    EPA's IMM remedial action.
    EPA's IMM remedy relies on the effective treatment of the
    concentrated IMM AMD discharges from the four major underground
    mine workings at Iron Mountain. EPA estimates that treatment of
    30
    the concentrated discharges from these sources reduces the IMM
    discharges of copper, zinc and cadmium by about 80 percent.
    Iron Mountain Road is the only means of access to the Site.
    All treatment plant operational personnel rely on Iron Mountain
    Road and the Flat Creek Bridge to get to work. Iron Mountain
    Road provides the only route of access for the delivery of
    equipment and supplies. Reliable treatment operations require
    the regular delivery of lime, the neutralizing agent relied on to
    treat the IMM discharges. At peak AMD discharge rates, lime
    storage capacity is limited to as little as four days of supply.

    Search CAL. HSC. CODE § 25375.5 : California Code - Section 25375.5

    (a) Except as specified in subdivision (b), the procedures specified in Article 8 (commencing with Section 11435.05) of Chapter 4.5 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, and in Section 11513 of, the Government Code apply to the proceedings conducted by the board pursuant to this article.

    (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), Sections 801, 802, 803, 804, and 805 of the Evidence Code apply to the proceedings conducted by the board pursuant to this article.

    (c) The board may consider evidence presented by any person against whom a demand was made pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 25372. The evidence presented by that person shall become a part of the record upon which the board's decision shall be based.

    Nothing in this article shall require, or be deemed to require, pursuit of any claim against the board as a condition precedent to any other remedy.

    (a) Compensation of any loss pursuant to this article shall preclude indemnification or reimbursement from any other source for the identical loss, and indemnification or reimbursement from any other source shall preclude compensation pursuant to this article.

    (b) If a claimant recovers any compensation from a party in a civil or administrative action for a loss for which the claimant has received compensation pursuant to this article, the claimant shall reimburse the state account in an amount equal to the compensation which the claimant has received from the state account pursuant to this article. The Attorney General may bring an action against the claimant to recover the amount which the claimant is required to reimburse the state account, and until the account is reimbursed, the state shall have a lien of first priority on the judgment or award recovered by the claimant. If the state account is reimbursed pursuant to this subdivision, the state shall not acquire, by subrogation, the claimant's rights pursuant to Section 25380.

    (c) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that it is the purpose of this section to prevent double recovery for a loss compensable pursuant to this article.

    Compensation of any loss pursuant to this article shall be subject to the state's acquiring, by subrogation, all rights of the claimant to recover the loss from the party determined to be liable therefor. Upon the request of the board, the Attorney General shall commence an action in the name of the people of the State of California to recover any amount paid in compensation for any loss pursuant to this article against any party who is liable to the claimant for any loss compensable pursuant to this article in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sections 25360 to 25364, inclusive. Moneys recovered pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the state account.

    (a) The board shall, in consultation with the department, adopt, and revise when appropriate, all rules and regulations necessary to implement this article, including methods that provide for establishing that a claimant has exercised reasonable diligence in satisfying the conditions specified in Sections 25372, 25373, 25375, and 25375.5, and regulations that specify the proof necessary to establish a loss compensable pursuant to this article.

    (b) Claims approved by the board pursuant to this article shall be paid from the state account.

    (c) The Legislature may appropriate up to two million dollars ($2,000,000) annually from the state account to be used by the board for the payment of awards pursuant to this article.

    (d) Claims against or presented to the board shall not be paid in excess of the amount of money appropriated for this purpose from the state account. These claims shall be paid only when additional money is collected, appropriated, or otherwise added to that account.

    .

    .

    Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Notice for the Public Review of the Draft Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay

    .

    T.W. ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC. INTERVENE - "TWO MINERS"

    .


    ‘Protecting Tomorrow Today'

    .

    PAN CANADIAN DATA


    “Toxic” doesn't do justice to Iron Mountain runoff

    “The law assumes that property is always in the possession of its owner ….” Pennoyer v. Neff , 95 U.S. (5 Otto) 714, 727 (1877)

    .


     



     


    History of composition

    Years Material
    1793–1857 100% copper
    1857–1864 88% copper, 12% nickel (also known as NS-12 )
    1864–1942 1946–1962 bronze (94% copper, 6% tin and zinc)
    1943 zinc-coated steel (also known as steel penny )
    1944–1946 brass (94% copper, 6% zinc)
    1974 Experimental aluminum variety
    1962–1982 brass (95% copper, 5% zinc)
    1982–present* 97.5% zinc core, 2.5% copper plating

     

    Public Health Goal
    A revised PHG of 300 ^g/L was developed for copper in drinking water, based on a review 1
    of the scientific literature since the original PHG, in 1997 (OEHHA, 2008). Copper is an
    essential nutiient in humans, and has not been shown to be carcinogenic in animals or
    humans. However, young children, and infants in particular, appear to be especially
    susceptible to the effects of excess copper.
    The revised PHG of 300 pig/L is two orders of magnitude greater than the applicable
    numeric chemical-specific standards identified in ROD 5 for the protection of freshwater aquatic life

    (see Table 1). Therefore, the revised PHG for copper wUl have no impact on the
    protectiveness of the remedies originally selected in the RODs for IMM.

    EPA has not yet implemented ICs (Institutional Controls) as required at the IMM Superfund Site in the five signed RODs
    (EPA, 1986; EPA, 1992; EPA, 1993; EPA, 1997; EPA, 2004)

    .


    Rebecca's Wild Farm

    .

    EPA says settlements will help address uranium contamination on Navajo, Hopi reservations

    .

    Vitamin Firms Settle U.S. Charges, Agree to Pay $725 Million in Fines

    By JOHN R. WILKE and SUSAN WARREN
    Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

    WASHINGTON -- The world's two biggest vitamin makers agreed to pay a total of $725 million to settle Justice Department charges that they and other manufacturers engaged in a massive price-fixing conspiracy that inflated the cost of everything from breakfast cereal to hamburgers over the past decade.

    Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., a unit of the Swiss drug giant Roche Holding AG that has 40% of the global human and animal vitamin market, agreed in U.S. District Court in Dallas to pay a record $500 million fine and plead guilty as part of the settlement. BASF AG, a major German chemical maker that has 20% of the market, will pay $225 million and enter a guilty plea as well.

    Rhone-Poulenc SA of France, the world's third-biggest vitamin maker with 15% market share, also participated in the price-fixing ring. But the company began cooperating with federal investigators a few months ago under an amnesty program and helped make the case against its co-conspirators, U.S. officials said.

    Members of the ring, including Rhone-Poulenc, also face potentially massive damage claims in 25 private lawsuits now pending in four federal courts. The suits were brought by livestock farmers and other purchasers of bulk vitamins who allege they were forced to pay illegally inflated prices. The first of these cases was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in March 1998.

    Wide Effect Cited

    The cartel "is the most pervasive and harmful criminal antitrust conspiracy ever uncovered," declared Joel Klein, chief of the Justice Department's antitrust division. The price-fixing ring "hurt the pocketbook of virtually every American consumer, anyone who took a vitamin, drank a glass of milk, or had a bowl of cereal," he said.

    Increasingly Painful Penalties

    10 largest fines secured by the U.S. Justice Department in antitrust cases.


    Company
    Fine
    (millions)

    Year

    Industry
    Roche Holding $500 1999 Vitamins
    BASF 225 1999 Vitamins
    SGL Carbon 135 1999 Electricity conductors
    Ucar International 110 1998 Electricity conductors
    Archers Daniels Midland 100 1996 Feed supplements, food additives
    Bayer 50 1997 Food additives
    HeereMac 49 1997 Offshore oil and gas construction services
    Showa Denko Carbon 33 1998 Electricity conductors
    Fujisawa Pharmaceutical 20 1998 Industrial cleaners
    Dockwise 16 1997 Offshore oil and gas construction, transportation

     

    Appeals Court To Hear PwC, AIG Negligence Claim 

    A New York state appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments on Sept. 14 that American International Group's (AIG) auditor failed to unearth the alleged fraud the company perpetrated and should be held liable for it.

    In the case, a Delaware court threw out a suit, Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana v. American International Group, because it was determined that AIG employees committed the fraud and the auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers should not be held negligent for failing to identify the fraud.

    However, the Delaware court passed the issue of auditor liability to the New York Court of Appeals to resolve questions in that state's law over whether professional malpractice/negligence suits are barred against an auditing firm under the doctrine of “in pari delicto” or at mutual fault.

    The Delaware court asked the New York court to decide if a suit can be brought against an auditing firm that was not a participant in the corporation's fraud but failed “to satisfy professional standards in its audits of the corporation's financial statements.”

    The Supreme Court of Delaware said it would take no further action until after the New York court makes a decision.

    The questions stem from illegal accounting actions taken by AIG dating back to 1999, including the company's sham reinsurance contract with Gen Re to cover-up company losses.

    Stuart Grant, with the law firm Grant & Eisenhofer, will be representing the plaintiffs in the case.

      SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - The Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians claim the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by failing to ensure that six states meet national air quality standards. And the EPA failed to take final action on clean-air plans submitted by 13 other states and the District of Columbia, according to the federal complaint.
          The EPA found in 2008 that six states and three U.S. territories failed to submit implementation plans for National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and failed to issue federal implementation plans for North Dakota, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, the environmental groups say.
    And the EPA never took final action on plans submitted by Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, D.C. and West Virginia.
          EPA approvals are required under to Clean Air Act, to limit levels of pollutants such as carbon monoxide, lead and ozone.
          The groups ask the court to order the EPA to implement the "long-overdue" standards under the Clean Air Act.
          They are represented by Kristin Henry with the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program in San Francisco.

    doa

    OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES

    In  Hilao , the Ninth Circuit recognized that “serious questions” as to whether this method comported with due process, but nonetheless concluded that due process was provided.  Id. (citing Hilao, 103 F.3d at 786). “The defendant's interest was in the aggregate amount of damages; thus, provided that the average was properly calculated, it was of no consequence to defendant that some plaintiffs would have been entitled, in individual adjudications, to more or less than this average.”  Id. (citing  Hilao , 103 F.3d at 786). The Ninth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs had an “enormous” interest in the use of averages since individual adjudications were infeasible; and the Hilao court concluded that balancing these interests under  Connecticut v. Doehr , 501 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1991) and  Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the method did not offend the Due Process clause.  Id.

    The court in  Adoma cited the Ninth Circuit's recent en banc opinion in  Dukes v. Wal-Mart , affirming the continuing validity of  Hilao . Dukes v. Wal-Mart , 603 F.3d at 625-27:

    Id. *7.

    The court concluded that “the types of arguments are common to all class members” and that “ Hilao appears to permit a representative inquiry to determine the magnitude of these effects, and at this stage, the court cannot distinguish Hilao.”  Id. *8.  The court also found that the “question of whether the Avaya system gave defendants at least constructive knowledge of the employee overtime is a common question.”  Thus it concluded that common questions predominate.

    Order

    The court thus granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, defining the classes as follows:

    MR. ARMAN: So how in the heck do you - pardon me?

     

    How am I expected to run my business with EPA stopping me on every move that I make?

     

    Pardon me?

     

    THE COURT: All right. That sounds more like a

     

    rhetorical question and one directed more towards the plaintiffs.

     

    I don't need to hear anything further. I've made my rulings.

     

     

     

    IS "SUMMARY JUDGMENT" PREJUDICIAL?

     

    ARE "I THINK I'VE BEEN DISCHARGED?"

     

    & "PARDON ME" FEDERAL QUESTIONS?

     

    IS "ALL RIGHT" A PARDON?

     

     

     

    Mr. Arman, you realize that Mr. Hutchens is not an attorney; correct?

     

    MR. ARMAN: Yes, I do.

     

    THE COURT: You recognize that he can't represent the

     

    corporation, and he can't represent you in a court of law.

     

    Do you understand that?

     

    MR. ARMAN: No, I do not.

     

    THE COURT: Do you understand, Mr. Hutchens, that --

     

    MR. ARMAN: He's representing me, your Honor,

     

    personally.

     

    THE COURT: Well, you understand he's not a lawyer;

     

    correct?

     

    MR. ARMAN: I do know he's not a lawyer, but he should

     

    have been one a long time ago.

     

     

     

    Evidence that merely “presents probabilities rather than proof,” “relies upon a collection of facts that could be summarized as 'if it is there, it must be theirs,'” or is “vague and imprecise, of questionable reliability, and therefore not sufficiently probative to create an issue for trial” is insufficient to hold a party liable under CERCLA

     

     

     

     

     

    THE FIVE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF A LAWSUIT

     

    A. Real Injury or Wrong.

     

    B. Jurisdiction.

     

    C. Statute of Limitations.

     

    D. Immunity.

     

    E. Facts and Evidence.

     

     

     

    MR. CORCORAN: Your Honor, let me give you the docket

     

    numbers. First, docket number 1261, the original notice of

     

    joinder, that was only Mr. Hutchens. The one spot signed by

     

    Mr. Arman included 1266 which is actually three documents.

     

    It consists of a petition to reopen, a counterclaimants' memo

     

    or memorandum --

     

    THE COURT: I have that in front of me.

     

    MR. CORCORAN: -- and an interpleader. All those were

     

    filed I believe under single docket number of 1266. Of those

     

    two, the petition and the interpleader, were signed by

     

    Mr. Arman. Another was 1270 which are objections. 1269,

     

    also objections. 1271, preconference statement. We are not

     

    alleging that all those were not signed by Mr. Arman.

     

    THE COURT: Say that again. Which ones?

     

    MR. CORCORAN: There's a document that was filed this

     

    morning by Mr. Hutchens. It was served on us last Friday,

     

    the 15th. The title of it is "Petitioners' Preconference

     

    Responses and Reply to Order of Honorable Judge John A.

     

    Mendez," and then it goes on.

     

    THE COURT: Okay.

     

    MR. CORCORAN: That document, it has about 12 pages,

     

    maybe 10 pages of case citations. At page 13, it begins

     

    narrative. And in the first few paragraphs of that,

     

    Mr. Hutchens acknowledges that he was signing Mr. Arman's

     

    name, but he indicates that it was with various forms of

     

    authorization.

     

    THE COURT: Okay. For the record, Mr. Hutchens, you

     

    are not an attorney; is that correct?

     

    MR. HUTCHENS: That's correct.

     

    THE COURT: Okay.

     

    MR. CORCORAN: The subsequent filings by Mr. Hutchens

     

    and Mr. Arman collectively I think evidence his presumption

     

    of having joined or intervened in this case.

     

    THE COURT: They do. Mr. Corcoran, give me the docket

     

    number again.

     

    MR. CORCORAN: Your Honor, it's docket 1261.

     

    THE COURT: Okay.

     

    MR. CORCORAN: The date is March 10th that it was filed.

     

    THE COURT: Got it.

     

    MR. CORCORAN: Excuse me. It was entered on

     

    March 11th. It was dated March 10th.

     

    THE COURT: And that's the first sort of appearance

     

    made by Mr. Hutchens; is that correct?

     

    MR. CORCORAN: Yes. And I should add one thing, your

     

    Honor. The plaintiffs actually received some documents that

     

    are styled as filings that never actually appeared to end up

     

    in the record. So we have been dealing with some additional

     

    documents, and you should be aware that that's part of the

     

    confusion and prejudice that we're claiming.

     

    THE COURT: When is the first time that you got notice

     

    that Mr. Hutchens was attempting to get involved in this

     

    case?

     

    MS. PADILLA: I think when he filed these pleadings

     

    styled notice of joinder. We did file an opposition jointly

     

    with the United States to that.

     

    THE COURT: Okay.

     

    MR. CORCORAN: Your Honor, if I could add one thing

     

    about his involvement. In the various filings we've seen,

     

    his claim of authority derives from two sources. One is a

     

    joint venture which he has never produced and never

     

    evidenced. But the other is a power of attorney which we do

     

    have. I believe if I'm recalling correctly, and I can check

     

    if you'd like, that that was dated March 13th of this year, 2008.

     

    To demonstrate injury in fact, a plaintiff "must show that [it] is under threat of suffering `injury in fact' that is concrete and particularized" and "actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S.Ct. 1142 , 1149 (2009). Put another way, "Art[icle] III requires the party who invokes the court's authority to `show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant.'" Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 , 472 (1982) (quoting Gladstone, Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 , 99 (1979)) (emphasis added). If the plaintiff is not the target of the challenged government action or inaction, "standing is not precluded, but it is ordinarily `substantially more difficult' to establish." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 562 (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 , 758 (1984)). U.S. v. CITY OF ARCATA No. 09-16780.

     

    "[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a properly pleaded complaint." JustMed, Inc. v. Byce, 600 F.3d 1118 , 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The mere existence of a federal defense to a state law claim is insufficient to create federal jurisdiction over a case. Louisville & Nat'l R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 , 152 (1908).

     

    The district court also had federal question jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides the district courts with "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States ." The government's complaint posed a federal question in its own right because it sought invalidation of the ordinances under federal law. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 , 96 n.14 (1983).

     

    The Constitution expressly provides Congress with the power to "raise and support Armies" and to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 12, 14. And the Supreme Court has made clear that the federal government "can determine, without question from any State authority, how the armies shall be raised." Perpich v. Dep't of Def., 496 U.S. 334 , 353 n.27 (1990) (quoting Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397, 408 (1872)); see also New York v. United States , 505 U.S. 144 , 156 1992) ("If a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States . . . ."). U.S. v. CITY OF ARCATA No. 09-16780. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted November 4, 2010 * San Francisco , California . Filed December 17, 2010.

     

    TO: Members of the 112 th Congress

     

    Committee Staff Directors and Counsels; Member Staff

     

    FR: Speaker-Designate Boehner, Majority Leader-Elect Eric Cantor, Rules Committee Chairman-Elect David Dreier, Transition Team Chairman Greg Walden

     

    DT: December 17, 2010

     

    RE: New Constitutional Authority Requirement for Legislation

     

    The new rule will be a new paragraph of clause 7 of rule XII:

     

    "(c) A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution. The statement shall appear in a portion of the Record designated for that purpose and be made publicly available in electronic form by the Clerk.”

     

    CERCLA's BFPP Protections in Question

     

    In what might be considered one of the most important superfund cases of the year, a federal district court for the first time has interpreted the requirements for the bona fide prospective purchaser defense and found several were not met, a New York City attorney told BNA Dec. 7. Referring to the decision in Ashley II of Charleston LLC v. PCS Nitrogen Inc. (D.S.C., No. 2:05-cv-2782, 9/30/10), Lawrence Schnapf, principal of Schnapf Environmental Law Offices, said the decision, which for the first time scrutinized the appropriate care requirement, has widespread implications for whether the self-implementing nature of the bona fide prospective purchaser (BFPP) defense is sufficient for liability protection under the federal superfund law. "After the 2002 amendments to CERCLA, EPA basically took the position that it was getting out of the prospective purchaser agreement business because the BFPP was self-implementing. 

     

    Reported in BNA's Environmental Due Diligence Memo on December 15th, this case raises questions about the reliability of the statute's landowner protections," Schnapf said. The case stems from a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) action to recover costs incurred to remediate approximately 34 acres of land in Charleston , S.C. , with contamination related to the historic operations of a fertilizer manufacturing plant. Ashley II had purchased the site for redevelopment. It argued it was not liable for the contamination because it was a protected by CERCLA's BFPP defense. The court disagreed and found Ashley responsible for 5 percent of the allocated cleanup costs.

     

    Environmental Bankers Association (EBA) is a non-profit trade association that represents the financial services industry, including bank and non-bank financial institutions, insurers, asset management firms and those who provide services to them. Its members include lending institutions, property & casualty and life insurers, the environmental consulting and appraisal community, and attorneys. The EBA was established in 1994 in response to heightened sensitivity to environmental risk issues, and the need for environmental risk management, sustainable development, and due diligence policies and procedures in financial institutions.

     

    Membership in the EBA is not limited to financial institutions. Currently, our membership includes property & casualty insurers and brokers, environmental consultants, appraisers and environmental information management firms, and environmental, real estate and trust attorneys in addition to the financial sector.

     

    The EBA meets formally twice a year at a location hosted by one of its members. The meetings provide not only a forum to promote the exchange of environmental risk management and sustainable development lending information and technical expertise but also provides the opportunity for our members to network.

    White House issues scientific integrity memo

     

    Guidelines are intended to help increase public trust in science

    President Obama's science and technology advisor issued a memo to federal science agencies Friday to guide them in making rules to ensure scientific integrity.

    The memo, which applies to executive branch departments and agencies such as the Department of Agriculture and the National Science Foundation, is “several steps in the right direction,” said Al Teich, the director of science policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

    Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren sent out the guidelines after a March 2009 memo by Obama emphasized the need for public trust in science. In that memo, Obama highlighted principles of scientific integrity that he said would be at the core of his administration's approach to science policy.

    New guidelines

     

    The new memo is meant to provide further guidance to the heads of federal scientific departments and agencies, the White House announced Friday.

    Scientific integrity in government. The memo outlines guidelines for open communication among federal scientists and the public, including making data available online.? 

    Public communications. Agencies are required to offer “articulate and knowledgeable” spokespersons to explain scientific findings to the media and public. The memo requires that agencies put mechanisms in place to resolve disputes about decisions to proceed with or refuse media interviews.

    Federal advisory committees. These committees, or FACs, are tasked with providing scientific advice for policy decisions. The memo requires transparency in recruiting committee members. It also requires that any conflict of interest information be publicly available. Finally, agencies are to be prohibited from revising committee recommendations, protecting the independence of FACs.

    Professional development for federal scientists. Agencies and departments must encourage scientists to publish and present freely. Scientists should also be allowed to participate in professional enrichment activities like sitting on journal editorial boards.

    Some of the changes are significant, said AAAS's Teich, including a rule that federal scientists must put their results into context by highlighting uncertainties and including best- and worse-case scenarios. [Read: White House Wonders if Climate Will Be Hostage to Politics ]

    “There's a natural tendency on the part of people to want to put their research results in the most favorable light,” Teich told LiveScience. The requirements will force federal researchers to “take a different perspective, and a much more open and balanced perspective, if in fact it's implemented the way it's written,” Teich said.

    In the memo, Holdren gave department and agency heads 120 days to report their progress in setting rules to meet the guidelines.

    “All in all, we're pleased, but the word ‘appropriate' appears a half a dozen times in this document, and that means there's a lot of discretion for these agencies as to how they implement it,” Teich said, adding, “They've talked the talk, now we'll see if they walk the walk, and we hope they do.”

    Politics and scienceThese guidelines may help prevent situations where political ideology interferes with the communication of scientific information, according to Neal Lane , a professor of public policy at Rice University . These incidents included the editing of an Environmental Protection Agency report to the point where it glossed over the risks of climate change .

    “Those are the kinds of things that should not ever happen in any administration, whatever the party is,” he told LiveScience. “These agencies are large complex organizations with many layers and sometimes you can find people who don't know the science in a position to influence what the agency puts out about the science.”

    Hopefully, these guidelines will prevent this from happening in the future, according to Lane.

    Wendy Wagner, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and a member scholar at the Center for Progressive reform had some reservations about the lack of guidance in the memo for how agencies should use non-federal science data in setting regulations.

    “On the whole, however, the new policy is an important step forward,” Wagner said in a statement. “Hopefully it will be followed by many more positive directives on science-policy in the not too distant future.”

    Michael McPhaden, president of the American Geophysical Union and a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration scientist, lauded the guidelines emphasis on peer review, transparency, and the lifting of restrictions on government scientists' activities in professional societies.

    “This is really a revolutionary document,” McPhaden told LiveScience.

    LiveScience Senior Writer Wynne Parry contributed reporting to this article.

     

     

     

    A Watershed Moment for the Clean Water Act

     

    (1) Looking 20 years ahead, what systemic risks will the emergency management community face?

     

    (2) What transformational events could shape emergency management's future?

     

    (3) What should the emergency management community be doing now to have the right future capacity and capabilities to serve those who depend on us?

     

    The Fifth Circuit erred in according absolute priority to the subject-matter jurisdiction requirement on the ground that it is nonwaivable and delimits federal-court power, while restrictions on a court's jurisdiction over the person are waivable and protect individual rights. Although the character of the two jurisdictional bedrocks unquestionably differs, the distinctions do not mean that subject-matter jurisdiction is ever and always the more “fundamental.” Personal jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of district court jurisdiction, without which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication. Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Bryant, 299 U.S. 374 , 382. In this case, indeed, the impediment to subject-matter jurisdiction on which Marathon relies–lack of complete diversity–rests on statutory interpretation, not constitutional command. Marathon joined an alien plaintiff (Norge) as well as an alien defendant (Ruhrgas). If the joinder of Norge is legitimate, the complete diversity required by §1332, but not by Article III of the Constitution, see State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 , 530—531, is absent. In contrast, Ruhrgas relies on the constitutional due process safeguard to stop the court from proceeding to the merits of the case. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 , 702. The Steel Co. jurisdiction-before-merits principle does not dictate a sequencing of jurisdictional issues. A court that dismisses for want of personal jurisdiction, without first ruling on subject-matter jurisdiction, makes no assumption of law-declaring power that violates the separation of powers principles underlying Steel Co. Pp. 8—10. RUHRGAS AG v. MARATHON OIL

     

    In most instances, subject-matter jurisdiction will involve no arduous inquiry, and both expedition and sensitivity to state courts' coequal stature should impel the federal court to dispose of that issue first. Where, as here, however, a district court has before it a straightforward personal jurisdiction issue presenting no complex state-law question, and the alleged defect in subject-matter jurisdiction raises a difficult and novel question, the court does not abuse its discretion by turning directly to personal jurisdiction.

     

    145 F.3d 211, reversed and remanded.

     

     

     

    Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

     

     

     

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE ON THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

     

     

     

    ADMISSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD - CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL

     

    The ongoing environmental calamity at Iron Mountain Mine has created new major and modified existing stationary sources that would require air permits prior to beginning emissions that becomes an enforceable part of the new process for determining the required emission control technology - criteria pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate and volatile organic compounds exceed a “significance” threshold, the permittee is required to analyze available and technically feasible control technology with the goal of selecting the best available control technology (BACT) for new or modified emissions.

     

    PHYEW! I BEG YOUR PARDON.

     

    CERCLA EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption For Air Releases

     

    Travelin' in Time: Iron Mountain has rich history

     

    Ah ... the good old days

     

    A major health and environmental hazard because of the huge volumes of poisonous sulphurous dioxide gases released into the air. The company made token attempts to prevent the spread of the poisonous gases, resulting in Superior Court lawsuits that closed the smelter by court order in 1907. ...

     

    No one lives on the mountain today. There is only one remaining privately owned piece of property on the mountain — Iron Mountain Mine, and that is owned by Ted Arman. All the rest of the mountain property is owned by an agency of the federal government — the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Forest Service, or the Department of Reclamation. 

     

    Iron Mountains Mines, Inc. purchased the property in 1976. In 1983, Iron Mountain Mine was placed on the Environmental Protection Agency's National Priority List, making it eligible as a Superfund cleanup site. Cleanup investigative work by the federal government began that year.

     

    General Docket

    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

     

    Court of Appeals Docket #: 09-17411

     

    Docketed: 10/29/2009

     

    Nature of Suit: 1893 Environmental Matters

     

    USA , et al v. T.W. Arman, et al

     

    Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento

     

    Fee Status: Paid

    .

    ADVERSE CLAIMS - DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER - STIGMATIC INJURY - ILLEGITIMATE ANIMUS - LIBEL & SLANDER

    CONCURRENT JURISDICTIONS & CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACTION -"TWO MINERS (A HUNDRED MEMBERS) & 8000 ACRES OF LAND"

    Structure of Cooperative Utility Model
    One model for replacing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that has so far received frequent
    mention but little sustained analysis is the lender cooperative utility. Yet while each different model
    for a successor to the GSEs has its own strengths and weaknesses, a private lender cooperative
    utility may provide the best overall solution based on the design principles listed earlier. Under this
    model, securitization would be carried out by a mortgage securitization cooperative that would be
    mutually owned by a membership consisting of financial institutions engaged in residential mortgage
    lending. Cooperative or mutual structures have existed for more than a century in the U.S. financial
    system, ranging from clearing houses (e.g. CME until 2000, DTC, CLS, ICE Trust), banking (e.g.
    mutual savings banks, credit unions and the FHLB system) and agricultural finance (e.g. the Farm
    Credit System). The main goal of a cooperative is to provide services to its members


    Cybersecurity Activity

    Component Agency Contact Information

    Suspected Criminal or Terror Activity

    Immigration or Customs Violations

    Emergencies in Federal Buildings

    • Report emergencies in federal buildings to Federal Protective Service (FPS) or report suspicious activity by calling 1-877-4FPS-411 (1-877-437-7411). 
    • TTY/TDD MegaCenter Numbers by area:
      Suitland MegaCenter: 301-763-0126
      Battle Creek MegaCenter: 269-565-9616
      Philadelphia MegaCenter: 215-521-2189

    Program & Application Contacts

    You may also check out our White Pages for more contacts.

    Hotline Information: Report Fraud, Waste or Abuse, and Whistleblower Issues

    • Email the Office of Inspector General at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov.
    • Write to: DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600
      Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline
      245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410
      Washington, DC 20528
    • Fax the complaint to 202-254-4292.
    • Call the OIG Hotline at 1-800-323-8603. (Please note that this phone number is used to make a report only.)

    Office of Inspector General

    Hotline Information: Report Fraud, Waste or Abuse, and Whistleblower Issues

    The Department of Homeland Security/OIG Hotline is designed to receive allegations regarding:

    • Fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement involving the Department programs, funds, contracts, grants, employees or operations.
    • Civil rights abuses within the Department.
    • Whistleblower and retaliation matters within the Department.

    The OIG Hotline is not an information or helpline and we regret that we cannot respond to general questions regarding the Department operations or policy.

    To report allegations of fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement involving the Department programs, funds, contracts, grants, employees or operations and /or civil rights abuses or Whistleblower retaliation within the Department, please:

    • Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov.
    • Write to us at: DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600
      Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline
      245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410
      Washington, DC 20528

    • Fax the complaint directly to us at 202-254-4292.

    • Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603. (Please note that this phone number is used to make a report only.)

    PLEASE NOTE THAT the above methods of reporting are listed in the order that we hope you will use them. The use of e-mail to make your report will promote efficiency and expediency in reviewing and processing it. When a report is e-mailed, you will receive an e-mail receipt affirming delivery to our Hotline.

    When making a report please attempt to convey as much detailed information as possible. Include all known information that describes: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How?

    The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller. Complaints may be made anonymously or you may request confidentiality.

    Print a Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General Poster here: DHS OIG Hotline Poster.

    • FOR OTHER TYPES OF DEPARTMENT REPORTS:

      To report immigration or customs irregularities or violations, undocumented immigrants or their employers, please call the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Tipline at 1-866-DHS-2-ICE.

      For questions and information regarding the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), please call the CBP Customer Service Center at 1-877-CBP-5511.

      To determine the status of immigration matters or seek assistance in the immigration process, please contact the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

    Whistleblower Retaliation

    If you believe you are a victim of Whistleblower retaliation, please contact the OIG Hotline. Refer to links below for more information on Whistleblower resources.

    Disaster Fraud Hotline

    If you have knowledge of fraud, waste, abuse, or allegations of mismanagement involving disaster relief operations, you can:

    • Disaster Fraud Hotline Poster (PDF, 1 page - 1.54 MB)
    • Call the Disaster Fraud Hotline at (866) 720-5721
    • Fax the Disaster Fraud Hotline at (225) 334-4707
    • Email:  disaster@leo.gov
    • Or write:
      National Center for Disaster Fraud
      Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4909

    When making a report convey as much information as possible such as: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? Complaints may be made anonymously or you may request confidentiality.

    Download Plug-in

    Some of the links on this page require a plug-in to view them. Links to the plug-ins are available below.

    Click Here to Download Adobe Acrobat
                              Reader Adobe Acrobat (PDF)

    This page was last reviewed / modified on April 14, 2010.

    Office of Inspector General

    Hotline Information: Report Fraud, Waste or Abuse, and Whistleblower Issues

    The Department of Homeland Security/OIG Hotline is designed to receive allegations regarding:

    • Fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement involving the Department programs, funds, contracts, grants, employees or operations.
    • Civil rights abuses within the Department.
    • Whistleblower and retaliation matters within the Department.

    The OIG Hotline is not an information or helpline and we regret that we cannot respond to general questions regarding the Department operations or policy.

    To report allegations of fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement involving the Department programs, funds, contracts, grants, employees or operations and /or civil rights abuses or Whistleblower retaliation within the Department, please:

    • Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov.
    • Write to us at: DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600
      Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline
      245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410
      Washington, DC 20528

    • Fax the complaint directly to us at 202-254-4292.

    • Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603. (Please note that this phone number is used to make a report only.)

    PLEASE NOTE THAT the above methods of reporting are listed in the order that we hope you will use them. The use of e-mail to make your report will promote efficiency and expediency in reviewing and processing it. When a report is e-mailed, you will receive an e-mail receipt affirming delivery to our Hotline.

    When making a report please attempt to convey as much detailed information as possible. Include all known information that describes: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How?

    The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller. Complaints may be made anonymously or you may request confidentiality.

    Print a Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General Poster here: DHS OIG Hotline Poster.

    • FOR OTHER TYPES OF DEPARTMENT REPORTS:

      To report immigration or customs irregularities or violations, undocumented immigrants or their employers, please call the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Tipline at 1-866-DHS-2-ICE.

      For questions and information regarding the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), please call the CBP Customer Service Center at 1-877-CBP-5511.

      To determine the status of immigration matters or seek assistance in the immigration process, please contact the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

    Whistleblower Retaliation

    If you believe you are a victim of Whistleblower retaliation, please contact the OIG Hotline. Refer to links below for more information on Whistleblower resources.

    Disaster Fraud Hotline

    If you have knowledge of fraud, waste, abuse, or allegations of mismanagement involving disaster relief operations, you can:

    • Disaster Fraud Hotline Poster (PDF, 1 page - 1.54 MB)
    • Call the Disaster Fraud Hotline at (866) 720-5721
    • Fax the Disaster Fraud Hotline at (225) 334-4707
    • Email:  disaster@leo.gov
    • Or write:
      National Center for Disaster Fraud
      Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4909

    When making a report convey as much information as possible such as: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? Complaints may be made anonymously or you may request confidentiality.

    Download Plug-in

    Some of the links on this page require a plug-in to view them. Links to the plug-ins are available below.

    Click Here to Download Adobe Acrobat
                              Reader Adobe Acrobat (PDF)

    This page was last reviewed / modified on April 14, 2010.

    Secretary Napolitano Announces Stop.Think.Connect.™ Campaign Partnership with D.A.R.E. America

    The Department of Homeland Security's Stop.Think.Connect. Campaign today announced a new partnership with Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) America - an initiative that will help protect millions of children from online threats by encouraging Internet safety.

    DHS for a Day IV

    Homeland security is a responsibility shared across a broad range of partners, including the private sector. In support of our continued efforts to strengthen our security in collaboration with America’s businesses, schools and industries, DHS recently hosted the fourth DHS for a Day event in Seattle on July 19th.

    Global Partnerships Tackle Drug Trafficking

    From joint patrols to drug interdiction agreements, international partnership is essential to maritime security in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific. Coast Guard cutters patrol these transit zones and work closely with their Central and South American counterparts to stop drugs from getting close to the U.S.

    Combating Transnational Organized Crime

    Today, the Obama Administration announced the release of the President’s Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime. In the words of the message from President Obama that accompanies the Strategy: "This strategy is organized around a single, unifying principle:  To build, balance, and integrate the tools of American power to combat transnational organized crime and related threats to our national security—and to urge our partners to do the same."

    Restrictions on Importing Rice from Countries with Known Khapra Beetle Infestations

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection will enforce a federal quarantine order beginning July 30 that restricts the importation of rice into the U.S. from countries with known Khapra beetle infestations. The introduction and establishment of Khapra beetle into the U.S. poses a serious threat to stored agricultural products, including spices, grains and packaged foods.

    Thank You!

    Thank you for contacting the White House.

    President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible Administration in history.  That begins with taking comments and questions from you, the American people, through our website.

    Our office receives thousands of messages from Americans each day.  We do our best to reply to as many as we can, but please be aware that you may find more information and answers to your questions online.  To follow news and learn more about President Obama's plans for winning the future, you can sign up for updates from the White House, read the White House Blog, or listen to White House podcasts.

    For an easy-to-navigate source of information on Federal government services, please visit: www.USA.gov.

    Thank you again for your message.


    The Office of Presidential Correspondence

    How Did We Accumulate So Much Debt?

    Want to know how we are spending $12.7 trillion? This infographic details the impact policies and programs implemented over the last 10 years are having on the nation's bottom line.

    Marc Beauchamp: Holy war looming over Iron Mountain?

    Growing up in Redding in the 1950s and ’60s, I didn’t think much about Iron Mountain. It was just a big gash on a hillside west of town, a sometimes useful landmark.

    This was before I learned the colorful 70-year history of the mine and before Iron Mountain became famous — infamous, I should say — as one of the first Superfund sites, notorious for leaching some of the most corrosive water in the country and home to an EPA-directed treatment and cleanup operation that I joke may be the last employer in Shasta County several centuries hence.

    Four years ago, while on the staff of the Record Searchlight, I got a tour of the round-the-clock pollution treatment efforts at Iron Mountain, just after a glowing federal report about all the progress made. The Iron Mountain remediation effort, it implied, was a feather in the cap of the Environmental Protection Agency and Rick Sugarek of the agency’s San Francisco office, who has spent more than two decades working on it.

    Then I met Ted Arman, the octogenarian owner of the mine. Over coffee, he said the EPA has exaggerated Iron Mountain’s risks with talk of “poison” and pictures of shovel blades eaten away by acid mine drainage, and that the feds have kept him from using new technology to turn mineral-rich water into fertilizer and other products. “EPA messed up my business.”

    In late March I joined him in his 1989 Lincoln for a two-hour tour of his property. Arman is clearly bitter that others, like Sugarek and CH2MHill, have made careers and fortunes from the property he’s owned since 1979.

    As he traverses the winding gravel road up his mountain, he must announce his position on a radio phone.

    Arman’s 89 but still full of fire and big plans. If EPA won’t let him turn acid runoff into life-giving fertilizer he aims to make his mountain known for something more than just a Superfund site. The idea — call it an epiphany — came to him three years ago: erect a 200-foot-tall concrete statue of Jesus Christ on top of Iron Mountain. He claims to have received calls from interested parties from around the world after word of his plans got on the Internet.

    If Arman thinks he’s got trouble with EPA, wait until he submits plans for his towering statue (think Rio de Janeiro) to county officials, the FAA and Jim Milestone, superintendent of neighboring Whiskeytown National Recreation Area. Instead, maybe he should explore the (for lack of a better word) eco-tourism potential of Iron Mountain. It is, after all, ecology — a mountain turned inside out by man. Just as interesting as the Devastated Area and Bumpass Hell at Lassen Park.

    Old-time religion

    When it comes to religion, call me old-fashioned, conservative. Before I knew who Shakespeare was, I fell in love with the Elizabethan language of the Book of Common Prayer. At All Saints Episcopal Church, a quaint turn-of-the-century wood-framed chapel that used to sit on the southwest corner of Court and Yuba streets, I fell in love with the vestments, candles, brass processional cross, silver chalice and crisp linen altar cloths.

    But then, some time in the late ’60s, the Episcopal Church felt it had to change, to get hip, to get (in the buzzword of the time) “relevant.” Priests started strumming guitars and the Book of Common Prayer was rewritten, recast in newspaper English. Here in Redding the local church fathers decided to forsake their historic building and began what turned out to be a short-lived period of cohabitation with the Presbyterians in that brown pyramid on Placer Street.

    Of course, in hindsight, this move to a secular rock ‘n roll style church service is obviously what people wanted. Witness the rise of nondenominational megachurches like Bethel, where congregations get folksy sermons from laid-back ministers dressed in jeans with their shirttails hanging out and worship services largely consist of congregants singing and swaying to seemingly unending U-2-inspired rock anthems.

    Whatever works, I guess. Successful churches are, fundamentally, businesses. In the Puritan old days church services were something to endure. Now they’re something to enjoy, something to uplift. And the money follows.

    Wish my Episcopal Church had resisted the siren song of modernity. It tried to be something it wasn’t — and the young people left anyway. Last time I attended an 8 o’clock Holy Communion service (this was several years ago) I had trouble hearing the minister over the sound of parishioners on oxygen tanks.

    Show time

    The Cascade Theatre, which turns 75 this year, is the crown jewel of downtown Redding — a gem restored to its 1935 Art Deco luster thanks to the vision of the folks behind southern Oregon-based Jefferson Public Radio, the fundraising prowess of Lou Gerard Jr., the energy of Shasta High “Music Man” Ken Putnam, the generosity of thousands of north state residents and, last but not least, the boosterism of this newspaper.

    My early memories of the Cascade Range from “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Easy Rider” to “Rosemary’s Baby” and such unforgettable second features as the “H-Man,” a badly dubbed Japanese monster movie about sewer-dwelling blobs of blue-green radioactive sludge that devour anyone unlucky enough to get in their way (scared the daylights out me when I was eight).

    How lucky we are that the Cascade is still around, making memories for new generations of north state residents. Speaking of which... among the headliners lined up for JPR’s 2010-11 season at the Cascade: Wynonna Judd, Clint Black, Pat Benatar, Garrison Keillor, Bryan Adams, the Manhattan Transfer and (I’m not going to miss this one) the Glenn Miller Orchestra. Bravo, JPR.

    Marc Beauchamp has a blog at redding.com. Reach him at notbusinessasusual@gmail.com.


    1892 Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois , 146 U.S. 387 (1892) established the scope of the public trust doctrine in America . The issue was whether the Illinois legislature could grant nearly the entire waterfront area of Chicago to the Illinois Central Railroad. The Supreme Court of the United States held that Illinois had title to the land underneath the navigable waters of Lake Michigan and that it held this title in trust for the public's use. Illinois was not allowed to convey this land if the effect would be to destroy the public's right of navigation and fishing. However, the Court also held that Illinois could convey parcels of trust land to private individuals so long as the overall effect was to improve the public's ability to exercise its trust rights. The conveyance to Illinois Central did not meet this criterion and was therefore void.

     

    1926 December 24: California Supreme Court rules in Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison that riparian water right holders are not bound by existing California law to use water reasonably with respect to appropriative water right holders.

     

    The decision proves controversial throughout California .

     

    July 30: California Department of Finance files water rights applications for 7.3 million acre-feet of water rights on the Feather River and in the Delta, as well as millions more on many other rivers and streams throughout the Central Valley watershed in anticipation of design and construction of statewide water systems. The states requested water rights exceed by many times the amount of annual runoff in the rivers subject to the state's applications.

     

    1928 November: California voters pass Proposition 7, a constitutional amendment banning waste and unreasonable use, and unreasonable methods of diversion of water statewide by nearly a 4-to-1 margin. The constitutional amendment requires that all uses and diversions, and methods of diversions of water in California must be reasonable, including riparian rights, thereby addressing the issues raised by Herminghaus .

     

    1933 December: California voters narrowly pass the Central Valley Project Act by a margin of 33,603 votes statewide, authorizing the state to build its first coordinated water system. Because of the Great Depression, the state could not finance the project, however.

     

    1928 -

     

    1934

     

    First lengthy statewide drought of the 20th century results in runoff from all rivers and streams tributary to the Delta that was less than 60 percent of average conditions.

     

    1937 US Bureau of Reclamation takes over ownership, design, construction, and operation of the Central Valley Project from the state of California .

     

    1940s Shasta Dam completed on upper Sacramento River in 1944; Friant Dam completed on upper San Joaquin River in 1949.

     

    On the San Joaquin River , fall-run Chinook salmon go extinct in late 1940s and spring-run Chinook salmon go extinct in early 1950s.

     

    1969 · Clean Water - - The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is adopted as one of the nation's strongest anti-pollution laws and becomes a model for the federal Clean Water Act of 1972.

     

    1977 · Alternative Energy -- Governor Brown and the Legislature enact the nation's largest tax-incentive program for encouraging development of solar energy. The following year, the state sets a goal of meeting 10 percent of its electrical needs with wind power by the year 2000.

     

    1986 May: Appellate Judge John Racanelli issues the first public trust and water quality planning decision on the Delta cases originally filed in 1978, United States v. State Water Resources Control Board . California Supreme Court declines to hear the case on appeal in July, letting Judge Racanelli's decision stand. Racanelli stated that the State Water Resources Control Board must take a global view of the Delta and Sacramento and San Joaquin River tributary watersheds, and must by law protect beneficial uses of water (including fish and wildlife) not merely water rights.

     

    1988 California Legislature adopts the Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Anadromous Fisheries Program Act , setting as state policy a goal to double the production of salmon and steelhead fish in California .

     

    October: After more than a year of evidentiary hearings into public trust resource and water supply issues, State Water Resources Control Board issues Draft Bay-Delta WQCP calling for a new “water ethic,” new flow objectives for Delta channels, and pre-State Water Project export rates [but split between Central Valley Project and State Water Project pumps] as a “reasonable interim goal until a safe level of exports is found.” After water contractors strenuously object to the draft plan, it is withdrawn.

     

    1914 Tax Exemption for Universities -- Nonprofit colleges and universities are exempted from property taxation. (Constitutional amendment, proposed by the Legislature, approved by 53 percent of voters.) A 100-acre cap on their tax-exempt property is expanded in 1962 to include all lands used for higher education.

     

    1995 · Incompetent Judges --Voters endorse a constitutional amendment offered by the Legislature to permit greater public oversight in disciplining corrupt, biased or incompetent judges. The Commission on Judicial Performance is given authority to remove or censure judges and its disciplinary hearings will be open to the public. (Approved by 63.7 percent of voters.)

     

    WATER REGULATIONS

    WATER LAW & REGULATION

    CALIFORNIA WATER RIGHTS PRIMER

    CALIFORNIA WATER RIGHTS AND THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

    JUDICIAL REVIEW

    PUEBLO WATER RIGHTS

    IRON MOUNTAIN HAZARD ASSISTANCE REMEDIATION DIRECTOR TENANT-IN-CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

    ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY-THREE ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

    Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-15383 Docketed: 02/16/2011
    Nature of Suit: 1893 Environmental Matters
    USA, et al v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., et al
    Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
    Fee Status: Paid
    Case Type Information:
         1) civil
         2) united states
         3) null

    Originating Court Information:
    District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-00768-JAM-JFM
    Court Reporter: Kelly Ann O'Halloran
    Trial Judge: John A. Mendez, District Judge
         Date Filed: 06/12/1991
         Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec'd COA:
         12/16/2010      12/16/2010      02/14/2011      02/15/2011

    District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-01167-DFL-JFM
         Date Filed: 08/21/1991
    02/23/2011  3  Filed (ECF) Appellants T. W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 02/23/2011. [7658006] (AG)
    03/01/2011  4  Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Joan M. Pepin for Appellee USA. Date of service: 03/01/2011. [7664084] (JMP)
    03/01/2011  5  Added attorney Joan M. Pepin for USA, in case 11-15383. [7664123] (MT)
    03/08/2011  6  Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Russell B. Hildreth for Appellee State of California. Date of service: 03/08/2011. [7673306] (RBH)
    03/09/2011  7  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company corporate disclosure statement. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7673671] (MWP)
    03/09/2011  8  Attorney Sara J. Russell in 11-15383 substituted by Attorney Russell B. Hildreth in 11-15383 [7673675] (MT)
    03/09/2011  9  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674036] (MWP)
    03/09/2011  10  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Motion for sanctions. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674081] (MWP)
    03/09/2011  11  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company response opposing motion (,motion to withdraw as counsel). Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674132] (MWP)
    03/09/2011  12  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Corrected Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674164] (MWP)

    the Superfund stopped getting funded in 1995. President Clinton unsuccessfully tried to reinstate the tax on polluters that originally filled the fund's coffers, and the fund actually ran out of money in 2003. Since then the program has relied on appropriations whose amount and consistency shift according to the prevailing congressional winds.

    The Center for Public Integrity critically investigated the Superfund program in 2007; one of their findings was that the EPA was unable to undertake cleanups because of their lack of funding.

    In 2009, the agency drafted a rule that addresses this in part -- they want mining companies to provide evidence that they'll be able to stay in business not just when they're making money off a mine, but years after the fact, when a messy, expensive cleanup -- like the one in Libby, Mont. -- might be needed.

    This new rule was spurred by a Sierra Club lawsuit alleging that the 63 hardrock mining sites on the National Priorities List have estimated cleanup costs of $7.8 billion, and $2.4 billion of those costs were going be footed by taxpayers.  Meanwhile, many more Western mining sites are being considered for Superfund listing, and the costs of cleaning up each site keep getting higher .

    Notable opponents to the 2009 EPA rule include Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a mining fan, and -- shocker -- the National Mining Association. (Read Murkowki's letter to the EPA [PDF])

    Rule 44. Proving an Official Record

    Tempers Flare at Environmental Justice Conference
    Fair Use Statement Source: ENS

    Tempers Flare at Environmental Justice Conference, By Brian Hansen

    ARLINGTON, Virginia, December 12, 2000 (ENS) - Members of a federal government advisory panel today lambasted President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to aggressively combat the scourge of "environmental racism" that they maintain is afflicting many poor communities and communities of color.

    District Court Finds Non-Settling PRP Can Intervene in CERCLA Consent Decree
    On January 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia held that a PRP's right to contribution under CERCLA is a significantly protectable interest permitting a non-settling PRP to intervene as of right to challenge a
    consent decree between the federal government and a settling PRP.
    United States v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 08-124

    District Court Allows PRP to Amend Claim 2 Years after Atlantic Research

    On January 20, 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted a CERCLA PRP's motion for leave to file an amended pleading seeking cost recovery under CERCLA § 107(a),

    Second Circuit Affirms CERCLA Veil-Piercing to Impose Liability on Former Parent
    In an unpublished opinion issued on December 10, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a plaintiff corporation's recovery of CERCLA response costs from a company whose predecessor had once been the plaintiff's parent. Rochester Gas and Elec. Corp. v. GPU, Inc., No. 09-0482-cv, 2009 WL 4673916 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2009).

    Tenth Circuit Upholds Remand of Class Action Involving “CERCLA Quality Cleanup”
    On September 4, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court's remand to state court of a state law class action involving injuries allegedly arising out of contamination at a state-remediated site, holding that neither the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) nor CERCLA provided a basis for federal jurisdiction. Coffey v. Freeport McMoran Copper & Gold, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19996 (10th Cir. Sep. 4, 2009).

    Natural Resource Damage Claims Insufficient for 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 recourse 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).

    Destruction of Samples Leads to Preclusion of Contamination Evidence
    On May 21, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut held that when a consulting firm hired by a CERCLA plaintiff to take soil samples did not preserve the samples or the analytical data, and the property was remediated before other parties could sample, plaintiff is precluded from offering any evidence based on the destroyed samples. Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43588 (D. Conn. May 21, 2009).

    “Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

     

    “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

    Excercising your constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime or have sanctions levered against it: The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.]

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

    There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights. [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.]

    "judges of courts of limited jurisdiction are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 966 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971, 106 S.Ct. 351, 88 L.Ed.2d 320 (1985).

    Thus, for example, a criminal court judge would be immune from liability for convicting a defendant of a nonexistent crime, an act taken in excess of his jurisdiction, whereas a probate court judge would not be immune from liability if he tried a criminal case because he clearly lacked all subject matter jurisdiction. Id. (citing Bradley, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 352).

    Excerpt from page 974 F.2d 1329, 1992 WL 214444 (1st Cir.(Mass.)) Federal courts "have proceeded on the assumption that common-law principles of legislative and judicial immunity were incorporated into our judicial system and that they should not be abrogated absent clear legislative intent to do so." Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 529 (1984). Under the common law, judges are generally immune from civil liability for judicial acts, subject to the conditions described above, but they do not enjoy immunity from criminal liability. See O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).

    In the following cases, courts have found that the judges acted outside of their judicial capacity and were not entitled to immunity: Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988)(state court judge did not have absolute immunity from damages suit under S 1983 for his decision to demote and dismiss a probation officer); Morrison v. Lipscomb, 877 F.2d 463 (6th Cir.1989)(state court judge was not entitled to judicial immunity in connection with order declaring moratorium on issuance of writs of restitution from December 15 through January 2, as judge was acting in administrative and not judicial capacity); King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 968 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971, 106 S.Ct. 351, 88 L.Ed.2d 320 (1985)(although setting bond on an arrest warrant is a judicial act, the act of deliberately misleading the police officer who was to execute the warrant about the identity of the person sought was nonjudicial); Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262 (6th Cir.1984)(juvenile court judge's initiation of criminal prosecution and civil contempt proceeding against father for child support in arrears constituted nonjudicial acts); New Alaska Development Corporation v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir.1988)(receiver appointed by state court to manage business assets of an estate was entitled to absolute derivative judicial immunity, but receiver was not absolutely immune from allegations that he stole assets or slandered parties, as such alleged acts were not judicial); Harper v. Merckle, 638 F.2d 848 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 816, 102 S.Ct. 93, 70 L.Ed.2d 85 (1981)(holding a contempt proceeding and ordering plaintiff incarcerated were not judicial acts where controversy that led to incarceration did not center around any matter pending before the judge, but around domestic problems of plaintiff former wife who worked at the courthouse); Harris v. Harvey, 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 938, 100 S.Ct. 1331, 63 L.Ed.2d 772 (1980)(allegedly repeated communications to the press and city officials which were critical of police lieutenant, and the improper instigation of criminal proceedings against the lieutenant by judge as part of a racial campaign to discredit lieutenant were not judicial acts).

    State Capacity Building

    Objective - To fulfill the mandated objectives of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, as amended, in coordination with Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), by assisting public health agencies to build capacity to conduct (1) Health consultations, (2) public health assessments, (3) exposure investigations, (4) community involvement, (5) health education, and (6) public health studies.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

    Office: Not applicable.

    Authorization

    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, Sections 104(i)(1)(E), (4), (6), (7), (9), (14) and (15), as amended; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 9604; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Section 3109(b) and (c), as amended; Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 6939 (b) and (c).

    Uses and Use Restrictions

    The uses are to strengthen State health agency environmental health programs.

    Services include public health assessments, consultations, exposure investigations, health education, and follow-up health investigations/studies.

    Funds may be expended for reasonable program purposes, such as personnel, travel, supplies and services.

    Funds for contractual services may be requested.

    However, the awardee, as the direct and primary recipient of PHS grant funds, must perform a substantive role in carrying out project activities and not merely serve as a conduit for an award to another party or provide funds to an ineligible party.

    Equipment may be purchased with cooperative agreement funds; however, the equipment must meet applicable Federal requirements.

    These funds may not be used by the recipient to conduct activities at any Federal site where the State is a party to litigation at the site.

    Eligibility Requirements

    Applicant Eligibility

    Eligible applicants are the official public health agencies of States or their bona fide agents or instrumentalities, to include the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Northern Marina Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, and the Federally- recognized Indian tribal governments.

    Beneficiary Eligibility

    Beneficiaries are individuals and/or families living in communities near or in proximity of Superfund sites.

    Credentials/Documentation

    Costs will be determined in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-87 for State and local governments.

    Aplication and Award Process

    Preapplication Coordination

    No preapplication is required.

    This program is eligible for coverage under E.O.

    12372, &quot;Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs&quot;.

    An applicant should contact the office or Official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review.

    Application Procedures

    Applicants must use application Form PHS 5161-1. Application packets are available from: Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Rd,. Room 3000, Mailstop K-75, Atlanta, GA 30341. By formal agreement, the CDC Procurement and Grants Office will act for and on behalf of ATSDR on this matter.

    Award Procedures

    The Assistant Administrator, ATSDR, determines applications to be approved and the priorities for funding. When an application is approved for funding, the Grants Management Officer, CDC, acting as the agent for ATSDR, will prepare a Notice of Award.

    Deadlines

    Contact the Headquarters Office identified below for application deadlines.

    Range of Approval/Disapproval Time

    Approximately 60 to 90 days.

    Appeals

    None.

    Renewals

    Awards are made for project periods from one to five years. Renewal awards cannot be made beyond the project period without competition.

    Assistance Considerations

    Formula and Matching Requirements

    This program has no statutory formula.

    Length and Time Phasing of Assistance

    The annual awards are for a 12 month budget period within a three to five year project period. Noncompetitive continuation awards within the project period are made on the basis of satisfactory progress and availability of funds.

    Post Assistance Requirements

    Reports

    Annual progress and financial status reports are required no later than 90 days after the end of each budget period.

    An original and two copies of the final financial status and performance reports are due no later than 90 days after the end of the project period.

    Audits

    In accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular No. A- 133 (Revised, June 27, 2003), &quot;Audits of States, Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations,&quot; nonfederal entities that expend financial assistance of $500,000 or more in Federal awards will have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Nonfederal entities that expend less than $500,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in Circular No. A-133.

    Records

    Detailed and accurate records of travel expenditures, personnel hours and all other costs will be retained for at least 10 years in accordance with EPS's &quot;Superfund Financial Management and Recordkeeping Guidance for Federal Agencies&quot;. Such documents may be required to provide the basis of cost recovery actions or other litigation. Additionally, this documentation must be available for audit or verification upon request of the office of Inspector General.

    Financial Information

    Account Identification

    75-8252-0-1-551.

    Obigations

    (Grants) FY 07 $10,894,064; FY 08 $12,681,515; and FY 09 est $11,500,000.

    Range and Average of Financial Assistance

    $150,627 to $700,000; $350,000.

    Program Accomplishments

    In fiscal year 2003, there were a total of 33 new competitive awards. It is anticipated that there will be 33 noncompetitive continuation awards in fiscal year 2004 and 2005.

    Regulations, Guidelines, and Literature

    Regulations governing this program are set forth in 45 CFR 92 and 40 CFR 35, Subpart O. Guidelines are available in the application kits. PHS Grants Policy Statement (Revised, April 1, 1994).

    Information Contacts

    Regional or Local Office

    Not applicable.

    Headquarters Office

    Ms. Joan Flesner, Public Health Analyst, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop F-59, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone: (770) 488-0739 Fax: (770) 488-1544. E-mail address: JFlesner@cdc.gov. Grants Management Contact: Mildred Garner, Grants Management Officer, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341. Telephone: (770) 488-2745. Fax: (770) 488-2777.

    Website Address

    http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov.

    Related Programs

    None.

    Examples of Funded Projects

    States conduct public health evaluations on National Priorities List (NPL) sites, sites that ATSDR have been petitioned to assess, Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) sites, and other Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites.

    Criteria for Selecting Proposals

    Applications for core activities only were reviewed and evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) Proposed Program: (a) Merit scientific and technical merit of the proposed project to perform public health assessments, consultations, exposure investigations, health education and public health studies consistent with ATSDR guidance and in a timely manner. Applicant's ability to evaluate the public health impact of hazardous waste sites using health, environmental, and demographic data, and health-related concerns from the local community. (b) Requirements Applicant's understanding of the requirements, objectives, and complexities of the interactions required for a successful program. c) Collaboration Applicant's plan to collaborate with political and private subdivisions of Federal, State, and local health and environmental agencies and community groups to obtain information needed for evaluating the public health impact of hazardous waste sites, disseminate results of findings, and prevent exposure if identified. (2) Program Personnel: The principal investigator or project director and his/her ability to devote time and effort to provide effective leadership, and the qualifications of the support staff. (3) Applicant Capability: Adequacy and commitment of institutional resources, facilities, space, and equipment necessary for conducting the project are available and sufficient. (4) Program Budget: Extent to which the budget is reasonable, clearly justified, and consistent with intended use of funds. The priority order for funding cooperative agreements was as follows: (a) Number of proposed and/or listed National Priority List (NPL) sites (Federal and nonfederal) based on the most current EPA list, (b) number of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites (Federal and nonfederal) based on the most current EPA list; (c) applicants who applied for both Core Activities and optional Activities; and (d) geographic distribution across the United States. (5) Human Subjects: Applicant's plan for adequate protection of human subjects. Applications for conducting Core Plus Optional Activities were reviewed and evaluated based on the following criteria: Proposed Program: In addition to the criteria outlined above for Core Activities, the applicant had to indicate an understanding of and capability for conducting human health studies as contained in the proposed site-specific protocol which had to include: (a) The approach, feasibility, adequacy, and rationale for the proposed study design, (b) the technical merit of the proposed study, (c) the proposed timeline, including measurable objectives, (d) proposed method for disseminating the results of the study.

     

     
    Active Grants
    for this program

    ATSDR?s Partnership to Promote Localized Efforts to Reduce Environmental Exposure (APPLETREE) Program

    Eligible applicants that can apply for this funding opportunity are listed below:
    ? Federally recognized or state-recognized American Indian/Alaska Native tribal governments
    ? State health departments or their Bona Fide Agents (this includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianna Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau)

    A Bona Fide Agent is an agency/organization identified by the state as eligible to submit an application under the state eligibility in lieu of a state application.

    If applying as a bona fide agent of a state or local government, a letter from the state or local government as documentation of the status is required.

    Attach with ?Other Attachment Forms? when submitting via www.grants.gov.


    ATSDR?s regulatory authority cited by the CERCLA limits the eligible applicants that can apply for this funding opportunity.


    Full Opportunity Web Address:


    Contact:
    Carolyn Wilburn Procurement and Grants Office Phone 770-488-2700

    Agency Email Description:
    PGOTIM@cdc.gov

    Agency Email:
    PGOTIM@cdc.gov

    Date Posted:
    2010-10-22

    Application Due Date:
    2010-12-22

    Archive Date:
    2011-01-21

    More Federal Government Grant and Assistance Programs


    Social Security_Retirement Insurance  |  Cancer Treatment Research  |  Invitational Grants for Military-Connected Schools  |  National Wetland Program Development Grants and Five-Star Restoration Training Grant  |  Landowner Incentive Program  |  U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation  |  Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH)  |  National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program  |  Space Operations  |  Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program  |  Purchase Care Program  |  Homeless Education Disaster Assistance Program  |  Aviation Education  |  Institute for International Public Policy  |  Southern Nevada Public Land Management  |  | Grant Education | More Resources | Site Resources | Grants.gov | Grants | Grants News | Sitemap | Privacy Policy

    .

    EPA encourages regular testing

    Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.

    Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, a person with insurance against automobile theft may be less cautious about locking his or her car, because the negative consequences of vehicle theft are (partially) the responsibility of the insurance company.

    Economists explain moral hazard as a special case of information asymmetry , a situation in which one party in a transaction has more information than another. In particular, moral hazard may occur if a party that is insulated from risk has more information about its actions and intentions than the party paying for the negative consequences of the risk. More broadly, moral hazard occurs when the party with more information about its actions or intentions has a tendency or incentive to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information.

    Moral hazard also arises in a principal-agent problem , where one party, called an agent, acts on behalf of another party, called the principal. The agent usually has more information about his or her actions or intentions than the principal does, because the principal usually cannot completely monitor the agent. The agent may have an incentive to act inappropriately (from the viewpoint of the principal) if the interests of the agent and the principal are not aligned.

    such statutes are to be construed broadly "to effectuate the regulatory purpose."
    United States v. Baytank (Houston), Inc., 934 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1991)

    Superfund site in San Francisco proves toxic for Navy, neighbors

    By  Monica Jensen SF Public Press/Newsdesk.org  — Jan 10 2011 - 2:52pm

    In December, activists met with officials from the federal Environmental Protection Agency to tour the shipyard and adjacent public facilities built on or near land contaminated with PCBs and other toxins, such as a school basketball court downwind from an excavation of soil laden with naturally occurring asbestos.

    Activists also said that the Navy's unilateral dissolution of the Restoration Advisory Board in December 2009 enabled it to “fast track” major decisions while disregarding community concerns. The biggest decision was the approval of the environmental impact report for the second phase of a redevelopment plan for the neighborhood that will ultimately bring 10,500 homes to the area.

    .

    A year after the dissolution of the Restoration Advisory Board for Hunters Point Shipyard, the Navy says it will introduce a new community involvement plan that it says emphasizes diversity.

    The announcement follows the White House's reconvened interagency effort on environmental justice, which held its first meeting under the Obama administration in September . The group is creating a four-year road map to develop “stronger community relationships” and targets “overburdened communities.” The next meeting is set for April.

    Community involvement

    Navy records described the advisory board as “unproductive,” and an EPA spokesman said the Navy's new “community involvement plan,” due to be released sometime in the next two months, will reboot community engagement.


    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY                      PROJECT

    .

    Court Defines “Current Owner” for Purposes of CERCLA Liability

    .

    New Law

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court and determined that measuring ownership from the time of cleanup best aligns with the purposes for which CERCLA was enacted ¿ for three reasons.  First, that the statute of limitations on a CERCLA action starts to run once remedial action has begun suggests that Congress intended the “owner” to be the owner at the time of cleanup.  Second, CERCLA encourages responsible parties to remediate without delay and, if a landowner could avoid liability by transferring its property before a lawsuit is filed, then that landowner would have every incentive to delay cleanup until it found a buyer.  Third, CERCLA was also enacted to encourage settlement and early voluntary cleanup of contaminated properties, and Hearthside's proposed rule would require that a lawsuit be filed as a prerequisite to recovery in every case. 

    “appropriate and consistent with requirements of applicable law and other resource considerations consistent with this Order or necessary for the exercise of valid existing rights.”

    EPA Region 9 is soliciting proposals to carry out the Food Quality Protection Act and to support efforts by the agricultural community to “transition” away from high-risk pesticides to lower risk pesticides and sustainable practices in food production. The statutory authority for this program is Section 20 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. §136r. The program supports grants for education, extension and demonstration projects for FQPA transition and reduced risk practices for pest management in agriculture. Proposals for demonstration projects must demonstrate applications, technologies, methods or approaches that are new, innovative or experimental.

    A Watershed Moment for the Clean Water Act

    (1)   Looking 20 years ahead, what systemic risks will the emergency management community face?

    (2)   What transformational events could shape emergency management's future?

    (3)   What should the emergency management community be doing now to have the right future capacity and capabilities to serve those who depend on us?

    .

    revival is cause for celebration

    FIESTA PARTY

    powered by                      salsa

    Red Tape Rising:

    Published on October 26, 2010 by James Gattuso , Diane Katz and Stephen Keen

    Abstract: The burden of regulation on Americans increased at an alarming rate in fiscal year 2010. Based on data from the Government Accountability Office, an unprecedented 43 major new regulations were imposed by Washington. And based on reports from government regulators themselves, the total cost of these rules topped $26.5 billion, far more than any other year for which records are available. These costs will affect Americans in many ways, raising the price of the cars they buy and the food they eat, while destroying an untold number of jobs. With the enactment of new health care laws, financial regulations, and plans for rulemaking in other areas, the regulatory burden on Americans is set to increase even further in the coming year.

    The Hidden Tax

    The cost of regulation has often been called a hidden tax. Although the total does not appear anywhere in the federal budget, the multitude of rules, restrictions, and mandates imposes a heavy burden on Americans and the U.S. economy. According to a report recently released by the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to about $1.75 trillion annually, [1] nearly twice as much as all individual income taxes collected last year. [2]

    Not all regulations are unwarranted, of course. Most Americans would agree on the need for protections against terrorism, although the extent of such rules is certainly subject to debate. Moreover, regulations are not necessarily inconsistent with free-market principles. Some, such as anti-fraud measures, protect the rights of consumers. But there is always a cost. And, for the same reasons that federal spending is reported, so, too, should regulatory costs.

    Record Increases

    This regulatory burden has been increasing for some time. During the presidency of George W. Bush, which many mistakenly consider as a period of deregulation, the regulatory burden increased by more than $70 billion, according to agency regulatory impact reports. In FY 2009, which spanned the Bush and Obama Administrations, rulemaking proceeded at a nearly unprecedented rate, with the addition of 23 major rules imposing $13 billion in new costs. [3]

    But the available evidence indicates that regulatory costs increased last year at a far greater pace. According to data from the Government Accountability Office, federal agencies promulgated 43 rules during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, [4] that impose significant burdens on the private sector. The total costs for these rules were estimated by the regulators themselves at some $28 billion, the highest level since at least 1981, the earliest date for which figures are available. [5] Fifteen of the 43 major rules issued last during the fiscal year involved financial regulation. Another five stem from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act adopted by Congress in early 2010. Ten others come from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including the first mandatory reporting of “greenhouse gas” emissions and $10.8 billion in new automotive fuel economy standards (adopted jointly with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)). Overall, counting the fuel standards, the EPA is responsible for the lion's share of the reported regulatory costs—some $23.2 billion.

    Among the most costly of the FY 2010 crop are:

    • Fuel economy and emission standards [6] for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles imposed jointly by the EPA and NHTSA. Annual cost: $10.8 billion (for model years 2012 to 2016). For automakers to recover these increased outlays, NHTSA estimates the standards will lead to increases in average new vehicle prices ranging from $457 per vehicle in FY 2012 to $985 per vehicle in FY 2016. [7]
    • Mandated quotas for renewable fuels. Annual cost: $7.8 billion (for 15 years). Utilizing farmland to grow corn and other crops used in renewable fuels will displace food crops, leading food costs to increase by $10 per person per year—or $40 for a family of four, according to the EPA. [8]
    • Efficiency standards for residential water heaters, heating equipment, and pool heaters. Annual cost: $1.3 billion. The appliance upgrades necessary to comply with the new standards will raise the price of a typical gas storage water heater by $120. [9]
    • Limits on “effluent” discharges from construction sites imposed by the EPA. Annual cost: $810.8 million. The cost of the requirements will force the closure of 147 construction firms and the loss of 7,257 jobs, according to the EPA. Homebuyers also will bear some of the costs, with an increase in mortgage costs of about $1,953.

    Regulatory Reductions Missing in Action

    Measures to reduce regulatory burdens, by contrast, were few and far between in FY 2010. Only five significant rulemakings adopted last year reduced burdens. Of these, cost reductions were quantified for only two, for reported savings of $1.5 billion. This leaves a net increase in the regulatory burden of $26.5 billion.

    Moreover, one of the five measures—though technically deregulatory in nature—relates to an unparalleled expansion of EPA powers. Due to its determination last year that greenhouse gases are pollutants, the agency is moving to set emissions limits for such gases. To follow the standards in the Clean Air Act would corral millions of currently unregulated “facilities,” including offices and apartment buildings, shopping malls, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, schools, houses of worship, theaters, and sports arenas into the EPA regulatory regime. In hopes of quieting political outrage over so sweeping a dictate, the EPA's “Tailoring Rule” [10] set a minimum threshold level for regulation. Therefore, fewer facilities would be subject to permit requirements, making imposition of the emissions limits more feasible. Rather than reduce overall burdens, this action actually facilitated increased burdens. [11]

    Actual Costs Likely Higher

    The actual cost of regulations adopted in FY 2010 is almost certainly much higher than $26.5 billion. As a first matter, the cost of non-economically significant rules—rules deemed not likely to have an annual impact of $100 million or more—is not calculated (although such rules are believed to constitute only a small portion of total regulatory costs). Moreover, costs were not quantified for 12 of the economically significant rules adopted in FY 2010.

    Many of the rules lacking quantified costs involve financial regulation. The Federal Reserve Board, for instance, did not quantify any costs for its new “Truth in Lending” [12] regulations—which impose fee and disclosure requirements for credit card accounts—although the new rules are generally expected to be costly. Similarly, costs were not calculated for new Federal Reserve Board regulations on prepaid electronic gift cards. [13]

    It should also be noted that reported costs are likely minimized by allowing agencies to make the initial calculations, thereby casting their proposals in the best light. This could have a substantial impact: Overall, there is evidence that agencies systematically understate regulatory costs. In its 2005 report to Congress, the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs conducted ex ante analyses of regulations to test the accuracy of cost-benefit estimates. The study determined that regulators overestimated benefits 40 percent of the time and underestimated costs 34 percent of the time. [14]

    Even a finding that costs exceed benefits does not necessarily stop a new rule from going into effect. For instance, in evaluating new regulations for train-control systems, the Department of Transportation identified costs of $477.4 million, and benefits of a mere $22 million. Nevertheless, due to a statutory mandate, the regulations were adopted.

    The EPA is prohibited by law from considering costs in devising regulations under the Clean Air Act and other major environmental statutes. Thus, the agency recently set new, more stringent standards on emissions of nitrogen dioxide without formally considering the economic or technical feasibility of compliance. [15] While the EPA did prepare a cost-benefit analysis—concluding that the costs exceed the benefits—agency officials conceded they had no way of determining the number of localities that would be out of compliance under the new rule.

    Lastly, it should be noted that annual compliance costs constitute only part of the economic burden of regulation. New rules also entail start-up costs for new equipment, conversions of industrial processes, and devising data collection and reporting procedures. These “first-year” costs exceed $3.1 billion for the 43 new FY 2010 regulations. For example, new restrictions on “short sales” [16] imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission will require initial costs of more than $1 billion [17] for modifications to computer systems and surveillance mechanisms, and for information-gathering, management, and recordkeeping systems. Likewise, the EPA estimates one-time implementation costs of nearly $745 million for new limits on emissions from diesel engines used in energy production. [18]

    More Rules on the Way

    Many, many more regulations are in the pipeline. According to one estimate, financial regulation legislation recently adopted by Congress, known as the Dodd–Frank bill, will require 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. [19] So wide-ranging are regulators' new powers, in fact, that the Department of Health and Human Services has failed to meet one-third of the deadlines mandated by the new federal health care law, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. [20]

    Meanwhile, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created under the Dodd–Frank measure will wield vaguely defined powers to regulate financial products and services, including mortgages, credit cards, even student loans. And, the Federal Communications Commission is mulling new regulations to limit how Internet service providers manage their networks. Such “net neutrality” rules, if enacted, would undermine investment incentives, thereby robbing the nation of much-needed broadband upgrades. [21]

    Taken together, these initiatives embody a stunningly full regulatory agenda—indicating that this year's record for regulatory increases will not stand for long.

    Conclusion

    The regulatory burden increased at an unprecedented rate during FY 2010, as measured by both the number of new major rules as well as their reported costs. Even more are on the way in 2011.

    A number of steps have been proposed to stem this growth, ranging from automatic sunsetting of rules [22] to requiring congressional approval of all new major rules. [23]

    Mere procedural reforms will not be enough to stem this regulatory tide. Regulatory costs will rise until policymakers appreciate the burdens that regulations are imposing on Americans and the economy, and exercise the political will necessary to limit—and reduce—those burdens.

    James L. Gattuso is Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy, Diane Katz is Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy, and Stephen A. Keen is a Research Assistant, in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

    Appendix

    Major Rulemaking Proceedings that Increased Regulatory Burdens, October 2009–September 2010

    October 2009

    October 30, 2009, Environmental Protection Agency, “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases”: $94.9 million annually; $140.7 million start-up.

    November 2009

    November 17, 2009, Federal Reserve System, “Electronic Fund Transfers”: $10.9 million annually.

    December 2009

    December 1, 2009, Environmental Protection Agency, “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source Category”: $810.8 million annually.

    December 4, 2009, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations”: $34.9 million annually; $16.2 million start-up.

    December 4, 2009, Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines”: $101.1 million annually; $130.1 million start-up.

    December 23, 2009, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Proxy Disclosure Enhancements”: $66.5 million annually.

    January 2010

    January 8, 2010, Department of Energy, “Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Commercial Clothes Washers)”: $23.4 million annually.

    January 11, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Custody of Funds or Securities of Clients by Investment Advisers”: $125.1 million annually; $1.2 million start-up.

    January 15, 2010, Federal Reserve System and Federal Trade Commission, “Fair Credit Reporting Risk-Based Pricing Regulations”: $252.1 million annually.

    January 15, 2010, Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, “Positive Train Control Systems”: $477.4 million annually.

    January 28, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; Federal Reserve System; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Department of the Treasury, Office of Thrift Supervision, “Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; Capital Maintenance: Regulatory Capital; Impact of Modifications to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; Consolidation of Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Programs; and Other Related Issues”: cost not quantified.

    February 2010

    February 9, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide”: cost not quantified.

    February 17, 2010, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, “National Organic Program; Access to Pasture (Livestock)”: cost not quantified.

    February 22, 2010, Federal Reserve System, “Truth in Lending”: cost not quantified.

    March 2010

    March 3, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines”: $373.4 million annually; $744.7 million start-up.

    March 4, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Money Market Fund Reform”: $60.2 million annually; $86.9 million start-up.

    March 9, 2010, Department of Energy, “Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors”: $263.9 million annually.

    March 10, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Amendments to Regulation SHO”: $1.2 billion annually; $1.1 billion start-up.

    March 19, 2010, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, “Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents”: cost not quantified.

    March 26, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program”: $7.8 billion annually.

    April 2010

    April 1, 2010, Federal Reserve System, “Electronic Fund Transfers”: cost not quantified.

    April 5, 2010, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, “Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance”: $139 million annually.

    April 14, 2010, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, “Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances; Removal of Essential-Use Designation (Flunisolide, etc.)”: $181.9 million annually.

    April 16, 2010, Department of Energy: Energy Conservation Program, “Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Water Heaters, Direct Heating Equipment, and Pool Heaters”: $1.3 billion annually.

    May 2010

    May 6, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program”: $419.5 million annually; $552 million start-up.

    May 7, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule”: $10.8 billion annually (2012–2016).

    May 13, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Dependent Coverage of Children to Age 26 Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”: $11 million annually.

    May 28, 2010, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, “Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Performance Requirements to Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service”: $100 million annually.

    June 2010

    June 4, 2010, Federal Reserve System, “Electronic Fund Transfers”: cost not quantified.

    June 17, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; Department of Health and Human Services, “Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”: $25.2 million annually; $30.2 million start-up.

    June 22, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide”: $1.6 billion annually.

    June 28, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and Department of Health and Human Services, “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits, Rescissions, and Patient Protections”: $4.8 million annually.

    June 29, 2010, Federal Reserve System, “Truth in Lending”: cost not quantified.

    July 2010

    July 14, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers”: $85.1 million annually; $22.6 million start-up.

    July 16, 2010, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, “Reasonable Contract or Arrangement Under Section 408(b)(2)—Fee Disclosure ”: $57.7 million annually.

    July 19, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and Department of Health and Human Services, “Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”: cost not quantified.

    July 23, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and Department of Health and Human Services, “Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Internal Claims and Appeals and External Review Processes Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”: $75.1 million annually.

    July 28, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, “Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators”: $123.9 million annually; $283.3 million start-up.

    August 2010

    August 9, 2010, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Cranes and Derricks in Construction”: $151.6 million annually.

    August 12, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission: “Amendments to Form ADV”: $20.5 million annually; $56.4 million start-up.

    August 20, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines”: $253 million annually.

    September 2010

    September 9, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants”: $1 billion in 2013.

    September 16, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Facilitating Shareholder Director Nominations”: $8 million annually.

    Major Rulemaking Proceedings that Decreased Regulatory Burdens, October 2009–September 2010

    October 19, 2009, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Internal Control Over Financial Reporting in Exchange Act Periodic Reports of Non-Accelerated Filers”: savings not quantified.

    November 2, 2009, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Medical Examination of Aliens—Removal of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection from Definition of Communicable Disease of Public Health Significance”: savings not quantified.

    November 13, 2009, Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule—Amendments”: $98.6 million.

    March 31, 2010, Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances”: $1.4 billion.

    June 3, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule”: savings not quantified.

    .

    where landowners fence or post "no trespassing" signs on their property or otherwise indicate
    unmistakably that entry is not allowed, their "expectation that their privacy rights will be
    respected and that they will be free from unwanted intrusions is reasonable".

    Authority:   42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.

    Source:   38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, unless otherwise noted.

    § 40.100   Purpose of regulation.

    top

    These provisions establish and codify policies and procedures governing the award of research and demonstration grants by the Environmental Protection Agency.

    § 40.105   Applicability and scope.

    top

    This part establishes mandatory policies and procedures for all EPA research and demonstration grants. The provisions of this part supplement the EPA general grant regulations and procedures (40 CFR part 30). Accordingly, all EPA research and demonstration grants are awarded subject to the EPA interim general grant regulations and procedures (40 CFR part 30) and to the applicable provisions of this part 40.

    § 40.110   Authority.

    top

    EPA research and demonstration grants are authorized under the following statutes:

    (1) Section 103 (42 U.S.C. 1857b) authorizes grants for research and demonstration projects relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, and control of air pollution.

    (2) Section 104 (42 U.S.C. 1857b–1) authorizes grants for research and development of new and improved methods for the prevention and control of air pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels.

    (b) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, Public Law 92–500.

    (1) Section 104(b) (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)) authorizes grants for research and demonstration projects relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution.

    (4) Section 104(r) (33 U.S.C. 1254(r)) authorized grants for the conduct of basic research into the structure and function of freshwater aquatic ecosystems, and to improve understanding of the ecological characteristics necessary to the maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of freshwater aquatic ecosystems.

    (5) Section 104(s) (33 U.S.C. (s)) authorizes grants to conduct and report on interdisciplinary studies on river systems, including hydrology, biology, ecology, economics, the relationship between river uses and land uses, and the effects of development within river basins on river systems and on the value of water resources and water-related activities.

    (6) Section 105(a) (33 U.S.C. 1255(a)) authorizes grants for research and demonstration of new or improved methods for preventing, reducing, and eliminating the discharge into any waters of pollutants from sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and pollutants; and for the demonstration of advanced waste treatment and water purification methods (including the temporary use of new or improved chemical additives which provide substantial immediate improvement to existing treatment processes), or new or improved methods of joint treatment systems for municipal and industrial wastes.

    (7) Section 105(b) (33 U.S.C. 1255(b)) authorizes grants for demonstrating, in river basins or portions thereof, advanced treatment and environmental enhancement techniques to control pollution from all sources, within such basin or portions thereof, including nonpoint sources, together with in-stream water quality improvement techniques.

    (8) Section 105(c) (33 U.S.C. 1255(c)) authorizes grants for research and demonstration projects for prevention of pollution of any waters by industry including, but not limited to, the prevention, reduction, and elimination of the discharge of pollutants.

    (9) Section 105(e)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1255(e)(1)) authorizes grants for research and demonstration projects with respect to new and improved methods of preventing, reducing, and eliminating pollution from agriculture.

    11) Section 107 (33 U.S.C. 1257) authorizes grants for projects to demonstrate comprehensive approaches to the elimination or control of acid or other mine water pollution resulting from active or abandoned mining operations and other environmental pollution affecting water quality within all or part of a watershed or river basin, including siltation from surface mining.

    (d) The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. ).

    (1) Section 8001 (42 U.S.C. 6981) authorizes grants for research and demonstration projects relating to solid waste.

    (2) Section 8004 (42 U.S.C. 6984) authorizes grants for demonstration of new or improved technologies for resource recovery.

    (3) Section 8005 (42 U.S.C. 6985) authorizes grants to conduct special studies and demonstration projects on recovery of useful energy and materials.

    (4) Section 8006 (42 U.S.C. 6986) authorizes grants for the demonstration of resource recovery system or for the construction of new or improved solid waste disposal facilities.

    § 40.115-1   Construction.

    top

    May include the preliminary planning to determine the economic and engineering feasibility of a facility, the engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic investigations and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications, procedures, and other action necessary to the construction of a facility, the erection, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension of a facility, and the inspection and supervision of the construction of a facility.

    § 40.115-5   Person.

    top

    (a) Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, an individual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body.

    (b) Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, corporation (including a government corporation), partnership, association, State, municipality, commission, political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body.

    [38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

    § 40.120   Publication of EPA research objectives.

    top

    The Office of Research and Development of EPA publishes a statement of research objectives and priorities annually in a document entitled “Office of Research and Development—Program Guide.” This document may be obtained from either the Office of Research and Development, RD–674, or the Grants Administration Division, PM–216, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460.

    [42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

    § 40.125   Grant limitations.

    top

    § 40.125-1   Limitations on duration.

    top

    (a) [Reserved]

    (b) No research or demonstration grant shall be approved for a project period in excess of 5 years.

    (c) The grant award official may extend the budget and project periods for up to an additional 12 months without additional grant funds, when such extensions are in the best interest of the Government.

    [42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977, as amended at 72 FR 52010, Sept. 12, 2007]

    § 40.125-2   Limitations on assistance.

    top

    In addition to the cost-sharing requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 30.720, research and demonstration grants shall be governed by the specific assistance limitations listed below:

    (a) Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (1) Section 104(s)—no grant in any fiscal year may exceed $1 million.

    (2) Sections 105 (a), (c) and 108—no grant may exceed 75 percent of the allowable actual project costs.

    (b) Clean Air Act. (1) Section 104—no grant may exceed $1,500,000.

    (2) [Reserved]

    (c) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. (1) Sections 8001, 8004, and 8005. The maximum practicable cost sharing is required.

    (2) Section 8006. The Federal share for any grant for the demonstration of resource recovery systems shall not exceed 75 percent and is subject to the conditions contained in section 8006(b) of the Act. The Federal share for any grant for the construction of new or improved solid waste disposal facilities shall not exceed 50 percent in the case of a project serving an area which includes only one municipality and 75 percent in any other case, and is subject to the limitations contained in section 8006(c) of the Act. Not more than 15 percent of the total funds authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year to carry out this section shall be awarded for projects in any one State.

    [38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 42 FR 20083, May 8, 1977; 42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

    § 40.130   Eligibility.

    top

    Except as otherwise provided below, grants for research and demonstration projects may be awarded to any responsible applicant in accordance with 40 CFR 30.340:

    (a) The Clean Air Act, as amended—public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and to individuals.

    (b) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

    (1) Section 8001, public authorities, agencies, and institutions; private agencies and institutions; and individuals.

    (2) Sections 8004 and 8005, public agencies and authorities or private persons.

    (3) Section 8006, State, municipal, interstate or intermunicipal agencies.

    (4) No grant may be made under this Act to any private profit-making organization.

    (c) The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended—other Federal agencies, universities, or others as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the act.

    (d) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended:

    (1) Section 104(b)—State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and to individuals.

    (2) Sections 104 (h) and (i)—public or private agencies and organizations and to individuals.

    (3) Section 104(r)—colleges and universities.

    (4) Section 104(s)—institutions of higher education.

    (5) Sections 105 (a), (e)(2), and 107—State, municipal, interstate, and intermunicipal agencies.

    (6) Section 195(b)—State or States or interstate agency.

    (7) Sections 105 (c) and (e)(1)—persons.

    (8) Section 108—State, political subdivision, interstate agency, or other public agency, or combination thereof.

    (9) Section 113—only to the State of Alaska .

    (e) The Public Health Service Act, as amended—only to nonprofit agencies, institutions, organizations, and to individuals.

    [38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975; 42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

    § 40.135   Application.

    top

    § 40.135-1   Preapplication coordination.

    top

    (a) All applicants. (1) Applicants for research and demonstration grants are encouraged to contact EPA for further information and assistance prior to submitting a formal application. The EPA regional office or the laboratory nearest the applicant will be able to provide such assistance or to refer the applicant to an appropriate EPA representative.

    (2) Applicants shall prepare an environmental assessment of the proposed project where applicable, outlining the anticipated impact on the environment pursuant to 40 CFR part 6.

    (b) Applications for grants for demonstration projects funded by the Office of Solid Waste will be solicited through the Department of Commerce Business Daily, and selections will be made on a competitive basis.

    [38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 41 FR 20659, May 20, 1976; 42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977; 48 FR 29302, June 24, 1983]

    § 40.135-2   Application requirements.

    top

    All applications for research and demonstration grants shall be submitted in an original and 8 copies to the Environmental Protection Agency, Grants Administration Division, Washington, DC 20460, in accordance with §§30.315 through 30.315–3.

    (a) Applications involving human subjects. (1) Safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in projects supported by EPA grants is the responsibility of the institution which receives or is accountable to EPA for the funds awarded for the support of the project.

    (2) Institutions must submit to EPA, for review, approval, and official acceptance, a written assurance of its compliance with guidelines established by Department of Health, Education, and Welfare concerning protection of human subjects. However, institutions which have submitted and have had accepted, general assurance to DHEW under these guidelines will be considered as being in compliance with this requirement. These guidelines are provided in DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 72–102, the “Institutional Guide to DHEW Policy on Protection of Human Subjects.” Copies of this publication are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington , DC 20420 .

    (3) Applicants must provide with each proposal involving human subjects a certification that it has been or will be reviewed in accordance with the institution's assurance. This certification must be renewed annually on the basis of continuing review of the supported project.

    (b) Applications involving laboratory animals. Each application for a project involving the use of warmblooded animals shall include a written assurance that the applicant has registered with the Department of Agriculture and is in compliance with the rules, regulations, and standards enunciated in the Animal Welfare Act, Public Law 89–554, as amended.

    (c) Notice of research project ( NRP ). Each application for research must include a summary (NRP) of proposed work (200 words or less) incorporating objectives, approach and current plans and/or progress. Upon approval of an application, summaries are forwarded to the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange. Summaries of work in progress are exchanged with government and private agencies supporting research and are forwarded to investigators who request such information.

    (d) Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (1) All applications for grants under section 105(a) must have been approved by the appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies.

    (2) All applications for grants under section 107, where the proposed project will be located in the Appalachian region, shall have been coordinated with the Appalachian Regional Commission for determination that such demonstration project is consistent with the objectives of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended.

    (e) Intergovernmental review. EPA will not award funds under this subpart without review and consultation, if applicable, in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12372, as implemented in 40 CFR part 29 of this chapter.

    [38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975; 42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977; 48 FR 29302, June 24, 1983]

    § 40.140   Criteria for award.

    top

    In determining the desirability and extent of funding for a project and the relative merit of an application, consideration will be given to the following criteria:

    § 40.140-1   All applications.

    top

    (a) The relevancy of the proposed project to the objectives of the EPA research and demonstration program;

    (b) The availability of funds within EPA;

    (c) The technical feasibility of the project;

    (d) The seriousness, extent, and urgency of the environmental problems toward which the project is directed;

    (e) The anticipated public benefits to be derived from the project in relation to the costs of the project;

    (f) The competency of the applicant's staff and the adequacy of the applicant's facilities and available resources;

    (g) The degree to which the project can be expected to produce results that will have general application to pollution control problems nationwide;

    (h) Whether the project is consistent with existing plans or ongoing planning for the project area at the State, regional, and local levels;

    (i) The existence and extent of local public support for the project;

    (j) Whether the proposed project is environmentally sound;

    (k) Proposed cost sharing.

    § 40.140-2   [Reserved]

    top

    § 40.140-3   Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

    top

    (a) All applications for grants under section 105(c) must provide evidence that the proposed project will contribute to the development or demonstration of a new or improved method of treating industrial wastes or otherwise preventing pollution by industry, which method shall have industrywide application;

    (b) All applications for grants under section 113 must include provisions for community safe water supply systems, toilets, bathing and laundry facilities, sewage disposal facilities and programs relating to health and hygiene. Such projects must also be for the further purpose of developing preliminary plans for providing such safe water and such elimination or control of water pollution for all native villages in the State of Alaska .

    § 40.145   Supplemental grant conditions.

    top

    In addition to the EPA general grant conditions (40 CFR part 30, subpart C), all grants are awarded subject to the following requirements:

    (a) The project will be conducted in an environmentally sound manner.

    (b) In addition to the notification of project changes required pursuant to 40 CFR 30.900, prior written approval by the grants officer is required for project changes which may (1) alter the approved scope of the project, (2) substantially alter the design of the project, or (3) increase the amount of Federal funds needed to complete the project. No approval or disapproval of a project change pursuant to 40 CFR 30.900 or this section shall commit or obligate the United States to an increase in the amount of the grant or payments thereunder, but shall not preclude submission or consideration of a request for a grant amendment pursuant to 40 CFR 30.900–1.

    [38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975]

    § 40.145-1   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

    top

    Programs for which a Federal grant is awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency to a State, municipal, interstate or intermunicipal agency, or to any public authority, agency or institution, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, shall be the subject of public participation consistent with part 249 of this chapter.

    [42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

    § 40.145-2   Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

    top

    (a) No person in the United States shall on the ground of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving assistance under the Act.

    (b) Grants under section 107 are awarded subject to the conditions—

    (1) That the State shall acquire any land or interests therein necessary for such project to assure the elimination or control of acid or other mine water pollution; and

    (2) That the State shall provide legal and practical protection to the project area to insure against any activities which will cause future acid or other mine water pollution.

    § 40.145-3   Projects involving construction.

    top

    Research and demonstration grants for projects involving construction shall be subject to the following conditions:

    (a) The applicant will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the grants officer that he has or will have a fee simple or such other estate or interest in the site of the project, and rights of access, as the grants officer finds sufficient to assure undisturbed use and possession for the purpose of construction and operation for the estimated life of the project; and in the case of projects serving more than one municipality, that the participating communities have such interests or rights as the grants officer finds sufficient to assure their undisturbed utilization of the project for the estimated life of the project.

    (b) Invitations for bids or requests for proposals shall be based upon a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product, or service to be procured. Such description shall not, in competitive procurements, contain features which unduly restrict competition. “Brand name or equal” description may be used as a means to define the performance or other salient requirements of a procurement, and when so used the specific features of the named brand which must be met by offerors should be clearly specified.

    (c) Positive efforts shall be made by the grantees to utilize small business and minority-owned business sources of supplies and services.

    (d) Subagreements for construction work may be negotiated when advertising for competitive bids is not feasible; however, the grantee must adequately demonstrate its need to contract with a single or sole source. All such subagreements are subject to prior approval by the grants officer.

    (e) Construction work will be performed by the fixed-price (lump sum) or fixed-rate (unit price) method, or a combination of these two methods, unless the grants officer gives advance written approval to use some other method of contracting. The cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost method of contracting shall not be used. Adequate methods of advertising for and obtaining competitive sealed bids will be employed prior to award of the construction contract. The award of the contract will be made to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid, which shall be determined without regard to State or local law whereby preference is given on factors other than the specification requirements and the amount of bid. The grantee must promptly transmit to the grants officer copies of bid protests, decisions on such protests, and related correspondence. The grants officer will cause appropriate review of grantee procurement methods to be made.

    (f) On construction contracts exceeding $100,000, each bidder must furnish a bid guarantee equivalent to 5 percent of the bid price. In addition, the contractor awarded the contract must furnish performance and payment bonds, each of which shall be in an amount not less than 100 percent of the contract price. Construction contracts less than $100,000 shall follow the State or local requirements relating to bid guarantees, performance bonds, and payment bonds.

    (g) The construction of the project, including the letting of contracts in connection therewith, shall conform to the applicable requirements of State, territorial, and local laws and ordinances to the extent that such requirements do not conflict with Federal laws.

    (h) The grantee will provide and maintain competent and adequate engineering supervision and inspection for the project to insure that the construction conforms with the approved plans and specifications.

    (i) Any construction contract must provide that representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency and the State, as appropriate, will have access to the work whenever it is in preparation or progress and that the contractor will provide proper facilities for such access and inspection. The contract must also provide that the grants officer, the Comptroller General of the United States , or any authorized representative shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the contractor which are pertinent to the project for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions thereof.

    (j) The grantee agrees to construct the project or cause it to be constructed in accordance with the application, plans and specifications, and subagreements approved by EPA in the grant agreement or amendments.

    (k) In addition to the notification of project changes pursuant to 40 CFR 30.900, a copy of any construction contract or modifications thereof, and of revisions to plans and specifications must be submitted to the grants officer.

    [38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975]

    § 40.150   Evaluation of applications.

    top

    Every application for a research or demonstration grant will be evaluated by appropriate EPA staff in terms of relevancy and the applicable criteria set forth in §40.140. Only applications considered relevant to EPA research and demonstration objectives will receive further consideration and be subjected to additional review. Relevancy will be measured by program needs and priorities as defined in the Agency's current planned objectives. Relevancy, coupled with the results of technical review, will provide the basis for funding recommendations.

    (a) New applications. Applications considered relevant to EPA research and demonstration objectives will be reviewed for technical merit by at least one reviewer within EPA and at least two reviewers outside EPA. Review by a National Advisory Council is statutorily required for radiation grants.

    (b) Continuation applications. Continuation applications will be reviewed by appropriate EPA staff only. Recommendations for continuation of funding will be based on progress toward the accomplishment of the goals set forth for the project and continued Agency needs and priorities.

    § 40.155   Availability of information.

    top

    (a) The availability to the public of information provided to, or otherwise obtained by, the Administrator under this part shall be governed by part 2 of this chapter.

    (b) An assertion of entitlement to confidential treatment of part or all of the information in an application may be made using the procedure described in §30.235(b). See also §§2.203 and 2.204 of this chapter.

    (c) All information and data contained in the grant application will be subject to external review unless deviation is approved for good cause pursuant to 40 CFR 30.1000.

    [38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975; 41 FR 36918, Sept. 1, 1976]

    § 40.160   Reports.

    top

    § 40.160-1   Progress reports.

    top

    The grant agreement will normally require the submission of a brief progress report after the end of each quarter of the budget period. A monthly progress report may be required for some demonstration projects, if set forth in the grant agreement. Progress reports should fully describe in chart or narrative format the progress achieved in relation to the approved schedule and project milestones. Special problems or delays encountered must be explained. A summary progress report covering all work on the project to date is required to be included with applications for continuation grants (see §40.165b). This report may be submitted one quarter prior to the end of the budget period.

    § 40.160-2   Financial status report.

    top

    A financial status report must be prepared and submitted within 90 days after completion of the budget and project periods in accordance with §30.635–3.

    [42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

    § 40.160-3   Reporting of inventions.

    top

    As provided in appendix B of 40 CFR part 30, immediate and full reporting of all inventions to the Environmental Protection Agency is required. In addition:

    (a) An annual invention statement is required with each continuation application.

    (b) A final invention report is required within 90 days after completion of the project period.

    (c) When a principal investigator changes institutions or ceases to direct a project, an invention statement must be promptly submitted with a listing of all inventions during his administration of the grant.

    [38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975]

    § 40.160-4   Equipment report.

    top

    At the completion or termination of a project, the grantee will submit a listing of all items of equipment acquired with grant funds with an acquisition cost of $300 or more and having a useful life of more than 1 year.

    § 40.160-5   Final report.

    top

    The grantee shall submit a draft of the final report for review no later than 90 days prior to the end of the approved project period. The report shall document project activities over the entire period of grant support and shall describe the grantee's achievements with respect to stated project purposes and objectives. The report shall set forth in complete detail all technical aspects of the projects, both negative and positive, grantee's findings, conclusions, and results, including, as applicable, an evaluation of the technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of the methods or techniques investigated or demonstrated. The final report shall include EPA comment when required by the grants officer. Prior to the end of the project period, one reproducible copy suitable for printing and such other copies as may be stipulated in the grant agreement shall be transmitted to the grants officer.

    § 40.165   Continuation grants.

    top

    To be eligible for a continuation grant within the approved project period, the grantee must:

    (a) Have demonstrated satisfactory performance during all previous budget periods; and

    (b) Submit no later than 90 days prior to the end of the budget period a continuation application which includes a detailed summary progress report, an estimated financial statement for the current budget period, a budget for the new budget period; and an updated work plan revised to account for actual progress accomplished during the current budget period.

    .

    Report Faults EPA Oversight

    The report recommends that agency officials ensure that accurate standards are used to assess conditions at the site and that laboratories use the correct analytic methods.

    In related news, the start of the 112th Congress also featured the official closure of the Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, the only Congressional committee dedicated to tackling climate change.

    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
    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 

    JUDGE SPRAGUE ON THE LAWS AGAINST PIRACY. Published: May 19, 1861 - The New York Times At the opening of the United States Circuit Court in Boston on May 16, Judge SPRAGUE delivered a charge to the Grand Jury, in which he defined the state of our laws with reference to the crime of piracy. After citing provisions from the laws of 1790, 1820, 1825, 1846 and 1847, as to what constitutes the general crime, with the different degrees of penalty, the Judge remarks that these enactments were founded upon the clause in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to define and punish piracy. But the constitutional power to regulate commerce also affords a basis for additional penal enactments, covering all possible aggressions and depredations upon our commerce. The Judge then lays down the following important principles, the bearing of which will be sufficiently evident in the present crisis: "These statutes being enacted pursuant to the Constitution are of paramount authority, and cannot be invalidated or impaired by the action of any State or States, and every law, ordinance and constitution made by them for that purpose, whatever its name or form, is wholly nugatory and can afford no legal protection to those who may act under it. But suppose that a number of States undertake by resolution to throw off the Government of the United States and erect themselves into an independent nation, and assume in that character to issue commissions authorizing the capture of vessels of the United States, will such commissions afford protection to those acting under them against the penal laws of the United States? Cases have heretofore arisen where a portion of a foreign empire -- a colony -- has undertaken to throw off the dominion of the mother country, and assumed the attitude and claimed the rights of an independent nation, and in such cases it has been held that the relation which the United States should hold to those who thus attempt and claim to institute a new Government, is a political rather than a legal question; that, if those departments of our Government which have a right to give the law, and which regulate our foreign intercourse and determine the relation in which we shall stand to other nations, recognize such new and self-constituted Government as having the rights of a belligerent in a war between them and their former rulers, and the United States hold a neutral position in such war, then the judiciary, following the other departments, will to the same extent recognize the new nation. But if the legislative and executive, departments of the Government utterly refuse to recognize such new Government, or to acknowledge it as having any belligerent or national rights, and instead of taking a neutrel attitude endeavor by force to suppress depredations on commerce by such assumed Government, as violating the rights and infringing the laws of the United States, then the judiciary will hold that such depredations are not to be considered as belligerent and entitled to the immunities of lawful war, but as robbery or other lawless depredations, subject to the penalties denounced by our laws against such offences. The judiciary certainly cannot accept a more indulgent rule towards these who are in open rebellion against the authority if the United States, or toward aliens cooperating with and acting under the assumed authority of such rebels. While the other departments of the Government and the nation refuse to regard any State or association of States as having the rights of a belligerent, or as carrying on legitimate war, and are exerting not only moral but physical force against them as rebels and lawless aggressors upon the United States and its citizens, the Courts also must so regard them, and cannot admit that any legislation or assumption of power by such State or States can authorize acts in violation of the laws of the United States, or change the character of offences under them. There is another view. Mere rebellion absolves no man from his allegiance. Citizens of the United States, therefore, may not only be subject to the penalties of treason, but if they commit hostilities upon the commerce of the United States, under a commission from any foreign nation, even the oldest and best established, such as England or France for example, they may be dealt with as pirates by the express enactments in the ninth section of the statute of 1790, which has already been referred to. And aliens, who are subjects or citizens of any foreign State with whom we have a treaty, such as is described in the statute of 1847, chapter 51, which has already been quoted; if, in violation of such treaty, they make war upon the United States, or cruise against our vessels or property, under a commission from any foreign government, however long acknowledged, may, by the clear provisions of that statute, be dealt with as pirates. If aliens, subjects of a nation with whom we have no such treaty, commit acts of hostility upon our commerce, under the alleged authority or commission of a new and self-created government claiming to be independent, it may be material to inquire whether such government is to be regarded as having the immunities of a belligerent, or whether such aliens may be treated as robbers on the seas; and this inquiry will be governed by the principles which I have already stated. -CITE- 18 USC CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 01/05/2009 -


    ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES FEDERATION, THE HUMMINGBIRD INSTITUTE

    TWO MINERS & 360, 2744, 4400, 8000, 52,000, 88,000, & 103 MILLION ACRES OF LAND v. UNITED STATES -

    'Locke & Lode'

    Favente Deo, & auspice Christo, Contrariensium

    In the memory of virtue when it is present, people imitate it, and they long for it when it has gone;
    for their fruit will be useless, not ripe enough to eat, and good for nothing.

    ..a blameless life is ripe old age.

    They will come with dread when their sins are reckoned up, and their lawless deeds will convict them to their face.

    The salvation of the righteous, one another in repentance, and in anguish of spirit they will groan, and say,
    ‘These are persons whom we once held in derision and made a byword of reproach—fools that we were!
    We thought that their lives were madness and that their end was without honour.

    So it was we who strayed from the way of truth,

    ‘All those things have vanished like a shadow, and like a rumour that passes by; like a ship that sails through the billowy water, and when it has passed no trace can be found, no track of its keel in the waves; or as, when a bird flies through the air,
    no evidence of its passage is found; the light air, lashed by the beat of its pinions and pierced by the force of its rushing flight,
    is traversed by the movement of its wings, and afterwards no sign of its coming is found there; or as, when an arrow is shot at a target, the air, thus divided, comes together at once, so that no one knows its pathway.
    So we also, as soon as we were born, ceased to be, and we had no sign of virtue to show, but were consumed in our wickedness.'
    Because the hope of the ungodly is like thistledown carried by the wind, and like a light frost driven away by a storm;
    it is dispersed like smoke before the wind, and it passes like the remembrance of a guest who stays but a day.

    Therefore they will receive impartial justice as an invincible shield,
    and sharpen stern wrath.

    Listen therefore, and understand;
    learn, O judges of the ends of the earth.
    2 Give ear, you that rule over multitudes,
    and boast of many nations.
    3 For your dominion was given you from the Lord,
    and your sovereignty from the Most High;
    he will search out your works and inquire into your plans.
    4 Because as servants of his kingdom you did not rule rightly,
    or keep the law, or walk according to the purpose of God,
    5 he will come upon you terribly and swiftly,
    because severe judgement falls on those in high places.
    6 For the lowliest may be pardoned in mercy,
    but the mighty will be mightily tested.
    7 For the Lord of all will not stand in awe of anyone,
    or show deference to greatness;
    because he himself made both small and great,
    and he takes thought for all alike.
    8 But a strict inquiry is in store for the mighty.
    9 To you then, O monarchs, my words are directed,
    so that you may learn wisdom and not transgress.
    10 For they will be made holy who observe holy things in holiness,
    and those who have been taught them will find a defence.
    11 Therefore set your desire on my words;
    long for them, and you will be instructed.

    12 Wisdom is radiant and unfading,
    and she is easily discerned by those who love her,
    and is found by those who seek her.
    13 She hastens to make herself known to those who desire her.
    14 One who rises early to seek her will have no difficulty,
    for she will be found sitting at the gate.
    15 To fix one's thought on her is perfect understanding,
    and one who is vigilant on her account will soon be free from care,
    16 because she goes about seeking those worthy of her,
    and she graciously appears to them in their paths,
    and meets them in every thought.

    17 The beginning of wisdom is the most sincere desire for instruction,
    and concern for instruction is love of her,
    18 and love of her is the keeping of her laws,
    and giving heed to her laws is assurance of immortality,
    19 and immortality brings one near to God;
    20 so the desire for wisdom leads to a kingdom.


    21 Therefore if you delight in thrones and sceptres, O monarchs over the peoples,
    honour wisdom, so that you may reign for ever.
    22 I will tell you what wisdom is and how she came to be,
    and I will hide no secrets from you,
    but I will trace her course from the beginning of creation,
    and make knowledge of her clear,
    and I will not pass by the truth;
    23 nor will I travel in the company of sickly envy,
    for envy does not associate with wisdom.
    24 The multitude of the wise is the salvation of the world,
    and a sensible king is the stability of any people.
    25 Therefore be instructed by my words, and you will profit.

    7 I also am mortal, like everyone else,
    a descendant of the first-formed child of earth;
    and in the womb of a mother I was moulded into flesh,
    2 within the period of ten months, compacted with blood,
    from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage.
    3 And when I was born, I began to breathe the common air,
    and fell upon the kindred earth;
    my first sound was a cry, as is true of all.
    4 I was nursed with care in swaddling cloths.
    5 For no king has had a different beginning of existence;
    6 there is for all one entrance into life, and one way out.

    7 Therefore I prayed, and understanding was given me;
    I called on God, and the spirit of wisdom came to me.
    8 I preferred her to sceptres and thrones,
    and I accounted wealth as nothing in comparison with her.
    9 Neither did I liken to her any priceless gem,
    because all gold is but a little sand in her sight,
    and silver will be accounted as clay before her.
    10 I loved her more than health and beauty,
    and I chose to have her rather than light,
    because her radiance never ceases.
    11 All good things came to me along with her,
    and in her hands uncounted wealth.
    12 I rejoiced in them all, because wisdom leads them;
    but I did not know that she was their mother.
    13 I learned without guile and I impart without grudging;
    I do not hide her wealth,
    14 for it is an unfailing treasure for mortals;
    those who get it obtain friendship with God,
    commended for the gifts that come from instruction.

    15 May God grant me to speak with judgement,
    and to have thoughts worthy of what I have received;
    for he is the guide even of wisdom
    and the corrector of the wise.
    16 For both we and our words are in his hand,
    as are all understanding and skill in crafts.
    17 For it is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists,
    to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements;
    18 the beginning and end and middle of times,
    the alternations of the solstices and the changes of the seasons,
    19 the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars,
    20 the natures of animals and the tempers of wild animals,
    the powers of spirits * and the thoughts of human beings,
    the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots;
    21 I learned both what is secret and what is manifest,
    22 for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.

    The Nature of Wisdom

    There is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy,
    unique, manifold, subtle,
    mobile, clear, unpolluted,
    distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen,
    irresistible,

    23 beneficent, humane,
    steadfast, sure, free from anxiety,
    all-powerful, overseeing all,
    and penetrating through all spirits
    that are intelligent, pure, and altogether subtle.
    24 For wisdom is more mobile than any motion;
    because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things.
    25 For she is a breath of the power of God,
    and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty;
    therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.
    26 For she is a reflection of eternal light,
    a spotless mirror of the working of God,
    and an image of his goodness.
    27 Although she is but one, she can do all things,
    and while remaining in herself, she renews all things;
    in every generation she passes into holy souls
    and makes them friends of God, and prophets;
    28 for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom.
    29 She is more beautiful than the sun,
    and excels every constellation of the stars.
    Compared with the light she is found to be superior,
    30 for it is succeeded by the night,
    but against wisdom evil does not prevail.

    Bnei Ravrevaya

    Matthew 7

    1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

    7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

    8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

    9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

    10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

    11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

    12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

    13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

    14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

    16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

    18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

    19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

    20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

    23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

    25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

    26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

    27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

    28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

    29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

    measure for measure

    now panic!

    Deo, Patriae, Tibi. Capitales justiciarii proprias regis causas terminant, ideo consideratum est per Curiam. Ex calce liberatus!

    Mr. T.W. Arman; radix & vertex imperii; absolute Patent Title owner, Iron Mountain Mine & Agricultural College grantee


    The border for the Iron Mountain Mine website includes two illustrations from the 1908 edition of the Mineral Resources of California, California State Mining Bureau.

    A 15th century tapestry of the Fang Hu Mountains, one of Chinese mythologies 5 mountains of the immortals.

    A sketch by an unknown artist of Ganymede (associated with the astrological sign Aquarius), the Trojan Prince abducted by Zeus from Mount Ida, who was granted immortality and the auspicious and esteemed position of cup-bearer.

    Ganymede was afterwards also regarded as the genius of the fountains of the Nile, the life-giving and fertilizing river. Thus the divinity that distributed drink to the gods in heaven became the genius who presided over the due supply of water on earth.


    Donna nobis pacem - Grant us peace : Fide, non armis - By faith, not arms

    panic!

    home = smoked salmon

    This is the truth, as old as the hills, that life and experience teach:

    The poor man suffers the keenest of ills, an impediment in his reach. 

    Sub specie mali : The stream of thought flows on; but most of its segments fall into the bottomless abyss of oblivion. Of some, no memory survives the instant of their passage. Of others, it is confined to a few moments, hours or days. Others, again, leave vestiges which are indestructible, and by means of which they may be recalled as long as life endures. -William James

    There is in each of us a stream of tendency, whether you choose to call it philosophy or not, which gives coherence and direction to thought and action. Judges cannot escape that current any more than other mortals. Justice Benjamin Cardozo

    What is fear, saith Solomon, but a betraying of the succours that reason offereth.

    Deo, Patriae, Tibi.

    webmaster-netslave?

    The Bottom Line

    What Rights? IMMI -AMD&CSI - Serenescapes -HU/MOUNTAIN Joint Venture - Ted Arman - John Hutchens ©1862-2319

    Kirkland & Ellis LLP > DePippo, Henry J.

    www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentid=220&itemid=9669 - Cached
    ... public corruption and criminal environmental enforcement. ... In addition to his extensive trial experience as a prosecutor and in private practice, ...

    U.S. News - Best Lawyers - Trombley & Hanes, P.C.

    bestlawfirms.usnews.com/firms/trombley-hanes-p-c-/.../9034/ - Cached
    ... Gary R. Trombley, a former federal prosecutor in the Middle District of Florida. ... Mail Fraud, Public Corruption, Bank Fraud, Environmental Crimes, ...

    Crowell & Moring

    www.crowell.com/Bios/John-Vandevelde/msword
    File Format: Microsoft Word - Quick View
    ... the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, securities fraud, environmental crimes, ... Mr. Vandevelde served as a prosecutor in the United States Attorney's ...

    Georgia Criminal Defense Attorney | Atlanta Criminal Defense

    www.atlanta-georgia-criminal-defense-attorney.com/ - Cached
    Former Federal Prosecutor Richard Rice – Atlanta, Georgia Criminal Defense in all ... Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations; Environmental criminal and ...

    Corruption & The Environment Transparency International

    www.columbia.edu/.../mpaenvironment/.../...
    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
    Corruption and the Environment. Appendices. 70 government staff and officials in return for not prosecuting illegal logging. It has even been ...

    Corrupt officials prosecuting corrupt officials ~ like having the ...

    www.politicalforum.com › General Political ChatCurrent Events - Cached
    4 posts - 2 authors - Last post: Sep 29, 2010
    Corrupt officials prosecuting corrupt officials ~ like having the fox guard the hens ... prosecutors who were part of the broader Alaska corruption ..... Environment & Conservation, Human Rights, Other Political Issues ...

    TIME'S UP! :: NYC Direct Action Environmental Organization ...

    times-up.org/index.php?page=2008-08-15-cyclist-slam... - Cached
    Aug 15, 2008 – Cyclist Slam Renews Calls For Special Prosecutor ... attorneys in corruption cases or appoint special prosecutors to individual cases. ...

    TIME'S UP! :: NYC Direct Action Environmental Organization ...

    times-up.org/index.php?page=2008-08-15-cyclist-slam... - Cached
    Aug 15, 2008 – Cyclist Slam Renews Calls For Special Prosecutor ... attorneys in corruption cases or appoint special prosecutors to individual cases. ...

    Migratory bird rule

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The migratory bird rule, adopted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserted that the Clean Water Act covers regulation of isolated waters "which are or would be used as habitat by... migratory birds that cross state lines." The rule was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2001.



    Inspector General Report:
    Serious Safety and Quality Flaws at Hanford Waste Plant

    published Tuesday, May 01, 2012  

    Hanford Challenge Decries Appalling Lack of Oversight, demands
    Immediate Stand Down and Complete Investigation

    Immediate Release -  April 30, 2012                                                                       
    Contact:  Tom Carpenter  (206) 419-5829
     
    Richland, WA: The Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General released a report today that revealed a disturbing breakdown in Hanford’s quality program that allowed radioactive waste processing vessels to be installed without required documentation proving their integrity.  This means that the Department of Energy is unable to prove the safety of the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). 
     
    The IG also found a critical lack of oversight on the DOE’s part, and a failure to collect the repayment of a $15 million assessment against Bechtel, the contractor, when DOE discovered a defective vessel.
     
    Tom Carpenter, Executive Director of the public interest group Hanford Challenge stated:
     
    The Hanford WTP plant continues to be designed and built despite the tidal wave of allegations and findings on the lack of safety by key engineers and managers, who have sacrificed their careers to do so.  Now we have the findings of the Inspector General which reveal an appalling pattern of failing to design and construct a facility that safeguards the public -- a situation that we won’t tolerate here in Washington State.  Hanford Challenge calls for a stand-down of design and construction at the WTP and reconsideration of how to get this plant back on track.
     
    Carpenter pointed out that a 2006 60 Minutes show revealed the same allegations, when it was discovered that Hanford waste vessels called “scrubber tanks” were installed defectively and without proper quality assurance documentation and inspection. 
     
    “Six years ago, the Department was put on notice of this problem in a 60 Minutes feature yet failed to act.  The GAO testified about this issue in April 2006.  When will Congress realize that this agency cannot juggle safety considerations against cost and schedule pressures?” stated Carpenter.
     
    The DOE Inspector General report, entitled, “Audit Report on "The Department of Energy's $12.2 Billion Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – Quality Assurance Issues – Black Cell Vessels," was released on April 30, 2012.  According to the report -
    • “[T]he Department had procured and installed vessels in WTP that did not always meet quality assurance and/or contract requirements . . .we identified multiple instances where quality assurance records were either missing or were not traceable to the specific area or part of the vessel.”
    • “We also found that the Department paid the WTP contractor a $15 million incentive fee for production of a vessel that was later determined to be defective. Although the Department demanded return of the fee, it did not follow up on the matter and the fee was never reimbursed. Weaknesses in quality assurance records associated with black cell and hard-to-reach  processing vessels occurred because of deficiencies in Bechtel's implementation of its quality assurance program and a lack of Department oversight."
    • “The importance of black cells and hard-to-reach components cannot be over stated. Premature failure of these components could potentially impact safety, contaminate large portions of a multi-billion dollar facility and interrupt waste processing for an unknown period of time. For these reasons, we have made several recommendations designed to strengthen quality assurance controls at WTP. We have also recommended a more intense effort to recover contractor fee for the nonconforming vessel.”
     
    Hanford Challenge has been urging Congress to give another federal agency, the Defense Nuclear Safety Board (DNFSB), more authority and resources to oversee the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant.  So far, there has been no action.  Similarly, the Department of Energy has not taken meaningful steps to beef up its inspection or enforcement function, or otherwise show that it is willing or capable of conducting the proper oversight. 
     
    “The WTP is a decade behind schedule, 240% over its projected costs, and is able to treat only a fraction of the high-level waste that we were told it would.  So we are spending more and waiting longer for a facility that will do less.  And it is riddled with safety issues that appear irresolvable.  The stark truth is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if it had jurisdiction here, would probably not license this facility given its “quality indeterminate” state," said Carpenter.
     
    The consequences of a vessel failure inside the Waste Treatment Plant could be catastrophic.  Like Fukushima, the radioactive waste generates large amounts of explosive hydrogen gas.  The current design is under attack by Hanford engineer whistleblowers over the failure of the design to prevent or mitigate the possible release of radioactive materials to the environment in the case of an explosion or fire.  That is why the quality of the equipment inside the plant is key to safety.
     
     

    New Hanford water treatment plant first to receive LEED gold for being green

    Posted: 12:25pm on May 9, 2012; Modified: 1:25pm on May 9, 2012

    A view from the top of the 200 West Groundwater Treatment Facility, with the LEED Gold-certified process building shown, left .

    A view from the top of the 200 West Ground Water Treatment Facility, with the LEED Gold-certified process building shown, left. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    A sophisticated new water treatment plant in central Hanford is the first plant in the Department of Energy’s defense environmental cleanup complex to win LEED gold certification for being green.

    The Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, program, recognizes sustainable design. Gold is its second highest ranking.

    “Achieving LEED certification required diligence on the part of the entire project team because the focus is on energy use and recycling goals for both construction and operation,” said Kent Dorr, CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Co. vice president, in a statement.

    DOE and CH2M Hill worked together to use 420 tons of recycled concrete to build the 200 West Ground Water Treatment Facility. About half of the steel used also was recycled.

    Translucent panels will reduce the need for interior lighting.

    The building’s efficient design is expected to result in an energy cost savings of more than 70 percent over the life of the facility, according to CH2M Hill.

    Construction of the ground water treatment plant was finished in 2011 and work is under way to start operations this summer.

    It will remove contamination from ground water in a five-square-mile area contaminated from the past production of weapons plutonium at Hanford.

    The plant is expected to be capable of removing more types of radioactive and chemical contaminants than any other facility of its type in the DOE complex.


    military whistleblowers

    McCain, Levin want more information from defense secretary Panetta

    Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) want more information from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about an inspector general's report criticizing the Pentagon's treatment of whistleblowers — a report first disclosed by the Center and the Project on Government Oversight.

    Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and McCain, the panel's ranking member, made their feelings known Tuesday in a letter to Panetta.

    "Last Sunday, the Washington Post reported on an 'internal Pentagon report' finding that the Department of Defense Inspector General unit responsible for protecting military whistleblowers had failed to do its job," wrote the Senators, referring to the Center story that was reprinted in the Post. "According to the article, the May 2011 report found 'persistent sloppiness and a systematic disregard for Pentagon rules meant to protect those who report fraud, abuses, and the waste of taxpayer funds.'

    "We understand that this report was initiated and conducted by the Inspector General, and that the Inspector General has made a number of changes in an effort to address the problems identified in the report," the letter concludes. "Nonetheless, the systematic failure of the Department to protect military whistleblowers from reprisal is a matter of grave concern. Accordingly, we ask that you provide us with a copy of the report and advise us of the actions that have been taken and will be taken to address the problems identified in the report - including steps to re-open any reprisal cases that were inadequately investigated or erroneously dismissed."


    press release

    May 8, 2012, 1:18 p.m. EDT

    NRCS Invests $2.5 Million to Protect Watersheds of Concern

    DAVIS, Calif., May 8, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Landowners in five watersheds will receive targeted funding to improve water quality

    In conjunction with a national water quality initiative, The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in California will invest $2.5 million in targeted funds to improve water quality in five high priority watersheds in California.

    "NRCS California is proud to participate in this national campaign to add on-farm water quality improvements within targeted watersheds," said Ed Burton, NRCS California state conservationist. "These additional funds will help landowners to voluntarily address issues related to Clean Water Act compliance and keep their farms and ranches healthy and productive."

    Using funds through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), NRCS will provide financial and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to install conservation practices that help to stabilize soil and reduce the transport of sediments and other pollutants into public waters. This assistance will help landowners address high priority water resource concerns in small watersheds with streams or water bodies that are impacted by agricultural runoff and under increased regulatory scrutiny.

    Applications will be batched and evaluated on May 18 and again on June 15, 2012; those received by the earlier date will have a higher chance of being funded.

    Through this effort, eligible farmers and ranchers will partner with NRCS to invest in voluntary conservation actions to help provide cleaner water for their neighbors and communities. The selected watersheds were identified with help from state and federal agencies, and other conservation partners.

    The following five watersheds are eligible for assistance:

    Calleguas Creek: Revlon Slough, Ventura County

    Calleguas Creek: Town of Nyland - Frontal Pacific Ocean, Ventura County

    Big-Navarro-Garcia: Upper Garcia River, Mendocino County

    Big-Navarro-Garcia: Middle Garcia River, Mendocino County

    Lower Eel: Salt River, Humboldt County

    This effort helps landowners in eligible watersheds to qualify for financial assistance by competing for targeted funds with a smaller pool of applicants. Typically, NRCS receives a large number of applications for EQIP funding each fiscal year and only about 30 percent of farmers and ranchers are successful.

    Eligible farmers and ranchers should visit http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ or contact their local NRCS office for additional information on eligible practices and to submit an application.

    NRCS has provided leadership in a partnership effort to help America's private land owners and managers conserve their soil, water and other natural resources since 1935. For more information on NRCS, visit www.nrcs.usda.gov .

    SOURCE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service

    This sign near the entrance of Talking Water Gardens doesn't mention smoking. (Hasso Hering/Democrat-Herald)

    Albany, Millersburg officials want no butts getting into the river

    Dogs on leashes are OK at the Talking Water Gardens, but smoking tobacco is not.

    Albany Councilman Floyd Collins told the city council Monday that the joint Albany-Millersburg committee managing the area had made that decision in March.

    The Water Gardens are the 50-acre constructed wetlands where treated wastewater from the cities and the Wah Chang industrial plant gets additional filtering in a series of ponds and waterfalls before being discharged to the Willamette River.

    The area at the north end of Waverly Drive, laced with two miles of walkways, has become a haven for wildlife. The area is now open to the public. A grand opening is scheduled for June 20.

    At Monday’s council work session, Collins just wanted to let his colleagues know what the management committee had decided. But an extended discussion ensued.

    Signs have already been put up regarding the smoking ban, the council was told. But the D-H could not find any Monday night.

    The joint management committee decided on the smoking ban because essentially the area is part of a treatment facility, Collins said, and the committee did not want cigarette butts and filters to get into the water and then the river.

    The question of enforcement came up. It’s complicated because Talking Water Gardens is not an Albany park, so park regulations would not apply even if parks restricted smoking, which only Monteith Riverpark does during River Rhythms concerts.

    Also, the Water Gardens are in Millersburg, where Albany ordinances have no sway. But Millersburg lacks a city court, so if it wanted to ban smoking, it could not back it up.

    City Attorney Jim Delapoer said nobody wants to be heavy-handed about this, but any ban will inevitably be tested. He suggested writing up a regulation against smoking at Talking Water Gardens plus an intergovernmental agreement in which Millersburg would ask Albany to enforce the prohibition.

    Mayor Sharon Konopa and City Manager Wes Hare said they would ask the city attorney to draft an agreement, for council action later.

    Councilor Bessie Johnson said it would be an unenforceable law. But Councilor Bill Coburn said the issue should be taken seriously because elsewhere, a corporate property owner had been penalized for violating the Clean Water Act when construction workers tossed away paper cups that found their way into a waterway.

    Hare said that even before rules are written, he was sure most people would simply observe no-smoking signs.

    Copyright 2012 democratherald.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Copyright (C) 2012 PR Newswire. All rights reserved


    Fishing for answers

    The Corps of Engineers is studying how steelhead and chinook salmon fare when they pass through the turbines at Foster Dam

    FOSTER — For the next few weeks, biologist Robert McDonald’s job will be to stand near the spillway at Foster Dam and herd 5- to 6-inch steelhead and chinook salmon smolt into a basket attached to a long rope.

    It’s not an easy task.

    But brightly colored balloons attached to the smolt make the job a bit easier for McDonald and co-worker Matthew Williams.

    “We hope to collect 150 fish today,” McDonald said Friday, as Williams collected a bright silver smolt from the basket and removed the balloon.

    Their work is part of a month-long study to improve the survival rate of steelhead and chinook salmon passing through the dam that was built and has been operated since the mid-1960s by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    Their research is looking at the survival rates of smolt that pass through two electricity-producing turbines in the dam and over a temporary weir in one of the four steel spillway gates.

    Corps of Engineers spokesman Scott Clemans said the project is based in part on the July 2008 biological opinion concerning the effect of the dams on threatened and endangered fish species issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    “The 13 Willamette Valley Project dams were constructed from the 1940s through the 1960s,” Clemans said. “They were designed for flood control, irrigation and recreation. But to fish, they are a big stop sign.”

    Comtex





    Monday, May 7, 2012
    Daily Newsletter


    'Curbside' features Waste Expo highlights
    Filmed on location of Waste Expo, this week's "Curbside Live," features highlights from the event held in Las Vegas last week.


    EPA's hubris

    Posted: Sunday, May 6, 2012

    Ed Moreen, a project manger for EPA, working on the clean-up of the Silver Valley, is a nice guy. So is Terry Harwood, an employee of the Idaho Department of Ecology.

    Sincerity oozes from both as they explain what government is doing to protect human health, and the flora, fauna and wildlife within a mammoth basin-wide Superfund site covering the full drainages of the South Fork and North Forks of the Coeur d’Alene River.

    Both men, however, reflect the arrogance so many bureaucrats display----that smugness that comes from feeling they have the facts and all the answers. .

    The ancient Greeks called it “hubris.” It was on full display last week when the agency conducted an informational meeting at the Medimont Grange Hall. Twenty of my neighbors and I showed up to listen and ask questions.

    Like all the “chain lakes” that lie on either side of the Coeur d’Alene River between Cataldo and Harrison, nearby Cave and Medicine were swollen with water from the spring mountain run-off and unusually heavy rains. Adjacent fields in the flood plain were mostly underwater.

    Therein lies the problem. Each year this seasonal flow brings new amounts of lead and zinc from historic waste dumps throughout one of the most mineralized and mined areas in the nation. EPA, under the Superfund Law and the Clean Water Act, is the lead agency in overseeing removal of the most contaminated soils and then remediation.

    Funding this effort is $750 million extracted from Asarco, HECLA and other mining companies who historically contributed to the creation of the waste. By law the money can only be expended for clean-up in the basin.

    But how clean is clean? And how much sense does it make to remove and remediate areas in the flood-plain that just a year later are flooded again with contaminated water? How thorough are studies on human health impacts in the area as opposed to studies about the white swans several of which die each year from ingesting excessive zinc and lead in the plants they eat.

    EPA has divided the basin into an upper and a lower portion. Most work so far has been done in the upper basin, cleaning up in the 21 square mile “box” surrounding the old Bunker Hill site in Kellogg,. Now attention is turning to the lower basin and there are significant differences EPA best take note of.

    Utilizing its traditional methods of public participation, EPA is forming “collaboratives” of interested parties. They claim these advisory groups will have real input into their “adaptive management” approach to clean up solutions.

    People are justifiably skeptical. What they see is an agency hell bent on spending $750 million on clean up whether it is justified or not. Despite having been in the Silver Valley 20 years, the agency has no real time-line nor any real cost numbers for its plans in the lower basin, or so it claims.

    Despite federal law clearly defining EPA’s authority to be limited to just navigable waters with ground water management left to the states, they see and read about an agency that proposes legislation to do away with that distinction and give them control over ground water also. Just to the north, in Bonner County, they see where EPA tried to deny property owners the right of judicial review of EPA’s decisions to decide what is and is not a wetland.

    They also see an agency whose subcontractors tell property owners if they don’t submit to soil sampling they’ll never be able to sell their property because while they of course won’t inform title companies which properties are clean and/or remediated, they will of course have to answer questions that lenders inevitably will pose. That of course is not a threat.

    What Ed and Terry don’t get is folks around here don’t like the sense of money being spent just because it is there to spend. They want to know just what goes into the cost benefit formulas and whether the models constructed allow for empirical data, or just some bureaucrat’s calculation of what the variables are.

    Ed and Terry’s arrogance really showed at the end when they dismissed as a “pipe dream” a question regarding Congress possibly accessing the settlement funds since federal appropriations for NPL clean-ups are declining under other pressures. “Never will happen,” Ed said.

    Ed and his agency ignore at their peril this flag. The suggestion that their “storebox” might be raided came from none other than Idaho Second District congressman Mike Simpson, the chairman of the appropriation subcommittee over-seeing the EPA budget.

    Yes, EPA is offering short-term jobs without benefits to those contracted with locally to undertake clean-up activities. My neighbors are trying to tell EPA you have created such a stigma by over-playing the health threat that it is going to be impossible for the current mining operations, which offer long-term jobs with benefits, to ever again flourish despite there being plenty of minerals left to be extracted compatibly with the environment.

    Especially noteworthy and sad to this observer was the meeting had no moment of silence or any mention that the day, May 2nd, was the 40th anniversary of the Sunshine Mining disaster that took 91 lives from the valley.

    Believe me, the people of my home valley understand risk as well as reward, productive work as opposed to make work, benefits that outweigh costs, humility as opposed to arrogance, respect as opposed to benign tolerance. EPA still doesn’t get it.

    Inspector General presses for answers on certain lab costs ...
    The Office of Inspector General issued a report this week which looks into the questioned, unresolved and potentially unallowable costs that have been incurred ...
    www.lamonitor.com/.../inspector-general-presses-answers-cert...
    Subject:
     Earth Month Tip of the Day: Play it safe.
     From:
    To:

    Play it safe.

    Today's environmental tip: Play it safe! Children are curious but they are also more sensitive to substances in the environment. Protect children from accidental poisoning by locking up your household cleaners, pesticides, paint thinners, and other substances. Household products are safe and effective when used properly.  Remember to read the label.

    More information: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/poisonprevention.htm
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

    en español: ¡Juegue a lo seguro! Los niños son curiosos, pero también pueden ser susceptibles a sustancias en el medio ambiente. Protéjalos de los envenenamientos accidentales. Ponga los productos de limpieza caseros, solventes de pintura y otras sustancias fuera del alcance de los niños y siempre lea la etiqueta. Las sustancias químicas caseras son seguras y eficaces cuando se usan de manera responsable.

    Más información: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/poisonprevention_sp.htm
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

    ------------------

    NOTE - This is the last Earth Month daily tip email message. To receive monthly "what you can do" information, subscribe to the GoGreen! newsletter with information and activities you can use in your home, community, or office. Go to http://www.epa.gov/gogreen

    And there are still things you can do online such as
     -"Six Words for the Environment" - contribute yours
     -"Expand the Conversation" - discussion forum
     -"State of the Environment" Photo Project - submit yours
    ...go to http://www.epa.gov/earthday for more info!

    Thanks!

    Coming like a beggar to the back door. No references, please, to “cutting greenhouse emissions” or “sustainability” or “carbon reduction” except as bi-products of “improving military security” and “factoring in true costs of energy for equipment, purchases, and operations.” "Energy security and cost", according to Admiral Mike Mullen, "can no longer be ignored. Half the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have been related to fuel convoys. Dependence on oil equals vulnerability, everywhere and always".
    nasa watches antarctic ice sheet disintegrate-6
    global ecology

    Gloomy miner suffers in silence

    MENTAL illness, associated with isolation and overwork, looms as a threat to the mining boom and affects up to 10,000 workers each year in the sector in NSW alone.

    Illnesses such as depression and anxiety disorder are costing the state's mining industry between $320 million and $450m in reduced productivity, according to a new report.


    Iron Mountain Mine Co-founder Charles Camden celebrated

    Camden Toll Road

    The toll road from Shasta to the Tower House

    | No Comments

    Tollkeepers house, Shasta, 2008.jpgIn February 1863 Charles Camden built a new road from the Tower House to Shasta (the first road was a wagon road built by Levi Tower in the 1850s). He also purchased the section of road over the Shasta Divide from the Shasta Turnpike Road Company for $6,500. Camden changed the name of the road to the Camden Turnpike Company and announced he would charge a toll from Shasta to the Tower House. The toll keepers house (see photo) at the Shasta end still stands and is still occupied on Tollkeepers Road a short distance west of Shasta. He also extended the road north around the foot of the hill at the Tower House to connect with the Yreka Road (now the road to French Gulch).

    Dottie Smith is the former Curator of the Shasta College Museum and former Instructor of Shasta County History at Shasta College. She has written 12 local history books.

    Subject: Scattering Long Range Population Trapping Forces

    variance

    Constant decay sets the scale for mass perturbation. (and in the pursuit of fulfillment & a Grant from the Private Industry Council).

    Translate This Page

    Investigators routinely disregarded rules while rejecting complaints of reprisals for reporting waste, fraud and abuse

    By

    &


    The Defense Department has inadequately protected from reprisals whistleblowers who have reported wrongdoing, according to an internal Pentagon report, and critics are calling for action to be taken against those who have been negligent.

    The report, dated May 2011, accuses the officials, who work in the Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General, of persistent sloppiness and a systematic disregard for Pentagon rules meant to protect those who report fraud, abuses, and the waste of taxpayer funds, according to a previously-undisclosed copy. The report was obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group.


    South Shore, Ky., one of 12 national winners of conservation challenge

    Challenge sponsored by Wyland Foundation and Toyota

    One of the murals by the artist and environmentalist Wyland, who created the Wyland Foundation, in honor of the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act.

    MIAMI (May 7, 2012) — A Kentucky city has been named a winner of the 2012 National Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation, an online competition conducted throughout April that encouraged residents in all 50 states to conserve water, save energy and reduce pollution.

    South Shore, Ky., was among 12 winning cities, including:

    • Laguna Beach, Calif.

    • Victoria, Minn.

    • Charlestown, N.H.

    • Manhattan Beach, Calif.

    • Eden Prairie, Minn.

    • Fort Pierce, Fla.

    • Quakertown, Pa.

    • Greeley, Colo.

    • Madison, Wis.

    • Charlottesville, Va.

    • Toms River, N.J.

    The Wyland Foundation, founded by environmental artist Wyland, created the Challenge with Toyota in honor of the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, the primary federal law protecting water resources in the United States. Organizations spearheading the effort also include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, U.S. Forest Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, WaterPik, Rain Bird, Lowe’s, STERLING Plumbing, PADI and Project AWARE.

    “We had two goals for the National Mayor’s Challenge,” Wyland said. “It brings communities together and gets people thinking about simple ways to take their commitment to conservation even further.”

    The challenge divided cities into four regions (West, Midwest, South and Northeast) and categorized them by population according to ZIP Codes (5,000 to 30,000 residents, 30,001 to 100,000 residents, 100,000+ residents). Cities with the highest percentage of residents within the city’s ZIP code boundaries who made online pledges at www.mywaterpledge.com to reduce their water use were recognized as the winners. Participants in the winning cities will now be entered into a drawing to win more than $50,000 in prizes, including the grand prize of a Toyota Prius c Hybrid, as well as custom-designed sprinkler systems from Rain Bird, Eco-Flow Showerheads from WaterPik, water-saving toilets from STERLING Plumbing, and 1,000 gift cards for Lowe’s Home Improvement Stores.

    “Conserving water is one of the most important actions we can take to protect this irreplaceable resource, and small actions that people take in their homes can add up to make a big difference,” said U.S. EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Water Nancy Stoner. “EPA was proud to partner with the Wyland Foundation and Toyota on this challenge and congratulates the winning cities, and everyone who participated.”

    To celebrate the winners of the National Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation, the Wyland Foundation and Toyota hosted an event on May 3 in Miami Beach where Wyland joined members of the community to paint a 400-square-foot marine life mural celebrating South Florida marine life. Toyota’s support of the Wyland Foundation is part of the automobile company’s long-standing commitment to sustainability.

    Join The Discussion

    water council

    What is the National Water Quality Monitoring Council?

    The Council was created in 1997 as a vehicle for bringing together diverse expertise needed to develop collaborative, comparable, and cost-effective approaches for monitoring and assessing our Nation’s water quality. The approaches are fundamental to the successful management and sustainability of our waters, and are increasingly important because water issues are becoming more complex, resources are tighter, and the demand for high-quality water continues to grow in order to support a complex web of human activities and aquatic ecosystem needs.

    The National Water Quality Monitoring Council (Council) provides a national forum for coordination of comparable and scientifically defensible methods and strategies to improve water quality monitoring, assessment and reporting, and promotes partnerships to foster collaboration, advance the science, and improve management within all elements of the water quality monitoring community. Vital to this role, the Council provides a voice for monitoring practitioners across the Nation and fosters increased understanding and stewardship of our water resources.

    What is the Advisory Committee on Water Information?

    Federal activities and funding for water resources information are integrally tied to partnerships with non-Federal entities. Therefore, the Secretary of the Interior established an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to help implement the program at the national level. The purposes of the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) are to identify water information needs, evaluate their effectiveness of water information programs and recommend improvements. The member organizations represent all levels of government, tribal interests, and the private sector. The Chair of the ACWI is Interior's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. The Alternate Chair is the Associate Director for Water of the USGS.

    The Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) represents the interests of water-information users and professionals in advising the Federal Government on Federal water-information programs and their effectiveness in meeting the Nation's water-information needs.

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) originally established the Water Information Coordination Program (WICP) in the 1960's. In 1991 OMB updated the authority and established the Water Information Coordination Program by issuing Memorandum No. 92-01. The overall purpose of the program is to improve water information for decision making about natural resources management and environmental protection. The memorandum designates the Department of the Interior, through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as the lead agency. Other Federal organizations that fund, collect, or use water resources information work together with the USGS to implement program recommendations.

    EPA Co-Chair: Susan Holdsworth (holdsworth.susan@epa.gov), Chief of the Monitoring Branch, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC
    USGS Co-Chair: Michael Yurewicz (mcyurewi@usgs.gov), Council Co-Chair (NAWQA), Reston, VA
    Exec. Sec: Cathy Tate (cmtate@usgs.gov), Lakewood, CO

    Electron Politics: Physicists Probe Organization at the Quantum Level
    05/02/2012 02:36 PM EDT

     A study published this week in Nature by researchers at Rice University, two Max Planck Institutes in Dresden, Germany, and University of California, Los Angeles, finds that "quantum critical points" (QCP) in exotic electronic materials can act much like polarizing "hot button issues" in an election. On either side of the QCP, electrons fall into line and behave as traditionally expected.

    Full story at http://news.rice.edu/2012/04/25/electron-politics-physicists-probe-organization-at-the-quantum-level/

    Subject:
     Data Infrastructure Building Blocks (DIBBs)
     From:
    National Science Foundation Update <nsf-update@nsf.gov>
    To:

    You are subscribed to All NSF Program Announcements and Information for National Science Foundation Update. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.


    Available Formats:
    HTML: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12557/nsf12557.htm?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click
    PDF: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12557/nsf12557.pdf?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click
    TXT: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12557/nsf12557.txt?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click

    Document Number: nsf12557

    Event
    BIGDATA Webinar

    Core Techniques and Technologies for Advancing Big Data Science & Engineering (BIGDATA)

    May 8, 2012 11:00 AM  to 
    May 8, 2012 12:00 PM
    NSF

    The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health invite you to attend a webinar to learn more about their joint Core Techniques and Technologies for Advancing Big Data Science & Engineering (BIGDATA) solicitation -- NSF 12-499: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12499/nsf12499.htm  

    The BIGDATA solicitation aims to advance the core scientific and technological means of managing, analyzing, visualizing, and extracting useful information from large, diverse, distributed and heterogeneous data sets so as to: accelerate the progress of scientific discovery and innovation; lead to new fields of inquiry that would not otherwise be possible; encourage the development of new data analytic tools and algorithms; facilitate scalable, accessible, and sustainable data infrastructure; increase understanding of human and social processes and interactions; and promote economic growth and improved health and quality of life.

    The phrase "big data" in this solicitation does not refer just to the volume of data, but also to its variety and velocity.  Big data includes large, diverse, complex, longitudinal, and/or distributed data sets generated from instruments, sensors, Internet transactions, email, video, click streams, and/or all other digital sources. 

    The focus is on core scientific and technological advances (e.g., in computer science, mathematics, computational science and statistics). Proposals that focus primarily on the application of existing methods (e.g., machine learning algorithms, statistical analysis) to data sets in a specific science domain or on implementation of software tools or databases based on existing techniques are not appropriate for this solicitation. 

    NIH-specific information can be found at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-GM-12-109.html.

    An FAQ about the solicitation is available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12070/nsf12070.jsp

    This webinar is designed to describe the goals and focus of the BIGDATA solicitation, help investigators understand its scope, and answer any questions potential Principal Investigators (PIs) may have.

    The Webinar will be held from 11am to noon EST on May 8, 2012. Questions about the solicitation can be submitted in advance or during the webinar to bigdata@nsf.gov.

    Please register for the webinar by May 7, 2012 23:59 PDT at: https://mmancusa.webex.com/mmancusa/j.php?ED=181853737&RG=1&UID=0&RT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D

    After your registration is accepted, you will get an email with a URL to join the meeting. Please be sure to join a few minutes before the start of the webinar. This system does not establish a voice connection on your computer; instead, your acceptance message will have a toll-free phone number that you will be prompted to call after joining.  Please note that this registration is a manual process; therefore, do not expect an immediate acceptance.  In the event the number of requests exceeds the capacity, some requests may have to be denied.

    The webinar will be archived for later viewing and linked to the BIGDATA program web page at: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504767. The archived version will be available within a few days after the webinar.

    If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact bigdata@nsf.gov .

    This event is part of Webinars/Webcasts.

    tms 2013

    Submissions are now being accepted through July 15, 2012 on the latest research and developments in diverse areas of materials science and engineering technology. TMS2013 authors will represent numerous levels of industry, academia, and governmental labs and hail from more than 68 countries.

    TMS2013 will feature more than 65 symposia covering these technical themes:

    • Advanced Characterization, Modeling, and Performance
    • High Performance Materials
    • Light Metals: Aluminum, Magnesium, and Titanium
    • Materials and Society: Energy Technology, Policy, and Education
    • Materials Processing and Production
    • Nanoscale and Amorphous Materials
    • REWAS2013 ­– Enabling Materials Resource Sustainability

    More than 4,300 professionals attended TMS2012 in Orlando, Florida in March. Join this outstanding exchange of technical knowledge at TMS2013! Submit your abstract now!

    Your abstract is sought to create the ultimate in technical programming for the must-attend global forum for materials scientists and engineers: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS) 142nd Annual Meeting & Exhibition, March 3-7, 2013 in San Antonio, Texas.


    News From the Field
    Nature Gives Long Look at Who Benefits From Tourist Research
    Using nature out of poverty draws automatic conservation ticket
    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2012, its budget is $7.0 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 colleges, universities and other institutions. Each year, NSF receives over 50,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes about 11,000 new funding awards. NSF also awards nearly $420 million in professional and service contracts yearly.

    In 2009 alone, ocean-related tourism and recreation generated more than 1.8 million jobs and contributed more than $61 billion to the nation’s GDP. That same year, the commercial fishing industry supported more than 1 million jobs. In fact, the U.S. ocean economy is larger than the entire U.S. farm sector.

    Protect yourself from drinking America's 6000 water toxins

    Americans have been ingesting them for years—perchlorate, hexavalent chromium, volatile organic compounds—not because they’re safe, but because they are among 6,000 suspected toxins the EPA has not gotten around to regulating in municipal drinking water systems. But after a scathing review by the General Accounting Office, the EPA has begun to develop regulations of these chemicals in drinking water.

    "The Agency is considering eight currently regulated compounds (benzene; carbon tetrachloride; 1,2- dichloroethane; 1,2-dichloropropane; dichloromethane; tetrachloroethylene; trichloroethylene; vinyl chloride) and eight unregulated compounds (aniline; benzyl chloride; 1,3-butadiene; 1,1-dichloroethane; nitrobenzene; oxirane methyl; 1,2,3-trichloropropane and urethane). All of these VOCs are known or suspected to cause cancer.”

    via EPA (pdf)

    "Say anything that you like about me except that I drink water".

    "I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming".

    "Never cry over spilt milk, because it may have been poisoned".

    Is this a game of chance? Not the way I play it, no.- W.C. Fields


    According to the National Sanitation Foundation, reverse osmosis won’t help you get volatile organic compounds out of your water, but carbon filtration will.

    Measure to Stop Clean Water Act Manipulation

    The legislation introduced Friday to prevent the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers from using clean water guidance to expand the regulatory regime under the Clean Water Act has the support of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council. According to NCBA President J.D. Alexander – the Administration has used guidance documents as opposed to going through the rulemaking process to bypass the consideration of legal, economic and unintended consequences. While the guidance claims to provide clarity and certainty to landowners – but PLC President John Falen says the only thing clear and certain is more federal regulation and costly permits.

    Despite three Supreme Court rulings and a letter from 170 members of Congress opposing the guidance – Alexander says EPA and the Corps have crowned themselves kings of every drop of water in the country. He says the bill introduced by the leaders of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Agriculture Committee is the best path forward.



    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair John Mica says the Obama Administration and its agencies are ignoring law and rulemaking procedures. According to Senator Mica – "the Administration needs to realize it’s not above the law".
    Also this week, the House Appropriations Committee added a policy rider to their energy and water FY 2013 spending bill that would – in a similar fashion – bar the agencies from implementing their final guidance.  The amendment, introduced by Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.) and passed by a vote of 29-20, prohibits using funds to “develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce” guidance that purports to clarify which waters of the United States fall under federal protection.

    CHAPTER XXXI.

    showing that the roman generals were never severely punished for any faults they committed, not even when by their ignorance and unfortunate operations they occasioned serious losses to the republic.

    green truck


    shining ‘green light' makes anything look green.

    parent agency DHS Secretary Napolitano "will leave no stone unturned" in its "full and thorough investigation".

    HSPD 10: Biodefense for the 21st Century

    Legislation and Directives

    The government has promulgated legislation and directives in recognition of the increased need to protect the nation's water supply and utilities from terrorist attacks. The Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) and the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (Bioterrorism Act) of 2002 specifically denote the responsibilities of EPA and the water sector in:

    • Assessing vulnerabilities of water utilities
    • Developing strategies for responding to and preparing for emergencies and incidents
    • Promoting information exchange among stakeholders
    • Developing and using technological advances in water security

    These directives and laws supplement existing legislation, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act, which have always had the goals of promoting a clean and safe supply of water for the nation's population and protecting the integrity of the nation's waterways. These directives and laws affect the actions and obligations of EPA, the Water Security Division, and water utilities, and they are described below.

    Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs)

    The government uses these directives to disseminate Presidential and Homeland Security decisions on national security matters.

    HSPDs 7, 8, 9, and 10 are of particular relevance to water security issues.

    HSPD 7: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection

    HSPD 7 designates EPA as the sector specific agency responsible for infrastructure protection activities for the nation's drinking water and wastewater systems. As such, EPA is responsible for:

    • Identifying, prioritizing, and coordinating infrastructure protection activities for the nation's drinking water and water treatment systems;
    • Working with federal departments and agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector to facilitate vulnerability assessments;
    • Encouraging the development of risk management strategies to protect against and mitigate the effects of potential attacks on critical resources; and
    • Developing mechanisms for information sharing and analysis.

    Under HSPD 7, the Water Security Division has been tasked with developing a water sector specific plan as input to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan that the Department of Homeland Security must produce. The sector specific plan must address processes for:

    • Identifying assets within the sector;
    • Identifying and assessing vulnerabilities, and prioritizing assets within the sector;
    • Developing sector specific strategic protective programs; and
    • Measuring the effectiveness of the sector specific critical infrastructure protection program.

      Top of page


    HSPD 8: National Preparedness

    HSPD 8 establishes policies to strengthen the preparedness to prevent and respond to threatened or actual domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies by establishing mechanisms for improved delivery of federal preparedness assistance to state and local governments.

    HSPD 9: Defense of United States Agriculture and Food

    Under HSPD 9, EPA is to develop a robust, comprehensive surveillance and monitoring program to provide early warning in the event of a terrorist attack using biological, chemical, or radiological contaminants. HSPD 9 also directs EPA to develop a nationwide laboratory network to support the routine monitoring and response requirements of the surveillance program. HSPD 10, which is currently a classified document, basically reaffirms EPA's responsibilities under HSPD 9 while adding a clear directive on the Agency's responsibilities in decontamination efforts.

    The following programs have been developed by EPA in response to HSPD 9:

    Water Security Initiative
    EPA is is implementing a demonstration project program to design, deploy, and evaluate a model contamination warning system for drinking water security. The program, which is being developed in partnership with select cities and laboratories, responds to a Homeland Security Presidential Directive that charges EPA to develop surveillance and monitoring systems to provide early detection of water contamination.

    Water Laboratory Alliance
    The purpose of the WLA is to provide the drinking water sector with an integrated nationwide network of laboratories with the analytical capabilities and capacity to support monitoring and surveillance, response, and remediation of intentional and unintentional drinking water supply contamination events involving chemical, biological, and radiochemical contaminants.

    HSPD 10: Biodefense for the 21st Century

    HSPD 10 provides directives to further strengthen the Biodefense Program through threat awareness, prevention and protection, surveillance and detection, and response and recovery.

    • Read the entire HSPD 10: Biodefense for the 21st Century.

      Regulatory Information

      Congress authorizes EPA and other federal agencies to write rules and regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws. Below are some of the key rules and regulations that the Office of Water employs to implement key statutes and programs.

      Rules and Regulations Implemented under the Safe Drinking Water Act

       
      Rules and Regulations Implemented under the Clean Water Act:

    • Analytical Methods (Sections 301(a), 304(h), and 501(a)) - EPA publishes laboratory analytical methods (test procedures) that are used by industries and municipalities to analyze the chemical, physical and biological components of wastewater and other environmental samples that are required by regulations under the CWA. Most of these methods are published as regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40 Part 136. Some methods may also be found at 40 CFR Parts 401–503 (these methods are sometimes referred to as wastewater, Part 136, or 304(h) methods).
    • Cooling Water Intakes (Section 316(b)) - Section 306(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.
    • Effluent Limitations Guidelines - Existing regulations and regulations under development regarding national standards for industrial wastewater discharges to surface waters and publicly owned treatment works. (Current and proposed ELGs.)
    • Section 304(m)(1)(B) and (C) - Requires EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines for new categories of dischargers under certain circumstances
    • Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g)(1), 306(b)(1)(B) - Requires that EPA periodically review existing effluent guidelines, pretreatment standards, and standards of performance for new sources and to revise them "if appropriate" or, in the case of new source performance standards, "as technology and alternatives change"
    • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Rules and Regulations (Section 402) - Section 402 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by EPA, a state, or, where authorized, a tribal government on an Indian reservation. To help implement this provision of the Clean Water Act, EPA has proposed new or revised NPDES rules, which have included:
    • Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Final Rule – The CAFO Rule requires concentrated animal feeding operations to safely manage manure. Manure contains the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, which, when not managed properly on agricultural land, can pollute nearby streams, lakes, and other waters. The rule requires that an owner or operator of a CAFO that actually discharges to streams, lakes, and other waters must apply for a NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act and that nutrient management plans for manure be submitted as part of the permit application.
    • Pretreatment Streamlining Rule – The Pretreatment Streamlining Rule makes final changes to EPA’s General Pretreatment Regulations, which requires publicly owned treatment works that meet certain criteria to develop pretreatment programs to control industrial discharges into their sewage collection systems. These programs must be approved by either EPA or states acting as the Pretreatment “Approval Authority.” The Pretreatment Streamlining Rule, promulgated in 2005, streamlined and clarified various provisions of the General Pretreatment Regulations for existing and new sources of pollution codified at 40 CFR Part 403.
    • NPDES Permit Program (Section 402) - As authorized by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities that discharge to waters of the U.S. must obtain permits. There are two categories of NPDES permits: individual permits and general permits.
    • Individual permits are issued to individual dischargers and are specifically tailored to the specific facility to regulate its discharge of pollutants.  
    • General permits cover several entities that have the same type of discharge and set forth requirements applicable to the entire category of covered dischargers and include: the Vessels General Permit, Multi-Sector General Permit, and Construction General Permit.
    • Section 404 Regulations - Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have promulgated a number of regulations to implement the permitting program.
    • Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) Rule (Section 405) - The Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge rule (40 CFR Part 503) establishes requirements for the final use or disposal of sewage sludge (i.e., biosolids) when biosolids are: applied to land to condition the soil or fertilize crops or other vegetation grown in the soil; placed on a surface disposal site for final disposal; or fired in a biosolids incinerator. The Agency is required to conduct a review of the 503 standards at least every two years.
    • Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Impaired Waters Rules (Section 303(d)) - As authorized by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. A Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.  Visit the TMDL regulations page to view regulations for the TMDL program, including specific regulations for Great Lakes TMDLs.
    • Water Quality Standards define the goals for a water body by designating its uses, setting criteria to measure attainment of those uses, and establishing policies to protect water quality from pollutants.
    • Section 101(a) - Declaration of Goals and Policy
    • Section 303 - Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans
    • Water Quality Standards Regulation: CFR Title 40 Part 131
    • Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System: CFR Title 40 Part 132
    • Section 401 (PDF) (4 pp, 16K) - Permits and Licenses - Certification 
    • Section 510 (PDF) (1 pp, 47K) - State Authority
    Water Quality Standards Regulations and Determinations

    Subject:
     Drips, Drops and Spills: Automate Spill Management – Get New White Paper
     From:
    "Environmental Leader" <editor@environmentalleader.com>
    To:
    Part of your subscription to Environmental Leader.

    Gurus Guide

     

    Download White Paper From Enviance

    Hazardous material spills are a frequent occurrence in any EH&S professional realm of responsibility, regardless of the size of your corporation. With state regulations enforcing the reporting of spills with significant fines, it is imperative that organizations streamline their processes for recording and reporting spills.

    By leveraging workflow capabilities in your Environmental Management Information System (EMIS), you can easily develop an effective process flow that ensures accountability and meets inspection requirements.

    Get new white paper

    Take a look at how a utility company with a large number of spills has overcome spill management recording and reporting obstacles to achieve zero fines to-date.

    You will learn more about:

    • Designing an effective spill incident workflow process and recording system
    • Automating a spill management process with EMIS capabilities
    • Improving the decision making process with a spill incident management system

    Don’t let spills and their reporting requirements be a common source of frustration in your organization. Learn new ways to streamline and automate your spill management process, reducing headaches and fines.

    today


    Assessing the Untapped Potential


    high-stakes pursuit of a greener globe in a dialogue with experts and readers.

    Subject:
     Earth Month Tip of the Day: Get the lead out!
    From:
    "U.S. EPA" <usaepa@govdelivery.com>(Add as Preferred Sender) 
    Date:Sat, Apr 28, 2012 8:04 am
    To:john@ironmountainmine.com

    Today's environmental tip: Get the lead out!  If you're doing work on an older home or school building, be sure to follow lead-safe work practices. Contain the work area and keep kids and pets away. Minimize dust. And clean up thoroughly.  Lead is harmful to adults and children, and common renovation jobs like sanding, cutting, or demolition can create lead dust and chips.

    More information: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

    en español: ¡Elimine el plomo! Si está realizando trabajo en una casa o edificio escolar antiguo, asegúrese de que se utilicen prácticas laborales seguras para el plomo. Contenga el área de trabajo y deje los niños y mascotas alejados. Minimice el polvo. Y limpie cabalmente. El plomo es dañino para adultos y niños. Las actividades de remodelación comunes como lijado, recortes, y demoliciones pueden crear polvo o cáscaras de plomo.

    Más información: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovaterightbrochuresp.pdf
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

    Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.  http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips.htm  


    Subject:
     Earth Month Tip of the Day: Don't trash it - reuse it!
     From:
    To:

    Today's environmental tip: Don't trash it - reuse it! Be creative as you look for new ways to reduce the amount or kinds of household waste. Give cardboard tubes to pet hamsters or gerbils. Plant seeds in an egg carton. Make a flower pot out of a plastic ice cream tub. By thinking creatively, you will often find new uses for common items and new ways to recycle and reduce waste.

    More information: http://www.epa.gov/osw/wycd/catbook/tip12.htm
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

    en español: ¡No lo tire a la basura, reutilícelo! Sea creativo en encontrar nuevas maneras de reducir la cantidad y variedades de desechos caseros. Por ejemplo, dé los tubos de cartón a mascotas como hámsters para jugar. Siembre semillas en un cartón de huevos. Haga un tiesto de un envase plástico de helados. Si piensa de manera creativa, podrá encontrar nuevos usos para artículos comunes y nuevas maneras de reciclar y reducir los desechos.

    Más información: http://www.epa.gov/osw/wycd/funfacts/indexsp.htm
    Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

    Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.  http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips.htm  

    Metals for Energy & the Environment 2012, Las Vegas, 6-8 June

    MEE 2012 is your opportunity to meet global leaders from the metals and rare earths industry and learn how demand impacts on green energy and the protection of the environment.

    Last year over 250 delegates attended from companies including:

    BP Neo Material Traxys
    Molycorp General Motors Umicore
    Magnesium Elektron Treibacher OM Group

    As metals play an increasingly important and essential role in people's lives, particularly in technology and the generation of clean energy, we can no longer take their supply for granted. MEE will focus on and review the supply of these metals, their current demand, potential new uses, recycling, current production and future supply projections to assess whether there will be enough material to meet demand.

    Who should attend?

    • Mining Companies
    • Producers & recyclers of strategic metals & rare earths
    • Metal traders
    • Buyers of strategic metals and rare earths
    • Banks and financial institutions
    • Service providers to the strategic metals and rare earth industries
    • Government agencies
    • Industry analysts and consultants


    The full speaker programme can be viewed here. I look forward to welcoming you to the conference in Las Vegas!

    Kind regards,

    Nigel Tunna
    Managing Director

    Energy Recap: Celebrating Earth Day!

    President Barack Obama signs a proclamation regarding the establishment of the Fort Ord National Monument, in the Oval Office, April 20, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Sonya N. Herbert)

    On April 22nd, more than 1 billion people in 192 countries participated in the 42nd Earth Day. The President celebrated by designating a new National Monument at Fort Ord, a former military base in California. By protecting Ford Ord, President Obama has ensured that the area's vast canyons and grasslands will provide enjoyment and recreation to generations of Americans.

    Earlier in the week, the President spoke in the White House rose garden about increasing energy market oversight to make sure that excess speculation is not impacting gas prices. While reiterating that there are no silver bullets to increased gas prices, the President urged Congress to further strengthen market oversight and detailed the steps he has taken to protect consumers.

    These actions represent just a snapshot of the Administration's efforts to promote American-made energy. For more information, check out the highlights below and read the blog posts by Heather Zichal, the Deputy Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change, about natural gas production and building efficiency.

    Events

    President Obama announces new steps to strengthen oversight of energy markets
    On April 16th, President Obama spoke in the White House rose garden, announcing that the Administration is taking new executive actions to analyze trading activities in energy markets and implement consumer protections. During his remarks, the President called on Congress to provide increased funding for market surveillance and enforcement, to increase the civil and criminal penalties for illegal market manipulation, and to grant new authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to protect against excess speculation. Read the President's speech and check out this White House blog post.

    Secretary Salazar travels to North Dakota, unveiling new energy development initiatives
    Concluding his two-day visit to North Dakota on April 3rd, Secretary Salazar unveiled new initiatives to expedite safe and responsible development of domestic energy resources on U.S. public lands and Indian trust lands. As part of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) ongoing efforts to ensure efficient processing of oil and gas permit applications, the agency will implement new automated tracking systems that could reduce the review period for drilling permits by two-thirds. Learn more about the Secretary's visit and the Agency's new initiatives.

    The Clean Energy Ministerial announce new commitments for energy sustainability
    On April 26th, the 23-government Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) concluded its two-day meeting in London and, together with the UN Secretary-General's Sustainable Energy for All initiative (SE4All), outlined specific commitments by participating countries and private sector leaders which will promote improved energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies, and increased energy access around the world. Read more about these important commitments.

    News

    President Obama designates Fort Ord a National Monument
    On April 20th, President Obama signed a Proclamation to designate federal lands within the former Fort Ord as a National Monument under the Antiquities Act. Fort Ord, a former military base located on California's Central Coast, is a world-class destination for hikers, mountain bikers, and outdoor enthusiasts who come to enjoy the area's history and scenic landscapes. Read the full proclamation and learn more about Ford Ord.

    The Energy Department announces the first-ever "Apps for Energy" Competition
    On April 5th, the Department of Energy's launched the first-ever "Apps for Energy" competition, offering $100,000 in cash prizes. "Apps for Energy" challenges innovative software developers to build new apps – for mobile phones, computers, tablets, software programs and more – that utilize data from major utility companies to help consumers and businesses use less energy and save money. Learn more about the competition and then take up the challenge.

    Secretary Chu announces $30 million for next generation energy storage technologies
    On April 11th, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced a $30 million research competition that will engage our country's brightest scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs in improving the performance and safety of energy storage devices, including hybrid energy storage modules being developed by the Department of Defense for military applications. Learn more about this announcement.

    Army announces "Green Warrior Convoy"
    On April 11th, the Army announced plans for a "Green Warrior Convoy" to demonstrate and educate the value of science and technology in Army vehicles. The announcement was made during the opening of the Army's new Ground Systems Power and Energy Laboratory, or GSPEL, at the Detroit Arsenal, Warren, Mich. The "Green Warrior Convoy" will launch next year and will travel from Detroit to Washington as part of the road testing of technologies and systems developed at the Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC. Learn more about the "Green Warrior Convoy" here and read more about the military's commitment to advanced energy technologies at this White House blog post.

    Get Updates

    To learn more about the President’s vision for a more secure energy future and sign up to get updates, please visit: WhiteHouse.gov/energy.

    Stay Connected


    May 07, 2012

    Patent Malpractice Jurisdiction

    Patent2011070by Dennis Crouch

    Minkin v. Gibbons P.C (Fed. Cir. 2012)

    In yet another malpractice action, the Federal Circuit has granted itself jurisdiction and ruled in favor of the law firm defendant (here, Gibbons). Attorney malpractice is normally a state-law cause of action brought in state court. However, the Federal Circuit has increasingly claimed appellate jurisdiction over these cases based upon its arising under jurisdiction.

    Federal Circuit Appellate Jurisdiction.  As amended in the AIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1295 defines the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction to include “exclusive jurisdiction” over “an appeal from a final decision” in “a civil action arising under . . . any Act of Congress relating to patents.” 

    The new statute overrules Holmes Group, Inc., v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. 535 U.S. 826 (2002).  In that decision, the Supreme Court held that the existence of a patent law issue in a counterclaim is insufficient to create Federal Circuit jurisdiction.  The revised statute makes clear that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals that only raise patent issues in “a compulsory counterclaim.”  

    The new statute does not change the “arising under” language itself.  The Supreme Court interpreted that language in Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988).   In Christianson, the court wrote that the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction extended only to those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint established either (1) that the federal patent law created the cause of action or (2) that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depended upon resolution of a “substantial question of federal patent law.”  (New statute is no longer bound by a “complaint.”).

    In non-patent cases, the Supreme Court has placed some limitations on the exercise of arising under jurisdiction when the underlying cause of action is –  as here –  a state law claim.  In Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Eng'g, 545 U.S. 308 (2005), the court explained that the exercise of jurisdiction over state-law claims with an embedded issue of federal law should occur only when the state-law claim contains a federal issue that is “disputed” and “substantial,” and when the exercise of federal jurisdiction is “consistent with congressional judgment about the sound division of labor between state and federal courts.”  Grable made clear that the mere presence of a disputed federal question is insufficient to create federal jurisdiction.  Rather, a court must also assess “any disruptive portent in exercising federal jurisdiction.” This sentiment was repeated by the Court in the later case of Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 701 (2006) (“it takes more than a federal element ‘to open the ‘arising under’ door”).

    In this case, the Gibbons firm handled prosecution of Minkin's U.S. Patent No. 6,012,363 (Extended Reach Pliers).  Soon after Minkin went to market, one of his customers designed its own version of the device that avoided Minkin's patent claim. Minkin then sued Gibbons for negligence –  arguing that the claims offered no meaningful protection for Minkin's invention. At trial expert witness Richard Gearhart presented an alternative claim that was arguably patentable. Because Gearhart did not present a patentability analysis under Section 103(a), the district court rejected the evidence as insufficient and awarded summary judgment for the law firm. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that finding. “We find that the 37-page Gearhart report contains nothing to assist the trier of fact with respect to the unique tests and proofs of § 103(a), and provides no insight into the question of whether the alternate claims would ultimately have been allowed by the PTO.”

    Regarding Jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit noted that the malpractice claim (under N.J. Law) requires that the plaintiff prove that better representation would have resulted in a better outcome.  Here, that proof requires analysis of patentability of a hypothetical claim and thus raises substantial a question of Patent Law and therefore the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit.

    Writing in concurrence, Judge O'Malley again repeated her call for an en banc rehearing on the issue of jurisdiction.

    Notes:


    Hats off to Superfund: GE balks, E.P.A. wholly disregarded


    Fed Rules: E.P.A. bills for uncapped category that covers preparation of the action plan commonly known as the "Rest of River" & workshops held at "Shakespeare & Company" enforcement above and beyond oversight costs dead balls Null.

    In games played under the Official Baseball Rules, a balk results in a dead ball or delayed dead ball. In certain other circumstances, a balk may be wholly or partially disregarded. Under other rule sets, notably in the United States under the National Federation of High Schools (Fed or Federation) Baseball Rules, a balk results in an immediate dead ball. In the event a balk is enforced, the pitch is generally (but not always) nullified, each runner is awarded one base, and the batter (generally) remains at bat, and with the previous count. The balk rule in Major League Baseball was introduced in 1898.[1]

    Summary of Federal Requirements

    Septic system regulation is usually a state, tribal, and local responsibility but the U.S. EPA does provide guidance on their operation and maintenance.

    Some septic systems are regulated by EPA as Class V underground injection wells (UIC) if they receive industrial or commercial wastes and/or they have the capacity to serve 20 or more people.

    On 12 January 2005 the U.S. EPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU with the National Association of Towns and Townships (NATaT); National Association of Wastewater Transporters, Inc. (NAWT); National Environmental Health Association (NEHA); National Environmental Services Center (NESC); National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association, Inc. (NOWRA); Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc. (RCAP); Water Environment Federation (WEF); and Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (CIDWT)). This memorandum focuses on better planning, septic system design, and long-term operation and maintenance of septic systems. 

    Summary of State Requirements

    The definition for large capacity may vary from State to State, but should be comparable to the Federal definition. Some examples of alternative definitions include use waste flow rates or cesspool volume capacity to classify a cesspool as large-capacity. Check with the appropriate State UIC Program for more information.

    Laws and Statutes

    Clean Water Act

    Laws & Regulation

    Laws & Executive Orders

    There are a number of federal statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by the President that are central to the Office of Water’s mission. In addition, Presidential Executive Orders (EOs) play a central role in a number of Office of Water activities. EOs are legally binding orders that direct EPA and other federal agencies in their execution of Congressionally established laws and policies.

    Executive Order 13547 -summary-Stewardship

    To use science and the best available understanding and awareness from Regional Advisory Committees in consultation with their nonfederal co-lead agencies and membership and Coordinating Committee officials from State, tribal, and local governments to improve our knowledge and to inform decisions by the National Ocean Council affecting the respect of rights and the protection of freedoms preserving our Nation's treasured maritime heritage of safe, secure, and productive access while performing duties bolstering communities and to provide jobs, food, energy resources, ecological services, recreation, and tourism opportunities, and promoting our Nation's transportation, economy, and trade, improved sustainable uses of land and building a foundation and framework for the collaborative and cooperating participation of federal, State, tribal, and local authorities, regional governance structures, and nongovernmental organizations ensuring a cohesive policy of promoting actions for the beneficial public and the private sectors stewardship.and comprehensive adaptive management to enable sustainability, human health and well-being, national prosperity, adaptation, social justice, international diplomacy, security, and a more integrated, comprehensive, flexible, and proactive approach to planning and managing sustainable multiple uses across sectors pursuing the United States' accession to the Law of the Sea Convention and improve ocean conservation in a fiscally responsible ecosystem-based transparent manner to promote the well-being, prosperity, and security that present and future generations of Americans can rely on .

    Regulatory Information

    Congress authorizes EPA and other federal agencies to write rules and regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws. Below are some of the key rules and regulations that the Office of Water employs to implement key statutes and programs.

    Policy & Guidance


    Impasse Persists on Drugs in Drinking Water

    Laws & Regulations

    Laws & Executive Orders

    There are a number of federal statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by the President that are central to the Office of Water’s mission. In addition, Presidential Executive Orders (EOs) play a central role in a number of Office of Water activities. EOs are legally binding orders that direct EPA and other federal agencies in their execution of Congressionally established laws and policies.

    Regulatory Information

    Congress authorizes EPA and other federal agencies to write rules and regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws. Below are some of the key rules and regulations that the Office of Water employs to implement key statutes and programs.

    Policy & Guidance

    Policy & guidance for implementing Office of Water programs.

    "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

    Introduction to pH

    pH is a unit of measure which describes the degree of acidity or alkalinity of a solution.

     It is measured on a scale of 0 to 14.

    pH indicator

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    Acids and Bases

    Acid dissociation constant


    Acid-base extraction


    Acid–base reaction


    Acid–base titration


    Dissociation constant


    Acidity function


    Buffer solutions


    pH


    Proton affinity


    Self-ionization of water


    Acid strength

    Acid types

    Brønsted · Lewis · Mineral


    Organic · Strong


    Superacids · Weak

    Base types

    Brønsted · Lewis · Organic


    Strong · Superbases


    Non-nucleophilic · Weak

    A pH indicator is a halochromic chemical compound that is added in small amounts to a solution so that the pH (acidity or basicity) of the solution can be determined visually. Hence a pH indicator is a chemical detector for hydronium ions (H3O+) or hydrogen ions (H+) in the Arrhenius model. Normally, the indicator causes the colour of the solution to change depending on the pH. At 25 °C, considered the standard temperature, the pH value of a neutral solution is 7.0. Solutions with a pH value below 7.0 are considered acidic, whereas solutions with pH value above 7.0 are basic. As most naturally occurring organic compounds are weak protolytes, carboxylic acids and amines, pH indicators find many applications in biology and analytical chemistry. Moreover, pH indicators form one of the three main types of indicator compounds used in chemical analysis. For the quantitative analysis of metal cations, the use of complexometric indicators is preferred, whereas the third compound class, the redox indicators, are used in titrations involving a redox reaction as the basis of the analysis.

    Contents

    Theory

    In and of themselves, pH indicators are frequently weak acids or weak bases. The general reaction scheme of a pH indicator can be formulated as follows:

    HInd + H2O H3O+ + Ind-

    Here HInd stands for the acid form and Ind- for the conjugate base of the indicator. It is the ratio of these that determines the color of the solution and that connects the color to the pH value. For pH indicators that are weak protolytes, we can write the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation for them:

    \textrm{pH} = \textrm{pK}_{a}+ \log \frac{[\textrm{Ind}^-]}{[\textrm{HInd}]}

    The equation, derived from the acidity constant, states that when pH equals the pKa value of the indicator, both species are present in 1:1 ratio. If pH is above the pKa value, the concentration of the conjugate base is greater than the concentration of the acid, and the color associated with the conjugate base dominates. If pH is below the pKa value, the converse is true.

    Usually, the color change is not instantaneous at the pKa value, but there is a pH range where a mixture of colors is present. This pH range varies between indicators, but as a rule of thumb, it falls between the pKa value plus or minus one. This assumes that solutions retain their color as long as at least 10% of the other species persists. For example, if the concentration of the conjugate base is ten times greater than the concentration of the acid, their ratio is 10:1, and consequently the pH is pKa + 1. Conversely, if there is a tenfold excess of the acid with respect to the base, the ratio is 1:10 and the pH is pKa – 1.

    For optimal accuracy, the color difference between the two species should be as clear as possible, and the narrower the pH range of the color change the better. In some indicators, such as phenolphthalein, one of the species is colorless, whereas in other indicators, such as methyl red, both species confer a color. While pH indicators work efficiently at their designated pH range, they are usually destroyed at the extreme ends of the pH scale due to undesired side-reactions.

    Application


    pH indicators are frequently employed in titrations in analytical chemistry and biology to determine the extent of a chemical reaction. Because of the subjective choice (determination) of color, pH indicators are susceptible to imprecise readings. For applications requiring precise measurement of pH, a pH meter is frequently used. Sometimes a blend of different indicators is used to achieve several smooth color changes over a wide range of pH values. These commercial indicators (e.g., universal indicator and Hydrion papers) are used when only rough knowledge of pH is necessary.

    Tabulated below are several common laboratory pH indicators. Indicators usually exhibit intermediate colors at pH values inside the listed transition range. For example, phenol red exhibits an orange color between pH 6.8 and pH 8.4. The transition range may shift slightly depending on the concentration of the indicator in the solution and on the temperature at which it is used.

    Indicator

    Low pH color

    Transition pH range

    High pH color

    Gentian violet (Methyl violet 10B)

    yellow

    0.0–2.0

    blue-violet

    Leucomalachite green (first transition)

    yellow

    0.0–2.0

    green

    Leucomalachite green (second transition)

    green

    11.6–14

    colorless

    Thymol blue (first transition)

    red

    1.2–2.8

    yellow

    Thymol blue (second transition)

    yellow

    8.0–9.6

    blue

    Methyl yellow

    red

    2.9–4.0

    yellow

    Bromophenol blue

    yellow

    3.0–4.6

    purple

    Congo red

    blue-violet

    3.0–5.0

    red

    Methyl orange

    red

    3.1–4.4

    yellow

    Bromocresol green

    yellow

    3.8–5.4

    blue

    Methyl red

    red

    4.4–6.2

    yellow

    Methyl red

    red

    4.5–5.2

    green

    Azolitmin

    red

    4.5–8.3

    blue

    Bromocresol purple

    yellow

    5.2–6.8

    purple

    Bromothymol blue

    yellow

    6.0–7.6

    blue

    Phenol red

    yellow

    6.4–8.0

    red

    Neutral red

    red

    6.8–8.0

    yellow

    Naphtholphthalein

    colorless to reddish

    7.3–8.7

    greenish to blue

    Cresol Red

    yellow

    7.2–8.8

    reddish-purple

    Phenolphthalein

    colorless

    8.3–10.0

    fuchsia

    Thymolphthalein

    colorless

    9.3–10.5

    blue

    Alizarine Yellow R

    yellow

    10.2–12.0

    red

    Equivalence point

    In acid-base titrations, an unfitting pH indicator may induce a color change in the indicator-containing solution before or after the actual equivalence point. As a result, different equivalence points for a solution can be concluded based on the pH indicator used. This is because the slightest color change of the indicator-containing solution suggests the equivalence point has been reached. Therefore, the most suitable pH indicator has an effective pH range, where the change in color is apparent, that encompasses the pH of the equivalence point of the solution being titrated. [1]

     

    Litmus

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    This article is about the chemical test. For the political term, see Litmus test (politics). For other uses, see Litmus (disambiguation).


    Litmus is a water-soluble mixture of different dyes extracted from lichens, especially Roccella tinctoria. It is often absorbed onto filter paper to produce one of the oldest forms of pH indicator, used to test materials for acidity. Blue litmus paper turns red under acidic conditions and red litmus paper turns blue under basic (i.e. alkaline) conditions, with the color change occurring over the pH range 4.5-8.3 at 25 °C. Neutral litmus paper is purple.[1] Litmus can also be prepared as an aqueous solution that functions similarly. Under acidic conditions the solution is red, and under basic conditions the solution is blue.

    The litmus mixture has the CAS number 1393-92-6 and contains 10 to 15 different dyes. Most of the chemical components of litmus are likely to be the same as those of the related mixture known as orcein, but in different proportions. In contrast with orcein, the principal constituent of litmus has average molecular weight of 3300.[2] Acid-base indicators on litmus owe their properties to a 7-hydroxyphenoxazone chromophore.[3] Some fractions of litmus were given specific names including erythrolitmin (or erythrolein), azolitmin, spaniolitmin, leucoorcein and leucazolitmin. Azolitmin shows nearly the same effect as litmus.[4]

    Contents

    History

    Litmus was used for the first time about 1300 AD by Spanish alchemist Arnaldus de Villa Nova. From the 16th century on, the blue dye was extracted from some lichens, especially in the Netherlands.

    Natural sources


    Litmus can be found in different species of lichens.The dyes would be extracted from such species as Roccella tinctoria (South America), Roccella fuciformis (Angola and Madagascar), Roccella pygmaea (Algeria), Roccella phycopsis, Lecanora tartarea (Norway, Sweden), Variolaria dealbata, Ochrolechia parella, Parmotrema tinctorum and Parmelia. Currently, the main sources are Roccella montagnei (Mozambique) and Dendrographa leucophoea (California).[citation needed]

    Uses

    The main use of litmus is to test whether a solution is acidic or basic. Wet litmus paper can also be used to test water-soluble gases; the gas dissolves in the water and the resulting solution colors the litmus paper. For instance, ammonia gas, which is alkaline, colors the red litmus paper blue.

    Chemical reactions other than acid-base reaction can also cause a color-change to litmus paper. For instance, chlorine gas turns blue litmus paper white – the litmus paper is bleached[5], due to presence of hypochlorite ions. This reaction is irreversible and therefore the litmus is not acting as an indicator in this situation.

     

    Litmus test (politics)

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    For other uses, see Litmus (disambiguation).

    A litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would proceed with the appointment or nomination. (The expression is a metaphor based on the litmus test in chemistry.) Those who must approve a nominee, such as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, may also be said to apply a litmus test to determine whether the nominee will receive their vote. In these contexts, the phrase comes up most often with respect to nominations to the judiciary.

    Usage

    During United States presidential election campaigns, litmus tests the nominees might use are more fervently discussed when vacancies for the U.S. Supreme Court appear likely. Advocates for various social ideas or policies often wrangle heatedly over what litmus test, if any, the president ought to apply when nominating a new candidate for a spot on the Supreme Court. Support for, or opposition to, abortion is one example of a common decisive factor in single-issue politics; another might be support of strict constructionism. Defenders of litmus tests argue that some issues are so important that it overwhelms other concerns (especially if there are other qualified candidates that pass the test).

    The political litmus test is often used when appointing judges. However, this test to determine the political attitude of a nominee is not without error. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed under the impression that he was conservative but his tenure was marked by liberal dissents. Today, the litmus test is used along with other methods such as past voting records when selecting political candidates.

    The Republican Liberty Caucus is opposed to litmus tests for judges. "We oppose ‘litmus tests’ for judicial nominees who are qualified and recognize that the sole function of the courts is to interpret the Constitution. We oppose judicial amendments or the crafting of new law by any court."[1]

    Professor Eugene Volokh believes that the legitimacy of such tests is a "tough question", and argues that they may undermine the fairness of the judiciary:

    Imagine a justice testifies under oath before the Senate about his views on (say) abortion, and later reaches a contrary decision [after carefully examining the arguments]. "Perjury!" partisans on the relevant side will likely cry: They'll assume the statement made with an eye towards confirmation was a lie, rather than that the justice has genuinely changed his mind. Even if no calls for impeachment follow, the rancor and contempt towards the justice would be much greater than if he had simply disappointed his backers' expectations.

    Faced with that danger, a justice may well feel pressured into deciding the way that he testified, and rejecting attempts at persuasion. Yet that would be a violation of the judge's duty to sincerely consider the parties' arguments.[2]

    References

    1.                              ^ Wyoming Republican Liberty Caucus: "Goals, Principles and Positions"

    2.                              ^ The Volokh Conspiracy: `"Questioning Supreme Court Nominees About Their Views on Specific Questions"

     

    ·  Negative pH, efflorescent mineralogy, and consequences for ...

    www.pnas.org/content/96/7/3455.full

    by DK Nordstrom - 1999 - Cited by 191 - Related articles


    Mar 30, 1999 – Negative pH, efflorescent mineralogy, and consequences for environmental restoration at the Iron Mountain Superfund site, California ...

    ·  Chemical Modeling and Thermodynamic Data Evaluation of Major ...

    wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/GWC_chemtherm/ironmtn.htm

    Jan 20, 2011 – The copper mines at Iron Mountain, a Superfund site since 1983, ... mass balance studies, measurements of negative pH, and modeling to ...

    ·  Negative pH and Extremely Acidic Mine Waters from Iron Mountain ...

    www.mendeley.com/.../negative-ph-and-extremely-acidic-mine-wate...

    Dec 10, 1999 – Negative pH, efflorescent mineralogy, and consequences for environmental restoration at the Iron Mountain Superfund site, California ...

    Negative pH and Extremely Acidic Mine Waters from Iron Mountain ...

    digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1488...

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat


    by DK Nordstrom - 2000 - Cited by 200 - Related articles


    Negative pH and Extremely Acidic Mine Waters from Iron Mountain, California. Darrell Kirk Nordstrom. U.S. Geological Survey, dkn@usgs.gov. Charles N. Alpers ...

    Iron Mountain Mine case study

    www.epa.gov/aml/tech/imm.pdf

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View


    Mar 7, 2006 – Early in its history, Iron Mountain Mine was famous for being the ......Negative pH, efflorescent mineralogy, and consequences for ...

    ·  Paradigms Lost: Learning from Environmental Mistakes, Mishaps, and ... - Google Books Result

    books.google.com/books?isbn=0750678887...Daniel A. Vallero - 2006 - Science - 563 pages


    Case of the Negative pH: Iron Mountain, California3 The acidity is so strong in some waters receiving runoff from mining activities that the calculated pH values ...

    ·  Iron Mountain Mine | Online Resources for Environmental Impact ...

    ice.ucdavis.edu/education/esp179/?q=node/164

    Negative pH, Efflorescent Mineralogy, and Consequences for Environmental Restoration at the Iron Mountain Superfund Site, California. Retrieved May 4, 2007, ...

    You've visited this page many times.

    Negative pH, Efflorescent Mineralogy, and the Challence of ...

    www.wolkersdorfer.info/publication/bht/nordstrom_wm25.pdf

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View


    by DK Nordstrom - Cited by 1 - Related articles


    125. Negative pH, Efflorescent Mineralogy, and the Challenge of Environmental Restoration at the Iron Mountain Superfund site or why not to plug a Mine ...

    ·  Science Blog -- USGS NEWS

    www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/E/usgs028.html

    To put the hydrology of the Iron Mountain site in context, the drip rate of the negative pH waters found in the Richmond Mine is on the order of less than one ...

     

    THE PHONY NEGATIVE 3.6 pH AMD TRICK

    Ted Arman | Goal: Mining His Own Business - Los Angeles Times

    articles.latimes.com/2005/may/10/local/me-mine10
    May 10, 2005 – But few are as notorious as Iron Mountain Mine -- and Arman has become ... The acidic runoff ate workers' shovel heads and turned nearby ...

    THE PHONY RUSTY SHOVEL TRICK

    ...there's no instance where we have recorded levels of heavy metal above the drinking water standard. EPA's first Iron Mountain Mine superfund project manager Tom Mix - 1985;

    EPA Selects New Science Adviser

    on 24 April 2012, 6:00 PM

    Lisa Jackson, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced today that she has picked Glenn Paulson to be her science adviser. Paulson will replace Paul Anastas, who returned to Yale University in February. "I'm very positive about Glenn; he's superb," says public health expert Bernard Goldstein of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health in Pennsylvania.

    Paulson received a Ph.D. in environmental science in 1971 before joining the Natural Resources Defense Council to work on air and water pollution issues. He spent several years at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, where he was the primary author of the state's Superfund law. Most recently, Paulson was associate dean for research and professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, a position he left about a year ago to return home to Wyoming.

    Jackson's memo to her staff members says that Paulson will begin the job soon. Anastas, in contrast, had to cool his heels for several months because of a hold that was placed on his Senate confirmation to lead EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Paulson will wear only the hat of science adviser, with Lek Kadeli remaining as acting head of ORD.

    That division of duties makes sense to Goldstein, a former ORD administrator. He says it will allow the science advisor to focus on providing input on policy issues demanding Jackson's attention. "The administrator should have someone sitting at her elbow listening to what she needs."


    Gestapo-like abuse of power by the EPA

    Background:

    (Vidrine v. United States)

    The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) filed a federal lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in Lafayette against the United States for maliciously prosecuting Hubert P. Vidrine, Jr. of Opelousas, LA, for allegedly storing a hazardous substance without a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    After four years of prosecution, felony charges were suddenly dropped on the eve of trial in September 2003 after Vidrine discovered that the only witness for the government was addicted to cocaine causing hallucinations.

    Even after putting their witness under hypnosis in vain, the EPA could not produce the allegedly hazardous substance or any test results.

    The suit, filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) seeks a total of $5 million in damages. Mr. Vidrine, a plant manager at Canal Refining Co. in Church Point, LA, was indicted in 1999 in federal court for allegedly violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for the improper storage of hazardous waste without a permit.

    A few years before Vidrine was indicted, a "SWAT Team" consisting of almost two dozen armed Special EPA Agents from EPA's Criminal Investigation Division (CID), FBI, and other law enforcement officers raided Canal Refining with M-16 rifles and police dogs; falsely accused Mr. Vidrine of storing hazardous waste and lying about it; prevented employees from using the restrooms for several hours; prevented those same employees from calling their homes and daycare centers to make plans to have children picked up; falsely told the employees that Mr. Vidrine had been poisoning them and giving them cancer; and threatened them with imprisonment if they did not provide damaging evidence against Mr. Vidrine.

    It appears that the EPA's chief witness in the case, Mike Franklin, claimed that he had taken samples of the alleged hazardous waste and had it tested. However, neither the EPA nor federal prosecutors could produce the test results allegedly proving RCRA violations.

    Mr. Vidrine later discovered that Mr. Franklin was addicted to cocaine. Nevertheless, federal prosecutors and the EPA insisted on using Mr. Franklin as their key witness, even though subpoenas issued by the prosecutors to chemical testing laboratories in the area failed to turn up any lab results of the alleged hazardous waste in question.

    To no avail, the government went so far as to place Mr. Franklin under hypnosis in a desperate attempt to obtain information about the alleged testing samples.

    The trial judge ruled that Mr. Franklin could not be used as a witness. At the urging of EPA agents, federal prosecutors continued to insist that the government should be able to use Mr. Franklin as their key witness and appealed the judge's decision to exclude Mr. Franklin's testimony to the Fifth Circuit.

    They reluctantly withdrew the appeal when the U.S. Solicitor General's Office decided not to approve it. On September 17, 2003, on the eve of trial, federal prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against Mr. Vidrine and two other defendants, which was granted the next day.

    Mr. Vidrine was forced to spend over $180,000, his entire retirement savings, to defend himself against the bogus charges. After the charges were dropped, Mr. Vidrine stated, "I didn't think that this could happen in America."

    Mr. Vidrine contacted WLF for legal assistance because of WLF's work on behalf of another small business in Worcester, Massachusetts, which was raided by armed EPA agents and where EPA misconduct led to charges being dropped on the eve of trial against the company (Riverdale Mills Corp.) and its owner (James M. Knott, Sr.).

    WLF filed complaints in November 2003 with EPA's Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice to investigate the misconduct.

    In September 2005, Vidrine filed a claim for damages against the EPA and the Department of Justice under the FTCA for compensation for malicious prosecution and other misconduct. Both agencies have failed to respond to Vidrine's claim, thus necessitating the filing of today's lawsuit.

    "This is an outrageous case of malicious prosecution and misconduct by the EPA and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Louisiana," said Paul Kamenar, WLF's Senior Executive Counsel. "The EPA and the Department of Justice has a sad history of using heavy-handed tactics and criminalizing business activities where administrative or civil remedies would be more appropriate," Kamenar added.

    SOURCE

    Update of October 7, 2011:

    The legal might of the U.S. government is usually enough to roll right over someone like Opelousas, La. plant manager Hubert Vidrine Jr. But last week the underdog had his day: a federal court awarded Vidrine $1.7 million for having been maliciously prosecuted by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Our friends at the Washington Legal Foundation, who helped represent Vidrine, give details:

    "The just-resolved case started in 1996 when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered its SWAT-like special operations team (equipped with M-16 rifles and police dogs) to raid the Canal Refinery, Mr. Vidrine’s workplace. The raid led to a criminal investigation against Mr. Vidrine for allegedly unlawful storage and disposal of hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

    When it discovered that evidence of the alleged offense was lacking, the feds refused to back off and in fact redoubled their zeal. In a scathing 142-page ruling, Judge Rebecca Doherty wrote that federal prosecutor Keith Phillips “set out with intent and reckless and callous disregard for anyone’s rights other than his own, and reckless disregard for the processes and power which had been bestowed on him, to effectively destroy another man’s life.”

    A Greenwire dispatch published in the New York Times is at pains to present the Vidrine case (quoting a former enforcement official) an “isolated situation” arising from the actions of a “rogue” agent. As a local paper reported, “Phillips was accused of targeting Vidrine because of his outspokenness and choosing an investigation in Louisiana to be close to a woman with whom he was having a sexual affair.” The second of these motives, at least, presumably doesn’t figure very often in decisions to pursue federal criminal charges.

    Cato readers have reason to be less than surprised when federal enforcers abuse their powers, especially at an agency as convinced of its own righteousness as the EPA. Nine years ago, Cato published James V. DeLong’s “Out of Bounds, Out of Control: Regulatory Enforcement at the EPA.” In 2009 congressional testimony, Cato’s Tim Lynch discussed troubling cases like that of Alaska railroad employee Edward Hanousek (“prosecuted under the Clean Water Act even though he was off duty and at home when the accident occurred”).

    Yesterday, incidentally, brought another setback in court for the EPA: a federal judge slapped it down for flagrantly overstepping its legal charter by usurping the Army Corps of Engineers’s statutory role as part of its efforts to restrict coal mining in Appalachia. How many times do the agency and its enforcers have to overstep their authority before those incidents cease to be just ”isolated situation[s]“?

    SOURCE

    Footnote:

    A key EPA agent in the case, Keith Phillips, has just been convicted of lying during the civil trial.

    The Court concludes:

    [T]his court finds Agent Phillips testimony, conduct and documentation illustrate a deliberate patten of disregard for oaths taken, truth of the matter involved, wholly lacking in intellectual honesty, and exhibiting a deliberate intent to mislead all involved, particularly the prosecutors with whom he worked and who were relying upon his investigation and technical expertise in order to evaluate their case. Agent Phillips has displayed the very worst example of abuse and misuse of the power and trust bestowed upon a governmental agent, and has brought great shame upon the agency which had entrusted him with that power, responsibility, and authority.

    Wow again. Kudos to the Washington Legal Foundation for its pro bono work representing Vidrine.

    UPDATE: I see that Agent Phillips received his due in the case. According to a DOJ press release dated October 4, Phillips recent pled guilty to perjury and obstruction:

    A former special agent with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Criminal Investigation Division (CID) in Dallas has pleaded guilty to lying under oath and obstructing justice, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins Jr. of the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

    Keith Phillips, 61, of Kent, Texas, pleaded guilty yesterday before U.S. District Judge Richard T. Haik Sr. in the Western District of Louisiana to a two-count indictment charging him with obstruction of justice and perjury. The charges stemmed from his sworn testimony in relation to a case that was pending in the Western District of Louisiana.

    . . . Phillips faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 on the obstruction of justice count, and five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 on the perjury count. A sentencing date has not yet been scheduled by the court.

    “There is universal consensus that less flagrant violations with
    lesser environmental consequences should be addressed through
    administrative or civil monetary penalties and remedial orders."
    Earl Devaney
    Director, EPA Office of Criminal Enforcement (1994)
    "I'm a salesman. I sell jail time to people."
    EPA Special Agent
    Criminal Investigation Division (2003)


    This is an isolated situation because it is rare — freakishly rare, struck-twice-by-lightening rare — for federal law enforcement agents or federal prosecutors to be held accountable in any meaningful way for even serious misconduct against the Americans they accuse and pursue.

    Even in the relatively rare cases where deferential courts find government misconduct, those findings rarely yield consequences more than dismissals of prosecutions or reversals of convictions. A recent USA Today study found that over 12 years courts found misconduct by federal prosecutors in 201 cases — yet only one of those instances of misconduct resulted in state bar action against the government miscreant. Other studies produce similar results — take, for instance, this study by the Northern California Innocence Project, which found that (1) prosecutorial misconduct was found in hundreds of surveyed cases, but only found to be material — that is, only yielded some sort of relief to the defendant — in 20% of those cases, and (2) of the 600 cases of prosecutorial misconduct found, only 1% resulted in California State Bar action.

    Our courts are complicit. They rarely name the prosecutors in opinions finding misconduct. A few journalists and bloggers struggle to counter this by naming names — as they should. But for the most part, the vast majority of law enforcement is not detected or not reported, and what is reported or detected is not addressed. Law enforcement remains largely protected by the law, which immunizes its misconduct in all but the most extreme cases. (Today's example courtesy of Radley Balko — did an FBI agent take your Ferrari for a joyride like a bit character in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and wreck it? Sorry bub — the government is immune. Tough luck!)

    The fault lies not just in law enforcement or courts, but in ourselves — we have bought the law-enforcement-as-unquestionable-heroes concept uncritically, have re-embraced it after the noble sacrifices of law enforcement on 9/11, and have convinced ourselves that it is rational to mistrust government but trust law enforcement at the same time.

    We need a society-wide change in the way we view law enforcement. We need to begin to look with skepticism at 40 years of insipid "law and order" rhetoric. Some conservatives need to stop their senseless habit of viewing the agent with the raid jacket and the gun as somehow more reliable or trustworthy than the regulator with the clipboard. Some liberals need to stop suspending their appropriate suspicion of law enforcement when cops are on the trail of something ideologically important to them, like environmental crime or sexual assault. We need, as a society, to reject the servile concept that questioning law enforcement is "setting criminals free" or "looney liberal" or the like.

    If we don't, then the small measure of justice that Hubert Vidrine Jr. obtained will remain isolated and elusive. Government misconduct will continue.

    SPECIAL REPORT:
    Federal Erosion
    of Business
    Civil Liberties

    CALIFORNIA - EPA DELISTING IRON MOUNTAIN MINE!

    "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 aquatic life." Rick Sugarek, EPA project manager for Iron Mountain Mine Superfund cleanup, 2008 5 year review.

    CALIFORNIA - COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing; Not one biota, not one iota; No further evidence required to facially apparent facts

    05/01/ 1986 P R C Environmental Management, Inc. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Endangerment assessment draft final rpt, w/TL to T Mix fr T Brisbin 51189

    12/15/2000 C H 2 M Hill Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6FSP, QAPP, Health & Safety Plan for surface-water sampling 103636

    03/17/1997 Charles Alpers / US Geological Survey Richard Sugarek / Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9Ltr: Transmits QAPP, draft workplan, & draft FSP, w/attchs

    08/01/2001C H 2 M HillEnvironmental Protection Agency - Region 9Amended QAPP for air & surface-water sampling (QAPP & amendment 1)165834

    Keswick dam to Cottonwood Creek; Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list. JUNE 15, 2010;

    EPA has not yet implemented ICs (Institutional Controls) as required at the IMM Superfund Site in the five signed RODs
    (EPA, 1986; EPA, 1992; EPA, 1993; EPA, 1997; EPA, 2004
    )

    The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” (James Madison, Federalist 45 )

    PROCLAMATION TERMINATING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY, 2010-0021996 Shasta County Court

    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


    IMMI's STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING THE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT (SWR)

    Court for the Eastern District shall be held at Redding.

    Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/sec-california-19212558#ixzz11HJZkgsS

    28 USC 84 - Sec. 84. California

    US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

    a private party may “recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites.” United States v. Atl. Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 131

    October 11, 2010 CERCLA 'Arranger' Liability Narrowed

     

    Strange Justice

    See also Madison 's explanation of the purpose of the 9 th Amendment in response to Hamilton 's objection in Federalist 84 :

    1. “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general (i.e. Federal) government, and were consequently insecure.  This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against.  I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4 th resolution (i.e. the original draft of the 9 th amendment)” (James Madison, U.S. House of Representatives, June 8, 1789)

     2. “The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution” (An early version of the 9 th amendment—the last clause of the 4 th resolution—as submitted by James Madison, June 8, 1789).

    "The Billion Dollar Settlement" Cashout Advance, Iron Mountain Mine Superfund
    Cashout Advances are funds received by EPA, a state, or PRP under the terms of a
    settlement agreement (e.g., consent decree) to finance response action costs at a specified
    Superfund site. Under CERCLA Section 122(b)(3), cashout funds received by EPA are
    placed in site-specific, interest bearing accounts known as special accounts and are used for
    potential future work at such sites in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
    Funds placed in special accounts may be disbursed to PRPs, to states that take responsibility
    for the site, or to other Federal agencies to conduct or finance response actions in lieu of EPA
    without further appropriation by Congress. As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, cashout
    advances are $572 million and $489 million as restated, respectively.

    a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
    the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
    The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
    use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
    First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
    the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
    Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
    enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
    not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
    the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
    refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
    that may be exercised only through participation in some
    corporate body.5

    in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble
    (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people”
    will choose members of the House), and the Tenth
    Amendment (providing that those powers not given the
    Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the
    people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people”
    acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or
    reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the
    Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer
    to anything other than an individual right.6
    What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution
    that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
    refers to all members of the political community, not an
    unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

    April 25, 2012, 12:02 a.m. EDT

    Taxpayers still on hook for $119 bln in TARP funds

    Community banks face uphill battle to exit government program: report

    WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Taxpayers are still owed $119 billion in outstanding Troubled Asset Relief Program funds, a watchdog for the government crisis response program said Wednesday in a quarterly report to Congress.

    That number is down from $133 billion in TARP funds owed as of January, according to the author of the report, the Office of the Special Inspector General for the TARP. The government expects TARP to lose $60 billion.

    The program was set up during the height of the financial crisis of 2008 to stem a growing credit contagion by providing taxpayer-funded capital injections into big and smaller banks.

    Most of the remaining costs come from investments including taxpayer-funded stakes in American International Group Inc. AIG +0.97% , General Motors Co. GM -0.26%   and Ally Financial, as well as $18 billion from banks that still must repay their TARP injections, and another $15 billion in costs come from the public-private investment program, in which the government matched private investment into mortgage securities.

    The reduction in money owed to taxpayers comes partly from banks repaying their TARP and exiting the program. Regions Financial Corp. RF +5.91% repaid TARP $3.5 billion on April 4 and exited the program. Until it paid back the Treasury, Regions was the largest bank remaining in the TARP program, the report noted.

    AIG, through a combination of buy-backs from Treasury and Treasury sales of the troubled insurer’s shares on the open market, repaid about $7 billion. Treasury still has a 70% stake in AIG following the transactions, according to the report.

    The report added that a key reason for the costs is that many community banks have an uphill battle to exit TARP because they cannot find new capital. It noted that community banks with less than $1.5 billion in assets typically don’t have access to capital from private equity firms, mutual funds, foundations, and other institutional investors.

    The report said that of 351 banks remaining in the TARP program as of March 31, 163 were not current on dividend payments they are obliged to make to the Treasury Department. Over a hundred banks have missed five or more dividend payments and dozens more face formal enforcement actions by their federal regulator, the report added.

    However, the report notes that Treasury has already written off or realized losses of $14 billion in TARP investments.

    The report noted that most regional mid-sized banks remaining in TARP have taken steps to issue new stock or debt or selling assets as part of plans to repay the government.

    Ten regional banks remained in the program as of April, including Cathay General Bancorp. CATY +1.28% , First Bancorp. FNLC +1.05% , Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. FBC +4.28% , International Bancshares Corp. IBOC +2.25% , M&T Bank Corp. MTB +0.96%  , New York Private Bank & Trust Corporation, Popular Inc. BPOP +1.10%  , PrivateBancorp Inc. PVTB +7.00% , Synovus Financial Corp. SNV +2.90% , and Zions Bancorp. ZION -3.58%  .

    New costs are expected to hit banks beginning in late 2013, when banks still in the program will face a significant rise in dividend payments they are obliged to make to the government from 5% to 9%.

    More from this author:
    • Follow Ron Orol on Twitter:
    twitter.com/rorol
    See Ron Orol's stories on MarketWatch

    “Getting the community banks left in TARP back on their feet without government assistance must be a high priority for Treasury and the federal banking regulators,” said Special Inspector General Christy Romero.

    Banks receiving TARP capital injections must initially pay a 5% dividend per year, with payment to Treasury due four times a year. Five years after signing a contract to receive those funds, TARP recipients must pay dividends of 9%, based on a provision to encourage banks to pay back the funds they have received.

    Ronald D. Orol is a MarketWatch reporter, based in Washington.

    TARP: Billions in Loans in Doubt

    Hundreds of small banks can't afford to repay federal bailout loans, a top watchdog will warn Wednesday in a report that challenges the government's upbeat assessment of its financial-system rescue.

    Christy Romero, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, said 351 small banks with some $15 billion in outstanding TARP loans face a "significant challenge" in raising new funds to repay the government.

    Ms. Romero made the comments in her quarterly report to Congress, the first since the Senate approved her appointment in March as special inspector general for the program. She urged the government and regulators to ...

    Available to WSJ.com Subscribers

    sponsored links

    Bank of America®Supporting The Non Profits That Address Critical Community Needs

    DUE DILIGENCE

    “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, . . . they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience . . . .” Id.  222, at 233 (emphasis added). Locke

     

    [$ 542] 5. Effect of Possession by Tenant. Within the rule that actual possession of part of a tract of land under color of title gives constructive possession to the extent of the boundaries designated in the conveyance, the possession of part of a tract of land by a tenant of the holder of color of title, who has been put into possession under a lease which does not restrict the possession to any definite part of the tract, will give the lessor constructive posses sion coextensive with the boundaries of his deed,* 4 since the possession of the tenant inures to the benefit of the lessor; 35 and it is not material that only a small part of the land is actually occupied. 38 It has also been held in a number of decisions that even though the lease restricts the possession of the tenant to a definite portion of the tract, his possession will, by construction, be extended to the boundaries of the deed under which the lessor claims, 37 provided of course no one else is in actual possession of the balance of the tract. 38 And in other decisions, where the opinion does not show definitely whether the lease contained such a restriction, the rule is broadly otherwise expressed, if one claiming under an assurance of title defining boundaries places a tenant in possession without limiting him to any definite part, the tenant's possession will extend to the landlord's boundaries, although the land actually occupied is but a small part of the whole Bell v. North American Coal, etc Co., 155 Fed. 712, 84 CCA 60.

    Possession by one's tenant is his own possession. State v. Harmon, 57 W. Va. 447, 50 SK 828

    "U.S. Marshall McKeough explained the object of the meeting in a few pertinent remarks. He said that Mr. Hutchens told him on yesterday that unless they give up the water in the creek aforesaid, that he, Hutchens, would take a body of men and take the water by force of arms and hold the same until he and his men were whipped off the ground.

    His party as above mentioned claim right of possession of the water, and are suing for breach of Close and holding over by deceit.

    In this dilemma Mr. Arman calls upon all his fellow-miners and countrymen to assist him in defending his rights, agreeable to the old miners' laws.

    They said that this was a serious affair, they are willing to defend the old established miners' laws and the right."


    California Choice of Law, Jurisdiction & Venue Clauses

    THE IDEAL LODE

    TAKING, UNJUST - When the government acquires private property and fails to compensate an owner fairly. A taking can occur even without the actual physical seizure of property, such as when a government regulation has substantially devalued a property.

    An otherwise valid exercise of the police power constitutes a taking for which compensation is due if the owner suffers a permanent, physical occupation of the property. Yee v. Escondido, 112 S. Ct. 1522 (1992); Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 2900 (1992); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 427-28 (1982); Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 166 (1871); Ferguson, 852 P.2d at 207. Physical invasions have been found where the government interferes with the owner's "right to exclude." See, e.g., Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) (public access to pond); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (public easement to beach); Loretto, 458 U.S. at 427-28 (installation of cable); Pumpelly, 80 U.S. at 166 (flooding); Hawkins v. City of La Grande, 843 P.2d 400 (Or. 1992) (one-time flooding).

    However, the state may enter property to enforce a valid land use regulation and destroy the offending property. This does not amount to a physical occupation even where the government's activity has a permanent effect. See Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, 278 (1928) (permitting state entomologist to enter property and destroy diseased trees without affecting a taking); see also Bowditch v. Boston, 101 U.S. 16, 18-19 (1880) (denying compensation to owners whose houses were destroyed to prevent spread of fire); Shaffer, 576 P.2d at 824-25 (finding that city may enter to demolish substandard vacant building without compensating owner). "[T]he government affects a physical taking only when it requires the land owner to submit to the physical occupation of his land." Ferguson, 852 P.2d at 207.

    "There is, of course, no federal Constitutional right to be free from changes in the land use laws." Lakeview Dev. Corp. v. City of South Lake Tahoe, 915 F.2d 1290 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1251 (1991); see also William C. Haas & Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 605 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 928 (1980). To establish a violation of their right to substantive due process, the Dodds must prove that the County's actions were "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395 (1926); see also Sinaloa Lake, 882 F.2d at 1407. A substantive due process claim requires proof that the interference with property rights was irrational and arbitrary. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 15 (1976). Federal judicial interference with a local government zoning decision is proper only where the government body could have no legitimate reason for its decision. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 464 (1981); Herrington, 834 F.2d at 1498 n. 7. There is no denial of substantive due process if the question as to whether the government acted arbitrarily or capriciously is "at least debatable." Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. at 469.

    According to the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional taking consists of two components: taking of property and subsequent denial of just compensation. If a property owner receives just compensation through the process the government provides, the property owner does not have a taking claim. Id. at 194-95. Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 194 (1985).

    Inverse condemnation suits do not provide only the just compensation required under state law. Rather, such suits are a method of obtaining the just compensation required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. "A landowner is entitled to bring an action in inverse condemnation as a result of the self-executing character of the constitutional provision with respect to compensation." First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315 (1987). "Claims for just compensation are grounded in the Constitution itself." Id. The state procedure Williamson County references is the procedure necessary to raise a federal taking claim in state court. Thus, under Williamson County, a taking claimant must litigate the federal constitutional claim through the processes the state provides.

    The Supreme Court compared the process for making a claim against state or local governments to the process for making a claim against the federal government. A taking claim against the federal government is "premature until the property owner has availed itself of the process provided by the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. S 1491." Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 195 (citing Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1016-1020 (1984)). The Tucker Act grants the U.S. Claims Court " `jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded . . . upon the Constitution.' " Monsanto, 467 U.S. at 1017 (citing 28 U.S.C. S 1491). Thus, a Tucker Act taking claim is a claim for the just compensation required by the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court indicated that the Tucker Act procedure is analogous to the state proceedings claimants must follow to obtain just compensation from state and local governments. Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 195. Therefore, claimants following state procedures, like those utilizing the procedure established under the Tucker Act, should raise the federal just compensation requirement.

    The decision in Williamson County, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), established two distinct requirements for taking claims under the rubric of ripeness:

    First, "the government entity charged with implementing the regulations [must have] reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue." 473 U.S. at 186.

    Second, plaintiffs must have sought "compensation through the procedures provided by the State for obtaining such compensation." 473 U.S. at 195.

    Both the final decision and compensation elements must be ripe before the claim is justiciable.

    The final decision element is well-developed. Beginning with Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980), and Hodel v. Virginia Surface Min. & Reclamation Ass'n. Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981), the Court has declined to rule on taking claims when it believed the property owner had not received a final and definitive decision from a land use regulatory body on development of the property at issue. In Williamson County, the taking claim was unripe because there remained the "potential for . . . administrative solutions." 473 U.S. at 187 (landowner failed to seek variances that could have allowed development).

    In applying the final decision requirement, we have emphasized that local decision-makers must be given the opportunity to review at least one reasonable development proposal before we will consider ripe an as-applied challenge to a land use regulation. See, e.g., Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 922 F.2d 498, 503 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 943 (1991); Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir.), modified, 830 F.2d 968 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043 (1988). Finality also requires the local government to determine the type and intensity of development that land use regulations will allow on the subject property; this determination helps the court evaluate whether regulation of the subject property is excessive by identifying the extent of the regulation. See Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 857 F.2d at 570; Lai v. City and County of Honolulu, 841 F.2d 301, 303 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 994 (1988). Thus, a landowner may need to submit modified development proposals that satisfy the local government's objections to the development as initially proposed. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, 920 F.2d 1496, 1501 (9th Cir. 1990); MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 351-53 (1986).

    Once the appropriate state agency reaches a final decision, the second ripeness requirement of Williamson County, the compensation element, is triggered. A federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider an as-applied regulatory taking claim until a determination is reached that "just compensation" has been denied by the state: [B]ecause the Fifth Amendment proscribes taking without just compensation, no constitutional violation occurs until just compensation has been denied. The nature of the constitutional right therefore requires that a property owner utilize procedures for obtaining compensation before bringing a Section 1983 action. 473 U.S. at 194 n. 13 (emphasis added).

    In Williamson County, the Court concluded that Hamilton Bank's taking claim was not ripe because the Bank failed to utilize available state procedures: Under Tennessee law, a property owner may bring an inverse condemnation action to obtain just compensation for an alleged taking of property under certain circumstances . . . [U]ntil it has utilized that procedure, its taking claim is premature. Id. at 196-97. See also Jama Const. v. City of Los Angeles, 938 F.2d 1045, 1047-48 (9th Cir. 1991) (Dismissed as unripe where plaintiff "did not seek compensation through California procedures before bringing its federal action."), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 919 (1992); Bateson v. Geisse, 857 F.2d 1300, 1306 (9th Cir. 1988) (Because Montana recognizes inverse condemnation under the State Constitution, plaintiff must "pursue [that claim] before he can state a [federal ] taking claim.").

    [I]f a state provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation. 473 U.S. at 195.

    The central concern of ripeness is whether the case involves uncertain or contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all. 13A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 3532 at 126 (citing Thomas v. Union Carbide Agr. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580 (1985)). If an issue can be illuminated by the development of a better factual record, a challenge may be unripe. See Pacific Legal Found. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Dev. Comm'n, 659 F.2d 903, 915 (9th Cir. 1981), aff'd on other grounds, 461 U.S. 190 (1983); Hoehne, 870 F.2d at 532. The Fifth Amendment action is not more "developed" or "ripened " through presentation of the ultimate issue -- the failure of a state to provide adequate compensation for a taking -- to the state court. Indeed, such a requirement would not ripen the claim, rather it would extinguish the claim. See Palomar Mobilehome Park v. City of San Marcos, 989 F.2d 362 (9th Cir. 1993). Declining to hear a case on ripeness grounds is appropriate in situations where there is a reasonable prospect that the state courts may adjust state law to avoid or alter the constitutional question. 13A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 3532.5 at 126. But where deference rests instead "on the prospect that the state courts may entertain and decide the constitutional question, the issue of comity should be addressed directly without reliance on ripeness." Id.

    The case law is clear that with the exception of federal habeas corpus review of state convictions under 28 U.S.C. S 2254, the determination of federal constitutional questions in state court systems may not be reviewed or repeated in the federal systems. The Court in Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 104 (1980) said that"[t]he federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel," excepting only "a federal writ of habeas corpus, the purpose of which is not to redress civil injury but to release the applicant from unlawful physical confinement."

    [I]t has been established at least since Jacobs v. United States, 290 U.S. 13 (1933), that claims for just compensation are grounded in the Constitution itself. [The claim] rested upon the Fifth Amendment. Statutory recognition [by the state] was not necessary. [I]n the event of a taking, the compensation remedy is required by the Constitution. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315-16 (1987) (citations omitted).

    Courts routinely have held that state procedures are considered inadequate only when state law provides no postdeprivation remedy for a taking. See Austin, 840 F.2d at 681 (Hawaiian courts and legislature had neither accepted nor rejected inverse condemnation action under Article I, Section 20 of the Hawaiian Constitution); Levald Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 688 (9th Cir. 1993) ("the unavailability of state remedies is the functional equivalent of the denial of just compensation"), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 924 (1994); see also New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 985 F.2d 1488, 1493-94 (11th Cir.) ("Florida law . . . provided no post-deprivation remedy."), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 439 (1993).

    Oct 28

    THE IMPORTANCE OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

    Filed Under Articles of Confederation , CONSTITUTION , LEARNING THE LAW , Northwest Ordinance , ORGANIC LAWS

    The powers of all governments are almost universally conceded to be: legislative, executive and judicial and law is either written or unwritten law, so in the United States of America, where government is without equivocation believed to be tripartite, written law controls government. The surprise is that written law is limited to the territory owned by the United States of America, which is a simple definition of territorial jurisdiction.

    The Constitution of September 17, 1787 and the Constitution of the United States are the two Constitutions that control the government of the United States, which is composed of territory belonging to the United States of America. The oft forgotten and erroneously reported as a dead Constitution, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, still guides and controls the federal government and Senate of the United States of America.

    A word search of the Organic Laws of the United States of America for a clear connection of territorial jurisdiction with anyone of the three government powers reveals the obvious difference between the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Constitution of September 17, 1787. The subject of territorial jurisdiction in the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 is purely a matter of the sovereign States involved in territorial disputes. This is consistent with the Articles of Confederation's purpose as an establishment of a defensive Union, without powers other than those expressly delegated. The Constitution of September 17, 1787 would, when ratified by nine States of the first Union create another Union of States composed of States primarily owned by the United States of America.

    Both the kind of government and the territorial jurisdiction of a Government of the United States headed by a President of the United States is revealed in the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, which provides a temporary government for the federal district then known as the Northwest Territory. The temporary government for the Northwest Territory federal district became the permanent government for the District of Columbia and other territory and other property belonging to the United States of America, when nine States of the first Union ratified the Constitution of September 17, 1787. Ratification of this Constitution made the temporary territorial jurisdiction of the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 permanent.

    Does the Constitution of September 17, 1787 expand the territorial jurisdiction of the permanent form of government proposed for the Northwest Territory? The answer has to be an unqualified no. Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 of that Constitution secures the proprietary power over “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” meaning, of course, the United States of America. Territorial jurisdiction is rooted in the proprietary power of the Congress of the United States under the authority of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution of September 17, 1787 only confers legislative power when ratified by nine States. Proprietary power can only be transferred by the conveyance of the territory or property.

    What's the importance of knowing the difference between the territorial jurisdiction of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 territorial jurisdiction of the Constitution of September 17, 1787? The Constitution of September 17, 1787 allows the States of the first and second Unions to draw the lines of a Congressional district even if there's no territory owned by the United States of America within the territory making up the district. Territory owned by the United States of America doesn't get the Representative a vote in the House of Representatives. Only Representatives with districts made up of territory not owned by the United States of America can vote on federal taxation legislation on settlers and inhabitants of territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

     

    § 409. b. New assignment.—Yet in many actions tha plaintiff, who has alleged in his declaration a general wrong, may in his replication, after an evasive plea by the defendant, reduce that them in the defamatory sense imputed by the innuendo, or in any defamatory or actionable sense which the words themselves imported, asserted that the occasion was privileged, and also denied that the words were spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his profession or trade, whenever they were alleged to have been so spoken. But now this compendious mode of pleading is abolished. "Not Guilty" can no longer be pleaded in a civil action. The defendant must deal specifically with every allegation of which he docs not admit the truth.

    (iv) Demurrers were abolished. It is true that either party is still allowed to place on the record an objection in point of law, which is very similar to the former demurrer. But there is this important difference. The party demurring could formerly insist on having his demurrer separately argued, which caused delay. But now such points of law are argued at the trial of the action; it is only by consent of the parties, or by order of the court or a judge, that the party objecting can have the point set down for argument and disposed of before the trial. And, as a rule, such an order will only be made where the decision of the point of law will practically render any trial of the action unnecessary.

    (v) Pleas in abatement were abolished. If cither party desires to add or strike out a party, he must apply by summons (see Kendall v. Hamilton, [1879] 4 App. Cas. 504; Pilley v. Robinson, [1887] 20 Q. B. D. 155; Wilson v. Balcarres Brook Steamship Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 422). No cause or matter now "shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties."

    (vi) Equitable relief is now granted, and equitable claims and defenses are now recognized, in all actions in the high court of justice.

    (vii) Payment into court was for the first time allowed generally in all actions.

    (viii) The right of setoff was preserved unchanged; but a very large power was given to a defendant to counterclaim. He can raise any kind of crossclaim against the plaintiff, and in some cases even against the plaintiff with others, subject only to the power of a master or judge to order the claim

    fraud."—(1) The word "fraud," as used in the statute providing that possession, to be the foundation of prescription, cannot originate in fraud, the fraud meant is actual fraud—a moral fraud, a wrongful act, and not a legal act which the law denominates a fraud regardless of the bona fides of the parties. Dixon v. Patterson, 135 Ga. 183, 69 SE 21: Floyd v. Ricketson, 129 Ga. 668, 59 SE 909; Bower v. Cohen, 126 Ga. 35, 54 SE 918: Arnold v. Limeburger, 122 Ga. 72, 49 SE 812; Street v. Collier, 118 Ga. 470, 45 SE 294; Connell v. Culpepper, 111 Ga. 805, 35 SE 667; Lee v. Ogden, 83 Ga. 325, 10 SE 349 [disappr Hunt v. Dunn, 74 Ga. 120]; Ware v. Barlow, 81 Ga. 1, 6 SE 465; Wingfleld v. Virgin, 51 Ga. 139. (2) "To defeat prescriptive title the fraud of the party claiming thereunder must be such as to charge his conscience. He must be cognizant of the fraud, not by constructive, but by actual notice." Shingler v. Bailey, 135 Ga. 666, 668, 70 SE 563 (per Atkinson, J.). (3) An honest mistake of law as to the effect of the writing cannot of course, amount to a moral fraud as against the true owner. Bower v. Cohen, supra.



    DECLARATIONS OF TED ARMAN

    33n 6w

    Lincoln Patent


    Document ID: 1952-0000349
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 1/23/1952
    Book Page #: Book: 365 : Page: 22
    No. of Pages: 1
    Image: A scanned image of this document is not available.

    CONTRACT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO IRON MOUNTAIN INVEST CO
    UNITED STATES UNITED STATES

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 1974-0015100
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 8/15/1974
    Book Page #: Book: 1234 : Page: 649
    No. of Pages: Unknown
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    PATENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    USA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 1976-0033165
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 12/17/1976
    Book Page #: Book: 1385 : Page: 546
    No. of Pages: Unknown
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    DEED

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 1977-0023077
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 7/20/1977
    Book Page #: Book: 1442 : Page: 285
    No. of Pages: Unknown
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    DEED

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 1990-0018344
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 5/2/1990
    Book Page #: Book: 48 : Page: 177
    No. of Pages: Unknown
    Image: A scanned image of this document is not available.

    LAND SURVEY

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    ARMAN, T W None
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 2000-0016716
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 5/11/2000 3:27:17 PM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 12
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    LIEN

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 2011-0005844
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 2/28/2011 11:22:41 AM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 1
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018176CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/804
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018183CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/811
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018184CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/812
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018177CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/805
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034436CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034437CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034438CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034439CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034440CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034441CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034442CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034443CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2002-0034444CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX7/5/2002/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018178CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/806
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1991-0018179CANCEL NOTICE OF TAX5/2/19912714/807


    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCO 2000-0047250SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE12/27/2000/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCO 2000-0047249SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE12/27/2000/


    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2000-0047249-001RECONVEYANCE12/27/2000/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 2000-0047250-001RECONVEYANCE12/27/2000/
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCE 1981-0002532RECONVEYANCE1/30/19811788/128

    Document ID: 1992-0007124
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 2/18/1992
    Book Page #: Book: 2819 : Page: 33
    No. of Pages: Unknown
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC ARMAN, T W

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document Detail


    Document ID: 2004-0017790
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 3/31/2004 4:20:13 PM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 3
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 2009-0002640
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 1/28/2009 1:09:16 PM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 6
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    AGREEMENT

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INC IRON MOUNTAIN MINES L L C
    SERENESCAPES SERENESCAPES

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 1927-0002401
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 10/8/1927
    Book Page #: Book: 33 : Page: 183
    No. of Pages: 1
    Image: A scanned image of this document is not available.

    DEED

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN RAILWAY CO MOUNTAIN COPPER CO

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 2002-0042547
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 8/20/2002 11:39:19 AM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 1
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    LIEN

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INCORPORATED SYSTEMS AUTOMATION

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    Document ID: 2010-0008803
    Assessor Parcel #: Please Contact Assessor's Office
    Recorded on: 3/25/2010 2:05:34 PM
    Book Page #: No Book Page Found
    No. of Pages: 4
    Image: Documents can only be viewed in Records Office, Internet access is not available.

    NOTICE

    Grantors:

    Grantees:

    ARMAN, TED W HU/MOUNTAIN JOINT VENTURE
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE INC HUTCHENS, JOHN
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE LLC SERENESCAPES

     

    Index Items:

    References:

    None None

    On Earth Day, a few snags
    Minor Recovering costs In a CERCLA Setback, Shell v. U.S., No. 2010-5161 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
    the Federal Circuit has unequivocally recognized that a World War II-era government contract obligates the government to reimburse its former contractor fully for any “laterarising” CERCLA environmental costs, even if those liabilities accrued 50 years after the government contract was terminated.[1]


    4:20
    December 9, 2010

    EPA is earning a reputation for abuse


    Posted at 11:00 AM ET, 04/27/2012

    An EPA official let the truth slip out

    ABC News reports:

    The video conveys the full force of the petty, self-satisfied bureaucrat who conceives in grandiose terms of his job in a war on the industries he regulates:

    Al Almendariz apologized for his remarks.
    This also sheds additional light on President Obama’s energy policy, such as it is. We know the highlights by now: Impose 10 of 14 new taxes on oil and gas companies, block the XL Pipeline, make development of natural gas and oil fields as difficult as possible and give sweetheart deals to donors to promote ”green jobs.” (Americans for Prosperity is out with a new ad highlighting some of the administration’s energy boondoggles.) The administration distanced itself from the EPA official’s remarks, but it’s hard to escape the conclusion that he perfectly embodies the ethos of his agency.
    Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex.) excoriated the EPA for“burdensome regulatory overreach.”
    Verb1.excoriate - express strong disapproval of; "We condemn the racism in South Africa"; "These ideas were reprobated"
    denounce - speak out against; "He denounced the Nazis"

    2.excoriate - tear or wear off the skin or make sore by abrading; "This leash chafes the dog's neck"


    GF-ribbon-logo

    Lead dangers

    CLEVELAND, April 19 (UPI) -- The Environmental Protection Agency and state regulators knew of lead contamination in hundreds of U.S. towns but did not notify the residents.

    The federal government had been warned a decade ago about the poison likely left behind by more than 400 companies operating lead smelters in American cities, but failed to take any action to protect citizens or compel cleanups.. The Federal EPA & state regulators tested for and found high levels of lead in many cities including New York City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Chicago, but they neglected to notify the residents of the probable risks or order any cleanups, said the newspaper USA Today.  A 14-month investigation found government officials failed to disclose the dangers of exposure or ingestion from the soil contamination in neighborhoods surrounding many of more than 400 lead smelter locations operating in the 1930s to 1960s.

    The sites tested came from a list of more than 400 potential lead smelters believed to be unknown to federal regulators because they operated before the creation of the EPA. The list was developed by environmental scientist William Eckel, who published a 2001 article in the American Journal of Public Health warning that the forgotten factories might have contaminated surrounding properties.

    Because most of the old smelters had operated for decades without any regulatory oversight and are now gone, little was known about the size of each factory, where they were located, how much lead they processed and how much pollution they left behind.

    Under natural conditions, lead is found only in very small amounts in soil. The average in U.S. surface soils is just 19 parts per million (ppm), according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

    The soil samples tested using the XRF devices showed several neighborhoods had lead levels greater than 2,000 ppm, topping 3,400 ppm in Cleveland, Portland, Ore., and Carteret, N.J. Mielke's lab often found higher levels in samples than what the devices showed in the field.

    The EPA considers soil a potential hazard in children's play areas at levels above 400 ppm. Soil below the EPA threshold isn't necessarily safe: California has set a much lower standard, 80 ppm, using computer models to find a level they say is more protective of children. Of the 21 smelter neighborhoods, 80% had median soil lead levels above California's benchmark in the XRF tests.

    "EPA does not notify residents of potential contamination based solely on the possibility that past industrial activities may have occurred. This type of approach would unnecessarily alarm residents and community members," the agency's Philadelphia regional office said in a written response to USA TODAY's questions.

    The EPA noted it is not uncommon to find high levels of lead in soil in large urban areas because of decades of pollution from sources including flaking lead-based paint and dust from vehicles burning leaded gasoline, as well as by lead smelters and other factories. The EPA is authorized to clean up soil only if it can prove the lead came from a specific industrial release.

    Director of assessment and remediation for the EPA's Superfund program Elizabeth Southerland said the investigation alarmed the government and it will now take a look at the soil contamination from lead smelters.

    "I am convinced we have addressed the highest-risk sites," she said, but; "Absolutely and positively, we are open to reassessing sites that we now feel, based on your information, need another look."

    A remainder-man, after entering upon a party in possession by intrusion, may maintain trespass against the intruders, though he retains possession. 1 M. & R. 220 ; 7 B. & C. 399.

    By virtue of the office of general conservator of the peace throughout the whole kingdom, the High Warden may commit all violators of the peace, or bind them in recognizances to keep it; but other Judges are only so in their own Courts.

    Terris, bonis et calallis rehabendis post purgationem. A writ for a clerk to recover his lands, goods, and chattels formerly seized, after he had cleared himself of the felony of which he was accused, and delivered to his ordinary to be purged. Reg. Orig. 68.

    Perhaps the best way to eliminate bad climate science is to discredit bad lead poisoning scientists... starting with Dr. Schoen

    Submitted by Norm Roulet on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 03:46.


    Dr. Edgar J. Schoen

    As the son of a physician, who grew up socializing with physicians and their families, I've always seen doctors - scientists - as regular human beings, who burn hot dogs, crash cars, fall down, make mistakes, and fade away. This makes me very aware of the fallibility of doctors and their diagnoses, to the core.

    Lessons learned - not all scientists are created equal - all scientists are flawed - be an informed consumer and make certain all your science decisions are based on the best scientific data and scientists possible - always get a second opinion... more if the decision in truly important.

    Having spent several years studying and addressing the lead poisoning crisis in Northeast Ohio and worldwide, as a subcommittee co-chair of the Greater Cleveland Lead Advisory Council, and seeing lead poisoning from inside the healthcare and human services industries, as the parent of lead poisoning victims, I have become informed about the poor quality of healthcare industry attention to lead poisoning in America - historically and now - nationwide and especially in highest incidence regions like Northeast Ohio. The poor quality of healthcare response to lead poisoning is intentional and designed into government by the healthcare industry through corruption of scientists who are bad.

    Bad—Synonyms: Depraved, corrupt, base, sinful, criminal, atrocious. Bad,  evil,  ill,  wicked  are closest in meaning in reference to that which is lacking in moral qualities or is actually vicious and reprehensible. Bad  is the broadest and simplest term: a bad man; bad habits.  Evil  applies to that which violates or leads to the violation of moral law: evil practices.  Ill  now appears mainly in certain fixed expressions, with a milder implication than that in evil: ill will; ill-natured.  Wicked  implies willful and determined doing of what is very wrong: a wicked plan.

    As all scientists are human, and so some significant percentage are bad, it is not a problem for industry to hire scientists who are corruptible and use science wrong. Tobacco, lead poisoning and now climate change are all areas of science where industry has hired bad scientists to use bad science wrong, to mislead government, the media and the public, killing beyond measure.

    As the informed world watches global industrial interests corrupt environmental science concerning climate change - paying bad scientists to promote bad climate change-denier science, and attack good science and good scientists - leading to flawed decisions in government, leading to excessive industrial harm in the world, pushing human life to the precipice... consider the suffering caused as a result of unnecessary lead poisoning, as a result of over a century of corruption of science, government and media by industry, causing an avoidable crisis still destroying the lives of 1,000,000s of Americans and the American economy today.

    As the father of lead poisoned children, furious about bad lead poisoning-denier science in America, I get furious whenever I come across evidence of industrial operations to discredit good science and prevent good government from protecting citizens from the crisis of lead poisoning in America. As many of the bad scientists responsible for this are still alive and impacting public health today, I'm inclined to "out" them and challenge them on their competency, now that they are proven wrong about lead poisoning.

    Perhaps the best way to eliminate bad climate science is to discredit bad lead poisoning scientists personally - show bad climate scientists how badly they will be treated when they are exposed.

    Make examples of bad lead poisoning-denier scientists to scare bad climate change-denier scientists straight.

    One disturbing lead poisoning-denier "scientist", who helped cause the unnecessary lead poisoning of 100s millions of children and adults in America, is Dr. Edgar J. Schoen, still practicing medicine in California today. Doctor Schoen... from Wikipedia:

    Dr. Edgar J. Schoen - (born 1925 in New York) is an American physician, who works as a Clinical Professor in Pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, and held the position of Chair of the 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Dr. Schoen holds positions at Children's Hospital of the East Bay in Oakland, CA, and the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco, CA and is Board-certified in Pediatrics and Pediatric Endocrinology, and has practiced Pediatrics and Pediatric Endocrinology in Oakland, CA for 46 years. Dr. Schoen was Chief of Pediatrics at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland for 24 years.

    Missing from his biography there, and at his circumcision site, is reference to his role as a published, "expert" lead-poisoning-denier who, in 1998, published "CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING AND TAINTED SCIENCE" (143 KB .PDF), where he pontificated:

    Government agencies are telling people that childhood lead poisoning is often named as the leading environmental threat to our children. This conclusion is not accepted by most practicing physicians, who almost never see a case of symptomatic lead poisoning. Most pediatricians who practice in a large medical group in an urban area see environmental threats daily. These include poverty, violence, homelessness, family dysfunction, abuse, teenage pregnancy, drugs, and alcohol--but they have not included symptomatic lead poisoning. Most physicians do not accept current proclamations about the importance of childhood lead poisoning: the nation's pediatricians did not comply with 1991 recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for annual, universal childhood BPb screening

    Re-read this passage published by Schoen - literally gloating about committing medical malpractice - from as recently as 1998 - "Most physicians do not accept current proclamations about the importance of childhood lead poisoning: the nation's pediatricians did not comply with 1991 recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for annual, universal childhood BPb screening".

    In 1995, around 25% of Cleveland children had confirmed blood lead levels greater than 15 μg/dl... showing how great our lead burden was here, in the days Schoen wrote those words.

     

    Now, realize the symptoms of broken society caused by "symptomatic lead poisoning" are "poverty, violence, homelessness, family dysfunction, abuse, teenage pregnancy, drugs, and alcohol"... exactly what Schoen reported "most pediatricians who practice in a large medical group in an urban area" see as "environmental threats daily".

    Dr. Schoen's JOB - his responsibility as a physician in America - was to comply with and enforce the 1991 recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for annual, universal childhood BPb screening. He is admitting and reporting crimes against children by himself and "most physicians" in America of his time.

    The US Government requires doctors to protect society and protect children from lead poisoning through simple, inexpensive testing, which doctors routinely fail to do, because of conditioning from lead poisoning-denier "doctors" like Schoen.

    Unfortunately, doctors in Northeast Ohio learned medicine from doctors like Shoen, who claimed, in 1998: "Since the early 1970s, when regulations were promulgated eliminating lead from gasoline, paint, and other sources, mean BPb levels have rapidly and continuously fallen, and the threat of lead encephalopathy (Encephalopathy literally means disorder or disease of the brain) and related death has essentially disappeared in the United States."

    So foolish, considering reality, as of 2008, from Environmental Health Watch:

    Cleveland and Cuyahoga County Childhood Lead Poisoning Rates - 2008 (children under 6 years of age)

    • Based on the CDC blood-lead level-of-concern (10 mcg/dl), 6.3% (956 children) in Cleveland were identified as lead-poisoned
    • Based on the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County blood-lead level-of-awareness (5 mcg/dl), 21.7% (3,298 children) in Cleveland were identified as lead-poisoned,
    • Of the 25,351 children in Cuyahoga County that were tested in 2008, 16.2% (3,951 children) were tested at levels of 5 mcg/dl and above.
    • Of the 25,351 children in Cuyahoga County that were tested in 2008, 4.8% (1,174 children) were tested at levels of 10 mcg/dl and above.
    • Lead poisoning and increased blood lead levels have permanent affects on the well-being and health of a child, regardless of the current blood lead level.
    • Prevalence history of Cleveland including charts and maps dating back to 1995.

    Making lead poisoning in Cleveland the worst in the nation.

    In "Dr." Schoen's mind, influencing the minds in the American medical community, the threat of lead poisoning had disappeard by 1998:

    Paradoxically. in the past decade as symptomatic lead poisoning has disappeared, the attention and expenditures devoted to childhood lead poisoning have multiplied. In 1991, the CDC issued a report decreasing the threshold of concern about BPb levels in children from 25 μg/dL to 10 μg/dL, thus increasing the number of children considered to be at risk from childhood lead poisoning from 250,000 to over 3 million, creating an "epidemic by edict". The CDC also recommended that all U.S. children should first have lead testing done during the second half of their first year and then annually until age 5 y. These recommendations would have required testing for as many as 8-16 million U.S. children annually at a mean cost of about $20 per test, or $320 million annually for laboratory costs alone. Further regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought the total cost of lead testing and abatement programs to billions of dollars annually. The CDC issued a report referring to childhood lead poisoning as "the leading environmental threat to U.S. children".

    Here we see the real basis of this Doctor's science - he is trying to protect his employer at the time, Kaiser Permanente, from the cost of testing children in their health system for lead poisoning, and from the costly reality that a high percentage of their child-patients are permanently disabled.

    Dr. Schoen's term "epidemic by edict" is specifically referenced in Little Pamphlets and Big Lies: Federal Authorities Respond to Childhood Lead Poisoning, 1935–2003 (77Kb .PDF), by Christian Warren, PhD, New York Academy of Medicine, in analyzing dishonest science and media that has caused ongoing lead poisoning of 100,000,000s of Americans, over nearly a century:

    An important part of the CDC’s leadership is its dominant role in setting standards: how to set up a screening program, best practices for laboratories, standards of care in case-management. And since the 1980s, the CDC’s standards for risk-assessment and case management have in effect defined the level of lead absorption considered to constitute a case of lead poisoning in the first place. Setting these standards is often highly politically charged. For example, lowering the blood-lead level that triggers medical or public health agency interventions (which for most of the medical community and the public comes to define the boundary between a “normal” and “lead-poisoned” child) dramatically increases the population of at-risk children, a function critics refer to as “epidemic by edict.” Favoring one screening technology over another has huge ramifications for medical technology companies hoping to cash in on enlarged screening programs. Establishing health standards in such a setting requires a mixture of good science, political and marketing savvy, and political will.

    It should have been no surprise, then, that as average blood lead levels fell sharply as a consequence of successes in removing lead from the general environment, advocates
    for universal screening within CDC had increasing difficulty making their case. By the mid-1990s, lead poisoning appeared to be far from the pandemic it had seemed ten years earlier. In 1995, the CDC began reviewing its 1991 recommendations for screening and abatement. At least three related factors pushed CDC toward capitulation. First, the lead industry was successful in manufacturing controversy around the dangers of “low-level” lead exposure through industry-sponsored research and highly public professional and legal attacks on prominent researchers. Second, there arose strong opposition from health care providers unwilling to be saddled with screening for lead poisoning in regions with low prevalence rates—especially in western states where housing stock was predominantly low-lead. In this setting, consensus within the CDC shifted considerably on the question of whether universal screening was a realistic goal.

    Dr. Warren just defined Dr. Schoen: "there arose strong opposition from health care providers unwilling to be saddled with screening for lead poisoning in regions with low prevalence rates—especially in western states".

    As a result of Schoen's global corruption of science - for his former employer Kaiser Permanente - and Schoen's misuse of his medical standing and the media, Cleveland suffers.

    It may come as no surprise Schoen's Kaiser Permanente has a huge customer base in Ohio - it would be interesting to see what percentage of their child-patients in Ohio have been lead tested as the law requires.

    My observation has been that, in Northeast, Ohio, "most physicians do not accept current proclamations about the importance of childhood lead poisoning". They learned the wrong lessons well.


    And, that shows in our ongoing lead poisoning crisis, as Cleveland has the most tragic lead poisoning outcomes in America... low testing rates - highest childhood lead poisoning rates.

    As a result of bad lead science in America, America remains in lead poisoned crisis... meaning "most physicians" and the "nation's pediatricians" are/were wrong about the seriousness of lead poisoning - especially at low levels - and have been generally criminal in their treatment of patients, which cost America our future.

    The 21st Century that Dr. Schoen and his fellow doctors gave us and our children is one of 1,000,000s more toxified citizens than necessary, and the harm they cause others, as best reflected in growing acknowledgement in the academic and legal systems that lead poisoning leads to murder, and lead poisoned murderers are mentally incompetent, and should be treated as such.

    Meaning, America needs a Guide to Mental Health Mitigation (5 MB .PDF) - prepared by David Freedman and the Capital Resource Counsel Project and the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel (May, 2004) - to help defense lawyers ensure that their "clients’ disabilities and impairments are accurately identified and understandably explained".... guides to help defenders explain to courts how and why clients' mental disabilities, like lead poisoning, were fectors in crimes. Regarding lead poisoning, from the Guide to Mental Health Mitigation:

    Lead: Recent research indicates that there is no safe level of lead exposure, with even the smallest amounts, at 1 microgram per deciliter of blood, ingestion in childhood results in lifelong decreases in IQ and increases in behavior problems.

    Lead has been recognized as causing neurological damage for at least 150 years, yet industry was slow to remove lead from places which exposed people to lead’s dangers.

    Even at exceptionally low levels of exposure, lead causes:

    • decreased IQ and cognitive functioning
    • heightened distractibility and shortened attention span
    • impulsivity
    • inability to inhibit inappropriate responses to stimuli
    • poor vigilance
    • inability to follow simple and complex sequences of directions
    • deficits in changing response strategy

    Symptoms Associated with Metal Exposure
             Acute Exposure Symptoms          Chronic Exposure Symptoms
                   abdominal colic                               Persistent cognitive deficit
                     constipation                                      Decline in IQ score
                       vomiting                                         Impaired Attention
                       headache                             Decline in visuo-spatial functioning
                   lightheadedness                                   Impaired Memory
                       dizziness                                      Reduced Reaction time
                     forgetfulness                           Impaired Executive Functioning
                        anxiety                                            Mood Alterations
                      depression
                      irritability
                muscle and joint pain
                        seizure
                         coma
           increased intra-cranial pressure
                      parathesia
                      nightmares
                       confusion
                  emotional lability
                     mood swings
     

    Do you believe lawyers and judges in the courts in Northeast Ohio consider a Guide to Mental Health Mitigation when determining the sentences lead poisoned criminals face?

    Do you think the criminal justice system in Cleveland - with the highest lead poisoning levels in America - provides appropriate treatment for inmates who are lead poisoned, or even knows who they are?

    In Criminality Resulting from Brain Damage from Lead Exposure in Philadelphia and Implications for Management of Deviance in a Fluid Culture (980 Kb .PDF)- Jenna Rosaniathe reflects: "When some of the underlying causes of crime, such as lead poisoning, can be obliterated from society, perhaps the purpose and need for capital punishment in our society may eventually be negated as well."

    Why aren't we exploring such issues in the lead poisoning capital of America?

    Rosaniathe introduces the real reality of lead poisoning in America in 2005, denied by most American physicians and courts still today:

    This thesis explores whether the functional behavioral effects of the brain damage caused by exposure to environmental toxins, such as lead, may be considered by the American culture, and therefore by the American legal system, as mitigation of the culpability of criminal defendants who suffer from such exposure sufficient to prohibit the imposition of the death penalty in capital cases as cruel and unusual punishment.

    The neurological deficits of individuals who exhibit criminal behavior that will be discussed are those caused by the lead poisoning of children. Lead poisoning has been discovered to cause a range of social problems for exposed children due to the damage lead inflicts on developing brains. These social problems can include behavioral problems, learning disabilities, lack of impulse control, and mental retardation, all of which can lead to delinquency and are predictors of crime.

    Rosaniathe concludes:

    The justice system has the means and authority to administer and enforce sentencing in the spirit of rehabilitation as well as punishment, particularly when crime can be proved to be a disease in need of a cure. This culture has the flexibility to accept that crime can be a symptom of disease rather than of the notion of inherent evil based on biblical and consequently cultural conceptions of free will and morality, and can evolve to discern the difference between the two sources in terms of managing deviance from culture. As in the cases of mental retardation and juvenility, there will still be penalties for crimes committed by brain-damaged offenders. Capital punishment cannot be an appropriate penalty for offenders who have demonstrably been brain damaged by lead exposure as this would be cruel and unusual punishment as well as inconsistent with the norms of a cognizant culture which marks an enlightened society.

    It is evident that the American medical community's approach to lead poisoning is inconsistent with the norms of a cognizant culture which marks an enlightened society, and those who are clearly inherently evil, "based on biblical and consequently cultural conceptions of free will and morality", are Dr. Schoen and his followers in the medical profession who have denied real lead poisoning science and so caused 1,000,000s of Americans to be unecesssarily harmed by lead poisoning in our society today.

    Especially disturbing and revealing, in Dr. Schoen's shocking pursuit to save Kaiser money by lead poisoning children, was his use of his publication ability to personally attack Dr. Herbert Needleman, who is a much more significant physician and researcher on the effects of lead poisoning on children, still respected today - from Wikipedia:

    Herbert Needleman, MD, known for research studies on the neurodevelopmental damage caused by lead poisoning, is a pediatrician, child psychiatrist, researcher and professor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, an elected member of the Institute of Medicine, and the founder of the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning (now known as the Alliance for Healthy Homes). Dr. Needleman played a key role in securing some of the most significant environmental health protections achieved during the 20th century, which resulted in a fivefold reduction in the prevalence of lead poisoning among children in the United States by the early 1990s. Despite engendering strong resistance from related industries, which made him the target of frequent attacks, Needleman persisted in campaigning to educate stakeholders, including parents and government panels, about the dangers of lead poisoning. Needleman has been credited with having played the key role in triggering environmental safety measures that have reduced average blood lead levels by an estimated 78 percent between 1976 and 1991.

    Dr. Schoen's "CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING AND TAINTED SCIENCE" is a direct attack on Needleman. Here is why, from Schoen:

    What caused this flurry of expenditures and concern despite rapidly-diminishing childhood BPb levels? The answer: controversial studies showing that BPb levels far lower than those causing symptoms were responsible for subtle neurobehavioral defects in children, including decreased IQ and learning disabilities.

    Concern about these supposed defects was largely the result of a study by Herbert Needleman and colleagues, who published an article in 1979, which showed diminished 1Q in children who had elevated lead levels in dentine. Further work by Needleman and other investigators indicated a possible decrease of 4-8 IQ points for every 10 μg/dL rise in BPb level.

    Dr. Schoen goes on to reveal his core fear, regarding the work of Dr. Needleman:

    This advocacy has prompted recommendations for a multibillion-dollar screening and abatement program which, according to Needleman, would have a societal as well as a medical benefit by helping to alleviate homelessness and joblessness. Being acknowledged as heroic initiator of such a program can be quite a stimulus for researchers to find detrimental effects of low BPb levels.

    Doctor Schoen literally attacked universal lead screening and remediation because it has "a societal as well as a medical benefit by helping to alleviate homelessness and joblessness"... and he attacked Needleman for initiating such a program because that is "heroic".

    What Schoen didn't attack is childhood lead poisoning, as was his job.

    A disproportionate percentage of lead poisoning victims are people of color... environmental racism victims....

    Dr. Schoen's perspective on society and lead poisoning is ignorant, corrupt and/or elitist, if not racist - he concludes his article:

    Elevated BPb level is a marker of a disadvantaged child and is associated with poverty, low parental IQ, dysfunctional families, violence, and other confounders. For example, abused children seen in an emergency department were shown to be 27 times more likely to have elevated BPb levels as controls.

    Acknowledgment--The Medical Editing Departrnent Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, provided editorial assistance.

    Dr. Schoen was a Kaiser Foundation production - of course big business is behind corrupting lead poisoning science.

    In Little Pamphlets and Big Lies: Federal Authorities Respond to Childhood Lead Poisoning, 1935–2003, Christian Warren wrote:

    Without the expansive notion of social responsibility that drove Great Society programs, health agencies, no matter how well-funded, will be subject to undue influence from industries (not only lead manufacturers and landlords seeking shelter from liability, but health providers seeking shelter from costly measures such as lead screening). On the other hand, with that enlarged sense of moral purpose, the leadership of federal efforts to combat childhood lead poisoning could return to 1991’s statement of principle—that universal screening is the gold standard. CDC should insist that targeted screening be considered a compromise—perhaps a necessary capitulation, but a costly one—and work to perfect cheap and effective screening technology and help lower barriers to their adaptation in all lead prevention programs. The “poor may always be with us,” as that lead poisoning researcher concluded in 1940, but our leaders can shape our response to that sad fact, and insist that lead poisoning need not be, even among the least of these.

    Warren also offers excellent observations on what works in lead poisoning eradication:

    What works is a shared sense of the universality of lead’s threat, or at least the “paternalistic” commitment among those in power to protect those most afflicted. What works is regulatory bodies, health providers and communities enlisting the broadest possible coalition of forces to move toward eliminating lead poisoning. This coalition should include industry, whether its participation comes at the point of new restrictions or litigation, or through more voluntary means. All parties in such a coalition must fully acknowledge their competing interests even as they share the same goal. Industry should contribute to, but never be allowed to dominate the field, as it did for much of the twentieth century. And the driving force in this complex process is an empowered and well-funded government regulatory apparatus as science-driven and politically detached as possible.

    What works is the opposite of what Dr. Schoen prescribed.

    What works for addressing lead poisoning will work for addressing climate change, as well.... including attacking bad climate scientists and their bad science, and defending good science in public.

    Consider an account of Dr. Needleman's battle with industry-funded bad lead poisoning-denier science and realize this is not the first time society has had to deal with this cursed problem:

    Box 1. A Battle-Tested Veteran in the Fight for Scientific Integrity

    Liza Gross

    Herbert Needleman is no stranger to the smear tactics of industry. Needleman, a professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, began to document the health effects of low lead exposure in the early 1970s. His groundbreaking work—which industry fought tooth and nail—clearly demonstrated lead's toxic effects on children, providing critical evidence for regulations to eliminate lead from gasoline and interior paints, and to lower the blood lead standard for children.

    Concerned that blood lead levels in an older child would not reflect early exposures, Needleman developed a method to evaluate discarded baby teeth (both teeth and bone accumulate lead) for a more accurate history of past lead exposure. He found that inner-city children had higher lead levels than children living in the suburbs, even though none of the children showed signs of lead poisoning [5]. When Needleman presented his findings at a 1972 meeting of lead researchers, he was surprised by the venomous nature of attacks by industry scientists leveled at any researcher who dared present evidence that lead could cause harm at low doses.

    Needleman continued his work and found that children with elevated tooth lead levels scored lower on a suite of cognitive tests measuring IQ, speech, and language skills. He published his results in a 1979 landmark study showing that early childhood exposure to low levels of lead could compromise a child's intellectual performance and behavior, again, without evidence of lead poisoning [6,7]. Six months later, Needleman received a call from a representative at the International Lead Zinc Research Organization, a nonprofit trade organization that conducts research on behalf of the lead and zinc industry, asking for his data. He declined.

    The attacks began soon after, starting with a Pediatrics paper criticizing Needleman's 1979 study [8], followed by charges that the work was flawed in testimony before the EPA [9]. After reviewing the charges and original work, the EPA confirmed Needleman's findings [10]. Then, in 1991, two psychologists who provided expert testimony on behalf of the tetraethyl lead industry accused Needleman of scientific misconduct. One of the psychologists, Claire Ernhart, had written the critical Pediatrics paper and testified against his study before the EPA. The attorney who filed the complaint with the NIH Office of Research Integrity worked for a firm with links to the Ethyl Corporation of America, the major manufacturer of tetraethyl lead.

    The University of Pittsburgh Medical School began a preliminary investigation of the charges, but denied Needleman's request for open hearings. Needleman sought the support of the faculty assembly, which unanimously voted for open hearings, filed a complaint in federal court, and had the support of 400 independent scientists calling on the chancellor to open the hearings. The university acceded. After a 2-day hearing, and months of deliberation, the committee released a unanimous decision: there was no evidence of scientific misconduct [11]. Thanks to Needleman's pioneering efforts to reduce the hazards of lead [7], average blood lead levels of children in the United States dropped an estimated 78% from 1976 to 1991 (http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t960501b.​html). Whether other defenders of public health will be spared a similar path may ultimately depend on stronger laws to safeguard scientific integrity—and public health—from the undue influence of industry.

    For now, climate science is full of Dr. Schoens who are using credentials and positions they clearly don't deserve to promote science that is wrong, and to wrongfully attack good science and scientists, like Dr. Needleman.

    This is a topic of considerable concern among environmentalists and climate scientists... especially as the new Republican leadership in Congress has promised a challenge to climate science and climate scientists in coming months and years. I recommend the good science community become as aggressive against the bad science community as the bad have been against the good.

    Know the enemy is flawed, expose them, and make matters direct and personal.

    Expose the enemies by name, as Dr. Schoen is exposed here, and make the truth as public and global as possible.

    Make examples of bad lead poisoning-denier scientists to scare bad climate change-denier scientists straight.

    Evelyn Fox Keller, emeritus professor of the history and philosophy of science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, offers further advice for Climate Scientists who find themselves under attack, from NewScientist (registration required):

    Stick to your guns, climate scientists

    Researchers should not be apologising for their errors when they could win hearts and minds by patient explanation, argues Evelyn Fox Keller

    IF NOTHING else, December's Cancún climate conference demonstrated, once again, just how dependent international negotiations are on the American political process. In this respect, the US Senate's failure to pass a climate bill last summer was a colossal setback, and we need to understand how this could have happened.

    One major factor is that public confidence in climate scientists and their science is at an all-time low. This loss of confidence is a direct result of a long-standing campaign to discredit them, initially mounted and funded by business interests and libertarian-conservative organisations.

    The campaign made good use of strategies honed by the tobacco industry and soon recruited an army of "sceptics": some opposed to government regulation per se, some resistant to claims to intellectual authority (especially scientific), and some mobilised by a version of everyone's right to an opinion.

    The upshot is that internet sites, radio and TV channels now transmit "contrarian" attacks on climate scientists on a daily basis. Even responsible newspapers seeking "balance" contribute to the false impression that climate scientists are deeply divided about the danger and relevance of human activity to global warming. Not knowing who or what to believe, the natural response of the public is to do nothing.

    "Climategate" may well have brought tensions to a breaking point. The term was coined to describe the scandals erupting, first, from the theft and release of some scientists' private emails, and second, from the exposure of an error in a report by a subcommittee of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate scientists were charged with mounting a "hoax" and engaging in "fraud" and "conspiracy", and bombarded with threats. The researchers were - and are - thunderstruck: nothing in their training prepares them for the vitriol of such attacks.

    Until recently, the main response has been to take refuge in peer review and to blame scientific illiteracy. But with the escalation of attacks, some now feel the need to engage with their critics, admit mistakes, and open up their data. As a result, the media reports that researchers have been learning a little humility and trying harder to stay clear of policy advocacy. This response, they claimed, indicated a new willingness to engage with critics, as if this was a step towards more democratic relations between science and society.

    I am not sure. I am all in favour of greater engagement with the public, but propitiation is not engagement, and self-criticism must not obscure the fact that these "revelations" are not evidence of misconduct but of the human nature of scientific inquiry. Nor must it obscure the fact that their own confidence in their findings on climate remains unshaken.

    If they are to be blamed at all it is for adhering to an image of science as capable of delivering absolute (and value-free) truth: an image most scholars recognise as indefensible, and one that, among themselves, most researchers accept as unrealistic. They well recognise that, however rigorous their practice, the knowledge they produce falls short of infallibility, certainty, and value-neutrality. Furthermore, confidence in their findings does not depend on such unattainable ideals, but on the constant scrutiny, mutual criticism, and peer review to which they are subject.

    Climate science is especially prone to uncertainty, but what mainly distinguishes it from other sciences is the gravity of its social implications. That this science has become so politicised is probably inevitable. Because its findings so conspicuously affect the body politic, climate science might be said to be inherently political.

    Yet the notion that scientific knowledge should be politically neutral persists, posing a deep dilemma by suggesting that engaging in public controversy could compromise their claim to scientific objectivity and undermine their credibility.

    On the contrary, I say that researchers have a responsibility to so engage. Discussions of scientific responsibility often centre on questions of scientific integrity. But researchers are also under an obligation to the public who have placed their trust in them - by their implicit contract with the state, which by funding them makes the product of their labour a public good.

    For as long as the scientific knowledge they produce remains under their control, they are its custodians, responsible for its safe delivery into public hands. They have an obligation to convey the results of their expertise to those likely to be affected by the implications of those results.

    They need to redouble their efforts to make their arguments, their doubts, and the reasons for both their confidence and their concerns intelligible to the non-specialist citizen. They need to combat, piece by piece, the misrepresentations brought in support of attacks on their scientific integrity, and to show readers why the popular accounts and even the naming of "Climategate" are so misleading. And they need to explain why the expectations of science on which these accounts are based are similarly misleading. Doing so is rarely as difficult as they assume: disagreement, uncertainty and distortion are familiar territory to most readers who, even without specialist technical expertise, are capable of the discrimination needed to establish trust.

    What I am proposing is far from a solution. But if it encourages climate scientists to take the lead in breaking the current impasse, both because they are best equipped to take on the task, and because their responsibility as scientists obliges them to do so, it is at least a start.

    Scientists also have obligations incurred by the trust the public has invested in them

    Evelyn Fox Keller is emeritus professor of the history and philosophy of science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

     

    AttachmentSize
    drschoen.jpg8.89 KB
    Little_Pamphlets.pdf77.61 KB
    lead_exposure_brain_damage.pdf980.61 KB
    pb-tainted_science.pdf143.94 KB


    Falsely making a terrorist

    In Chicago last week, among the many arrested NATO protesters with whom the State Department does not stand are three young white americans arrested for "domestic terrorism" in what Dave Lindorff reports was "a warrantless house invasion reminiscent of what US military forces are doing on a daily [and nightly] basis in Afghanistan." If the US government, which stands with protesters everywhere except in America, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Palestine, can make this into a terrorism case, the three americans can be convicted on the basis of secret evidence or simply be incarcerated for the rest of their lives without a trial.


    HEY ETHYL, IT'S LEAD POISONING PREVENTION WEEK!


    sui generis - Real Time Justice

    PRESIDENTS COUNCIL OF CAPITALIST PRINCIPALS

    QUINTO EXACT- The fifth and last call

    By What Warrant he claims to have, use, and enjoy the liberties, privileges, and franchises aforesaid.

    A writ which lies against any person or corporation that usurps any franchise or liberty against the king without good title, and is brought against the usurpers to show by what right or title they hold or claim such franchise or liberty. It also lies for misuser or nonuser of privileges granted ; and, by Bracton, it may be brought against one who intrudes himself as heir into land, ftc. Old Nat. Br. 149.

    Wait 'till my American lawyers hear about this!

    Emphatically saying what the law is, terminating the national emergency;

    reforming legislation, abolishing holistic accounting & jurisprudence.

    High Peak Regulations Week!

    ANCIENT DEMESNE OF THE COLLEGE OF THE HUMMINGBIRD

    takes possession without institution or induction. 2 Rol. Abr. 356.

    In all actions upon the case and other pleadings, wherein the party claiming may now by law allege his right generally, without averring the existence of such right from time immemorial, such general allegation shall still be sufficient, and if the same shall be denied, all the matters in the act mentioned and provided, applicable to the case, shall be admissible in evidence to sustain or rebut such allegation; and in all pleadings to actions of trespass, and in all other pleadings wherein before the act it would have been necessary to allege the right to have existed from time immemorial, it shall be sufficient to allege the enjoyment thereof as of right by the occupiers of the tenement in respect whereof the same is claimed for such of the periods mentioned in the act as may be applicable to the case, and without claiming in the name or right of the owner of the fee, as is now usually done ; and if the other party shall intend to rely on any proviso, exception, incapacity, disability, contract, agreement, or other matter therein-before mentioned, or on any cause or matter of fact or of law not inconsistent with the simple fact of enjoyment, the same shall be specially alleged and set forth in answer to the allegation of the party claiming, and shall not be received in evidence on any general traverse or denial of such allegation.

    “Whenever the Federal Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are authoritative, void, and of no force.” Thomas Jefferson

    completion by EPA- SCRR May 6, 2004

    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE 2005

    clean land?

    Special Agent in Charge Anthony S. Costakis

    San Bruno, California - United States

    epaoigsf@gmail.com

    415-878-3882

    Special Agent Peter Jackson, FBI, Redding Field Office

    NATION: Whither liberty?

    A Text Size

    All Americans who have perished in combat did so to accomplish a mission — to win freedom from tyranny, to defend their families, to vanquish fascism and totalitarianism, to defeat the enemies of the United States. More broadly, they fought to bequeath a free nation to future generations. As the living memorialize the fallen today, Americans should also take time to think about that cause as it relates to the prerogatives of Washington, D.C.

    Since the Revolutionary War, nearly 850,000 men and women under arms have died to preserve the “unalienable Rights … of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” To ensure that people with power would not encroach on those rights, defined in the Declaration of Independence, the Founders limited the scope of their new central government. James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 45:

    “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.”

    In practice, though, Madison’s vision of central government powerful in war and weak in peace has not held up well. Power flows to Washington and rarely reverses course. And with every power granted the federal government, Americans give up more of the freedom so many have died to defend.

    Many of Washington’s claims on power originate with the clause in the Constitution that lets the federal government regulate commerce between the states. Ironically, Madison dismissed concerns about the commerce clause in the same paragraph of Federalist No. 45: “The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.”

    If only he knew! In 1942, the Supreme Court would rule that the federal government could prohibit Roscoe Filburn of Montgomery County, Ohio, from growing wheat on his own farm to feed his own family. In doing so, Filburn violated the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which controlled wheat production and which the court found to be within Congress’ commerce clause powers.

    Wickard v. Filburn has become the basis for much congressional usurpation in the decades since. The commerce clause is at issue once again in litigation involving the Obama administration’s health care law.

    The nation will soon find out if, as Justice Anthony Kennedy put it in March, Congress “can create commerce in order to regulate it” by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance. Court observers expect a decision before the court’s term ends June 25.

    The Constitution of 1787 is not the revealed word of the Almighty, of course, and not every departure from it, whether by amendment or court order, is a step backward for freedom. However, accumulating federal power comes at a price.

    The question is whether a particular new government power is worth that price. To answer, Americans might ask themselves what someone who died in the cause of freedom might say about the trade-off.



    After 150 Years We Are Still Fighting The Civil War

    Above is the 2012 Presidential Election Map. You can see President Obama will likely lose the South…no surprise there. LBJ knew the South was lost for Democrats for generations after Civil Rights passed in the 1960′s. We remain a very much divided country. We always have been. From the very beginning the argument has been [...]



    Jumpstart Our Business



    CATASTROPHE MITIGATION AND RESTORATION SERVICES (PRESOL)
    SOL: HQ0034-12-R-3028
    POC: Samia C. Brandford, 703-545-1578, samia.brandford@whs.mil.
    POP: 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301.
    WEB: FBO.gov Permalink at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/WHS/REF/HQ0034-12-R-3028/listing.html
    NAICS: 562910, Remediation Services.




    EPA Awarding $69.3 Million in Grants to Clean and Redevelop Contaminated Properties

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is giving out $69.3 million grants for new investments to provide communities with funding necessary to clean and redevelop contaminated properties, boost local economies and create jobs while protecting public health.

    "Restored Brownfield properties can serve as cornerstones for rebuilding struggling communities. These grants will be the first step in getting pollution out and putting jobs back into neighborhoods across the country,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Clean, healthy communities are places where people want to live, work and start businesses. We're providing targeted resources to help local partners transform blighted, contaminated areas into centers of economic growth."

    The 245 grantees include tribes and communities in 39 states across the country, funded by EPA’s Brownfields Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup (ARC) grants, and Revolving Loan Fund Supplemental grants. The grants awarded will assess and clean up abandoned industrial and commercial properties. Nearly half of the grantees this year are new awardees who demonstrate a high level of commitment for undertaking specific projects and leveraging the funding to move those projects forward.



    Superfund Report - 05/28/2012

    EPA Restates Pesticide Cleanup Stance, But Agrees To Weigh Site Factors

    EPA waste chief Mathy Stanislaus is reiterating the agency's position that residual pesticides left in soil, once they no longer serve their "intended use," may be regulated as a hazardous waste but in a recent letter, he told a top Army official, who is concerned that the stance may trigger new cleanups, that the agency will consider site-specific factors, such as future land use, to determine which sites will actually require cleanups.1240 words
     

    IG Resuming Audit Of Superfund Remedial Action Contract Costs

    EPA's Office of Inspector General (IG) is resuming work on an audit of the Superfund program's remedial action contracts, examining whether the agency has implemented recommendations from a 2004 IG audit that called on EPA to improve the structure and administration of its cleanup support contracts.521 words
     

    Bankruptcy Case May Send Warning About Environmental Liability Transfers

    The outcome of a high-profile bankruptcy trial underway in New York could provide a warning that companies buying or selling assets with existing environmental cleanup liabilities must take steps to ensure their disclosure of liabilities is well documented and that everyone involved in a sale is acting in their own company's best interests, according to a lawyer familiar with the case.806 words
     

    DOJ Restates Bid To Overturn Novel Ruling Allowing Cleanup Renegotiation

    The Justice Department (DOJ) is reiterating its arguments that an appellate court should overturn a precedent-setting trial court ruling that allows a liable California county to renegotiate a Superfund cleanup agreement, with DOJ underscoring its charge that the pact should not be treated as a fixed-price contract that is held to a different legal review standard than cleanup decrees.1610 words
     

    Industry Charges EPA's Proposed Change To CRT Export Rule Is Unlawful

    The electronics and recycling industries are charging that EPA's proposal to tighten reporting requirements for the export of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for recycling and reuse is an unlawful expansion of regulatory powers over products that are still functioning and would ensnare innocent parties in liability, potentially discouraging responsible recycling and reuse.1164 words
     

    California Recycling, Diversion Plan Draws Early Industry Criticism

    A draft report by California's waste department to the state legislature recommending a variety of new waste diversion and recycling strategies to reach a 75 percent waste-diversion goal is raising initial concerns from industry officials over how the agency is defining waste "disposal," which could limit the types of recycling or diversion activities used to meet a 75 percent goal, sources say.867 words
     

    House Presses DOE To Weigh IG Advice To Reprioritize Waste Cleanups

    House defense authorizers are pressing the Energy Department (DOE) to seriously consider calls by its Inspector General (IG) to reprioritize its environmental nuclear waste cleanup efforts on a national, complex-wide risk basis, though the lawmakers say that adopting the approach wholesale may not be possible.864 words
     

    Treasury Deflects Lawmaker's Query Into Use Of Judgment Fund At FUDS

    The Treasury Department is denying it has a significant role in determining when the so-called Judgment Fund can be used to pay third parties for the Army Corps of Engineers' share of cleanup liability at multi-party Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), deflecting an Illinois congressman's inquiry into the propriety of using the fund over to the Justice Department (DOJ).1262 words
     

    States Urge Appropriators To Restore FUDS Cleanup Funds In FY13 Budget

    State regulators are urging congressional appropriators to reject the Obama administration's proposed 15 percent cut to the Defense Department's (DOD) formerly used defense sites (FUDS) cleanup program budget in fiscal year 2013, arguing such a reduction would halt "most" pending cleanups and site investigations.478 words
     

    CDC Seeks Coordination With EPA, HUD On Lead Exposure Issues

    Federal health officials are planning to meet with EPA and other agencies tasked with addressing lead exposure issues as part of a slew of recommendations to better protect children from the neurotoxin, including eliminating a standard blood lead level of concern in recognition that there is no safe level of exposure.661 words
     

    EPA Children's Office Seeks Pediatric Experts For Perchlorate Review Panel

    EPA's children's health office is seeking to ensure that several pediatric experts are selected for the Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel that will review the agency's proposed health goal for perchlorate, a move that could bolster the agency's approach, which sought to protect children and pregnant women from the chemical's harmful effects.893 words
     

    Advisors Urge North Carolina To Strengthen PFOA Drinking Water Goal

    North Carolina's Science Advisory Board (NCSAB) is recommending that the state strengthen its drinking water cleanup standard for (PFOA), the persistent chemical used to makes products stain resistant and waterproof, despite uncertainty with new data from EPA and other federal scientists that presented a "murky" picture of the substance's risks.696 words
     

    EPA, Industry Seek Data Monitoring Pact For Key Plastics Ingredient

    EPA is entering negotiations to gain more data on certain siloxane chemicals -- data which could be used in crafting risk assessments for the chemicals -- the latest move by the agency as it attempts to better regulate the plastics ingredient that has proven problematic because of its potential benefits in medical devices and other applications.930 words
     

    EPA Sends Revised Combustion Emissions Rules For White House Review

    EPA has sent its highly anticipated package of revised boiler and incinerator combustion air rules for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review, which may help EPA meet its goal of issuing the rules this spring -- though the rules could face fresh industry and activist legal challenges depending on their final content.682 words
     

    EPA Enforcement Seen Shaping Fracking Policy Despite Regulatory Limits

    EPA is increasingly using settlements in oil and gas enforcement cases to secure monitoring, permitting and other measures, in what industry sources say could be a strategy for shaping the agency's upcoming hydraulic fracturing policies given statutory and resource limitations that are making it difficult for EPA to craft formal regulatory policies.1321 words
     

    EPA Drops Proposal To Scale Back Chemical Safety Enforcement In FY13

    EPA is dropping plans to significantly reduce funding and resources for hazardous chemical safety enforcement in fiscal year 2013, after state and local officials raised concerns that the reduced enforcement could discourage compliance by industry, leading to outdated information on hazardous chemicals and increased risks to communities.735 words
     

    Highway Bill Conferees Face Competing Calls On Coal Ash Provision

    The House-Senate highway bill conference committee is facing competing calls from House members on whether to include a provision in the pending legislation to curb EPA's ability to regulate coal ash, with Democrats appearing to be split on the issue.639 words
     

    Democrats Doubt Prospects For TSCA Reform Bill Absent GOP Support

    Key Democratic senators say they are unlikely to hold votes on pending legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) until they gain backing from at least one Republican senator, though they say they plan to use a recent Chicago Tribune series that raises questions about chemical industry marketing and political tactics to win GOP support for the bill.593 words
     

    TSCA Lead Shot Exclusion Approved In House-Passed Defense Bill

    Legislation to exempt lead bullets from EPA regulation under toxics law passed the House May 18 as part of the massive fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill, H.R. 4310.455 words
     

    Lawmakers Urge OMB To Return CBI Rule For EPA Economic Review

    House lawmakers are calling on the White House to return EPA's long-delayed proposed rule seeking greater public disclosure of chemical data so the agency can assess whether the rule will cause job losses as manufacturers move research and development (R&D) to countries with better protections for confidential business information (CBI).720 words
     

    States Harmonizing Definition Of Underground Tank Emergency Response

    State underground tank regulators are working to more clearly define what constitutes an "emergency response" in order to ensure that state regulators report emergencies to EPA in a consistent and accurate manner, which would ensure fairness in federal funding.344 words
     

    California Water Board Adopts Policy To Speed UST Cleanups

    The California water board recently adopted an underground storage tank (UST) cleanup policy intended to accelerate the cleanup and closure of UST sites throughout the state, but attorneys for some UST stakeholders are threatening to sue the board over its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the policy because it downplays potential impacts on water quality.997 words
     

    Connecticut Asks EPA For More Time To Properly Fund Tank Cleanups

    Connecticut is asking EPA to hold off on possibly decertifying the state's underground storage tank (UST) cleanup program until after a special session of the Connecticut legislature this summer, when legislators intend to pass a plan to fund existing cleanup claims before encouraging tank owners to shift to private insurance.584 words
     

    EPA Grants Managers Discretion To Select Risk Basis For Water Advisories

    In a policy reversal, EPA is now calculating lifetime non-cancer risk levels for all drinking water contaminants, even if the chemical has a cancer risk level, effectively widening the choices risk managers have when deciding which level to use to best reduce risk for a specific situation, such as a cleanup.1255 words
     

    Industry Urges EPA To Craft 'Evidence' Guide Ahead Of NAS' IRIS Review

    Industry is urging EPA to move ahead with adopting a weight-of-evidence guidance to address data quality concerns in its risk assessment program and not wait for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to address the issue in its recently announced review of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program.630 words
     

    May 24, 2012

    Feinstein Letter to California Fish and Game on Drakes Bay Oyster Co.

    November 2011 – Given the repeated allegations of scientific misconduct, Congress included, at my request, report language in its Fiscal Year 2012 appropriations omnibus that directed the National Academy of Sciences to conduct another review of the Park Service’s work on the draft EIS which was released in September 2011. The Academy and the Park Service are in discussions about the study.


    the Department of the Interior’s Inspector General has opened a new investigation into the Park Service’s conduct. The Park Service’s repeated misrepresentations of the scientific record have damaged its trust with the local community, and stained its reputation for even-handed treatment of competing uses of public resources.



    EPA told to come clean on feedlot flyovers

    By Joe Duggan
    WORLD-HERALD BUREAU

    LINCOLN — A spy in the sky over Nebraska and Iowa has gotten under the hides of some livestock producers and their representatives in Washington.

    The Environmental Protection Agency’s aerial photo surveillance of livestock feeding operations in both states flew under the radar for nearly two years.

    But now the flyover program, conducted to help enforce the Clean Water Act, has prompted a demand for answers from all five members of Nebraska’s congressional delegation.

    The delegation delivered a joint letter Tuesday to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, listing 25 questions about the legality of the surveillance and the privacy rights of business owners. Although the letter stopped short of calling for an end to the flyovers, the two senators and three representatives want to know more about their purpose.

    “Nebraskans are rightfully skeptical of an agency which continues to unilaterally insert itself into the affairs of rural America,” Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., said in a statement.

    EPA representatives in Washington, D.C., did not immediately return messages seeking reaction. A spokesman for the agency’s Region 7 office in Kansas City said he was not authorized to comment.

     

    Key Officials Grapple With Ways To Speed Endocrine Science In Decisions

    As EPA continues to struggle to advance its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), key policymakers are grappling with ways to speed scientific research showing the harmful endocrine disrupting effects of chemicals and use the data in regulatory decisions.1323 words




    On December 16, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from interfering with citizen's rights on their claim that the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional...

    The government argued that if a single exception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. CSA is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

    In 2009 the Department of Justice issued new guidelines allowing for non-enforcement.

    Guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

    Uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecution...on core federal enforcement priorities committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws. Prosecution of individuals...who use...is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

    NEED EXERCISE? JUST GET OUT & USE IT!

    Agenda

    F2C: Freedom to Connect Agenda 0.99.9.1

    DRAFT (still subject to change) 8May12

    Registration required to attend F2C: Freedom to Connect.


    Meet The World’s Highest-Scoring

     “Green Power: Turn It On” award 

    Bayer MaterialScience announced plans


    joint efforts



    (3ROX).

    PSC Provides Direct Link from Galaxy to the XSEDE Backbone

    PITTSBURGH  —Mountains of genomics data that had to work their way through a bottleneck of network connections now have a direct, high-speed link to the world’s most powerful data-processing resources — thanks to network engineering at the Three Rivers Optical Exchange (3ROX).

    3ROX, a high-performance Internet hub operated and managed by the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC), has put into place a high-bandwidth link from Galaxy, a data-intensive bioinformatics program at Penn State, to the network backbone of the National Science Foundation’s XSEDE (Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment) program. This link opens the high-performance computing (HPC) resources of XSEDE to a research community that has not traditionally been a big user of HPC but, with emerging genomics technologies, will benefit greatly from using it.

    This is the first dedicated link from a site that’s not an XSEDE “service provider” to the XSEDE network backbone, said Wendy Huntoon, PSC director of networking, and Penn State is a pilot site to do this because of Galaxy. “This link,” she added, “enables a much more efficient capability for Galaxy to get its work done.”

    Galaxy, an open, web-based platform for biomedical research, allows biologists, who traditionally have not had the need to use HPC technologies in their research, to do complex data analyses in easy, web-based protocols. Galaxy has more than 10,000 users who run 4-5,000 analyses daily. Genomics data, in particular, has exploded over the last few years as a result of “next-generation sequencing” — which makes it possible to read DNA sequences at dramatically improved speeds compared to prior technologies.

    Genomics researchers, however, need to assemble the sequences accurately into complete genomes and analyze them, and the skyrocketing quantities of data pose a research bottleneck, to which 3ROX and XSEDE now offer a solution. The new link to XSEDE, facilitated by 3ROX, is a 10-gigabit per second (10 billion bits per second) fiber-optic based link that greatly improves Galaxy’s connectivity to XSEDE sites.

    “Next-generation sequencing is the biological version of the radio telescope,” says Anton Nekrutenko, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Penn State, who co-developed Galaxy. “These emerging technologies place huge demands on data analysis and storage.”

    “The network connection to XSEDE through PSC is a huge breakthrough,” adds Nekrutenko. “It provides us with the ability to run up to 150,000 jobs per month, and we expect to quadruple that as this link gets fully up and running. It allows biologists to take advantage of HPC resources in ways they otherwise could not, not only the computing, but the storage resources at XSEDE sites. It democratizes research by making XSEDE useful for a scientific community that traditionally has not been a heavy user of high-performance computing.”

    A four-year grant of $1.5-million to 3ROX in 2010 through NSF’s Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) program provided support for the new high-bandwidth link. “This ARI grant is intended to advance ‘meritorious scientific research,’” said Huntoon, “and we were able to provide the equipment from this funding.”

    Through XSEDE’s Extended Collaborative Support Service (ECSS), XSEDE staff are working with Galaxy scientists to develop capability that will allow biologists to transparently use XSEDE data analysis and storage resources as needed. Led by ECSS “Science Gateways” manager Suresh Marru (Indiana University), ECSS consultants Terri Schwartz (San Diego Supercomputer Center) and Josephine Palencia (PSC) are collaborating with Galaxy staff to incorporate distributed data analysis and management capabilities into future versions of Galaxy software.

    More about 3ROX: http://www.3rox.net

    About PSC: http://www.psc.edu

    The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center is a joint effort of Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh together with Westinghouse Electric Company.


    Governor Sean Parnell says the overall problem is “federal overreach.”

    “Basically, it takes one EPA employee - that's what we had - one EPA employee that walked on that property, uninvited, with no credentials, and had no evidence that that property was a wetlands, and with that opinion, and her opinion only, she turned our life into a five-year nightmare," said Mike Sackett.

    "The Sackett case is an example of all us working together to protect all our individual rights - rights that a heavy-handed government would trample, whether you're from Idaho, Alaska or any other state,” Parnell said. “That's why we joined in as a state."

    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability; Federal Register: Damages for injury to Party, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable cost of assessing such injury, destruction, or loss...reimburse recipient party assessment costs as natural resource trustees to implement natural resource restoration.

    The U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory issued the following news release:

    Two Department of Energy (DOE)-supported programs are helping the Crow Tribe in Montana produce energy with minimal environmental impact, educate future generations, and prepare its community for future jobs in energy fields.

    At the heart of the Work Readiness Program and the Cultivation and Characterization of Oil Producing Algae Internship are 6-week intensive courses of study that teach real-world skills and provide opportunities for academic and industrial advancement in science, math, and energy.

    The programs are supported in part by the Office of Fossil Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), as well as the Many Stars Project, Accelergy Inc., the University of North Dakota's Energy & Environmental Research Center, Little Big Horn College, and Montana State University. Ultimately, the two programs are helping the Crow Tribe take steps toward preserving local resources and jobs, and ultimately improving their reservation.

    States Rights of Sovereign Immunity to federal prosecution for a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

    Equal protection of the law makes CSA unenforceable in practice, State's Rights and equal protection of rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the several states, and all treaties made thereby.

    Habeas Corpus Petition for release of hostages, emancipation of all prisoners of the federal intrusion, comprehensive annulment, deforcement and debarment.of state or federal prosecutions of individuals...who use...controlled substances. FREE THE PEOPLE!

    Regional Haze

    The United States protects the right of adult Americans to use and smoke tobacco.

    Prohibition of alcohol was tried in the United States from 1920 to 1933, it nearly destroyed the fabric of the nation, created organized crime syndicates that still plague the country, and was roundly decried as an abject failure that cost the nation dearly.

     

    The federal government recognizes no therapeutic value for marijuana, however, it does recognize the therapeutic value of the phenylethylamines amphetamine and methamphetamine, (dexadrine, desoxyn) (for ADHD, endocrine disorders, obesity, etc.) and for the protected religious uses by native Americans (tri-methoxy-phenylethylamine, i.e. mescaline, peyote.) and the medicinal value of opiates, (codeine, cough syrups, etc.) morphine, (pain killer, etc.) and numerous other derivatives and synthetic analogs.

     

     Drugs such as the stimulant Ritalin and the tranquilizer Prozac are effectively designer drugs fabricated to mimic some of the effects of cocaine (methyl-tropane phenyl ester).

     

    The first padres in the California empire, (the missionaries), having established relations with the indigenous tribes, (savages), with such enticements as cloth and iron, persuaded the natives to dwell at the Mission(s) and accept Christ in exchange for their gifts. Upon the consent to this contract the Chiefs produced their calumets, (peace pipes) to confirm the agreement by their customary manner, and as they said “To celebrate their mutual warm feelings”.

     The chief padre, alarmed by the practice, suggested that it was an abomination or “sin” and even perhaps “devil worship”.

     

     The native’s chief informed the padre that such an insult would be considered a declaration of war.

     

     The chief padre wrote to the Bishop in Mexico to explain the situation and get advice.

     

     The Bishop replied: The heathen practice of sharing the calumet is not much different from the ancient practice of making burnt offerings at the temple, it is a form of oblation, or sacrifice. Therefore, you are instructed to inform the chiefs and savages of the California empire that it is the order of the Bishop of Mexico, in the name of the King of Spain, and the Pope of Rome, that henceforth and forever after, the natives of California shall be protected in their practices of oblation, and no objection shall be made to their celebration of mutual warm feelings by the passing of the calumet.

    This was the first treaty between Europeans and the native tribes of California.

     

    The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo requires the United States to honor all treaties made by the nations of Mexico or Spain with the native tribes of California.


    Mine Camp.

    Rollback to 1862, when the chariot of the democratic government’s wheels of justice in motion are in a quagmire of uncertainty on the trail of constitutional safety.


    Science Wednesday: Wheels of Progress  “shotgun!”


    Let’s Feed People, Not Landfills


    EPA Partner on Green Initiatives"...support the growing green economy,” said Jim Jones, EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).

    EPA speaker reviews risk assessment program

    Written by  Fenceviewer Staff Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 8:27 am

    BAR HARBOR — Keith Salazar, an Environmental Protection Agency biologist, will be speaking about the history of the agency and its Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS Program. The talk, “From the lab to policy: the role of EPA’s IRIS program in risk assessment,” will be at College of the Atlantic’s McCormick Lecture Hall from 4 to 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29. It is the last in the spring series of the college’s human ecology forum.

    The EPA was established in 1970 in the wake of elevated concern about environmental pollution. It consolidates in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. Since its inception, the EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the nation, a COA spokesman said. IRIS was created in 1985 as a human health assessment program to evaluate scientific data on the toxic effects that may result from exposure to environmental contaminants.

    The IRIS Program develops science-based, rigorously peer-reviewed assessments that include an analysis of the health effects resulting from extensive exposure to various environmental substances. These assessments, which are on a searchable database, describe the health effects of more than 540 chemicals. By analyzing cancer incidence information for both humans and animals, the risk of cancer for a given level of chemical exposure is calculated. Regulatory programs and regional offices within the EPA utilize this information in combination with exposure data to determine the potential risk to public health. In this way, IRIS research contributes to regulatory activities and other decisions aimed at protecting public health.

    Dr. Salazar has a Ph.D. in immunology from West Virginia University. The author of numerous publications on immunology and toxicology, Dr. Salazar has been working at the EPA since 2008. His talk at COA’s McCormick Lecture Hall is free and open to the public. For more, contact John Visvader at jvisvader@coa.edu or 288-5105.


    locus standi

    Citizen's initiative for 'smart and streamlined' regulations, Stewardship.


    Under the influence of innovativeness strategy conducted jointly by the University of San Diego, USA, the University of Muenster, Germany, and the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Our objective is to examine which strategic orientations and organizational capabilities lead to innovation and subsequent competitive advantage.


    Besides raffling off an iPad 3, we will donate $ 3 for every participant to the “Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation”. To fill out the questionnaire, please click on the following link:

    http://ww3.unipark.de/uc/academic-survey

    If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

    Carsten Gelhard
    Institute of Business Administration at the Department of Chemistry and Pharmacy,
    University of Muenster, Germany
    Gelhard@sandiego.edu

    Prof. Dr. Sebastian Kortmann
    Assistant Professor for Strategy and Innovation,
    Amsterdam Business School, The Netherlands

    Prof. Dr. Carsten Zimmermann
    Assistant Professor of Management
    School of Business Administration
    University of San Diego, USA

     innovativeness? Up in smoke, OR ON THE ROCKS?

    The doctrine of nullification, used against both the partisan Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, is alive and well. A-List founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison considered absurd the viewpoint that the Federal Government was the exclusive or final judge of the limits of its own power. The states, after a Rip Van Winkle snooze, are awaking to the idea that ‘no’ can be an answer. Nullification laws opposing the NDAA, REAL ID, marijuana laws, Obamacare and the Food Safety and Modernization Act have passed or are pending in a dozen states.. Our Constitution is in distress and the 2.7 million federal civilian employees might not be inclined to help.

    Audit the Federal Reserve

    Written by 

    GOP leadership in the House of Representatives announced that legislation to thoroughly audit the secretive Federal Reserve, a wildly popular measure pushed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) for decades, will come up for a floor vote in July. Honest-money advocates and pro-transparency activists celebrated the news as a historic opportunity to rein in the central bank, which has come under heavy fire — especially in recent years — for debasing the U.S. dollar, manipulating markets, and showering big banks with trillions in bailouts.     

    The legislation, H.R. 459, already has over 225 co-sponsors in the House including an impressive roster of senior Democrats and Republicans, some of whom chair important committees. In the Senate, however, a similar bill has only about 20 co-sponsors so far, forcing Audit-the-Fed activists to wage a massive campaign aimed at exposing Senators who refuse to support transparency at the shadowy central bank. Polls in recent years revealed that four out of five Americans support auditing the Fed.   

    “The Fed has proven it cannot be trusted and must be audited. While the banksters’ dangerous schemes have been going on for years, the bailouts exposed the trillions being stolen from the American people,” noted Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a sponsor of the Senate legislation and the son of Congressman Ron Paul. “It is time to Audit the Fed. Time to shine a bright spotlight on the largest theft in American history.”

    But victory in what Sen. Paul called this “vital effort to rein in the Federal Reserve” will not be easy, he noted. The establishment is already fighting back hard against the plan in an effort to shield the controversial institution from public scrutiny. And as the battle heats up, the Fed and its supporters will not give up easily. 

    “As we enter this critical time, we have an unprecedented chance to finish this fight and finally hold the Fed accountable for all it has done to wreck our economy and endanger our nation,” Sen. Paul concluded. “Don’t let this opportunity slip away.”

    Experts and economic analysts have long said that if citizens understood what was really going on behind closed doors at the privately owned central bank, a tsunami of outrage would almost certainly force politicians to shut down the Fed and restore honest money once and for all. Even a watered-down audit, passed as part of the broader Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill, exposed blatant conflicts of interest among top Fed officials as well as some $16 trillion in Fed bailouts to big banks around the world.

    Public outrage was unprecedented. Millions of Americans who had never even seriously contemplated the institution or its functions demanded reform. And lawmakers, political candidates, and grassroots organizations — realizing that there was no way the cat was going back in the bag — eventually jumped on the bandwagon, too.  

    “This historic moment is only possible thanks to your relentless pressure. Now we must turn up the heat to secure victory — first in the House and then in Harry Reid’s U.S. Senate,” wrote Vice-President Matt Hawes of the freedom-promoting Campaign for Liberty, one of the organizations leading the public battle for an audit that is planning a huge operation to make sure the legislation becomes law. “Now, we just need to show Congress the American people demand action on the Audit the Fed bill.” 

    With the looming vote, officials will soon have the chance to demonstrate whether their loyalty lies with the American people or with the mega-banks that literally own and control the Fed system. “You see, with the piling up of trillions of dollars in reckless bailouts of Wall Street and international bankers, even many politicians in Washington, D.C. want to show you they’re ‘being responsible,’ ” Hawes explained. “What better way for Congress to do this than by auditing the Federal Reserve to account for the trillions stolen from the U.S. taxpayers?” 

    The Fed, of course, has fiendishly resisted an audit — going so far as to hire a lobbyist to defend its interests on Capitol Hill while producing pro-central bank propaganda aimed at children — all under the guise of maintaining its supposed “independence.” But activists and monetary-policy experts suspect something far more sinister is going on. 

    “They know coming clean with Congress and the American people on what they’ve done to our money would result in an anti-Fed firestorm,” noted Hawes, echoing comments made by a vast array of experts and policy makers who support sound money. “So can you imagine the impact of a full-scale audit?”

    According to Hawes, the Campaign for Liberty, and numerous economists, auditing the Fed would expose the destructive economic consequences of centrally planning interest rates and manipulating the supply of currency. It would also show that the central banking system leads to the destruction of the middle class, the destruction of the currency, and eventually, chaos.

    “You and I have seen the damage the out-of-control Fed can cause, especially during a time of crisis. As you know, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and their cronies on Wall Street have for nearly four years been engaged in the worst plundering of a country’s wealth in the history of civilization,” Hawes explained in a letter to supporters soliciting help for the battle ahead.

    “Americans are crushed under a mountain of debt, yet the Fed continues to print more money — backed by nothing but the whims of Ben Bernanke and international bankers,” he added. “If you and I don’t put an end to it all, it will clearly be the ruin of our entire way of life.” The next crisis, experts believe, could be just around the corner.

    Other commentators backing the legislation also emphasized that the time to move on this crucial measure is now — for more than one reason. “As the global financial system teeters on the cusp of another recession, and nations throughout the Eurozone fall to economic insolvency, the time appears right for Congress to finally address the issue of the Federal Reserve, especially before their original 100-year charter expires,” wrote finance analyst Kenneth Schortgen Jr with the Examiner.

    Even the debate will have a big impact, too. “[House Majority Leader] Eric Cantor's decision as a prime leader in the Republican party to bring the bill before Congress in July will have staggering effects on what the Fed may have to reveal in subpoenaed testimony, and what efforts they may be handcuffed from doing going forward if the economy continues to decline,” Schortgen explained. But actually passing the full bill, its supporters say, is more crucial than ever.

    While Rep. Paul has been a longtime leader in the movement to expose, rein in, and eventually abolish the Fed, the public outcry about the issue has become so loud that lawmakers in both parties have taken up the call as well. During a recent hearing in Paul’s subcommittee on monetary policy, a bipartisan collection of legislators and experts discussed whether the Fed should be reformed or simply dismantled. Progress in addressing the problems, while slow, is expected to speed up.

    Related articles:
     
    Congress Debates the Federal Reserve: Reform or Abolish?

    Time to Audit the Fed

    Ron and Rand Paul Introduce “Audit the Fed” Legislation

    Bernanke Attacks Ron Paul's Audit the Fed Bill

    $Trillion Bailout of Euro, Greece Shows Need to Audit the Fed

    Fed Manipulations in the Crosshairs

    U.S. Fed Bailout of Euro Prompts New Push for Audit & Sound Money

    GOP Lawmaker Unveils New Effort to Rein in Fed

    Fed Audit: Trillions For Foreign Banks, Conflicts of Interest

    Fed Plotting to Monitor Critics, Tailor Propaganda

    Fed Wages PR Battle for Power, Secrecy 

    Fed Approves First Communist Chinese Takeover of U.S. Bank





    Hyper-V Enhancements Private Cloud Camp

    Calling Eeyore!


    California Congressional Candidate Promises to Smoke a Joint on Capitol Hill if Elected

    By on 05/22/2012 

    Andy Caffrey smokes cannabis in Fairfax as fellow CA-2 House candidate John Lewallen watches. John Storey / San Francisco Chronicle

    Andy Caffrey, a candidate for US Congress in California’s 2nd Congressional District, made an unusual campaign promise in a recent interview with The Politico: if he’s elected to Congress by the people of the second district, he’ll smoke a marijuana cigarette right on the steps of the Capitol Building in Washington as an act of civil disobedience against marijuana prohibition.

    “I’m willing to get arrested to fight for our rights, to defend our rights as Californians to consume medicine. If I have to do it, I’ll smoke a joint on the Capitol steps and get arrested to draw national attention to what’s going on.”

    Caffrey is running for Congress as a Democrat in the crowded CA-2 race for the open seat left by retiring Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA). Although multiple sources, including The Huffington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, and Outside the Beltway are saying that retiring Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) represents the 2nd District, which covers a vast stretch of Northern California, she in fact represents the nearby 6th District, while Herger represents CA-2.


    A Shasta Nation



    Press Release 12-096
    Relationship Between Social Status and Wound-Healing in Wild Baboons

    (No monkey on his back)

    Photo of an adult male baboon resting on a tree near Amboseli National Park, Kenya.

    An adult male baboon rests on a tree near Amboseli National Park, Kenya.
    Credit and Larger Version

    May 21, 2012

    Turns out it's not bad being top dog, or in this case, top baboon.

    Results of a study by University of Notre Dame biologist Beth Archie and colleagues from Princeton University and Duke University finds that male baboons that have a high rank within their society recover more quickly from injuries, and are less likely to become ill than other males.



    U.S. Department Of Agriculture: Assistant General Counsel, General Law and Research (Washington, DC)

    Job Title:Assistant General Counsel, General Law and Research

    Department:Department Of Agriculture

    Agency:Office of the General Counsel

    Job Announcement Number:DA-OGC-2012-0005

    SALARY RANGE:

    $119,554.00 to $179,700.00 / Per Year

    OPEN PERIOD:

    Wednesday, May 09, 2012 to Friday, June 08, 2012

    SERIES & GRADE:

    ES-0905-ES

    POSITION INFORMATION:

    Full-time – Permanent

    PROMOTION POTENTIAL:

    ES

    DUTY LOCATIONS:

    1 vacancy(s) – Washington, DC, USView Map

    WHO MAY BE CONSIDERED:

    Applications will be accepted from all groups of qualified individuals.

    JOB SUMMARY:

    The Senior Executive Service (SES) is comprised of the men and women charged with leading the continuing transformation of government. These leaders possess well-honed executive skills and share a broad perspective of government and a public service commitment which is grounded in the Constitution. This position is SES, General. Positions in the SES are not graded. SES employees are also eligible for bonuses and awards based on performance. Veteran’s preference is not applicable to the SES. Selectee is subject to a one-year probationary period, unless currently serving under an SES appointment. Visit http://www.opm.gov/ses/ for additional information regarding SES employees.

    Joint Universities Seismic Taskforce Characterization Assessment Users Security Expert

     

    Dissolution of the integrated Departments under the disguise of “Homeland Security”.

    Annulment for breach of federalism, unconstitutional regulations, forbidden union.

    Creation of  Agency for Reconstruction, Piece by Piece Department, Rush Job.

    “Come in Peace, or go in Pieces”


    SWA/AML PROGRAM TRANSITION (SNOTE)
    SOL: NA
    POC: Matthew Burns, mburns@blm.gov.
    NAICS: 541690. The Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming, intends to award on a sole source basis with Fumble Recovery, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The contractor will provide professional services in support of the Wyoming BLM soil and water resources program management. The work includes assisting in: soil and water quality data acquisition and preparation for incorporation in WY BLMs and other related data storage/management systems; subsequent preparation or review of these data for use in surface and groundwater modeling and impact analysis; review of soil and water resources sections of EISs and RMPs; water quality impact model review and critique; audit and quality control oversight of BLMs water quality database maintenance and operation; review of new and revised water resources related regulations and policies as they pertain to WY BLM activities, with subsequent advise to BLM Management and Resource Specialist; technical assistance with data analysis and/or compilation; and attending/facilitating internal or external soil and water related technical meetings in Wyoming. Fumble Recovery possesses unique qualifications and will draw on years of knowledge and management experience gained as a Soil and Water Specialist/Program Leader with the BLM to complete the required tasks in a manner that best meets the needs of the WY BLM. A determination by the Government not to compete this proposed contract based on this notice is solely within the discretion of the Government. Detailed capabilities must be submitted no later than May 18, 2012. The North American Industry Classification for this procurement is 541690.
    CITE: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=aba2dddde5b64591cf1c2b429efb5692
    Posted: 05/15/12
    SPONSOR: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming Region, 5353 Yellowstone Rd., Cheyenne, WY 82009
    PUBLICATION DATE: May 17, 2012
    ISSUE: FBO-3827

    Archi-future: 13 Green Buildings That Will Blow Your Mind (PHOTOS)

    AstraZeneca doubles down in CNS with “Neuroscience iMed”

    May 21st, 2012

    While the drug development industry has seen a retrenchment of big pharma in CNS, AstraZeneca continues to provide a steady presence in the space. With the recent launch of their Neuroscience Innovative Medicines Unit (iMed), AstraZeneca aims to foment innovation in CNS by leveraging a “virtual” approach to drug discovery.

    In this interview with partneringNEWS™, Frank D. Yocca, PhD, VP Strategy and Externalization for AstraZeneca’s Neuroscience iMed, explained how they will tap into the best available external science while sharing cost, risk and reward with other research partners active in this field.


    More Americans Think Congress is Doing a Poor Job | 11 months ago

    Americans Not Enamored with Congress | 22 months ago

    We're Running out of Superlatives to Explain How Much America Hates Congress | 8 months ago

    Esteem of Congress Falls to All-Time Low | 5 months ago




    News Release

    Date: May 22, 2012 

    UC San Diego Superfund Research Program Receives $15 Million Grant Renewal


    Strategic Partners get High Throughput Research

    CATALYST FOR CHANGE - Comprehensive initiative driving innovation

    Metal Impregnation System (MIPS) and the Screening Pressure Reactor (SPR)

    Lab Execution and Analysis (LEA) integrated software for pharmaceutical, chemical, and energy solutions


    Get daily updates by email

    Biomass A Mile High

    The 2012 International Biomass Conference & Expo in the Mile High City drew attendees from around the world, eager to learn and meet others who share their passion
    By Lisa Gibson, Anna Simet and Luke Geiver | May 23, 2012

    The U.S. Department of Defense has many needs, but electricity tops them all, according to Dan Nolan, a 26-year U.S. Army veteran and current CEO of energy and military consulting firm Sabot 6. He authors the DoD energy blog and captivated his audience as the keynote speaker of the International Biomass Conference & Expo, held April 16-19 in Denver, Colo.


    Congress is Deaf: (No wonder whistling hasn't worked!)

    Congress sits idly by while whistleblowers bravely go public to explain the continuing erosion of rights and liberties through dragnet electronic surveillance: 

     (One of two Democracy Now! segments)

    (Segment two)

    Despite the fact that government secrecy and surveillance are continuing to expand,  the channels for whistleblowers, which we need now more than ever, remain closed. Not only are intelligence community whistleblowers exempted from the protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act, but far too many Inspector General positions remain vacant. Even the conservative Washington Post editorial board criticized the number of long-standing Inspector General vacancies:

    INSPECTORS GENERAL serve an invaluable purpose in government, ferreting out waste and corruption and exposing internal wrongdoing. According to a September report by the Government Accountability Office, audits by inspectors general saved $43.3 billion in public funds in 2009. But 10 of the 73 federal inspectors’ posts are vacant — eight at Cabinet-level departments, including State and Interior. Four of the positions have been vacant for the entirety of the Obama administration.

    The responsibility lies both with Congress and the President, neither of which - judging from the quick approval of expanded NSA spy powers - have been keen on oversight. WaPo writes:

    These vacancies are the result of presidential lassitude in filling the spots and, to a significantly lesser extent, of congressional failure to act on the few nominees that have been sent to the Senate for confirmation. . . . The president has a responsibility, which he has not fulfilled, to nominate candidates for those inspector general jobs that require Senate confirmation and to ensure that the posts are filled in agencies whose inspectors general do not have to go through the confirmation process. The Senate has a responsibility, on which it too has fallen short, to swiftly act on those nominees that are sent its way. The current morass does not serve the public well.

    While Inspectors General can be problematic options of intelligence community whistleblowers, - just ask Binney, Drake, and Wiebe who were targeted for criminal investigation after bringing concerns to the IG - the IGs are an existing channel where intelligence whistleblowers can report waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, illegality, or dangers to health and public safety. Without Inspectors General, the only other place intelligence whistleblowers can go is Congress, and as we can see from yesterday's approval of the FAA re-authorization, most of Congress is deaf.

    Since Congress is deaf, you can contact your Congressperson and yell at them. The ACLU has a form for writing to Congress about the FAA re-authorization here.

     

    Jesselyn Radack is National Security & Human Rights Director for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.

    1. Learn Sign Language

      www.learnsignlanguage.com/
      Victorious Life Sign Language and Signing Choir. We want to invite you to learn sign language and be involved in our Signing Choir. We will be starting classes ...
    2. Learn Sign Language (ASL)

      www.start-american-sign-language.com/learn-sign-language-asl.html
      Free Online ASL Classes. Learn Sign Language (ASL) on your time and in your budget!
    3. American Sign language - ASL

      www.handspeak.com/
      Learning sign language online using a free ASL dictionary online, fingerspelling, Baby Talk in ASL, grammar, and ASL storytelling by qualified ASL natives.
    4. ASL Deafined | How to Learn ASL through video lessons online

      www.asldeafined.com/
      ASL Deafined: Find out How to learn ASL American Sign Language through video courses and lessons.
    5. Signing Online - Learn American Sign Language

      www.signingonline.com/
      Signing Online provides interactive web-based instruction in American Sign Language (ASL). It allows you to learn ASL at your own pace, anywhere, anytime.

    FBI Issues Warning to Travelers

    Fraudsters Exploit Hotel Internet Connections to Spread Malware

    By Information Security Media Group, May 22, 2012. 
    FBI Issues Warning to Travelers

    The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation warns of fraudsters who are targeting travelers through hotel Internet connections. The scheme involves pop-up windows through which fraudsters trick travelers into installing bogus software updates on their computer. The "updates" are really malware installations.

    In a May 21 memo, the FBI describes recent incidents of travelers' laptops being infected with malicious software while using hotel Internet connections.

    "In these instances, the traveler was attempting to set up the hotel room Internet connection and was presented with a pop-up window notifying the user to update a widely used software product," the FBI memo says. "If the user clicked to accept and install the update, malicious software was installed on the laptop. The pop-up window appeared to be offering a routine update to a legitimate software product for which updates are frequently available."


    ‘Family Talk’ guest: EPA run by ‘militant’ Earth-worshipers who hate America

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is run by “militant” environmentalists who’ve created a cult of Earth-worship, and their hatred of America has led them to become, knowingly or not, a key element of the global Muslim conspiracy, according to a guest on Dr. James Dobson’s “Family Talk” radio show this week.

    Michael Youssef, an Egyptian-born man who came to the U.S. as a child and authored numerous books about how Muslims plan to take over the world, told religious right figure James Dobson on Tuesday that in order to see his full conspiracy theory, one must “follow the money.”

    “So there’s a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, unfortunately,” he explained. “Not many people reporting on it. When some do, all of the sudden, their voice is gone. They disappear and you don’t know what happened to them.”


    EPA: Mystic River Water Quality Poor

    The river received a grade of a "D" in its annual report card.

    Mother Earth and Father Sky aren't going to be too happy when they see the Mystic River's most recent report card.

    The Environmental Protection Agency released its annual report card for the river's water quality at an event in Somerville Sunday. The river received a grade of a D, with slight improvements over last year, but worse than 2008 and 2009, when it received a C-, according to an EPA press release.

    “Although our grade is not where we would like it to be, we are continuing  to focus on problem areas and apply all our available tools to improving water quality in the Mystic River,” said region EPA administrator Curt Spalding in a written statement. “We need to redouble our efforts and stay the course over the next several years to ensure the water quality in the Mystic River Watershed improves.”

    The EPA and the state's environmental protection department have put in place enforcement efforts recently aimed at removing harmfal discharges from sewage and storm drains throughout the watershed, the press release said. 

    Storm drains in the Mystic River Watershed that produce of estimated 14,000 gallons per year in sewage are scheduled to be removed this year, the press release said.

    The report card results were announced Sunday in Somerville during the annual Mystic River Herring Run and Paddle.

    The Post’s View

    Where are the inspectors general?

    INSPECTORS GENERAL serve an invaluable purpose in government, ferreting out waste and corruption and exposing internal wrongdoing. According to a September report by the Government Accountability Office, audits by inspectors general saved $43.3 billion in public funds in 2009. But 10 of the 73 federal inspectors’ posts are vacant — eight at Cabinet-level departments, including State and Interior. Four of the positions have been vacant for the entirety of the Obama administration. These vacancies are the result of presidential lassitude in filling the spots and, to a significantly lesser extent, of congressional failure to act on the few nominees that have been sent to the Senate for confirmation.

    The critical role of inspectors general was underscored in a recent report by the inspector general of the Government Services Administration (GSA). The report exposed the agency’s profligate spending on employee training conferences. As a result, GSA Administrator Martha N. Johnson resigned and her two deputies were fired. Meanwhile, more than 30 GSA employee conferences have been canceled, and other federal agencies are reexamining their expenditures.


    A Different Buzz at the White House


    News»

    PUSH FOR RECYCLED WATER

    Implications of concept of drinking recycled water hard to swallow, more when dubbed toilet-to-tap. Opposition softens as

    ongoing demonstration project by San Diego assesses technical feasibility of recycled water satisfying health regulators.

    “What we now have is a blueprint that … will hopefully change the way we view sewage and water in our region,” said Marco Gonzalez, an environmental lawyer in Encinitas who pushed for the study in 2009.

    Mmmmmm... Tastes Great, or Less Filling?

    PUSHERS AND FLUSHERS UNITED



    Epidemic of "bipolar NIH psychotic Big Pharma mental mood disorders disease"

    Uneasy psychiatrists pool “sophisticated” psychiatric medicines for anxiety and combat-related nightmares on the Big Pharma battlefield.

    National Institutes of Health and Big Pharma “at risk” for psychosis or depression or bipolar disorder; treat drug addiction and alcoholism on the basis of “biological and environmental factors,” rationalize and justify as alcoholics and drug addicts. Models of powerlessness on the basis of their family histories; symptoms evidence abuse of treatments not approved, relapse on delusions of vaccines to “cure” them. Co-dependents resolve to pathologize healthy people, blame National Institute on Drug Abuse and the American Psychiatric Association

    Pass the Seroquel.



    May 22, 2012

    Solving the World’s Water Problems through Technology


    minnesota mining


    EPA; COLD TURKEY TMDL WITHDRAWALS


    EPA to Revise Its Regulations to Specify Logging Roads Need No Discharge Permits

    Tuesday, May 22, 2012

    EPA Notice on Logging Road Rules Revisions

     

    Key Provision: EPA plans to specify that stormwater runoff from logging roads needs no Clean Water Act NPDES permit.

    What's Next: Administration brief is due at Supreme Court on May 25, to appeal logging roads case.

    By Alan Kovski

    The Environmental Protection Agency will issue a rule to specify that logging roads do not need discharge permits for stormwater runoff from logging roads, according to a notice released May 21.

    The rule is intended to protect the status quo on logging roads--on both public and private land--by specifying that they should be operated under best management practices, often developed by states, rather than regulated with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

    The EPA notice is to be published in the May 23 Federal Register.

    EPA said it will use its authority under Section 402(p) to specify that stormwater runoff from logging roads are not discharges “associated with industrial activity.”

    The agency said that section of the law “allows EPA to consider a range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches and determine which forest road discharges (if any) should be regulated under 402(p)(6).”

    EPA's action is a response to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that said NPDES permits are required for logging roads wherever water runoff is channeled in some fashion, because ditches, culverts or other channels create pollution “point sources” requiring NPDES permits. That 2010 ruling, reaffirmed in 2011, upended a couple decades of EPA policy in which the agency has not required permits (Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063, 72 ERC 1897 (9th Cir. 2011); 158 DER A-29, 8/18/10).

    Q. Do Bears and Loggers shit & piss in the woods?

    A. Not if they're on the road, as a rule.


    77 FR 30280 - Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Withdrawal of Nine Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)


    Download Files

    Metadata




    The reply to the petition for the writ admits the act of the state engineer in filing his orders of determination with the clerk of the district court. Hence that order of determination, the manner in which it was brought about, its force and effect, are the subjects of inquiry. For this purpose we review and set up certain sections of the statute, some of which, although disconnected or having intervening!; sections, must be considered together inasmuch as they operate jointly. Section 29 provides:

    "Should any person claiming any interest in the stream system involved in the determination of relative rights to the use of water, whether claiming prior vested title or under permit from the state engineer, desire to contest any of the statements and proof of claims filed with the state engineer by any claimant to the waters of such stream system, as herein provided, he shall, within twenty days after said evidence and proofs, аs herein provided, shall have been opened to public inspection, or within such further time as for good cause shown may be allowed by stream ; provided, however, that within sixty days after the entry of an order establishing water rights, the state engineer may, for good cause shown, reopen the proceedings and grant a rehearing. Such order of determination shall be certified to by the state engineer, and as many copies as required printed in the state printing office. A copy of said order of determination shall be sent by registered mail, or delivered in person, to each person who has filed proof of claim, and to each person who has become interested through intervention or as a contestant under the provisions of section 2u or section 29 of this act."

    Section 34, as amended by the act of 1915, has to do with the filing of the order of determination made by the state engineer. It is as follows:

    "As soon as practicable thereafter a certified copy of the order of determination, together with the original evidence and transcript of testimony filed with, or taken before, the state engineer, as aforesaid, duly certified by him, shall be filed with the clerk of the county, as ex officio clerk of the district court, in which said stream system is situated, or if in more the state engineer upon application made prior than one county but all within one judicial di trict to the expiration of said twenty (20) days, in trict> with &e sni(] clerk of the county writing notify the state engineer .stating with , wnerein reside the largest number of parties in reasonable certainty the grounds of the proposed ; interest. But if such stream system shall be in contest, which statement shall be verified by the two or more juic¡ai districts, then the state

    affidavit of the contestant, his agent or attorney. * * * "

    Section 30, as amended by the act of 1915, is as follows:

    "The state engineer shall fix a time and place for the hearing of said contest, which date shall not be less than thirty (30) days nor more than sixty (60) days from the date the notice is served on the persons who are parties to the contest. Said notice may be sent by registered mail to the person, and the receipt thereof shall constitute valid and legal service. Said notice may also be served by the state engineer, or by any person qualified and competent to serve subpoenas as in civil actions, appointed by him, and returns thereof made in the same manner as in civil actions in the district courts of the state. The state engineer shall have power to adjourn hearings from time to time upon reasonable notice to all parties interested, and to issue subpoenas and compel the attendance of witnesses to testify at such hearings, which shall be served in the same manner as subpoenas issued out of the district courts of the state. He shall have the power to administer oaths to witnesses. In the case of neglect or refusal on the part of any person to comply with any order of the state engineer or any subpoena, or on the refusal of any witness to testify to any matter regarding which he may be lawfully interrogated, it shall be the duty of the district court of any county, or any judge thereof, on application of the state engineer, to issue attachment proceedings for contempt, as in the case of disobedience of a subpoena issued from such court, or a refusal to testify therein. Said witnesses shall receive fees as in civil cases, the costs to be taxed in the same manner as in civil actions in this state. The evidence in such proceedings shall be confined to the subjects enumerated in the notice of contest and answer and reply, when the same are permitted to be filed. All testimony taken at such hear- in Its shall be reported and transcribed in its entirety."

    Section 33, as amended by the act of 1915, provides:

    "As soon аs practicable after the hearing of contests, it shall be the duty of the state engineer to make, and cause to be entered of record in his office, an order determining and establishing the several rights to the waters of said engineer shall notify the district judge of each of such judicial districts of his intent to file such order of determination, whereupon, within ten days after receipt of such notice, such judges shall confer and agree where the court proceedings under this act shall be held and upon the judge who shall preside, and on notification thereof the state engineer shall file said order of determination, evidence, and transcripts with the clerk of the court so designated ; provided, that if such district judges fail to notify the state engineer of their agreement, as aforesaid, within five days after the expiration of such ten days, then, and in that event the state engineer may file such order of determination, evidence, and transcript with the clerk of any county he may elect, and the district judge of such county shall have jurisdiction over the proceedings in relation thereto. In all instances a certified copy of the order of determination shall be filed with the county clerk of each county in which such stream system, or any part thereof, is situated. Upon the filing of the certified copy of said order, evidence, and transcript with the clerk of the court in which the proceedings are to be had, the state engineer shall procure an order from said court setting the time for hearing. The clerk of such court shall immediately furnish the state engineer with a certified copy thereof. It shall be the duty of the state engineer immediately thereupon to mail a copy of such certified order of the court, by registered mail, addressed to each such party in interest at his last known place of residence, and to cause the same to be published at least once a week for four consecutive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in each county in which such stream system or any part thereof is located, and the state engineer shall file with the clerk of the court proof of such service by registered mail and by publication. And such service by registered mail and by publication shall be deemed full and sufficient notice to all parties in interest of the date and purpose of such hearing."

    Section 35, as amended by the act of 1915, provides:

    "At least five days prior to the day set for hearing all parties in interest who are aggrieved or dissatisfied with the order of determination of the state engineer shall file with the clerk of said court notice of exceptions to the order of determination of the state engineer, which notice shall state briefly the exceptions taken, and . the prayer for relief, and a copy thereof shall be served upon or transmitted to the state engineer by registered mail. The order of determination by the state engineer and the statements or claims of claimants and exceptions made to the order of determination shall constitute the pleadings and there shall be no other pleadings in the cause. If no exceptions shall have been found with the clerk of the court as aforesaid, then on the day set for the hearing, on motion of the state engineer, or his attorney, the court shall enter a decree affirming said order of determination. On the day set for hearing all parties in interest who have filed notices of exceptions as aforesaid shall appear in person or by counsel, and it shall be the duty of the court to hear the same or set the time for hearing, until such exceptions are disposed of, and all proceedings thereunder shall be as nearly as may be in accordance with the rules governing civil actions."

    Section 30, as amended by the act of 1915, provides:

    "For further information on any subject in controversy the court may employ one or more qualified persons to investigate and report thereon under oath, subject to examination by any party in interest as to his competency to give expert testimony thereon. The court, may, if necessary, refer the case or any part thereof for such further evidence to be taken by the state engineer as it may direct, and may require a further determination by him, subject to the court's instructions. After the hearing, the court shall enter a decree affirming or modifying the order of the state engineer. Upon the hearing the court may assess and adjudge against any party such costs as it may deem just and equitable, or may assess the costs in proportion to the amount of water right allotted. Appeals from such decree may be taken to the supreme court by the state engineer or any party in interest, in the same manner and with the same effect as in civil cases."

    Section 38, as amended by the act of 1915, provides:

    "From and after the filing of the order of determination, evidence, and transcript with the county clerk as aforesaid, and during the time the hearing of said order is pending in the district court, the division of water from the stream involved in such determination shall be made by the state engineer in accordance with said order of determination."

    Section 39, as amended by the act of 1915, provides:

    "At any time after the order of determination, evidence and transcript has been filed with the clerk of the court, as aforesaid, the operation of said order of determination may be stayed in whole or in part by any party upon filing a bond in the court wherein such determination is pending in such amount as the judge thereof may prescribe, conditioned that such party will pay all damage that may accrue by reason of such determination not being enforced, pending decree by said court. Immediately upon the filing and approval of such bond, the clerk of the court shall transmit to the state engineer a certified copy of such bond, which shall be recorded in the records of his office, and he shall act in accordance with such stay."

    Section 45 of the act is as follows: "In any suit which may be brought in any district court in the state for the determination of a right or rights to the use of water of any stream, all persons who claim the right to use the waters of such stream and the stream system of which it is a part shall be made parties.

    shall by its order duly entered, direct the state engineer to furnish a complete hydrographic survey of such stream system, which survey shall be made as provided in section 20 of this act, in order to obtain all physical data necessary to the determination of the rights involved. The cost of such suit, including the costs on behalf of the state and of such surveys, shall be charged against each of the private parties thereto in proportion to the amount of water right allotted. In the case of any such suit now pending or hereafter commenced the same may at any time after its inception, in the discretion of the court, be transferred to the state engineer for determination as in this act provided."

    Section 84 declares:

    "Nothing in this act contained shall impair the vested right of any person to the use of water, nor shall the right of any person to take and use water be impaired or affected by any of the provisions of this act where appropriations have been initiated in accordance with law prior to the approval of this act. Any and all appropriations based upon applications and permits now on file in the state engineer's office, shall be perfected in accordance with the laws in force at the time of their filing."

    Stat. 1913, p. 192; Stat 1915, p. 378.

    Dwelling now on these statutory provisions as we find them, and especially these sections. Inasmuch as they are the sections directly involved, we may inquire, with what does this statute deal? It deals with that vested estate which one may acquire by diverting water from a public stream and applying the same to a beneficial use. This is commonly termed a water right.

    By reason of the nature of the soil and the climatic conditions attendant in western arid and semiarid states, it has been recognized, and rightfully so, that the waters of the public streams are indispensable to the land, the productiveness of the whole depending entirely, as it does, upon the beneficial application of the former. This being true, the land and the water as beneficially applied thereto must be, and indeed have been by courts and text- writers, regarded as one by reason of their correlation. Property in land acquires its value and importance, its very life in regions such as that encompassed by this state, from the application of water. A vested right to divert the waters from a public stream and apply them to a beneficial use in the way of irrigation applies to and is of the very nature of the realty itself. A deprivation of the land made valuable by the application of water diverted from a public stream would no more affect the property rights of the individual than would the deprivation of the water itself by reason of which the value of the estate was acquired and without which it would be worthless.

    In the case of Conant v. Deep Creek & C. Valley Irrigation Co., 23 Utah, 627, 66 Рас. ISS, 90 Am. St. Uep. 721, the Supreme Court of that state declared in effect that an action to ascertain, determine, and decree the extent and priority of water rights partakes of the nature of an action to quiet title to real estate. The same court, in the case of Taylor v. (N. S.) 535, held that a water right appurtenant to irrigated land was real property.

    The right to the flow and use of- water, being a right In a natural resource, was held by the Supreme Court of Colorado, in the case of Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Childs, 25 Colo. 360, 54 Рас. 1020, to be real estate; and to the same effect will be found Davis v. Randall, 44 Colo. 488, 99 Рас. 322, and Bates v. Hall, 44 Colo. 360, 98 Раc. 3.

    In the case of Hill v. Newman, 5 Cal. 445, 63 Am. Dec. 140, the Supreme Court of California held that a justice of the peace, although conferred with Jurisdiction to try and determine actions for damages for taking, detaining and injuring personal property, had no jurisdiction over an action for diversion of water because it was an action concerning title to real estate. Holding to the same conclusion, we find the case of Griseza v. Terwilliger, 144 Cal. 456, 77 Рас. 1034.

    In the case of Yankee Jim's Union Water Co. v. Crary, 25 Cal. 504, 85 Am. Dec. 145, the Supreme Court of California held thnt water rights may be held, granted, abandoned, or lost by the same means as a right of the same character issuing out of lands to which a private title exists, saying that:

    "The right of the first appropriator may be lost, in whole or in some limited portions, by the adverse possession of another. And when such person has had the continued, uninterrupted, and adverse enjoyment of the water course, or of some certain portion of it, during the period limited by the statute of limitations for entry upon lands, the law will presume a grant of the right so held and enjoyed by him."

    Supporting this general proposition of law may be found the cases of Lower Kings River Water Ditch Co. т. Kings River & F. C. Co., 60 Cal. 410, and Last Chance Co. v. Emigrant Ditch Co., 129 Cal. 278, 61 Рас. 960. See, also, Hayes т. Fine, 91 Cal. 398, 27 Рас. 772; Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman, 152 Cal. 716, 93 Рас. 858, 115 L. R. A. (N. S.) 359.

    Mr. Klnney, in his work on Irrigation and Water Rights/ summing up the subject, puts It thus:

    "It is generally conceded by all the authorities that a water right, or an interest in a water right, is real property, and it is so treated under all the rules of law appertaining to such property." Kinney on Irrigation and Water Rights (2d Ed.) vol. 2, p. 1328.

    The assertion of the author In this respect Is supported by a line of authorities wherein the question has been discussed and determined in nearly every phase.

    To the same effect will be found the holding of the courts in the cases of Hough v. Porter, 51 Or. 318, 95 Рас. 732, 98 Рас. 1083, 102 Рас. 728; Town of Sterling et al. v. Pawnee Ditch Extension Co., 42 Colo. 421, 94 Рас. 339, 15 L. B. A. (N. S.) 238 ; Fisher et al. v. Bountiful City, 21 Utah, 29, 59 Рас. 620.

    Mr. Well, In his work on Water Rights in the Western States (vol. 1) asserts the same general principle.

    Our Legislature has In but one Instance, 171 P.-12

    so far as we are able to ascertain, attempted to define the term "real property," and In that Instance they declared that:

    "The term 'real property' shall include every estate, interest and right in lands, tenements and hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal." Section 6294, sub. 10, Rev. Laws.

    In the case of Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, 152 Fed. 11, 81 С. С. A. 207, Judge Wolverton, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, analyzed the question at hand with a finesse which is to our mind unanswerable, and there the court, after a complete analysis in which he referred to numerous cases supporting the position, held that an appropriation of water from a public stream put to a beneficial use "savors of and is a part of the real estate." Speaking of the nature of the suit, which was in that Instance one to determine water rights on the Walker river, the court said:

    "The suit * * * in its purpose and effect, is one to quiet title to realty."

    This court, speaking through Mr. Justice Hawley, has declared to the same effect, holding that a right to the use of water diverted from a public stream should be regarded and protected as property. Dalton v. Bow- ker, 8 Nev. 190.

    Hence, it may be asserted as the first and major premise of the position which we here take that the subject-matter dealt with by the sections of the act referred to Is real property.

    The validity of this act Is challenged under the several sections of our Constitution, as well as under the Fourteenth Amendment. Article 1, § 8, of our Constitution provides, inter alia:

    "No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense * * nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. * » » »

    Article 3, § 1, provides:

    "The powers of the government of the state of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments—the legislative, the executive and the judicial; and no persons charged with, the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed or permitted."

    Article 4, §f 1 and 6, provide:

    "Sec. 1. The judicial power of this state shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, and in justices of the peace. The Legislature may also establish courts, for municipal purposes only, in incorporated cities and towns.

    "Sec. 6. The district courts in the several judicial districts of this state shall have original jurisdiction in all cases in equity; also in ail cases at law which involve the title or the right of possession to, or the possession of real property, or mining claims, or the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, toll or municipal fine, and in all other cases in which the demand (exclusive of interest) or the value of the property in controversy exceeds three hundred dollars. * They shall also have final appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in justices courts, and such other inferior tribunals as may be established by law. The district courts, and the judges thereof shall have power to issue writs of mandamus, injunction, quo warranto, certiorari, and all other writs proper and necessary to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction. * * "

    The framers of our Constitution, judging from the report of debates upon the subject, appear to have been most zealous and careful In the language selected and the terms used in each particular section and article. It was no haphazard selection of provisions thrown together for the purpose of forming the fundamental law for the government of a new state. Words were selected with regard to their true, usual, and ordinary acceptation and meaning; and we, in construing and applying these provisions, now may well give these terms the very broadest meaning of which they are susceptible, but none such as would lie inconsistent with the spirit and Intent of the framers of that organic law.

    Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 23, at page 188, expresses the idea when he says that the framers of the Constitution must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense and to have intended what they have said. The application of this rule would forbid forced or unnatural construction to be put upon the language found In the constitutional provisions. "This," says Mr. Cooley, "seems so obvious a truism that one expects to see it universally accepted without question ; but the attempt Is made so often by Interested subtlety and ingenious refinement to induce the courts to force from these instruments a meaning which their framers never held, that it frequently becomes necessary to redeclare this fundamental maxim." Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 93.

    In so far as the sections of the water law of this state directly involved in the proceedings in the district court are concerned, and in our attempt to test them under the constitutional provisions, we may be mindful of the rule that we are bound to Indulge in the presumption of the validity of the statute, and we should so construe unless we find In the Constitution some specific inhibition which has been disregarded or some express command which has been disobeyed.

    Reluctant as we may be to accept a responsibility wherein by reason of the nature of our duties we may be called upon to nullify the enactment of the legislative branch of the government, the seriousness of that responsibility Impresses us all the more with the necessity that we should speak plainly and emphatically, and when we find some specific inhibition of the Constitution which has been disregarded or some express command thereof which has been disobeyed, we should adopt no apologetic language, but declare the condition, that the future may be benefited thereby.

    Sections 25, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 of the water law as amended seek to deal with real property. In this and in the results accomplished pursuant to these statutory provisions, has a specific inhibition of the Constitution been disregarded, has some express command of the Constitution been disobeyed? This is the scope and limit of our inquiry. The identical question here presented was up for consideration before the federal District Court of the District of Nevada but a short time since (Bergman v. Kearney [D. C.] 241 Fed. 884), and inasmuch as the views expressed there by the learned judge is the apparent inspiration of the prevailing opinion, here, we deem both most eminently worthy of review.

    Certain sections of this act—and to these sections we confine ourselves entirely—would confer upon the state engineer the power to determine in the first Instance the title to and the right to possession of real property as such is founded in the use and beneficial application of water diverted from the public streams.

    The framers of our Constitution, recognizing that some tribunal or arbiter was necessary for the settlement of disputes and controversies having to do with the title to or possession of real property, designated in no uncertain language the district court as created by the Constitution to be the tribunal that should have jurisdiction over such matters. The district court by the express provisions of the Constitution (article 6, § 6) is conferred with original jurisdiction of cases In equity, and cases at law "which involve the title or right of possession to or possession of real property."

    Sections 29, 30, 33, and 34 of the act provide for the institution, hearing, and determination of a contest, the subject of which is the right of the contestants to a stated appropriation of water. Under these sections the state engineer assumes functions of equal significance to a constituted court. The pleadings are provided for and the issues of fact and law are thereby made. Witnesses are required to testify before the state engineer. The subject-matter of the action is the independent, usufructuary estate in the use of water. Vested rights are set up and their validity passed upon by the state engineer. An order is made and caused to be entered of record by the engineer "determining and establishing" these rights, vested or otherwise. The order of the state engineer thus made becomes effective against the property of the parties contestant immediately on its being filed with the clerk of the district court. This is the original or initial proceeding involving property of the highest order. Is the function judicial? Is it "the exercise of that portion of judicial authority appertaining to or belonging to the judicial department?" Bergman v. Kearney, supra. It is not necessary for this court to answer this query. The organic law (section C, art. C) answers for exercise of that portion of Judicial authority belonging originally to the district court.

    By section 35 the district court, the constituted court of original jurisdiction, is made a court of review only. The order of determination having already been made and filed by the state engineer pursuant to sections 129, 30, 33, and 34, and the establishment having been already set up and put Into effect, the district court reviews the orders and establishments already made by the state engineer, and this review Is limited to the orders of determination made, and is circumscribed as to those orders by the scope of the exceptions filed as provided in section 35. We say this because the pleadings as fixed by section 35 being "the order of determination of the state engineer and the statements or claims of claimants and exceptions made to the order of determination" limit and fix the -scope of the review that may be conducted by the district court. Finally, the district court may, pursuant to section 36, do but one of two prescribed acts: "Affirm or modify the order of the state engineer." So by these sections It Is sought to transfer the court of original Jurisdiction into a court of review, where its field of review Is limited and Its powers or relief are fixed, and where the greatest function that It can perform with reference to a subject-matter over which it was by the organic law given original jurisdiction is to affirm or modify orders made originally by another tribunal. If this statute is to be upheld, the district court ceases to be a court of first Instance as to these matters and becomes a court invested with limited powers of review and yet more limited powers as to the making of orders therein. Instead of being a proceeding the initial stages of which are before the engineer and the final stages before the district court, the reverse Is the fact, for it is the order of determination as initially and- finally made by the state engineer that is dealt with by the district court. Such order by the language of section 36 is final, subject only to modification by the district court. Modification has to do rather with degree of effectiveness than with final- ity. If that court affirms, it merely reasserts (Standard Diet.) an order in the making of which it had no part. Certainly, It will not be seriously contended that this is the original jurisdiction prescribed by section 6 of article 6 of the Constitution as belonging to the district court.

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, referring to the Oregon law under the Oregon Constitution, said:

    "That the state, consistently with due process of law, may thus commit the preliminary proceedings to the board and the final hearing and adjudication to the court is not debatable." Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, 241 U. S. 440, 36 Sup. Ct 637, 60 L. Ed. 1084.

    Such observations might, under the peculiar language of the Oregon Constitution, making no mention of the matter of original jurisdiction over real property, be pertinent Again, it might apply by reason of the peculiar reviewing powers conferred on the circuit court of Oregon by their Constitution. But under our Constitution, which of itself "commits the preliminary proceedings" In matters involving title to real property specifically to the district court and limits the power of review by such court to certain matters arising in the justice's court only (Anderson v. Kearney, 37 Nev. 314, 142 Раc. 803), such an observation as that made in the Lewis Case is not to be anticipated.

    It is asserted that the proceeding following the acts of the state engineer in making his determination and establishment is a special proceeding; that the transfer from the ¡ state engineer's office to the district court is not an appeal.

    Taking the first assertion as to special proceeding, it must be admitted that If It is a special proceeding, it Is one originating before a ministerial officer; and If it is a special proceeding, it is one Involving title to real property, a subject constitutionally assigned to the judicial branch of the government. If It is a special proceeding, its culmination is an order establishing rights to the possession of real property, an order, the finality of which can, by the terms of section 36, be disturbed by the district court to the extent only of modification.

    Taking the second assertion, that the proceeding In the district court is not an appeal, the language of the statute (section 30) precludes the idea of a trial de novo. The lat- ter term implies complete power to try and determine as of the first instance. The language of the statute here studiously avoids such, and makes the power of determination of the district court limited to affirmance or modification of an order of establishment already made and entered by a subordinate authority. Can it be seriously contended that this is the original jurisdiction reposed in the district court by the framers of article 6, § 6, of the Constitution? However minutely the district court may review the pax codings under the exceptions taken (section 35), whatever evidence may be produced before the district court within the scope of the exceptions, however erroneous or unfounded the court may find the determination of the state engineer, such determination must stand in that court subject only to modification. The determination of the state engineer when filed in the district court under our statute (section 34) Is not there as a matter of evidence (Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, supra ; In re Willow Creek, 74 Or. 592, 144 Рас. 505, 146 Рас. 475). It has passed beyond the realm of the evidentiary. It cannot be excluded. The rules of materiality, relevancy, competency, and general admlssibility are inoperative, because the statute confirms it as a fixity which must be affirmed, or at most can be but modified. How in seriousness can It be said that this order of determination, made originally by the state engineer, the finality of which cannot be disturbed, but at most can be but modified, Is not of the very essence of that which is the sine qua non of that judicial power vested in the original Jurisdiction of the district court? True, the form of the procedure whereby the determination of the state engineer goes to the district court is not such as we are accustomed to recognize as an appeal, but the substance of the whole proceeding in the district court is that of review only, review looking only to affirmance or modification. An appeal or review, except where it is provided for hearing de novo, is not to be regarded as a trial. People v. Mc- Кеrrу, 108 Cal. 531, 143 Рас. 752. Hence the trial, if there be one, in which is involved the title or right to possession of real property in so far as the same is involved in a vested water right is, under this statute, originally conducted, and the original order of determination is entered by the state engineer. A review of that trial looking only to affirmance or modification of that order is conducted in the district court; and, whether this review be termed an appeal or a special proceeding, the substance and result are the same. Due process of law as affecting real property under our Constitution (article 6, § Ъ) placed the power of original trial and final determination in the district court; the whole matter was one for the judicial branch of the government only. This was a constitutional guaranty under section 8, art. 1. The judicial authority of the state "may," says the Supreme Court of the United States, "keep within the letter of the statute prescribing forms of procedure in the courts and giving the parties interested the fullest opportunity to be heard, and yet it might be that its final action would be inconsistent with the amendment (Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution). In determining what is due process of law, regard must be had to substance, not to form." Chicago, Burlington & Quiucy R. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, ICO U. S. 2^0, 17 Sup. Ct. 581, 41 L. Ed. 079.

    And again in the case of Davidson v. New Orleans, 06 U. S. 97, 24 L. Ed. C1Ü, that court made the pertinent observation:

    "Can a state make anything due process of law which, by its own legislation, it chooses to declare such? To allow this is to hold that the prohibition to the states is of no avail, or of no application where the invasion of private rights is effected under the forma of state legislation."

    By this statute and under the sections providing for the trial and determination by the state engineer of property rights in the contest proceeding (sections 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, and 30) that officer Is made to assume the powers properly belonging to the judicial

    These sections of the water statute were taken largely from a similar statute found in the state of Oregon. In passing upon these sections of the act as they are now amended by our statute of 1915, the federal court, in Bergman v. Kearney, adopted the conclusion announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, supra, where like provisions of the Oregon statute were challenged. The Constitution of Oregon (article 7, § 9) provides:

    "All judicial power, authority, and jurisdiction not vested by this Constitution; or by laws consistent therewith, exclusively in some other court, shall belong to the circuit courts; and they shall have appellate jurisdiction and supervisory control over the county courts, and all other inferior courts, officers, and tribunals."

    In the Lewis Case the appellant concluded, as does petitioner here, that the proceeding in the circuit court constituted an appeal and was therefore a proceeding, the nature of which was not properly belonging to the circuit court. The Supreme Court of the United States, reviewing this provision of the water law of Oregon, in response to the argument of appellant said:

    "A serious fault in this contention is that it does not recognize the true relation of the proceceeding before the board to that before the court. They are not independent or unrelated, but parts of a single statutory proceeding, the earlier stages of which are before the board and the later stages before the court. In notifying claimants, taking statements of claim, receiving evidence, and making an advisory report, the board merely paves the way for adjudication by the court of all the rights involved. As the Supreme Court of the state has said, the board's duties are much like those of a referee." Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, supra.

    'Speaking of this phase of our water law, Judge Farrington, In his opinion In the case of Hergman v. Kearney, said:

    "There is no appeal from the determination of the engineer to the district court, but rather a continuation in that court of proceedings commenced by and before the state engineer."

    The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, while it appears to have afforded the thought which guided the learned judge of the federal court in the assertion just quoted, appears to our mind to afford no assistance in deciding the question as to the nature of the proceedings before the state engineer and as to the validity of sections .'10, 33, 34, 35, 30, and 38 of the statute under the sections of our Constitution. In that case the court was, as It expressly declares, guided by the decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon in the case of In re Willow Creek, supra. This latter decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon was construing the statute of that state In the light of their Constitution, wherein the jurisdiction of the circuit court is as stated. Under their constitutional provision the way was made clear for matters such as the Investigation by the circuit court of the findings and determination of stages" of a statutory proceeding, the "later stages" of which might be before the circuit court under Its constitutional grant of "appellate jurisdiction and supervisory control over * * officers and tribunals."

    It Is said In the prevailing opinion that neither the Constitution of Nebraska nor Nevada "has a word to say about Irrigation." Hence the decision of the Supreme Court of Nebraska In the cases of Crawford v. Hathaway, 60 Neb. 754, 84 N. W. 271, and Enterprise Irrigation District v. Tri-State Land Co., 92 Neb. 121, 138 N. W. 171, should be guiding authorities here. True, neither the Constitution of Nevada nor that of Nebraska mentions irrigation; in both, however, property rights are protected. But, singularly, in Nevada real property Is a subject over which a given tribunal, the district court, is vested with original jurisdiction. No such provision is found in the Constitution of Nebraska. This same distinction may be noted In comparing the Constitution oí Nevada with those of Wyoming and Oregon, and this distinction differentiates the effect of the water statute of those states from that of ours under our constitutional provisions. This differentiation takes from the force and effect of the decisions rendered in the states named.

    The function exercised by the state engineer under sections 29, 30, 33, and 34 being an original "determination and establishment" of the right to possession and enjoyment of property arrived at after a trial conducted with all the formality with which such would be conducted in a court of established jurisdiction, attended with all the seriousness and responsibility that is always attendant where title and right to possession of property is Involved, is one which by the express command of the Constitution is placed in the district court, which by the specific inhibition of that organic law is denied to any other authority.

    Keeping always in mind the nature of the proceeding contemplated by our water law and the character and future of the subject- matter, and realizing that our water law was largely drafted from the Oregon statute, we may dwell with more than usual seriousness on a comparison of the constitutional grant of jurisdiction of our district court with that of the circuit court of Oregon. The Constitution of Oregon (article 7, § 1) vests the judicial power of the state in the Supreme Court, circuit court, and county court. To the circuit court is granted general jurisdiction to be limited, regulated, and defined by law. Section 9 of article 7 makes clear the placing of all judicial power not otherwise vested by the Constitution or by laws in the circuit court. The term "jurisdiction" as applied to courts has been variously defined. It is:

    "The power conferred on a court by Constitution or statute to take cognizance of the subject-matter of a litigation and the parties brought before it, tried to legal certainty, and determine the issues joined by them, either of law or of fact." Brown on Jurisdiction, § 2. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Arnold, 33 Tes. Civ. App. 30C, 77 S. W. 240.

    "Jurisdiction is the right to put the wheels of justice in motion and to proceed to the final determination of a cause upon the pleadings and evidence." ' Illinois Central R. Co. v. Adams, ISO U. S. 2S, 21 Sup. Ct. 251, 45 L. Ed. 410 ; Venner v. Groat Northern Ry., 209 U. S. 24, 28 Sup. Ct 328, 52 L. Ed. 666.

    Jurisdiction is not only the power to hear and determine, but also the power to render a particular judgment In a particular case. Charles v. White, 214 Mo. 187, 112 S. W. 545, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 481, 127 Am. St Rep. 674.

    Turning to our Constitution (article 6, | 6), we find specific conference of jurisdiction placed in the district court with reference to a given and specific subject-matter, to wit, title to real property and the right of possession thereto, so the right to put the wheels of justice In motion and proceed to final determination as to these specific subjects is vested in our district court. Moreover, the section of the organic law referred to gives the district court original jurisdiction. The word "original" Is defined as:

    "Of or belonging to the beginning; the first stage or existence of a thing." . Standard Dictionary.

    "Of or pertaining to the origin or beginning; first in order or existence ; belonging to or being the origin or source." Webster.

    "Pertaining to or characteristic of the first or earliest stages or state of anything. Century.

    "Proceeding immediately from its source; not arising from or dependent on any other thing; independent ; underivative." Oxford.

    Our Constitution not only specifies the branch of the state government in which that particular subject, to wit, title to and possession of real property, shall be determined, and specifically provides the forum in which such matters may be heard and determined, but with equal emphasis it declares that forum to be the site of the first stage or existence of a case involving matters of this general character. It is a well-established doctrine that the extent, character, and completeness of jurisdiction of a court is ordinarily to be determined by the provisions of the organic law or by such statutory provisions as may be enacted thereunder. To give sanction to the expression found In the prevailing opinion, and taken from the opinion of the federal district court in the case of Bergman v. Kearney, wherein is declared that the proceedings provided for by sections 36, 37, and 38 are but a continuation in the district court of proceedings commenced by and before the state engineer, we must close our eyes not only to the technical but to the ordinary acceptation and meaning of the term "original jurisdiction" as found in section 6 of article 6 of our Constitution applicable to our district court. The term permits of no such interpretation as signifying the continuation of a something commenced before any other authority. This term is applied to a specific forum which is empowered to deal originally with specific subjects; It limits the place of first existence of actions with reference to the matters named. Actions commenced In a court endowed with original Jurisdiction must, by reason pf the very terms used, giving the words their very broadest scope and significance, be independent and unrelated to any primary or Inferior authorities. Original Jurisdiction Is a vested power which bears no relation to prior proceedings. It Is a power independent and unrelated ; hence the view taken by the Supreme Court of the united States in the case of Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, supra, as to the validity of the Oregon law in the light of the Oregon Constitution, cannot be binding or applicable, and we regret (hat It can be of no assistance, In view of the vested power and emphatic exclusiveness thereof placed specifically In the district court by the Constitution of this state as to the subject of real property, Its title and possession.

    Addressing himself to this phase of the question and to the same contention as that of petitioner here, the learned Judge of the federal court In the case of Bergman v. Kearney, says:

    "The insistence that the proceedings provided in the statute as amended are tantamount to an appeal to the district court, as authorized in the act of 1913, is not well founded. At no stage does the determination possess any of the characteristics of finality ; it cannot be regarded as terminating between the parties litigation on the merits .of the case."

    We dwell on the words of the learned Judge, because they give force to our position both as to section 38 and also as to the effect of sections 34, 35, 36, and 37.

    The very thing prescribed against by section 6 of article 6 of the Constitution Is here presented, to wit, a proceeding involving title to or possession of real property brought before the district court, the initial stage or existence of which was before another jurisdiction or officer. Moreover, by the operation of these sections in conjunction with section 38, not only are the initial stages and existence of the proceedings brought before an authority other than that prescribed by section 6 of article 6 of the Constitution, but the Initial order of determination is before another authority, and more, the Initial power of execution of such orders of determination (section 38), which execution lays hold on real property, divests of or confers possession, declares the right of possession to, and would deliver possession thereof; all of which powers are by the constitutional prescription placed originally In the district court.

    In reference to this proceeding, the court, in Bergman v. Kearney, further comments:

    "It [the order of determination] operates, not as a judgment, but as a pleading, or the findings of a referee."

    Again we dwell on the words of the learned federal court, for we may emphasize our

    Section 33 requires the state engineer to "make, and cause to be entered of record in his office, an order determining and establishing the several rights to the waters of said stream. * * " Section 34 provides for the filing of this order of determination and establishment in the office of the clerk of the court. This is made and entered prior to any court action.

    A pleading is a statement of causes of action or grounds of defense; allegations of what is affirmed on one side or denied on the other, disclosing to the tribunal of trial the matter In dispute between the parties. It seems to us we are going far afield when we try to apply this definition to an order of determination filed in a court, subject to attack only within the scope of exceptions filed thereto, and which order of determination can only be affected in that court to the extent of modification or affirmance.

    Section 38 commands the state engineer, after filing his order of determination with the clerk of the district court, to immediately assume the role of executioner, and without let or hindrance, as though clothed with all the equitable writs, enter upon private property, close and open headgates, confer or divest possession of property. Let us view section 38 under the theory of respondent that the state engineer might exercise the powers there sought to be conferred because his action In this respect was but temporary at most and was not final. If this ministerial officer can confer or divest title to property for the period of an hour, If he can for a day oust of or instate to possession of real property, what Is there to limit the time during which his> order conferring or divesting title or ousting of or instating to possession may be enforced? If the determination and order and the execution thereof made by the state engineer affecting the title to and right to possession of real property can, under our Constitution, be effective for the shortest period of time, can it not with equal sanction be made to be effective at the pleasure of that officer? When the Constitution declared that where a controversy arose Involving the title or right to possession of real property It should originate in the district court, did It Infer there that any other power than that tribunal could even temporarily oust of possession or divest of ownership? Was not _the jurisdiction conferred on the district 'court by article: 6, § 6, original and exclusively so? If so, then by what other means than the power and process of the district court may title to real property or the right to possession thereof be even temporarily determined? The prevailing opinion in dealing with section 38 waives It aside by alluding to the provision of section 39, wherein it declares that the operation of the order of determination "may be stayed in whole or In part by any party determination is pending." We deem It sufficient observation to say that we are here required to determine whether a law is contrary to constitutional prescription, rather than as to how the effect of the law may be avoided. Section 38 is before us in this proceeding more effectually than any other section of the statute. It is no answer to the question of constitutionality to say that the effect of the law may be stayed by the giving of a bond by the party against whom the operation of the law may be enforced. Such does not operate to make a void law valid, nor does the fact that by this means there Is offered a simple way of avoiding the force of the law resolve the question of its constitutionality. This section deals with property of the highest order and of which no man may be deprived without due process of law. Section 8, art. 1, Const. The question is not, may the force of this statute be avoided by some court order such as the issuance of an extraordinary writ, but rather, does the statute when enforced place in the bands of some ministerial officer, power and privilege which by the organic law may only be exercised by the judicial branch of the government? We have declared that where the means for the exercise of a grant of power are given, no other or different means can be employed as being more effectual or convenient. State v. Hal- lock, 14 Nev. 202, 33 Am. Rep. 559; Fletcher v. Oliver, 25 Ark. 289.

    Let us suppose that a statute was enacted authorizing the state engineer to inquire as to the title and right to possession of all lands contiguous to the natural water courses in this state, and that as to a strip of land for one mile on each side of such water courses he was empowered to Inquire as to the ownership or right to possession and to "determine and establish" the same, and, after filing his determination and establishment In the office of the clerk of the district court, he was empowered by the statute to issue his orders, putting his determination and establishment into effect. Let us suppose that pursuant to such statute the state engineer, having determined and established title and right to possession of the lands adjacent and contiguous to the Carson river system, sought to exercise his orders, and In furtherance thereof directed that certain parties vacate a given tract, and that the same be turned over to another ; that certain gates be thrown open and others permanently closed; that certain titles were good and sufficient and others were void; would such a statute be constitutional? Under section 6 of article 7 of our organic law, would such titles be recognized? Manifestly not. A writ of injunction would no doubt be to prevent the acts of the state engineer in this respect, but If the statute be challenged as to its constitutionality, would it be a sufficient answer for this court to say not, inasmuch as a remedy was available by way of injunction, the question of constitutionality might be overlooked? Would this court be warranted, when called upon to declare as to the constitutionality of the statute, in saying: "Assuming that this statute Is unconstitutional, the parties are protected in their property rights, inasmuch as they may seek relief by injunction," or would it .suffice to say that, inasmuch as injunction might be sought to prevent the acts of the engineer, therefore the act was not in contravention of the organic law?

    But there is another observation that might be made as to the availability of a remedy by injunction against the order determining and establishing water rights under section 33 of the statute under consideration and against the enforcement of such orders as provided for by section 38 of the statute. The learned Judge of the federal court In the Bergman Case, like the prevailing opinion In this case, passed lightly over sections 33 and 38 and laid emphasis on the so-called remedy offered by section 39. The prevailing opinion contents itself with the assumptive hypothesis that section 38 is unconstitutional. In order to typify the remedy suggested by section 39, relied upon in the prevailing opinion, let us assume that an appropriator on the upper waters of the North fork of the Humboldt (a tributary of the Humboldt river system) finding his vested rights impaired by the state engineer, seeks the remedy of injunction to prevent his being deprived of his property by the acts of that officer. For immediate relief he must act under section 39 of the statute, which provides:

    "At any time after the order of determination, evidence and transcript is when filed with the clerk of the court, as aforesaid, the operation of said order of determination may be stayed in whole or in part by any party upon filing a bond in the court wherein such determination is pending in such amount as the judge thereof may prescribe, conditioned that such party will pay all damage that may accrue by reason of such determination not being enforced, pending decree by said court. * * * " (We italicize.)

    To whom may damage accrue by reason of such determination not being enforced? All the appropriators on a stream system affected by the order of détermination made by i the state engineer whose order of determination the appropriator seeks to stay. The injunction proceedings must be and are none other than a proceeding for the determination of a water right and to relieve such water right of an order unjustly and illegally made. That being true, the party seeking injunctive relief, unless he brings in. all the appropriators on the stream, will be met with the objection of defect of parties defendant, because by section 45 of the original act of 1913 it is provided that :

    "In any suit which may be brought in any district court in the state for the determination of a right or rights to the use of water of any stream, all persons ho claim the right to use the waters of such stream and the stream by term of which it is a part shall be made parties." etc. Stat. 1913, p. 204.

    So our appropriator on the North fork seeking injunctive relief from the order affecting his property must bring in as parties defendant, under the authority of sections 39 and 45, not alone the state engineer, but "all persons who claim the right to use the waters of such stream and the stream system of which it is a part." The stream system of which the North fork Is a part is the Humboldt river system, extending from Northern Elko county to Western Humboldt county, affecting a culture watered area of approximately 300,000 acres, with more than 400 water users and appropriators. The court in fixing the bond before the issuance of the injunction must do so with a view to the "damage that may accrue by reason of such determination not being enforced," and the condition must run accordingly. Injunctive relief under such conditions is the adequate protection suggested by the prevailing opinion, afforded by way of staying the order of determination. To him whose property has been taken, whose vested rights have been ' divested, whose possession has been ousted, whose title may have been set aside, an injunction under such conditions is said to be available. Section 39, taken, as it must be, in connection with section 45 of the act of 1913, makes injunctive relief a useless and impossible thing. However just may be the approprlator's cause, however secure and well founded may be his vested right, Immediate relief from the effects of an order, however unjust or unauthorized, is a thing impossible. A more effective plan of making the determination and order of the state engineer entered and put forth under sections 33 and 38 free from interference by court action could scarcely be conceived. By these sections a condition, and not a theory, is presented. The Injunctive relief offered by section 39, when sought for, will, in the light of section 45, be found to be a remedy that does not relieve, a function without substance, a camouflage which serves the purpose of covering the hidden sting in section 38.

    Respondents contend that section 38 is put in force only by the properly constituted authority, and In furtherance of this they argue that not until the final order and decree of the state engineer axe filed with the clerk of the district court may such order become operative In this they say is due process.

    The contention of respondents In this respect finds sanction only in the fact that the order of determination, evidence, and transcript are filed with the clerk of that tribunal wherein is vested the original power to determine matters of that nature. If we read the section correctly, it calls for no judicial investigation or sanction to put it in files the orders of determination which he made, affecting certain property rights, he might set about under the sanction of section 38 and from thence exercise all the Jurisdiction and powers that by the organic law were reposed in the district court. The judge of the district court, that constituted officer whose Judgment and decision Is presumed to be exercised and in whom is reposed the powers and duties under the law of determining title, possession, and right to possession of real property, might be in the remote ends of the state, yet by the mere act of filing his determination the state engineer becomes clothed with powers to fix, limit, regulate, establish, and set up the title or the right of possession or the possession of real property within that judicial district. This statute may give evidence of a studied effort to clothe the proceedings with the outward form of due process of law, but with that Ingenious refinement of which Mr. Cooley makes mention, it Is mode devoid of the substance. Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, supra.

    Section 38 ousts the district court of its constitutional function and seeks to repose in a ministerial officer powers which belong exclusively in that court. It is in contravention of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, as expressed in section в, article в, аs well as in article 3, § 1.

    In the ease of Bergman v. Kearney, supra, plaintiff contended, as does petitioner here, that these sections of the act were void as conferring judicial powers on a nonjudicial officer. In the opinion in that case, the court took occasion to remark :

    "Apparently it is not the exercise of all judicial authority, but the exercise of that portion of the judicial authority pertaining or belonging to the judicial department, which is forbidden."

    We would search in vain for an expression more cogent to the furtherance of our views. Real property, the title thereof, and questions Involving the possession or right of possession thereof, are all matters which the Constitution ordained should be originally dealt with, pertain to, and belong to the Judicial department. These matters are exclusively and originally within the jurisdictional authority pertaining and belonging to the district court The exercise of judicial authority to the extent of ousting from or conferring possession of real property is not only ultimately, but originally, In the district court, and any act which seeks to place this power to any extent In any other tribunal, board, body, or officer must fall by the force of the organic law, and especially under the view thereof as expressed by the learned judge of the federal court

    It is the exception found in section 1 of article 3 of our Constitution that adds emphasis to the application of the expression of the learned Judge of the federal court:

    "No persons charged with the exercise of pertinents shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others, except in cases herein expressly directed or permitted.."

    There are exceptions expressly directed and permitted by the organic law itself. These exceptions furnished the basis for the assertion in the Bergman-Kearney Case that "a complete and perfect separation of powers is not made by the Constitution itself." The veto power of the Governor is authorized by the Constitution; likewise the Lieutenant Governor is made the presiding officer of the Senate. It is by constitutional provision that the Legislature is made the judge of the qualifications of its own members, and the Senate, the high court of impeachment By section 6, art. 6, the original jurisdiction over the subject of real property, title thereto, and possession thereof, was specifically vested in the judicial branch, and no exception is expressly directed or permitted, nor can such exception be inferred from the language employed. The power of originally putting in motion the wheels of justice applicable to the title or right to possession of real property is seated in a designated branch of the government, and that without the remotest inference of exception :

    "When the Constitution defines the circumstances under which a right may be exercised or a penalty imposed, the specification is an implied prohibition against legislative interference to add to the condition." Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 99.

    It is seriously contended here that the powers sought to be conferred on the state engineer by section 29 and those sections following are not such as belong to judicial officers; and in furtherance of this argument It is said that all acts judicial in their nature are not within the exclusive province of the judicial department of the government We are referred to instances where nonjudicial officers have been required to exercise functions which in a sense are judicial and courts have held statutes imposing such duties or powers to be constitutional. Perhaps the most striking Illustration of this is found in the statutes creating our Railroad Commission, the constitutionality of which was passed upon in the case of Southern Pacific т. Bartine (O. C.) 170 Fed. 725. But there it was held that the power exercised by this commission, as by other boards similarly created, is, in a constitutional sense, legislative rather than judicial. "Judicial power in the constitutional sense," says the court In the Bergman Case, supra, "is something more than authority to hear and determine; it Includes the power to decide finally and conclusively." We would add to this expression by saying that when by constitutional mandate the power to hear originally and decide finally as to a specific thing, as in this instance the right to possession of real property, is placed in the judicial branch of the government, then a statute which seeks to confer these powers, either in the Initial stage of determination or finally, in some other branch of the government, la void as against the constitutional mandate. If the original Jurisdiction to determine reasonable rates to be charged for freights and fares by common carrier was a function which by the constitutional mandate could be exercised originally and finally only by the district court, would not the fixing of freights and fares by a board or officer other than the district court be a usurpation of judicial function?

    It is absurd to argue that in the proceeding before the state engineer nothing is involved which belongs to the function of the district court under Its constitutional grant of jurisdiction. A mere analysis of the matter dispels such a contention. From the very moment that the state engineer attempts to establish (sections 29, 30, and 33), title and right to possession are Involved. By reason of the force and effect of section 38, the immediate possession of and right of possession of a usufructuary estate is to be determined. When the proceeding before the state engineer passes out of the realm of investigation into that of establishment or determination, the nature of the proceedings changes; and the constitutional prescription, establishing the specific functions of the several branches of the state government, as a traffic officer on the avenue of governmental guarantees, calls a halt and points the way. Up to a given point the proceedings are ministerial ; when they assume to establish or determine (sections 25 to 38) they take on the nature of an action to quiet title (Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, supra), and that function belongs from the very Initial step to the district court.

    It has been suggested that the statute here under consideration is enacted under the police power of the state and for regulation; hence the observations as to the application of the several sections of the Constitution are not well taken. No authority of which we are aware has ever held that police regulation took the place of or superseded specific constitutional provision. Determination and establishment of individual or relative property rights is one thing; police regulation after determination and establishment is another. Where by the organic law itself the way is made and the machinery furnished for the carrying out of a given policy, that is final and police regulation can only follow.

    To those who, believing In organized government, would adhere to a democracy, the Constitution is looked to as the instrument of guaranty, and its specific inhibitions and commands are to be enforced and carried out. We are referred to the learned words coming by way of an excerpt from an address of Mr. George B. Rose, of the Arkansas bar. The language and thought therein expressed, in the midst of the prevailing opinion, la most refreshing and enlightening. In our bumble way we might Interpolate the words of the learned author by saying that the Constitution Is never a "dam to stem the tide of human progress," when It points the way and paves the avenue by which that progress may be accomplished. It Is the avoidance of that "broad channel" furnished, by the organic law for human progress, and evasive constructions sanctioning such avoidance, that Imperils the existence of constitutional government by making the same a "mere scrap of paper" rather than a guaranty. It Is the "Constitution be damned" theory that wrecks the chariot of democratic government and makes the road of constitutional safety a quagmire of uncertainty.

    In the proceeding before us it is sought to prohibit the district court from assuming jurisdiction of a matter involving title and right to possession of real property where a determination and establishment of that title has been already made by a ministerial officer and where, notwithstanding the constitutional direction that such was the original function of the district court, the determination and establishment as originally made by the ministerial officer can only be affected to the extent of modiflcation.

    The order of determination was originally and finally made by a ministerial officer, and In this he exercised functions belonging to the district court.

    The district court assumes to take jurisdiction of this matter after determination by a ministerial officer, and can only review to ultimately affirm or modify that determination. In this it permits itself to be divested of original Jurisdiction and assumes an appellate jurisdiction forbidden by the Constitution.

    The order of determination which the lower court will act upon and which it will modify or affirm, Is a decree by which it Is bound, and not of Its own making. It is not due process of law.

    The writ should have Issued,

    (87 Or. 476)


    Tuesday, May 22, 2012

    US science integrity move devolving into mosh pit

    WASHINGTON -- A vaunted initiative to restore public confidence in the scientific work of the federal agency with the most tarnished record is foundering, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The U.S. Department of Interior has failed to deliver on its promises to conduct independent investigations of reports of scientific misconduct, prevent political interference or develop protocols to prevent duplicative and conflicting investigations, leaving an opaque jumble of irresolution.

    One of the highest profile complaints under Interior’s scientific integrity process (launched in February 2011) involves Arctic researcher Dr. Charles Monnett who charged that his own agency and the Interior Office of Inspector General (OIG) had improperly disrupted his work in a “witch hunt” involving his paper on polar bears drowning after storms. On August 8, 2011, Interior Scientific Integrity Officer Ralph Morganweck wrote that he was “conducting an inquiry into these allegations.” Yet, in a letter to Representative Edward Markey three weeks after pledging to investigate the complaint against OIG (which letter PEER obtained recently under the Freedom of Information Act), Morganweck stated that he had already met with the OIG twice about the. Monnett case and –

    “…I will be assisting the OIG in reviewing the scientific integrity claims that have been raised in this matter.”

    “This is beyond screwy. How in the name of objectivity can the integrity officer work to assist the subject of a complaint without telling the complainant?” asked PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, who is asking Morganweck to recuse himself from the case but has gotten no reply. “If there is no independence in these reviews, Interior’s scientific integrity process is simply an elaborate exercise in damage control.”

    At the same time, the complaint sits in limbo. On April 2, 2012, nearly eight months after accepting the Monnett case, Morganweck wrote to PEER (which represents Dr. Monnett) asking for basic information indicating that he had barely begun a review. Nor has he ever asked to interview Dr. Monnett. Similarly, five months after PEER filed a complaint about improper exclusion of livestock grazing from a massive Bureau of Land Management landscape study there has been little movement. Indeed, the assigned science integrity officer never asked for the list of witnesses PEER had offered.

    The conflicting investigations by the OIG and Scientific Integrity Office also prompted promises last summer to develop a protocol to sort out who does what and to insure that OIG probes do not extend into scientific issues for which it has no expertise. Thus, in an August 25, 2011 letter about the Monnett case to Senator James Inhofe, Acting Inspector General Mary Kendall wrote:

    “We are, however, in contact with the Department’s Office of Scientific Integrity on this matter and are developing protocols for coordination on such matters in the future.”

    Yet, in response to a recent Freedom of Information Act request by PEER for any “protocol, guidance or memorandum of understanding” between the two entities or adopted unilaterally by the OIG on handling scientific misconduct issues, the OIG declared that it had “no documents responsive to your request.”

    “Consistent and considered treatment of allegations are among the stated goals of Interior’s Scientific Integrity policy, yet this failure to coordinate makes every scientific controversy into a bureaucratic jump ball,” Ruch added, noting that PEER is preparing a series of reforms it will file as rule-making petitions this summer to fix holes in the procedures. “Interior’s scientific integrity program has broken down coming out of the gate and needs to be retooled.”


    Narcokleptocracy

    A narcokleptocracy is a society ruled by "thieves" involved in the trade of narcotics.

    The term has its origin in a report prepared by a subcommittee of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.[13]

    puppet master puppet

    Narcokleptolumpenfishnetocracy Security Dept.


    COMPREHENSIVE NULLIFICATION:

    ANNULMENT, DEFORCEMENT AND DEBARMENT FOR INEFFICIENT AND IRRATIONAL USE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, OVERREACHING ABUSE OF OFFICE, ABUSE OF RESOURCES, INTRUSIONS OF THE PEOPLE'S SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY & STATES RIGHTS, NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION TO GUARANTEES OF PROTECTED RIGHTS, LIBERTY, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREEDOMS, LOCAL RULE, AND THE RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE . RESTRICTIONS OF USURPATION; FOR CONSPIRACY TO IMPOSE PHARMACEUTICAL DICTATORSHIP, MEDICINAL TYRANNY, PIRACY BY A DESPOTIC INTRUSION UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

    SLAVERY AND PEONAGE ABOLISHED.

    RIGHTS OF SELF DETERMINATION PROTECTED BY PRIORITY OF POSSESSION, RIGHTS VESTED AND ACCRUED; WASTE AND CONVERSION BY JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE  ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS TRESPASSERS; QUIET TITLE EJECTMENT; FALSE CLAIMS AND ILLEGITIMATE ANIMUS; ULTERIOR MOTIVES AND NEGLIGENCE.

    SEDITION. AIDING THE ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY

    & CONSTITUTIONALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT IN AND OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC.


    EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION OF AMNESTY.

    SUIT FOR TRUCE & TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES PETITION TO EXCHANGE PRISONERS OF WAR &

    SAFE CONDUCT RANSOM OF SPIES & HOSTAGES.

    RE-CONFEDERATION OF THE UNION OF STATES.

    RECONSTRUCTION OF HABEAS CORPUS.


    CREATION OF THE SACRED VANGUARD IN PLANETARIUM & SOLARIUM CHAMBERS

    (FULLVIEW AND BROAD DAYLIGHT, SEE i.e. TRANSPARENCY) to aid the nation's vigilance,

    THAT GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, SHALL NOT PERISH.


    (B) Prohibition

    (i) In general No part of a grant or loan under this subsection may be used for the payment of—

    (I) a penalty or fine;

    (II) a Federal cost-share requirement;

    (III) an administrative cost;

    (IV) a response cost at a brownfield site for which the recipient of the grant or loan is potentially liable under section 9607 of this title; or

    (V) a cost of compliance with any Federal law (including a Federal law specified in section 9601 (39)(B) of this title), excluding the cost of compliance with laws applicable to the cleanup.

    (ii) Exclusions For the purposes of clause (i)(III), the term “administrative cost” does not include the cost of—

    (I) investigation and identification of the extent of contamination;

    (II) design and performance of a response action; or

    (III) monitoring of a natural resource.

    (iii) Exception Notwithstanding clause (i)(IV), the Administrator may use up to 25 percent of the funds made available to carry out this subsection to make a grant or loan under this subsection to eligible entities that satisfy all of the elements set forth in section 9601 (40) of this title to qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser, except that the date of acquisition of the property was on or before January 11, 2002.

    (C) Assistance for development of local government site remediation programs

    A local government that receives a grant under this subsection may use not to exceed 10 percent of the grant funds to develop and implement a brownfields program that may include—

    (i) monitoring the health of populations exposed to one or more hazardous substances from a brownfield site; and

    (ii) monitoring and enforcement of any institutional control used to prevent human exposure to any hazardous substance from a brownfield site.

    (D) Insurance


    HOTLINE BUZZ
    Real-time comments on legal news by newsmakers, activists, legal experts and special guests...


     Monday, October 26, 2009

    Non-enforcement of Controlled Substances Act leaves medical marijuana issue unresolved
    2:10 PM ET

    Mark Kleiman [Professor of Public Policy, UCLA]: "The Justice Department will not pursue people using or selling cannabis in compliance with state "medical marijuana" laws, even though those activities remain forbidden by the Controlled Substances Act. That policy ends more than a decade of federal efforts to overturn state efforts to make cannabis available to patients. In effect, the Attorney General has decided that although the Federal government has the power (affirmed by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich) to enforce the CSA in such cases, prudence and comity argue that it should not use that power.

    Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

    California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing the medical use of marijuana. The United States Federal Government has limited the use of marijuana since the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act came into effect. Defendant Angel Raich used homegrown medical marijuana, which was legal under California law, but illegal under federal law. On August 15, 2002, Butte County Sheriff's Department officers and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) destroyed all six of California resident Diane Monson's marijuana plants, facing light resistance. The marijuana plants were illegal Schedule I drugs under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). CSA is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Monson and Angel Raich sued, claiming that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.

    Angel Raich's physician has stated that, without marijuana, Angel's life is threatened by excruciating pain. California was one of fourteen states that allowed medicinal use of marijuana. California's Compassionate Use Act allows limited use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

    The relevant precedents for the Court's analysis are Wickard v. Filburn (1942), United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000).

    Scalia's opinion

    Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurrence that had the effect of differentiating the decision from the previous results of United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison. Although Scalia voted in favor of limits on the Commerce Clause in the Lopez and Morrison decisions, he said that his understanding of the Necessary and Proper Clause caused him to vote for the Commerce Clause with Raich for the following reason:

    Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”[8]

    Dissenting opinions

    Justice O'Connor, dissenting, began her opinion by citing United States v. Lopez, which she followed with a reference to Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:

    Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country..."[9]

    O'Connor concluded:

    Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.

    Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:

    Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

    and

    If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

    and further:

    If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[10]

    Chief Justice William Rehnquist, author of the majority opinions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, joined O'Connor's dissent.


    federal standards for egg-laying

    joint dissent


    Subsequent events

    Both Raich and Monson have indicated their intention to continue using marijuana for medical use in spite of the ruling.

    Two days after the ruling, the International Narcotics Control Board issued a statement indicating that the Board "welcomes the decision of the United States Supreme Court, made on 6 June, reaffirming that the cultivation and use of cannabis, even if it is for 'medical' use, should be prohibited." INCB President Hamid Ghodse noted, "Cannabis is classified under international conventions as a drug with a number of personal and public health problems," referring to the drug's Schedule I status under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.[11]

    Not long after the decision in Raich, the Court vacated a lower court decision in United States v. Stewart and remanded it to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Raich. In Stewart, the Ninth Circuit had held that Congress lacked the Commerce Clause power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns.

    In Congress, in order to counter the effect of this ruling, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) annually introduce legislation to stop the Department of Justice from arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients.[12] This effort has not yet succeeded, as most members of Congress voted against the bill.[13]

    In 2007, the Ninth Circuit decided against Angel Raich, when she renewed her litigation on substantive due process grounds. Judge Harry Pregerson, the author of the opinion, noted that only a minority of states legalized medical marijuana and it is not a recognized "fundamental right" under the due process clause. However, Pregerson also wrote that she could use medical necessity individually if she is ever arrested for using medical marijuana.

    In 2009, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder issued new guidelines allowing for non-enforcement of the federal ban in some situations:

    It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal.[14][15][16]

    When C-SPAN's Brian Lamb interviewed former Justice John Paul Stevens about Stevens' book, Five Chiefs, Stevens cited Gonzales as a case in which he upheld the law while deploring the policy.[17]

    See also

    . A vested right to divert the waters from a public stream and apply them to a beneficial use in the way of irrigation applies to and is of the very nature of the realty itself. A deprivation of the land made valuable by the application of water diverted from a public stream would no more affect the property rights of the individual than would the deprivation of the water itself by reason of which the value of the estate was acquired and without which it would be worthless.

    In the case of Conant v. Deep Creek & C. Valley Irrigation Co., 23 Utah, 627, 66 Рас. ISS, 90 Am. St. Uep. 721, the Supreme Court of that state declared in effect that an action to ascertain, determine, and decree the extent and priority of water rights partakes of the nature of an action to quiet title to real estate. The same court, in the case of Taylor v. (N. S.) 535, held that a water right appurtenant to irrigated land was real property.

    The right to the flow and use of- water, being a right In a natural resource, was held by the Supreme Court of Colorado, in the case of Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Childs, 25 Colo. 360, 54 Рас. 1020, to be real estate; and to the same effect will be found Davis v. Randall, 44 Colo. 488, 99 Рас. 322, and Bates v. Hall, 44 Colo. 360, 98 Рае. 3.

    In the case of Hill v. Newman, 5 Cal. 445, 63 Am. Dec. 140, the Supreme Court of California held that a justice of the peace, although conferred with Jurisdiction to try and determine actions for damages for taking, detaining and injuring personal property, had no jurisdiction over an action for diversion of water because it was an action concerning title to real estate. Holding to the same conclusion, we find the case of Griseza v. Terwil- llger, 144 Cal. 456, 77 Рас. 1034.

    In the case of Yankee Jim's Union Water Co. v. Crary, 25 Cal. 504, 85 Am. Dec. 145, the Supreme Court of California held that water rights may be held, granted, abandoned, or lost by the same means as a right of the same character issuing out of lands to which a private title exists, saying that:

    "The right of the first appropriator may be lost, in whole or in some limited portions, by the adverse possession of another. And when such person has had the continued, uninterrupted, and adverse enjoyment of the water course, or of some certain portion of it, during the period limited by the statute of limitations for entry upon lands, the law will presume a grant of the right so held and enjoyed by him."

    Supporting this general proposition of law may be found the cases of Lower Kings River Water Ditch Co. т. Kings River & F. C. Co., 60 Cal. 410, and Last Chance Co. v. Emigrant Ditch Co., 129 Cal. 278, 61 Рас. 960. See, also, Hayes т. Fine, 91 Cal. 398, 27 Рас. 772; Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman, 152 Cal. 716, 93 Рас. 858, 115 L. R. A. (N. S.) 359.

    Mr. Klnney, in his work on Irrigation and Water Rights/ summing up the subject, puts It thus:

    "It is generally conceded by all the authorities that a water right, or an interest in a water right, is real property, and it is so treated under all the rules of law appertaining to such property." Kiuney on Irrigation and Water Rights (2d Ed.) vol. 2, p. 1328.

    The assertion of the author In this respect Is supported by a line of authorities wherein the question has been discussed and determined in nearly every phase.

    To the same effect will be found the holding of the courts in the cases of Hough v. Porter, 51 Or. 318, 95 Рас. 732, 98 Рас. 1083, 102 Рас. 728; Town of Sterling et al. v. Pawnee Ditch Extension Co., 42 Colo. 421, 94 Рас. 339, 15 L. B. A. (N. S.) 238 ; Fisher et al. v. Bountiful City, 21 Utah, 29, 59 Рас. 620.

    Mr. Well, In his work on Water Rights in the Western States (vol. 1) asserts the same general principle.

    Our Legislature has In but one Instance, 171 P.-12

    so far as we are able to ascertain, attempted to define the term "real property," and In that Instance they declared that:

    "The term 'real property' shall include every estate, interest and right in lands, tenements and hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal." Section 6294, sub. 10, Rev. Laws.

    In the case of Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, 152 Fed. 11, 81 С. С. A. 207, Judge Wolverton, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, analyzed the question at hand with a finesse which is to our mind unanswerable, and there the court, after a complete analysis in which he referred to numerous cases supporting the position, held that an appropriation of water from a public stream put to a beneficial use "savors of and is a part of the real estate." Speaking of the nature of the suit, which was in that Instance one to determine water rights on the Walker river, the court said:

    "The suit * * * in its purpose and effect, is one to quiet title to realty."

    A. Expert Witness Testimony to Assist the Court in Interpreting Legislative History and Intent Is Permitted by the Evidence Code and Recognized as Appropriate by the Appellate Courts.

     

    1. Legislative history is a proper subject for judicial notice for both trial and appellate courts. (Evid. Code 452, subd. (c), and 459; People v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 504, fn.1 [53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 917 P.2d 628].) The court may judicially notice legislative history on its own motion or on the motion of a party. (People v. Cruz (1996) 13 Cal.4th 764, 780, fn. 9 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 117, 919 P.2d 731]; Grubb & Ellis Co. v. Bello (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 231, 240 [23 Cal.Rptr.2d 281].) 

     

    2. A court has broad discretion to take information, including expert opinion, to determine the propriety of judicially noticing legislative history and its meaning. (Evid. Code Section 454 subd. (a)(1) & (2).) Additionally, an appellate court has the same power to take judicial notice of a matter as the trial court has under Evidence Code Section 454. (Evid. Code 459 subd. (b).) In this regard, Evidence Code Section 454 in part states:

    “In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter or the tenor thereof: (1) Any source of pertinent information, including the advice of persons learned in the subject matter may be consulted or used, whether or not furnished by a party. (2) Exclusionary rules of evidence do not apply except for Section 352 and rules of privilege. (Evid. Code 454 subd. (a)(1) & (2).)”

     

    3. Additionally, Evidence Code Section 460 specifically provides that the court, in taking judicial notice of a subject, may hear the opinion of an expert.

    “Where the advice of persons learned in the subject matter is required in order to enable the court to take judicial notice of a matter, the court on its own motion or on motion of any party may appoint one or more such persons to provide such advice. If the court determines to appoint such a person, he shall be appointed and compensated in the manner provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 730) of Chapter 3 of Division 6. (Evid. Code, 460).

     

    4. Evidence Code Section 730 supplements Evidence Code Section 460, and concerns the general circumstances of using experts to assist the court:

    “When it appears to the court, at any time before or during the trial of an action, that expert evidence is or may be required by the court or by any party to the action, the court on its own motion or on motion of any party may appoint one or more experts to investigate, to render a report as may be ordered by the court, and to testify as an expert at the trial of the action relative to the fact or matter as to which the expert evidence is or may be required.” (Evid. Code 730.)

     

    5. Court acceptance of an expert does not preclude any other party from offering its own information on the propriety of taking judicial notice of the legislative history and its tenor, or prevent a party from offering its own expert witness testimony on the same matter. (Evid. Code, 455 subd. (a), and 733.)

     

    6. Expert opinion on the meaning of judicially noticed legislative documents offered by one or more parties is taken by the court “before the jury is instructed or before the cause is submitted for decision by the courts “ (Evid. Code 455 subd. (a).) The expert opinion need not be received in open court, and in the case of a jury trial, it generally is not.

     

    7. In the context of Evidence Code Sections 454, 455, 460 and 730, the “matter” before the court when it examines legislative history is the obligation of the court to construe a statute consistent with the intent of the Legislature, as provided for in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1859, which reads:

    “In the construction of a statute the intention of the Legislature, and in the construction of the instrument the intention of the parties, is to be pursued if possible; and when a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. (Code of Civ. Proc., 1859.)

     

    8. A vast body of case law supports the common practice of examining legislative history as a method of ascertaining legislative intent and satisfying the obligations that Code of Civil Procedure 1859 imposes on the courts (See e.g. Watts v. Crawford (1995)10 Cal.4th 743, 753-54 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 81, 896 P.2d 807].)

     

    9. Several appellate court cases have recognized that expert witness testimony on legislative intent as evidenced by the legislative history is helpful to the court and admissible. In Fallbrook Sanitary District v. San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 753, 759 [256 Cal.Rptr. 590], the Court of Appeal addressed a question of legislative intent in construing a statute. The court, in examining the statute and its legislative purpose, noted that “expert evidence of an act’s legislative history.... is an appropriate means of assisting courts in understanding and interpreting statutes.” (208 Cal.App.3d 753, 764; see also Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 781-82 [195 Cal.Rptr. 393](noting that the statutory history fully supports the testimony of a qualified expert analyst of legislative intent).)

     

     

    B. William H Keller has the Special Knowledge, Skill and Training to Qualify Him as an Expert and Assist the Court in Evaluating Legislative History and Intent

     

     

    10. Evidence Code Sections 454, 460 and 730 give the courts great discretion in determining when expert evidence is required to assist the court. Once the court determines, on its own motion or the motion of a party, that expert testimony is appropriate, Evidence Code Section 720 (a) establishes the qualifications necessary to testify as an expert witness:

     

    “A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.” (Evid. Code 720 subd. (a).)

     

    11. Mr. Keller’s background clearly qualifies him as an expert. His education includes graduation Cum Laude from UCLA with a degree in Political Science and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California at Davis. Following law school, Mr. Keller was selected through competition to be an Assembly Fellow. At the Legislature, Mr. Keller served as Legislative Assistant to Assemblyman William T. Bagley, and later as an Associate Consultant to the Assembly Welfare Committee.

     

    12. After leaving the legislative staff, Mr. Keller founded Legislative Intent Service. Under his direction over the past 26 years, his firm has researched the Historical background of over 20,000 California, federal and sister state code sections. Legislative Intent Service currently produces about 1,500 legislative histories yearly for courts and attorneys across the country. As part of this work, Legislative Intent Service prepares each year numerous analyses directly for the California District Courts of Appeal.  Legislative Intent Service has been cited by name in over 40 California appellate cases.

     

    13. Mr. Keller gives 10 to 12 classes a year to law firms and local bar associations on legislative history and statutory construction. These lectures have been certified by the California State Bar Association as approved MCLE activities. Mr. Keller has also lectured to numerous other groups, including law school classes, legal secretaries and law librarians. Mr. Keller co-authored an article entitled “Finding Legislative Intent in California” published in the January, 1986 issue of the California State Library Foundation Bulletin.

     

    14. On the basis of this special knowledge, experience and education, the California Courts have recognized Mr. Keller as an expert and have allowed him to give opinion testimony in approximately 35 instances. Mr. Keller has submitted written declarations in numerous other cases.

     

    15. Mr. Keller has been cited by name in three published California Appellate Court Opinions, in addition to several unpublished opinions. (See Roberts v. Gulf on Corporation (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 781-83 82 [195 Cal. Rptr. 393]; Lynch v. State Board of Equalization (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 94,112 [210 Cal. Rptr. 335]; Jimenez v. WCAB (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 61, 67 fn. 3 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 660].)

     

    16. In the case of Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corporation, the court specifically describes Mr. Keller’s testimony as that of a “qualified expert analyst” of legislative intent. (Id. At 781.) The decision goes on to acknowledge Mr. Keller’s testimony regarding the Legislature’s intent in enacting the statue at issue, and his study of the legislative history, including what the materials did not reveal as well as what they did. (Id. at 782-83.)

     

    17. Mr. Keller’s expertise has also been explicitly acknowledged in cases outside the state court system. (Judd v. United States (S.D.Cal. 1987) 650 F. Supp. 1503,1511 fn.10.)

     

     

    C. Expert Witness Testimony on Legislative History and Intent Does Not Usurp the Role of the Court to Determine What the Law Is.

     

     

    18.Axiomatic to our legal system is the role of the court to say what the law is.(Downer v. Bramet (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 837, 842 [199 Cal. Rptr. 830].) Testimony on legislative history and legislative intent does not violate this tenet. Examining legislative history is only one aspect of interpreting legislative intent. The plain meaning rule is also an element of this inquiry. (Petaluma v. Sonoma (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1244, 1247 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 617].) Additionally, interpretation of legislative intent is only one aspect of statutory construction, and functions only in conjunction with the maxims of statutory construction and case law precedent. (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XlV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142,1156-60 [278 Cal. Rptr. 614, 805 P.2d 873]; 7 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th Ed. 1988) Constitutional Law, 92-100, pp. 145-153.  Furthermore, expert witness testimony is not inadmissible simply because it approaches an ultimate issue in the case. (Evid. Code, 805.) Finally, the directive of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1859 requiring the court to pursue legislative intent when construing a statute says to do so only “if possible.”

     

    19. As noted above, courts construing statutes rely on a variety of methods in addition to analysis of legislative history and legislative intent. Courts routinely examine the “plain meaning” of a statute to determine the law’s import. The court may make this examination as part of a synthesis of the elements of statutory construction. (People v. King (1993) 5 Cal.4th 59, 69 [19 Cal.Rptr.2d 233, 851 P.2d 27].) Alternatively, the court may also make this examination of “plain meaning” as a separate analytical step prior to reaching external indicia of intent. (DaFonte v. Upright, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 601 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238, 828 P.2d 140].) In neither case does testimony on legislative history and intent subvert the court’s ability to establish the meaning of the law independently of historical evidence of intent.

     

    20.     In addition to the Plain meanings rule, courts also adhere to interpreting statutes consistent with various maxims of statutory construction. For example, courts routinely conduct in pari materia analysis when construing statutory language. (Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753, 763 [280 Cal.Rptr. 745, 809 P.2d 404].) As a further example, courts usually afford the construction of a statute by a state agency great weight, and will not overturn it absent a showing that the construction is clearly erroneous or unauthorized (Rizzo v. Board of Trustees (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 853, 861 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 892].) Given that maxims of statutory construction form a distinct aspect of the courts’ statutory analysis, testimony on legislative history and intent cannot, in itself, displace the courts’ from their customary role of establishing the law.

    21.     The courts also routinely examine prior case law interpretations of a statute in an effort to establish coherent meaning in the law. (California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board (1994) 8 Cal.4th 333, 343 [33 Cal.Rptr.2d 109, 878 P.2d 1321].)  Where a court has previously construed a statute, case law precedent ensures that any testimony on legislative history and intent does not unduly influence a court’s reading of the law.

     

    22.     The distinction between appropriate testimony about the history and framework of a law and inappropriate testimony on the proper judicial interpretation of a law was recognized in Western Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Albers (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 383, 392 [212 Cal.Rptr. 434]. In this instance, the Court of Appeal ruled that expert testimony on the interpretation of Medi-Cal rules and regulations was properly received by the trial court. This decision is consistent with the cases allowing expert witnessing on legislative intent noted in Paragraph 9 above. (Cf. American Home Assurance v. Hagadorn (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1898, 1902-3 [56 Cal.Rptr.2d 536](allowing expert testimony on the intent of an amendment to the workers’ compensation law).)

     

    23.     These cases are easily distinguished from another line of cases disallowing testimony on pure legal opinions. In the leading case on this issue, Communications Satellite Corporations v. Franchise Tax Board (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 726, 747 [203 Cal.Rptr. 779], the Court of Appeal correctly rejected expert testimony on the proper interpretation of a tax statute as applied to uncontroverted facts, which effectively directed a verdict. In this case, the expert testified on conclusions of law based on his interpretations of a uniform act.

     

    24.     Similarly in Downer v. Bramet (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 837, 841-2, one party sought to introduce evidence first from her own attorney, and then from independent counsel, on the legal test for determining whether a transfer was a gift or compensation. The appellate court upheld a trial court decision to exclude this proffered testimony as within its discretion. The court noted that calling witnesses “to give opinions as to the application of the law to particular facts usurps the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury...” (Id. at 842.)

     

    25.     In sharp distinction, expert witness testimony on legislative history and intent is based on expert evaluation of historical documents, and not simply an opinion on the meaning of law. Moreover, testimony on legislative history and intent does not lead the court inexorably to any particular conclusion as to the proper judicial interpretation of the law. Legislative history and intent are elements of a court’s statutory construction analysis, and expert testimony is accepted to assist the court in one part of that process.

     

    26.     Furthermore, given that expert witness testimony on legislative history is designed to assist the court in interpreting legislative intent, it does not usurp the role of the court to instruct the jury. This point is recognized in Evidence Code 455 which notes that such expert opinion is usually not given before a jury because it is ‘not received in open court”. Evid. Code, Section 455.) Neither does expert witness testimony on legislative history impose on the province of the jury to apply the facts to the law.


    "Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship...To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic..., and have no place in a republic...The Constitution of this Republic should make special provisions for medical freedom as well as religious freedom." - Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of Declaration of Independence; member, Continental Congress

    "Nearly all men die of their medicines, not of their diseases." - Moliere, (1622-1672).

    "He's the best physician that knows the worthlessness of most medicines."- Benjamin Franklin

    "...This large and expensive stock of drugs will be unnecessary. By ...doses of ...medicines ...multiplying ...combining them properly, 20 to 30 articles, aided by the common resources of the lancet, a garden, a kitchen, fresh air, cool water, exercise, will be sufficient to cure all the diseases that are at present under the power of medicine." - Dr. Benjamin Rush
    Hazard Circular
     (allegedly circulated by British banking interests among their American banking counterparts in July 1862)
     Slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war, must be used as a means to control the volume of money.... It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that.
    [Quoted in Charles Lindburgh, "Banking and Currency and the Money Trust" (Washington, DC: National Capital Press, 1913), page 102.


    This morning, we look at the JPM debacle: Has the Economy been made safe from Wall Street? The short answer is not very.

    The print version had the full headline Four short years after AIG, Wall Street is back to its old tricks (The online version is merely JPMorgan’s debacle, and its parallels to AIG).



    mandatory enforcement of Sarbanes-Oxley

    ferc
    mandatory reliability standards for timeliness, fairness and transparency while respecting jurisdiction

    Released on May 18, 2012

    Natural Resources and Environment

    Air Emissions and Electricity Generation at U.S. Power Plants
    GAO-12-545R, Apr 18, 2012

    In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law."The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers.[12] Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".[13]

    The American doctrine of standing is assumed as having begun with the case of Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923). But, legal standing truly rests its first prudential origins in Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) which was authored by Justice Brandeis. In Fairchild, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.[14] Since then the doctrine has been embedded in judicial rules and some statutes.

    In 2011, in Bond v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held a criminal defendant has standing to challenge the federal statute that he or she is charged with violating as being unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.

    Standing requirements

    There are three standing requirements:

    1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
    2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[15]
    3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[16]

    Prudential limitations

    Additionally, there are three major prudential (judicially created) standing principles. Congress can override these principles via statute:

    1. Prohibition of Third Party Standing: A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of the law into the rights of others. For example, a party suing over a law prohibiting certain types of visual material, may sue because the 1st Amendment rights of theirs, and others engaged in similar displays, might be damaged.
      Additionally, third parties who don't have standing may be able to sue under the next friend doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract. One example of a statutory exception to the prohibition of third party standing exists in the qui tam provision of the Civil False Claims Act.[17]
    2. Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.
    3. Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest
      1. Zone of Injury - The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute.[18]
      2. Zone of Interests - The party is arguably within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision.[19]

    Recent development of the doctrine

    In 1984, the Supreme Court reviewed and further outlined the standing requirements in a major ruling concerning the meaning of the three standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability.[20]

    In the suit, parents of black public school children alleged that the Internal Revenue Service was not enforcing standards and procedures that would deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit.[21] Although the Court established a significant injury for one of the claims, it found the causation of the injury (the nexus between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s injuries) to be too attenuated.[21] "The injury alleged was not fairly traceable to the Government conduct respondents challenge as unlawful".[22]

    In another major standing case, the Supreme Court elaborated on the redressability requirement for standing.[16] The case involved a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior interpreting §7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The rule rendered §7 of the ESA applicable only to actions within the United States or on the high seas. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit, because no injury had been established.[23] The injury claimed by the plaintiffs was that damage would be caused to certain species of animals and that this in turn injures the plaintiffs by the reduced likelihood that the plaintiffs would see the species in the future. The court insisted though that the plaintiffs had to show how damage to the species would produce imminent injury to the plaintiffs.[24] The Court found that the plaintiffs did not sustain this burden of proof. "The 'injury in fact' test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured".[25] The injury must be imminent and not hypothetical.

    Beyond failing to show injury, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the standing requirement of redressability.[26] The Court pointed out that the respondents chose to challenge a more generalized level of Government action, "the invalidation of which would affect all overseas projects". This programmatic approach has "obvious difficulties insofar as proof of causation or redressability is concerned".

    In a 2000 case, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000),[27] the United States Supreme Court endorsed the "partial assignment" approach to qui tam relator standing to sue under the False Claims Act — allowing private individuals to sue on behalf of the U.S. government for injuries suffered solely by the government.[28]

    Taxpayer standing

    The initial case that established the doctrine of standing, Frothingham v. Mellon, was a taxpayer standing case.

    Taxpayer standing is the concept that any person who pays taxes should have standing to file a lawsuit against the taxing body if that body allocates funds in a way that the taxpayer feels is improper. The United States Supreme Court has held that taxpayer standing is not a sufficient basis for standing against the United States government, unless the government has allocated funds in a way that violates the Establishment Clause found in the First Amendment of the Constitution.[29] The Court has consistently found that the conduct of the federal government is too far removed from individual taxpayer returns for any injury to the taxpayer to be traced to the use of tax revenues.

    In DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,[30] the Court extended this analysis to state governments as well. However, the Supreme Court has also held that taxpayer standing is "constitutionally" sufficient to sue a municipal government in a federal court.

    States are also protected against lawsuits by their sovereign immunity. Even where states waive their sovereign immunity, they may nonetheless have their own rules limiting standing against simple taxpayer standing against the state. Furthermore, states have the power to determine what will constitute standing for a litigant to be heard in a state court, and may deny access to the courts premised on taxpayer standing alone.

    In Florida, a taxpayer has standing to sue if the state government is acting unconstitutionally with respect to public funds, or if government action is causing some special injury to the taxpayer that is not shared by taxpayers in general. In Virginia, the Supreme Court of Virginia has more-or-less adopted a similar rule. An individual taxpayer generally has standing to challenge an act of a city or county where they live, but does not have general standing to challenge state expenditures.

    Standing to challenge statutes

    With limited exceptions, a party cannot have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute unless they will be subjected to the provisions of that statute. Courts will accept First Amendment challenges to a statute on overbreadth grounds, where a person who is only partially affected by a statute can challenge parts that do not affect them on the grounds that laws that restrict speech have a chilling effect on other people's right to free speech.

    The only other way someone can have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute is if the existence of the statute would otherwise deprive them of a right or a privilege even if the statute itself would not apply to them. The Virginia Supreme Court made this point clear in the case of Martin v. Ziherl 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005). Martin and Ziherl were girlfriend and boyfriend when Martin discovered that Ziherl gave her herpes. She sued him for damages. Because (at the time the case was filed) it was illegal to have sex with someone you're not married to, Martin could not sue Ziherl because joint tortfeasors - those involved in committing a crime - cannot sue each other over acts occurring as a result of a criminal act (Zysk v. Zysk, 404 S.E.2d 721 (Va. 1990)). Martin argued that because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (finding that state's sodomy law unconstitutional), Virginia's anti-fornication law was also unconstitutional for the reasons cited in Lawrence. Martin argued, therefore, she could, in fact, sue Ziherl for damages.

    Lower courts decided that because the Commonwealth's Attorney doesn't prosecute fornication cases, Martin had no risk of prosecution and thus lacked standing to challenge the statute [cite? or did the lower courts just decide that the statute was still constitutional, so that Martin could not sue? Maybe the issue was that Ziherl asserted Martin was unlikely to be prosecuted under the little-used statute?]. Martin appealed. Since Martin has something to lose - the ability to sue Ziherl for damages - if the statute is upheld, she had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. And since the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence has found that there is a privacy right in one's private, noncommercial sexual practices, the Virginia Supreme Court decided that the statute against fornication was unconstitutional. The finding gave Martin standing to sue Ziherl since the decision in Zysk is no longer applicable.

    However, the only reason Martin had standing to challenge the statute was that she had something to lose if it stayed on the books.

    State law

    State law on standing differs substantially from federal law and varies considerably from state to state.

    California

    On December 29, 2009, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District ruled that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 367 cannot be read as imposing a federal-style standing doctrine on California's code pleading system of civil procedure.[31] In California, the fundamental inquiry is always whether the plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has some entitlement to judicial action separate from proof of the substantive merits of the claim advanced.[31] The court acknowledged that the word "standing" is often sloppily used to refer to what is really jus tertii, and held that jus tertii in state law is not the same thing as the federal standing doctrine.[31]

    See also



    STANDING, THE LAST BASTION OF MALE DOMINANT SUPERIORITY

    standing ovation, as Issa entered the room, indicated the pliant tone set for the attendance of their hero.

    Hosted by the Carlsbad Republican Women's Federation this crowd of 105 paid $29 ($35 for non-members) a head to hear what they wanted to hear from their favorite conservative icon. With only about a dozen men present it seemed Issa might have had some explaining to do about his abuse of his chairmanship of the House Oversight Committee in having hearings about women's legislative contraceptive rights while refusing attendance by any women.


    GRIST SERVED AT CURSED BANQUET, FANCY MEAT GLUE FABRICATED REPORTER EATS AROUND MYSTERIOUS ORIGINS OF FILET MIGNON

    Pesticide Honchos Eat Round-up Ready GMO Broken Bread, face-down columnist feels cathartic, unloads. Purged blogger identifies agents scatologically; passes water for catharsis, softening blogged columnist.

    What to eat


    Black Feet fourth to administer Water Quality Standards authority from EPA;

    Northern Cheyenne and Flatheads #1 and #2.

    review and approval is separate agency action.


    Released on May 17, 2012

    Grants Management

    Action Needed to Improve the Timeliness of Grant Closeouts by Federal Agencies
    GAO-12-360, Apr 16, 2012

    EPA Awards for Environmental Stewardship Work


    September 09 - Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History - Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing.

    Death by Medicine By Gary Null, Ph.D.,  Carolyn Dean MD,  Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD   A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million.1 Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics. more...

    July 2003 - Pharmaceutical corporations accused of Genocide before ICC in The Hague  Pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Amgen and Astra Zeneca are accused of deliberately preventing life-saving natural alternatives to drug based treatments from being applied in prevention and cure. A worldwide disinformation campaign undertaken by these companies is said to have caused the death of millions of people. more

    How the Pharmaceutical Industry & the FDA are Endangering Your Health for Profit

    It is estimated that in America last year, nearly $2 trillion was spent on health care -- and virtually all that money was spent on treating disease.1 Despite this massive expenditure on treatment, more Americans are sicker than ever before with diseases that are largely preventable: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, fibromyalgia, and depression, to name a few. Each year more money is spent on treatment, mere patchwork, even though it has become crystal-clear that treatments do NOT enable you to live a longer, better life. So why is the amount of money being spent on prevention just a pittance compared with the amount spent on treatment? The answer is simple -- when you are sick it is highly profitable to various giant corporations. When you are well, it doesn't profit them much at all. 

    Drug Trials: Nobody checks, nobody knows
    What really goes on in medical trials? Are the results really as they seem, and is the drug that is being tested as effective - and safe - as the manufacturer claims? In truth, we have no way of knowing, because nobody is testing the testers. It should be the function of drug regulators, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the USA's drugs watchdog. But a recent survey discovered that the FDA has inspected just 1 per cent of medical trials that were carried out between the years 2000 and 2005. There's no registry of clinical trials, and the FDA is too under-resourced to carry out any further checking. Arthur Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, commented: "In many ways, rats and mice get greater protection as research subjects than do humans."  (Source: New York Times, 1 October 2007)  Rigged Drug Studies Favor The Manufacturer

    The FDA is a "partner" of the Pharmaceutical Industry - In an unusually candid comment for a senior government official Dr. Herbert Ley, former FDA commissioner, remarked: “The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It Isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day.” more

    Most Astonishing Health Disaster of the 20th Century

    Fear of the Invisible

    This is the story of a ten-year investigative journey into a reckless and contaminated medical industry. The author takes her readers on a journey into the very heart of the hunt for viruses - to the key experiments that were performed to prove that these invisibly small particles cause diseases that often were previously blamed on toxins or bacteria. It sheds light on the extraordinary assumptions underlying much of this research into viruses - and the resulting vaccines and antiviral medicines.

     There is much research here that will be totally new and horrifying to most readers. The author cites, for example, a senior World Health Organization (WHO) scientist reporting that the MMR vaccine is contaminated with chicken leukosis virus, and that they have decided not to tell the public and to continue to make the vaccine with eggs from contaminated chickens. She also cites a report from a major MMR vaccine manufacturer stating that their vaccine is contaminated with cellular degradation products - and cannot be cleansed. It seems they stay silent with the public because to confess this would reveal that they cannot purify the vaccines given to our children. A US court decision in 2008 has linked autism with vaccine contamination.This is not surprising given the degree of contamination documented here - contamination that seems inevitable given how the vaccines are manufactured using cells from slaughtered wild monkeys, chicken embryos and cancers. The author cites her sources by name - and gives references and Internet links where they are available.    Vaccinations - Deception and Tragedy 

    She also gives evidence on how US biowarfare researchers have tried to create new agents to destroy human immune systems - and reported working on a bacterium to make it a hospital superbug. Did they manage to create HIV? Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor might have thought so - but what is the evidence for this? The author critically examines this - and the evidence for another theory put forward to her by a senior professor. he said that HIV may well have contaminated the polio vaccine. She learns that chimps were used in vaccine manufacturing so widely that HIV could easily have spread in a vaccine without any need for military intervention. She then set out to find why HIV spread so far and so fast. Was it in a vaccine? She needed to know more about HIV so went to the foundation research widely held today to have found this virus and proved it caused AIDS.  The Immune System: The Body's Defense Department

    A report by the General Accounting Office in the United States revealed that 51.5 per cent of all drugs introduced between 1976 and 1985 had to be relabelled because of serious adverse reactions found after the marketing of these drugs. These included heart, liver and kidney failure, foetal toxicity and birth defects, severe blood disorders, respiratory arrest, seizures and blindness. The changes to the labelling either restricted a drug's use or added major warnings. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1.5 million Americans were hospitalised in 1978 as a consequence of taking drugs and some 30 per cent of all hospitalised people are further damaged by their treatments. Every year, an estimated 140,000 Americans are killed because of drug taking (21) and one in seven hospital beds is taken up by patients suffering from adverse drug reactions. The Pharmaceutical Drug Racket

    Tell Your Congressmen and Women to Co Sponsor the Health Freedom Protection Act, H.R. 2117 - The FDA is on a rampage against dietary supplements. Preventing reasonable and factual health claims, the FDA is using its immense power to fuel the pharmaceutical profit picture at the expense of the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. The rights of Americans to learn about natural products through truthful, science-based health claims is routinly stifled to the detriment of health and health freedom in the United States.

    Dr. Henry Jones, M.D. "Soon after the medical monopoly was formed, it began to push its agenda of destroying all competition. A well-organized and -funded nationwide purge of all non-M.D.s was undertaken. Over the course of the first half of the Twentieth Century this medical monopoly managed to shut down over forty medical schools. Their idea was to keep the number of doctors low in order to keep fees up. After WW II the medical monopoly started rigidly controlling how many of each medical specialty it would allow to be trained. So, ophthalmologists, orthopedists, dermatologists, obstetricians, and others began to be in short supply. And of course when supplies are low, fees are high. The medical monopoly also managed to outlaw or marginalize over seventy healthcare professions. Protection of the healthcare consumer was, as always, the rationale for this power grab. Whether the object of destruction by the medical monopoly be homeopaths, midwives, chiropractors, or internet prescribers, the purge is conducted in the same manner. No scientific proof or research data is offered to discredit these practitioners. The entire approach is one of character assassination directed at their profession. "  More: How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care


    Western Medicine Fails Tim Russert
    Byron Richards, CCN

    The most glaring omitted information from Russert’s doctor is telling us what diabetes medication he was taking.  I am willing to bet that he was taking Avandia, the drug the FDA should have pulled off the market because it causes a whopping 43% increased risk of a sudden heart attack, information the FDA actively sought to sequester during that drug’s approval process.  Why do I think that?  Because in the scant health data his doctor is giving out he has stated that Russert had high triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol – the exact metabolic profile that Avandia is supposed to treat.  When a treatment has death as a common side effect it can hardly be considered a treatment. 

    Could it be that Russert is a casualty of one of the great Big Pharma/FDA scams currently going on?  How ironic, since all news programs are sponsored by this industry’s ads and the media fought tooth and claw in the past year to ensure that dangerous drug ads could continue to run non-stop during all news programs – exposing millions of Americans to drug-induced injury (while they got their billions in ad revenues).  I am stunned that no reporter interviewing his doctor seems to be able to ask such an obvious question.  Learn more: Western Medicine Fails Tim Russert

    "A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million.1 Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics.  The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million.3 The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million.4  The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251.5. As few as 5 percent and only up to 20 percent of iatrogenic acts are ever reported.16,24,25,33,34 This implies that if medical errors were completely and accurately reported, we would have a much higher annual iatrogenic death rate than 783,936. Dr. Leape, in 1994, said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes annually was equivalent to three jumbo-jet crashes every two days.16 Our report shows that six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each and every day."  Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD

    Instinct Based Medicine: How to survive your illness and your doctor
    This is a great book. Every MD, ACS member, FDA member, media person, congressmen, and senators should be required to read this book. Everyone else should want to read this book. I highly recommend it. There should be more doctors like Dr. Coldwell. It should be common sense that all the diseases you here about on TV or in the paper are not from the lack of some drug they are advertising. Remember, drugs don't cure anything, they just mask the symptoms.


    The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry
    (If the video below does not show/play, please download the flash player)
    Most Astonishing Health Disaster of the 20th Century

    Most Astonishing Health Disaster of the 20th Century
    Politics in Healing: The Suppression & Manipulation of American MedicineMatthias Rath, M.D. - "In recent years the pharmaceutical industry has been exposed as a multi-trillion dollar ‘investment business with disease’ the future of which is dependent on the continuation and expansion of diseases. The very existence of the pharmaceutical industry is currently threatened. Damage claims from the deadly side-effects of one single drug are bringing down Bayer, the flag ship of this industry. The ensuing ‘domino effect’ would inevitably cripple this largest investment sector on earth. At the same time, scientific advances in non-patentable natural health offer effective, safe and affordable alternatives to the multi-trillion dollar market of patented drugs." 
    From Dr. Mercola's website: - “There’s no money in healthy people,” he says, and that truth is at the heart of our American health crisis.  By making it more difficult, and confusing, for you to make healthy choices, the food industries and the pharmaceutical industries are feeding their own megalomania. In truth, optimizing your health is not rocket science. But if you believe the media, and the pharmaceutical propaganda in particular, it may seem impossible to get by without emptying your wallet to buy your required pills for all those newly invented ills.  Wake up – and take control of your own health. Be the master of your own life. Don’t buy into the hype!  Watch this short satire on drugs video

    "The survival of the pharmaceutical industry is dependent on the elimination by any means of effective natural health therapies. These natural and non-patentable therapies have become the treatment of choice for millions of people despite the combined economic, political and media opposition of the world’s largest investment industry. To protect the strategic development of its investment business against the threat from effective, natural and non-patentable therapies, the pharmaceutical industry has – over an entire century - used the most unscrupulous methods, such as:
     

  • Withholding life-saving health information from millions of people. It is simply unacceptable that today so few know that the human body cannot produce vitamin C and lysine, two key molecules for connective tissue stability and disease prevention.
  • Discrediting natural health therapies. The most common way is through global PR campaigns organized by the Pharma-Cartel that spread lies about the alleged side effects of natural substances – molecules that have been used by Nature for millennia.
  • Banning by law the dissemination of information about natural health therapies. To that end, the pharmaceutical industry has placed its lobbyists in key political positions in key markets and leading drug export nations." Dr. Rath Health Foundation

  • According to a set of essays published in the Public Library of Science Medicine, drug companies are systematically inventing non-existent diseases, or exaggerating minor ones, in order to sell more of their products. The practice turns healthy people into patients, and places many of them at risk of medically induced harm. Minor, normal problems, such as the symptoms of menopause, have been "medicalized" into treatable illnesses, and risk factors like high cholesterol are being treated as diseases in their own right. Conditions including female sexual dysfunction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and "restless legs syndrome" have all been exaggerated and promoted by companies hoping to sell drugs. Even ordinary shyness is often defined by drug companies as a social anxiety disorder to be treated with antidepressants. Richard Ley, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, pointed out that some countries, including Britain, have legal safeguards against drug industry "disease mongering." Most of the criticisms, he argued, apply primarily to countries like the United States, where drugs can be advertised directly to patients. Public Library of Science Medicine April 11, 2006; 3(4)  Times Online April 11, 2006


    Medical Fascism in the USA, Australia and the UK
    If you disagree with your doctor regarding the medical treatment of your children, they can be taken away from you, put in a foster home, and you can be arrested for endangering the health and welfare of your child.  There are many people jailed every year, put there for disagreeing with medical doctors and their policies. In order to break free from the clutches of organized medical crime, pharmaceutical drug cartels and the monstrous insurance companies, we must all work to change the unconstitutional laws that monopolize health care. 

    Leaders in Washington are working to restrict your access to dietary supplements - including the safe, effective, and affordable vitamins, minerals, and herbs you depend on for your health. Your hard-won natural health freedoms as guaranteed by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 have come under attack by the political allies of pharmaceutical interest groups!" Watch these free videos:

    "We Become Silent" A documentary about the threat to medical freedom of choice. The Last Days of Health Freedom' details the ongoing attempts by multinational pharmaceutical interests and giant food companies — in concert with the WTO, the WHO and others — to limit the public’s access to herbs, vitamins and other therapies. 
    Prescription for Disaster  in-depth investigation into the relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, lobbyists, lawmakers, medical schools, and researchers, and the impact this has on consumers and their health care.
    Health and Wellness

    Video library   (whistleblower doctors)

    Peter R. Breggin, M.D - "The drugging of children has gotten so out of hand that America is waking up to this. This is a national catastrophe. I'm seeing children who are normal who are on five psychiatric drugs."  Peter R. Breggin, M.D. is the Director, International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology

    The Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF) is a non-profit corporation devoted to protect, preserve and defend our right to make our own health choices based on what we, not the government, believe are the best choices for ourselves.

    The National Health Federation is an international consumer education, health-freedom organization working to protect individuals' rights to choose to consume healthy food, take supplements, and use alternative therapies without government restrictions. Subscribe to their terrific educational magazine

    Forced Chemotherapy, Drugging and Vaccination of Children - Murder by Court Order


    .
     
    (If the video below does not show/play, please download the flash player)

    Have you heard of the veterinary condition Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Dog-Disorder? (ADHDD)

    Fidolin - the new drug for ADHDD and ADHD, approved for use on both dogs and children! This parody ad by the Health Ranger mimics the idiocy of television ads pushing mind-altering drugs for fictitious diseases like ADHD.     Watch the video 
    Peter R. Breggin, M.D - "The drugging of children has gotten so out of hand that America is waking up to this. This is a national catastrophe." more

    Dr. Robert Mendelsohn MD - "No one has ever been able to demonstrate that drugs such as Cylert and Ritalin improve the academic performance of the children who take them.... The pupil is drugged to make life easier for his teacher, not to make it better and more productive for the child." 

    Class action lawsuits have been filed in Texas, California and New Jersey charging a pharmaceutical maker of Ritalin, with conspiracy to create the psychiatric disorder known as ADHD in order to fuel the market for their product. learn more

    Sick of drugging your pet? Frustrated with the failures of conventional veterinary medicine and drugging pets, read what some veterinarians are saying and learn about the alternatives

    .
    Julian Whitaker, M.D. believes there is a direct link between the violent shootings and the increased and indiscriminate use of popular antidepressant drugs. Dr. Whitaker points out that many of the gun-related massacres that have made the headlines over the past decade have a common thread: they were perpetrated by people taking Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox, Paxil, or a related drug. A documented side effect of these drugs -- known clinically as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) -- is akathisia, or physical and mental agitation. Dr. Whitaker says "akathisia is to violence what a match is to gasoline. And this condition has been reported in a significant number of Prozac users." Moreover, the Food and Drug Administration has received over 40,000 reports detailing adverse effects related to Prozac. The Scourge of Prozac by Dr. Julian Whitaker MD
     
    Helping Children, Not Drugging Them

    Dr Peter Breggin,M.D the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin), told me: "With Luvox, there is some evidence of a four percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis." more  ---   also, check these google links

    Do antidepressants cause teen suicide? The FDA opened hearings on this issue this week and are they ever in a tight spot.  more google links

    Drug Safety: The 11th hour is now   We have members of congressional committees stating that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is "badly broken." We also have a letter from the FDA in response to a query letter from Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) regarding the agency?s involvement in the Trilateral Cooperation Charter (TCC) with Canada and Mexico under NAFTA. The TCC is moving toward regulating public access to vitamins, herbs and botanicals as prescription drugs?per the Codex Alimentarius scheme?throughout North America. So, on one hand we have an agency that is notoriously poisoning the public in collusion with Big Pharma here at home and, on the other, it is working with its Canadian and Mexican regulatory counterparts to restrict public access to the natural substances that could make us well again.

    The Truth About the Drug Companies : How They Deceive Us and What to Do About  In what should serve as the Fast Food Nation of the drug industry, Angell, former editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, presents a searing indictment of "big pharma" as corrupt and corrupting: of Congress, through huge campaign contributions; of the FDA, which is funded in part by the very companies it oversees; and, perhaps most shocking, of members of the medical profession and its institutions.

    Jonathan Quick, director of Essential Drugs and Medicines Policy for the World Health Organization (WHO) wrote in a recent WHO Bulletin: "If clinical trials become a commercial venture in which self-interest overrules public interest and desire overrules science, then the social contract which allows research on human subjects in return for medical advances is broken." Former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Marcia Angell, struggled to bring the attention of the world to the problem of commercializing scientific research in her outgoing editorial titled “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” Angell called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers. She said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science. She warned that, “When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways.” She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry. more


    DEATH BY MEDICINE 
    Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD.

    A group of researchers meticulously reviewed the statistical evidence and their findings are absolutely shocking. These researchers have authored a paper titled “Death by Medicine” that presents compelling evidence that today’s system frequently causes more harm than good. This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be 2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year. The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.5) 

    Never before have the complete statistics on the multiple causes of iatrogenesis been combined in one paper. Medical science amasses tens of thousands of papers annually - each one a tiny fragment of the whole picture. We have now completed the painstaking work of reviewing thousands and thousands of studies. Finally putting the puzzle together we came up with some disturbing answers. learn more


    Forced Drugging of Children - Parents may face jail over compulsory drug orders

    In the US judges can constitutionally order controversial drugs to be given to a child over the opposition of his parents. Parents are medicating their children for fear of having them  hauled away by Child Protective Services. In the UK Parents of children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) will face jail under proposals in the new Mental Health Bill if they refuse to drug their children, a psychiatrist has warned. more


    Mass Murder in Medicine 
    by Dr. Len Horowitz

    Discussing “Iatrogenocide” Dr. Len Horowitz delves into the darkest side of drug-based medicine, including the mass killing and poisoning of people for profit and politics. This free program is dedicated and donated to grassroots activists and organizations worldwide working to stop this ongoing medically-induced mass murder that Dr. Horowitz christens “iatrogenocide.” Find out why trusted vaccines, blood supplies, and drugs play a primary role in what amounts to genocide for profit, psychosocial control, and even depopulation. We urge you to make copies of this exceptional 45-minute presentation, help spread this recording, and stop the killing. (To order bulk quantities of this tape for dissemination by activists and activist organizations please call toll free 1-888-508-4787 or order over the Internet atwww.AmericanRedDoubleCross.com or www.tetrahedron.org)


    Medical Writers Get $300-700/day Working for Drug Companies
    A panel of medical writers explained how pharmaceutical companies pay them $300 to $700 a day ghostwriting articles bylined by doctors and published in "throwaway" medical publications. They also explained how they did it, and how they broke in, with nothing more than intelligence, writing skill, and the ability to understand scientific subjects, but without scientific degrees.


    HISTORY OF SECRET EXPERIMENTATION ON UNITED STATES CITIZENS
    Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War.

    Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All into Patients 
    situations formerly perceived as mild problems are becoming redefined as serious illnesses requiring drugs - courtesy of drug companies seeking to expand their markets. Conflicts of interest abound in the process - expert physicians serving to set treatment protocols or approve drug use are often on the payroll of the very drug companies they are supposed to regulate; similarly, "support groups" for those with various maladies are often partly funded by drug companies seeking endorsements. Another strategm is to utilize scary statistics - eg. "33% decrease," instead of lowers risk from 3% to 2%. Partly as a result, U.S. dollars spent on drugs have increased 100% in the past six years. The bad news is that often these drugs aren't needed and may even harm patients.



    Scandal of scientists who take money for papers ghostwritten by drug companies
    Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies to put their names to articles endorsing new medicines that they have not written - a growing practice that some fear is putting scientific integrity in jeopardy. The success of Prozac, the antidepressant which became a cult "happy" drug in the 1990s, substantially raised the stakes in psychiatry. Its promotion coincided with the decline of state funding for research, leaving scientists in all areas of medicine dependent on pharmaceutical companies to fund or commission their work. That in turn gave the industry unprecedented control over data and ended with research papers increasingly being drafted by company employees or commercial agencies.

    On The Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health
    Jerome Kassirer M.D former editor-in-chief of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

    "Some physicians become known as whores." This is strong language in Kassirer's look at how big business is corrupting medicine—but according to Kassirer, one doctor's wife used the word "whore" to describe her husband's accepting high fees to promote medical products. Such personal anecdotes distinguish Kassirer's look at the conversion of America's health-care system into a commercial enterprise. Kassirer, former editor-in-chief of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, notes the range of conflicts of interest between profit-centered business and people-centered medicine, such as the drug industry's huge expenditures (in the billions) for courting doctors to use their products, for recruiting physicians to tout their drugs or, more slyly, to present seemingly objective medical discussions that, on closer examination, do favor the company's product over others.
     

    Medisin is a fascinating and unique perspective of the unholy practices of allopathic medicine and the commercialization of devitalized and chemical based foods. With the compelling facts and informative text, this nearly 400 page volume covers a century of medical applications and the history of refined foods, from Pasteur's false "Germ Theory" to the hidden cause of obesity. Medisin is also comprised of factual information regarding the mis-education of the health-care institution and nutritional dogma perpetrated by commercial food corporations. The book features compelling topics like: "Why the religious faithful are not disease free?", "Vacinnes-The Lie of the Needle", "Why cancer is really not under control", "Splenda really isn't splendid", "Fluoride, how America really got brainwashed", and the Medisins behind Hormone Replacement and Hysterectomies."  Simply put, Medisin seeks to give the masses a comprehensive understanding of medicine, disease and the divine principles of health.
     
     

    The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It
    by Marcia Angell  M.D, Former New England Journal of Medicine

    A political tidal wave is building which will forever change both the industry and many of its infamous business practices. It is sad to note that the drug industry today is equally poorly regarded as the tobacco companies, and this is a testament not only to the shortsighted foolishness of their management, but also to the fact that you can fool some of the customer some of the time, but not all of them all the time. 

    Medical Journal Changes Policy of Finding Independent Doctors to Write - June 2002: The New England Journal of Medicine will announce that it has given up finding truly independent doctors to write and review articles and editorials for it, as a result of the financial ties physicians have with so many drug companies in the United States The Journal says the drug companies' reach is just too deep. In 2000, the drug industry sponsored more than 314,000 events for physicians — everything from luncheons to getaway weekends — at a cost of almost $2 billion. On top of that, many doctors accept speaking and consulting fees that link them to drug companies.  Now, the Journal will allow these critical evaluations to be written by people with financial ties to drug companies.

    What Doctors Don't Tell You : The Truth About the Dangers of Modern Medicine by Lynne McTaggart Americans have become so accustomed to following doctors' orders that many prescriptions, medical tests, and surgical procedures are accepted without question. This blind faith can be dangerous! Modern medicine offers us a wide range of powerful treatments for ailments large and small. But did you know that some common "cures" come with serious, life-threatening risks, or may do nothing at all? This groundbreaking book, written by an investigative journalist, exposes questionable, harmful, often life-threatening medical practices which all consumers should be aware of, including treatments for asthma and arthritis, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and heart surgery. 
     

    THE MEDICAL MAFIA: How To Get Out of It Alive and Take Back Our Health and Wealth by Guylaine Lanctot, M.D.

    The medical establishment works closely with the drug multinationals whose main objective is profits, and whose worst nightmare would be an epidemic of good health. Lots of drugs MUST be sold. In order to achieve this, anything goes: lies, fraud, and kickbacks. Doctors are the principal salespeople of the drug companies. They are rewarded with research grants, gifts, and lavish perks. The principal buyers are the public - from infants to the elderly - who MUST be thoroughly medicated and vaccinated...at any cost! Why do the authorities forbid alternative medicine? Because they are serving the industry, and the industry cannot make money with herbs, vitamins, and homeopathy. They cannot patent natural remedies. That is why they push synthetics. They control medicine, and that is why they are able to tell medical schools what they can and cannot teach. They have their own sets of laws, and they force people into them. That is a mafia. This sensational expose' also uncovers the truth behind vaccines, AIDS, cancer, the World Health Organization, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, and more. 

    This book is about so much more than the corruption among medicine, pharmaceuticals, government and "Health" Organizations like the WHO. It about regaining our health, our soveriegn right as individuals, our freedom, self respect and love for our fellow man. While the current and corrupt "Medical Mafia" poison, maim and kill millions no one is happy with it; patients or doctors, except those who profit from it; the "industry" which involves expensive testing, toxic drugs and sweeping global population control policies.

    Ms Lanctot offers a solution and the good news is that it is in OUR hands. It involves claiming our right to make our own decisions about our health and that of our children and recognizing that same right in others, along with easy to follow suggestions about how to seek a responsible client/consultant relationship with a medical care practitioner.

    Something fascinating, and I truly hope you read the book! Louis Pasteur "gave" the world our current concept of bacteria and viruses which lead to transmission of disease. Yet another unaclaimed scientist of the same time period as Mr Pasteur studied another possibility; that it is the disease which causes the virus or bacteria.

    It may be hard at first to contemplate that what we have been told all our lives may be wrong and the disease-causes-germs paradigm should not be accepted as fact without intensive study into this possibility. Sadly the current drug and profit based research debilitates that possibility. And scientist and doctors who try to adopt an approach which threatens the current situation often end up suffering persecution from the "mafia"; forms which range from public ridicule, loss of research funding, suspension of medical licencing(just ask Ms Lanctot)and many more. Gaston Naessens has done further work on this theory; work on somatidian theory. A somatid is the smallest particle of living matter, precursor of DNA....a web search on any engine would verify this. Ms Lanctot says that our greatest illness is that of submission, fueled by fear and our fascination with security and protection which are only fantasies at best.

    Disease-Mongers : How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers Are Making You Feel Sick by Lynn Payer An expose+a7 of the health-care industry shows how doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and insurers profit from making healthy people think they are sick and reveals the growing influence of powerful lobbies representing the industry.

    Racketeering in Medicine:The Suppression of Alternatives James Carter "I have been reading various books on alternaitve medicine for years, and this one sticks out as one of the top five in my library about how the AMA, FDA and pharmaceutical industry has for years tried to discredit alternative,less expensive, less invasive and often times more effective modalities of treatment.James Carter does not just sensationalize but documents quite clearly the evidence behind his assertion. He clearly shows that the governing bodies of modern general or "accepted" medicine have a vested interest in supressing these treatments and making sure that most average folks never know about them." an amazon reviewer: Christina Paul from Anamosa, IA USA

    "Progress in medical science is, as a rule, achieved only after overcoming the manifestations of a fixed mental status, ranging all the way from violent and vitriolic opposition down to apathy and deadly intertia." Dr. Edwin F. Bowers

    Linda Johnston, MD, DHt - "Many efforts were used to advance the allopaths by discrediting, restricting and abolishing the Homeopaths. Typical were the laws passed in the early 1800's to prevent any practitioners of medicine other than the allopaths from being able to go to court to collect non-payment of fees. In every case, these and other similar laws were unenforceable and extremely unpopular with the citizenry. All were repealed within a few years. Undaunted, the allopathic doctors then turned to their own medical societies rather than the legislative process to carry out their desire for effective restriction of Homeopathy. Allopaths granted themselves the right to restrict society membership, which was tantamount to licensing powers. Fines were levied against anyone practicing medicine without such a society membership. They had successfully usurped the power to control who could practice. Eventually even these fines were also rescinded due to unpopularity with the citizens. Pennsylvania and New York were the first states to forbid membership in the society by medical doctors who practiced Homeopathy. State medical society membership and representation in the AMA required that these societies purge themselves of any member Homeopaths. After 1847, all state societies did this, except Massachusetts. In addition, professional exchange, consultation and even conversation between allopaths and Homeopaths were banned. This ban on interaction between the two groups is a striking example of how a private organization, the AMA, could completely flout the public will, and take punitive action for something that was totally legal." Homeopathy, Economics, and Government

    Reclaiming Our Health : Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the Sources of True Healing by John Robbins, Marianne Williamson 

    "Absolutely fabulous, should be required reading for everyone. Knowledge is power, yet Americans are consistently kept in the dark about medicine, nutrition, and more. The country is set up to destroy YOUR health while padding the pockets of the medical establishment and food corporations. Read this and Diet for a new america, and as many other critical books you can get your hands on. Then change your life for the better." An amazon.com reviewer

    THE POLITICS OF CANCER - CANCER IS BIG BUSINESS! Cancer Industry and their cover-up of natural therapies



    This site will raise "red flags" or issues that require public attention and debate in Health, Science, Environment, Arts and Politics. The mission of redflagsweekly.com is to probe medical, scientific, environmental, artistic and political issues in a manner that one rarely encounters in mainstream news reports. Corporate bottom lines and inadequate training in specialty journalism often provide the reading, viewing and listening public with narrow and simplistic information. Press release journalism in medicine, for example, a process that often involves aggressive PR firms in the service of powerful corporations, hospitals and medical journals, typically rules the roost. It is the path of least resistance. The "dumb it down" gang is all too often in control. There also is a high degree of censorship in the news of those views that challenge the established viewpoints in science. Some scientists even seem preoccupied with efforts to discourage debates about important issues that affect many lives.



    The International Medical Council (Consensus Circle of Medical Truth) is seeking doctors, Ph.D's, and general volunteers for group consciousness project including writing, publishing,  and general help. Associated with The Medical News publication, World Psychology and AIDS Alternativa International, this project is devoted to spearheading  the drive to take medicine out of the dark ages where medical madness is existing in the areas of vaccines, AIDS, cancer and other medical practices. Have your own work published together with others and participate in editing and writing of The Medical News. The aim of this organization is to confront the self-image and false concepts of medicine and then take medical practice, without any self-image at all, to a place of medical purity that will serve humanity in the way it desperately needs to be served.  Write to:  Mark Sircus Ac., OMD email: MedicalNews@worldpsycholgy.net


    The FDA "partner" of the Pharmaceutical Industry

    In an unusually candid comment for a senior government official Dr. Herbert Ley, former FDA commissioner, remarked: “The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It Isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day.” 

    The FDA is good for business. To expect it to protect the public from bad food and drugs is an American fantasy. There is a process in place called “double dipping”. In the FDA it works like this. A young Ph.D. leaves school to work for the FDA. He soon makes connections with senior officials in the corporate business he is supposed to regulate. It isn’t long before an understanding emerges. His “regulation” of the corporate business won’t negatively impact their bottom line. In return he can look forward to a cushy vice presidency with the corporation after he retires from federal service. Is this why this regulatory agency fails to regulate big business activities? Thomas Smith

    YOUR HEALTH FREEDOM IS IN JEOPARDY

    Dr Benjamin Rush "Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an underground dictatorship... To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic... The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."

    James DeMeo, Ph.D. "In recent years, there has been an upsurge of police activities in the USA, the nature of which most Americans would more readily associate with repressive dictatorships. We Americans have been educated to believe that democracy, due process, assumed innocence-until-proven-guilt, and Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure are the laws of the land. On paper, these protections are there; but in reality, these basic Constitutional rights and freedoms have been gradually and steadily eroded away by new laws, judicial rulings, and bureaucratic decrees. One of the lesser-known but more significant leaders of this assault on American freedom has been the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."more
     

    Politics in Healing: The Suppression & Manipulation of American Medicine

    Politics in Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine by Daniel Haley
    An ex-congressman from N.Y., Haley has written an historical account of immense importance.  Here are detailed the true stories of ten physicians and their non-toxic cancer and other medical cures that were smashed by a pharmaceutical -AMA - federal machine which continues today. For anyone interested in the truth behind who controls the FDA and other federal agencies this is a must read. All health care professionals need to have a look at the reality existing today in the manipulation of the health care system as shown in these stories. POWERFUL! 

    Seven drugs approved since 1993 have been withdrawn after reports of deaths and severe side effects. A two-year Los Angeles Times investigation has found that the FDA approved each of those drugs while disregarding danger signs or blunt warnings from its own specialists.

     "Risk Was Known as FDA OKd Fatal Drug" At least one senior manager believed that if an FDA medical officer who had questioned the drug's safety and effectiveness didn't please the company, he would be "out."  The records also shed new light on the state of knowledge within Warner-Lambert of Rezulin's potential danger: Executives knew that patients who took the drug in clinical studies had suffered life-threatening liver damage -- yet the company assured an FDA panel that the risk was trivial. Los Angeles Times Sunday, March 11, 2001

    Most Doctors Who Set Guidelines Have Industry Ties "The vast majority of doctors involved in establishing national guidelines on disease treatment have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry that could potentially sway their recommendations and inappropriately influence thousands of other physicians.Eighty-seven percent of guideline authors had some type of relationship with drug companies." Dr. Mercola

    "The medical industrial complex refers to the close-knit association of organised medicine with pharmaceutical manufacturers and governmental medical regulatory agencies. The connections between these groups is of course, a web of money, power, and prestige. Selling medical drugs is very big business. Medical research is dependant on $ billions of grants from the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H.) and the private pharmaceutical industry. The two are closely interlocked; managers in one tend to come from success in the other with many examples of interchangeable personnel." "Licensed doctors are easy to control. All practising U.S. physicians must accumulate a given number of hours of continual medical education or C.M.E. But where does he acquire his C.M.E credits? From authorised C.M.E. Seminars - that's where! And who authorises which seminar for C.M.E. credits? Organised medicine, That's who! And who sponsors and who provides the speakers for C.M.E. credited seminars? The pharmaceutical industry and it's great funded corps of academic researchers, that's who!U.S. physicians are captive audience for pharmaceutical advertising. This applies to other countries as well. They learn which drugs to prescribe. They do not learn of alternative procedures and perhaps better ways of caring for their ill patients." EDUCATE - NOT MEDICATE - AND FREE THE RADICLE WITHIN by doctor Keki Sidhwa
     


    INSANE PSYCHIATRY A Profession Run Amok  By Nicholas Regush
    February 16, 2002 - There is no drug that can cure modern psychiatry. This is a profession that is close to routinely practicing medical terrorism by shamelessly over-prescribing drugs to people of all ages, often for phantom diseases and for purposes that have no rational basis in science. What’s needed is something akin to a War Crimes Tribunal to investigate psychiatry’s relationship to major pharmaceutical companies. Haul all the bigproduct champions and psychiatry associations in and determine their involvement with money-grubbing schemes and the abuse of patients. And let me re-emphasize this point: this is a medical specialty that is second to none in ripping off and abusing patients. The situation has long been out-of-control. It is no longer a matter of a few bad apples screwing everyone left and right. It’s become a full-scale assault on humanity. Ritalin: Wonder Drug or Medical Fraud?..............................................Nicholas Regush produces medical features for ABC News

     Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research
    The Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research is a non-profit group dedicated to promoting true health and a clean environment by supporting valid research, disease prevention, freedom of choice in health care, a reduction in the use of toxicants, and independence of health care and environmental protection from the dictatorial influences of the drug/chemical interests.

    Tetrahedron
    Tetrahedron is an Educational Corporation that deals in health science and U.S. government cover-ups. We educate people around the world on public health matters that concern all humanity. You will also discover information on natural healing, and alternative therapies, to promote health in body, mind, emotions, and spirit, that is, the holistic approach.

    Toxi-Health International
    Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati,  Ph.D., D.A.B.T., D.A.B.V.T., provides expert consulting  in the vast field of toxicology.

     "... Dr. Mohammed A. Al-Bayati's conclusions were that my diagnosed illness, Pulmonary Fibrosis had been produced by my exposure to JP-4 and JP-8 aviation fuels plus other toxic chemicals in the workplace. Kerosene, one of the key ingredients of jet fuel also created lesions in my airways, lungs, and other tissues, as well as instituting memory loss. Dr. Al-Bayati, discovered that the steroid treatments, Prednisone and Azathioprine had completely destroyed my immune system and were the culprits that were not allowing my bodily systems to repair themselves. In essence my HMO gave me the appearance of medication induced "Aids." Larry J. Boyd, Suisun City, California  (more on the danger of steroids)

    Dr. Al-Bayati, author of "Get All The Facts: HIV does not Cause AIDS",  received his Ph.D. from the  University   of California Davis in Comparative Pathology and is a board certified toxicologist (American Board of Toxicology and American Board of Veterinary Toxicology).  With over 20 years of  experience in research, teaching, diagnostic work and consulting, Dr. Al-Bayati has extensive expertise in evaluating data from observational and experimental studies in humans and animals and  applying this knowledge effectively to real-life situations. Dr. Al-Bayati firmly believes that a correct appraisal of information from animal and human exposure events is essential to arrive at a proper  understanding of the nature and extent of the injury and in the search for the correct treatment. .


    From the Wall Street Journal, Friday, October 12, 2001

    Worries About Safety Of Its Anthrax Vaccine Put the Army in a Bind 

    Alternatives to AntibioticsSoldiers Ordered Inoculated Against Biological Threat Claim Harsh Side Effects."...But soon after his first inoculation in February, the 29-years-old Mr. Nietupski showed up at an urgent -care facility with sores all over his mouth and throat. "The side of my tongue was all raw with little canker sores, and bloody mucus was coming out of my nose, " Mr. Nietupski says. His maladies, ultimately diagnosed as an autoimmune disorder in which his body accidentaly attacked itself, grew worse as he got the next two installements of the six-shot regime. Mr. Nietupski and several of the doctors who have examined him, believe the anthrax vaccine caused his severe reaction and may also be to  blame for the blood clots Mr. Nietupski experienced in his legs months later." more on anthrax vaccines

    Learn about therapeutic options for the treatment and prevention of infections using herbal, homeopathic, and nutritional remedies.
     
     

    What Every Parent Should Know BEFORE Their Childen Are Vaccinated! Why are a growing number of parents and health care professionals around the world questioning vaccination? The controversy stems from the thousands of deaths and permanent disabilities attributed to vaccination annually, as well as the many published medical studies, government statistics, What Every Parent Should Know BEFORE Their Childen Are Vaccinated - pictures from the CDC about the side effects of vaccinescongressional testimonies, and other credible sources that directly contradict commonly held assumptions about vaccine safety and effectiveness.

    Bart Classen, a Maryland physician, published data showing that diabetes rates rose significantly in New Zealand following a massive hepatitis B vaccine campaign in young children, and that diabetes rates also went up sharply in Finland after three new childhood vaccines were introduced.

    More pictures of vaccine damage available to view at the CDC website
    In fall 1997, two influential professional magazines featured articles asking the question: Has the decrease of infectious diseases in childhood through the mass use of vaccines been replaced with an increase in chronic diseases such as diabetes and asthma? The Economist, a prestigious international magazine read by world leaders in government, business and public policy, and Science News, a magazine read by both health care This child died as a result of vaccines - pictures from the CDC about the side effects of vaccinesprofessionals and the general public, explored the reported links between vaccines and chronic diseases in their November 22, 1997 issues. 

    This child died as a result of vaccines (CDC website)

    Congressman is calling for criminal penalties for any government agency that knew about the dangers of thimerosal in vaccines and did nothing to protect American children. Congressman Dan Burton (R-Indiana) during Congressional Hearing: "You mean to tell me that since 1929, we've been using Thimerosal, and the only  test that you know of is from 1929, and every one of those people had mennigitis, and they all died?" For nearly an hour, Burton repeatedly asked FDA and CDC officials what they knew and when they knew it. (Thimerosal contains a related mercury compound called ethyl mercury. Mercury is a toxic metal that can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions.) 
    Vaccines: deception and tragedy 
    Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) or Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis?
    Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
    AUTISM: is there a vaccine connection?
    Library - Books and Journals: Vaccine Controversy
    Juvenile diabetes and vaccination: the connection
    Can vaccines cause immune dysfunction resulting in allergies, asthma and anaphylaxis?

    Homeopathy can be used successfully to prevent and treat smallpox, measles, whooping cough, chickenpox, and other ailments.

    Would you allow big brother to enforce vaccinations on your kids? Government Enforced Vaccinations Vaccination Tracking Registry - Government programs that limit your choices -and your rights- in health care when it comes to mandatory vaccination. These mandates last for 40 or so years and they're impossible to repeal. Also, learn about Legal Requirements and Exemptions 

    Are Vaccines Damaging Our Pets?
    Routine Vaccination: Is it really safe and effective?  Most recently, an article appeared in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association entitled "Are We Vaccinating Too Much?" Read about the comments of veterinarians who believe that vaccines are damaging our pets. 

    Physicians Right to Practice Alternative Medicine 
    Alternative Medicine Bill
    Bills that enable physicians to provide “alternative” treatments are called Medical Freedom Bills. New York, Alaska, and Texas in addition to other states have passed such bills. For more information on the states that have passed medical freedom bills or have pending bills

    The Voice of Natural Health Consumers  Citizens For Health is a free, grassroots, consumer advocacy group that champions public policies empowering individuals to make informed health choices. Let your voice be heard! Without your voice, there is no choice!

    You cannot poison your body into health with drugs, chemo or radiation "Health can only be achieved with healthful living" T.C. Fry

    Free  book online Health and Survival in the 21st Century by Ross Horne. A wonderful book for someone with incurable disease that is stuck in the medical model.

    Waste, recycling workers need to get healthier, expert says


    "Workers who expose securities and financial fraud, adulterated foods, air and water pollution, or workplace safety hazards have a legal right to speak out without fear of retaliation, and the laws that protect these whistleblowers also protect the health, safety and well-being of all Americans," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. "Establishing a federal advisory committee is another important effort to strengthen protections for whistleblowers."

    "This new Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee will help our agency sustain an open dialogue with stakeholders and experts, and will promote the transparency and accountability that are the cornerstone of this administration,"

    siren


    ..they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty... and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

    I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

    This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

    Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

    It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

    There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

    It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

    excerpts of President George Washington's farewell address.

    Congressional oversight?

    A tough-minded version of congressional oversight not seen on Capitol Hill since the days of the legendary Jack Brooks may be back if a May 10 letter from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrel Issa and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson is any indication.

    Brooks was the ornery, cigar-chomping Texas Democrat who chaired the Issa panel (known then as the House Committee on Government Operations) between 1975 and 1988. He tolerated no fools among those testifying before his committee and woe to the bureaucrat called on the Brooks carpet for wasting tax dollars. He was also among the architects of the Inspector General Act of 1978.

    But aggressive oversight faded in the years after Brooks left that committee, especially between 2001 and 2006 when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress.

    Issa has become a major figure since taking over as chairman of the oversight panel following the Republicans regaining the House majority in 2010, especially as a result of his dogged pursuit of the facts behind the Operation Fast and Furious scandal.

    The letter to EPA, however, could indicate an important new direction in the Issa panel's approach to oversight. Where the Fast and Furious probe has focused mainly on determining who did what and when in the Justice Department's gun-walking weapons to Mexican drug cartels, the EPA letter seems targeted on preventing the agency from expanding its regulatory authority far beyond the clear intent of Congress.

    The issue concerns EPA's assertion of authority under Section 404(C) of the Clean Water Act to retrospectively or retroactively deny permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for projects such as mineral mining in Alaska and coal mining in West Virgina.

    In their letter, Issa and Jordan note that last month a federal district court ruled EPA was exceeding its authority, saying:

    "EPA's position is that section 404( c) grants it plenary authority to unilaterally modify or revoke a permit that has been duly issued by the Corps - the only permitting agency identified in the statute - and to do so at any time.

    "This is a stunning power for an agency to arrogate to itself when there is absolutely no mention of it in the statute. It is not conferred by section 404( c), and it is contrary to the language, structure, and legislative history of section 404 as a whole."

    So, Issa and Jordan are requesting that Jackson provide documentation of the entire process by which her agency concluded that it could act on its controversial interpretation of Section 404(C), including an explanation of "the basis for EPA's claim that it has the legal authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to block a permit even before the permitting process begins. Your answer should identify all prior precedents that EPA has relied on in drawing its legal conclusions."

    Issa and Jordan also demand lists of every individual outside the agency that participated in, advised or was otherwise involved in the deliberations that led up to the decision to assert the questionable 404(C) authority.

    It appears that Issa and Jordan intend to open to public examination the closed doors behind which EPA officials decided to assert a regulatory power for which it seems likely it possessed no authority from Congress. 

    Documents elucidating such a process are typically not available to the public or the media via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which includes a "pre-decisional deliberations" exemption agency officials throughout the government routinely use to avoid having to explain how they reached a decision.

    If Issa and Jordan re-establish the principle that Congress can and should actively pursue its undoubted oversight authority into every aspect of an executive branch policy, program or action, it could arrest and then reverse the headlong expansion of bureaucratic power that has marked federal operations since the New Deal

    Iron Mountain Mines (Mountain Copper Co. Ltd.) was California's first fertilizer Co.

    Certain intense archaea form acid mine drainage (“AMD”). Prior to efforts at control, AMD was believed or  said & alleged to be a cause of  alleged fish kills in the Sacramento River.

    "You name it, and we've got to cut it." Governor Jerry Brown



    . New Revelations by Chief “Standing Balls” exposes diabolically fiendish evil empire’s sinister secret weapon of rose colored glasses in mass brain washing conspiracy for a garden variety plot to enslave all earth’s peoples; devious appliance is disguised as ordinary children’s toy “kaleidoscope”; called by expert a “weapon of mass obstruction”; device said to obscure the operators vision with mesmerizing rose colored glass prisms that gleam and sparkle, the glistening confuses it’s victims with delusions of beauty; once under its spell victims become dependent and obsess, unable to discern their environmental surroundings, users just can’t grasp the reality around them. Recovery said to require intervention & detox; withdrawal’s symptoms may be severe, diversion said to offer best hope for full recovery; but some need treatment, hardcore users may require inpatient services; commitment. News report of Surgeons’ General advised blood-letting and whiskey discredited, rumor attributed to vindictive raging relapsed pettifogger. Story that government lawyers are particularly susceptible appears to be true; maybe due to their widely recognized inferiority, low self esteem issues and identity crisis from the well known anxieties and associated mental pathologies resulting from societies low regard and general accepted notions and perception that they are parasites that needlessly plague and prey on the nation; exploiting the wealthy and neglecting the poor; may also exacerbate already susceptible attorneys to delusions of grandeur and ugly fits of narcissism, pretense, conceit. Worst cases found speaking Latin. Federal District courts said to be suffering worst; must be from having been looking for coloreds, judges vacate as a class.

    Recovering attorneys, filled with gratitude, contrition and repentance, vow to make amends, offer services pro bono; agriculture department secretary says they could apply themselves better by making gratitude and amends list; take steps to turn their lives around; act as if they are not attorneys; suggests best practice is to avoid same old associates and associations, like other attorneys, their places and things; since “birds of a feather flock together”; recommends higher educational opportunities to get out of their poverty, especially encourages overcoming fears of failure, low achievement, (why they became attorneys in first place) by offering the most worthwhile and needed career choice for today’s and the future’s society; practical farmers and qualified mechanics.

     Leading science expert says humanity should be vigilant, suggests history shows a pattern of most people being gullible and susceptible to being led like lemmings off a cliff by the acts and practices of those claiming to save us, particularly under the influence of rose colored glass  “kaleidoscopes”; expert says moral hazards of obstructed view persist, says rose colored glass obsessed attorneys not only ones predisposed to hallucinations and inciting terror; says most people easily victimized by attorneys expounding ridiculously contrived theories of “potential risks” that are only imaginary. Congress may investigate,  President calls on nation for transparency; rumors he may require oaths from using attorneys provokes heated debate in Supreme Court, Justices say they would overrule such a measure. Alarmist pamphleteers demand testing, pilgrims call it another witch hunt, stone pamphleteers. Pamphleteers burn pilgrims in revenge. Some in congress calling for reform; minimum standards; say attorneys should have higher education too, like farmers and mechanics do now, some even calling for organizing a “bar association” and requiring a “bar exam” to assure attorneys are competent, or at least have a 6th grade education.

    Chief “Tasers” & “Pepper Sprays” pursuing cavalry and lynch mob posse, recounts exploit to adoring tribe and “shocked and awed” cavalry and posse on mysterious device he calls his “Smart Phone”.

    Quakers and Protestants demand Chief  take the “floats he is, sinks he isn’t” test .


    The Realist Prism: In a G-Zero World, U.S. Should Go Minilateral

    Speaking at the Naval War College’s Current Strategy Forum this week, Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group and author of the recently published “Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World,” argued that we are living through a period of “creative destruction” of the post-World War II global architecture. The problem, however, is that no single state currently possess the necessary preponderance of resources to be able to construct a new global system, as the U.S. was able to do in the aftermath of World War II.

    This is not to argue that the United States has entered into a period of irreversible decline. Indeed, the other major power centers that are often presented as future peer competitors are experiencing their own shocks, from the eurozone crisis to economic stagnation in Japan to the protests rocking Russia to the formidable challenges that Xi Jinping and the “fifth generation” of leadership in China will have to confront. As a result, the United States is benefiting from the perception that it, like the dollar, remains a “safe haven.” But though the U.S. is still a superpower, its current fiscal and economic problems leave it in no position to finance a new global system or impose common standards on the nations of the world, the way it did in the postwar period by rebuilding Western Europe and East Asia and creating the institutional foundations that paved the way for globalization. ...


    Assuring the Safety of Chemicals »

    Learn about Foggers Safety

    Know someone with bug problems? EPA created a series of cartoons to teach people about using Foggers Safely. They are available in English and Spanish. My kids love the bed bugs at the end of this one:
    Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice »

    Changing The US Environmental Foreign Policy


     

     

    California, the ninth largest economy in the world

    The world's wealth: 10 richest by GDP

    (in millions of US dollars)

    1. United States $14,620,000

    2. China $5,879,100

    3. Japan $5,391,000

    4. Germany $3,306,000

    5. France $2,555,000

    6. Brazil $2,518,000

    7. United Kingdom $2,259,000

    a8. Italy $2,037,000

    9. California $1,911,822

    10. Canada $1,564,000

    Source: CIA World Factbook

    society

    May 20-26 is National Small Business Week

    EPA Final Rule Revises Test Procedures For Determining Pollutants in Wastewater

    Friday, May 18, 2012

    Surely all God's people, however serious or savage, great or small, like to play. Whales and elephants, dancing, humming gnats, and invisibly small mischievous microbes— all are warm with divine radium and must have lots of fun in them. -John Muir

    Dottie Smith's blog

    « Previous entry

    Fox hunting and cricket in Shasta County?

    | No Comments

    fox hunting.jpg cricket.jpg
    Yessirree. It was just one of the many forms of recreation taken up by the employees of the Iron Mountain Mine. Many of their workers came straight here from England and were accustomed to those forms of recreation in their homeland.

    Fox hunting was conducted on the plains across the Sacramento River below Redding (exactly where, I don't know.)

    Cricket, on the other hand, the national sport of England, was played somewhere on the mountain. According to Wikipedia, "Cricket is a bat-and-ball game played between two teams of 11 players on a field, at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-yard long pitch. One team bats, trying to score as many runs as possible while the other team bowls and fields, trying to dismiss the batsmen and thus limit the runs scored by the batting team. A run is scored by the striking batsman hitting the ball with his bat, running to the opposite end of the pitch and touching the crease there without being dismissed. The teams switch between batting and fielding at the end of an innings."

    The Iron Mountain Mine hospital

    | No Comments
    Can you believe there was a hospital way up there on the mountain at one time? I don't know exactly when it was built but the first physician arrived in 1895. The hospital was considered well-equipped and included a resident physician and a trained nurse who provided adequate medical attention and prompt service in case of accidents - and there were plenty of them. Physicians didn't stay long at the hospital because it was an undesirable place to live and work. The first physician left less than two years after being hired. This continued until 1919 when there was a good hospital in Redding. From that point on, patients were transported to Redding for treatment. Dr. J. E. Taylor was the last resident physician who left in 1919 and started a private practice in Redding.

    Dottie Smith is the former Curator of the Shasta College Museum and former Instructor of Shasta County History at Shasta College. She has written 12 local history books.

    The DOJ Environmental Enforcement Sect. (EES) filed suit in 1986 against Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. & President, CEO, & Chairman, Mr. T.W. Arman, both Officially and personally, and since 2010 in his proprietorship as the current owner. Iron Mountain Mines received rehabilitation and treatment and diversion; non-settling defendant Mr. T.W. Arman was left out of the settlement thus blaming him solely and exclusively, rather than joint and severally, and without recourse to sue the actual polluters (The former Mountain Copper Co. owners Jardine Matheson Co., Rothschild Bank and Bank of America) and responsible parties (successors in interest Bayer Crop Sciences, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Rhone-Polenc, Stauffer Chemicals, etc.) for the "disposal" causing alleged endangerment of alleged  threatened release of alleged hazardous materials allegedly threatening species of hybrid sport fish salmon spawned at Baird Hatchery until 1943 Shasta Dam exterminated the wild species with the approval of California voters, the U.S. Congress & the President; and without opportunity for a fair hearing or  judicial review of agency actions "double swaddled in judicial deference", thus framing Mr. T.W. Arman for the extinction  of these fake wild fish, libeling his person, slandering his  property, poisoning his reputation, and clouding his title and credit with a fraudulent lien implicating perpetual limitless liability besides the U.S. claims & interest of $58 million wasted taxpayer dollars plus 200 million privately spent and $300 million funneled to AIG for fake superfund insurance that Treasury must pay to cover AIG fraud and antitrust monopoly conspiracy on useless & unnecessary removal action resulting in  actual endangerment by the governments & contractors construction of dams posing a bonafide real threat to us all; both our human health and well-being, & the environment. 

    Welcome to the ENRD:  The docket of the Natural Resource Section (NRS) is a kaleidoscope of  issues ranging from litigation to defense against claims by private property owners for alleged “takings”.

    "kaleidoscope" is derived from the Ancient Greek καλός (kalos), "beautiful, beauty",[2] εἶδος (eidos), "that which is seen: form, shape"[3] and σκοπέω (skopeō), "to look to, to examine",[4] hence "observer of beautiful forms." [5] Initially intended as a science tool, the kaleidoscope was later copied as a toy

    National convention on federal behavior modification

    Broad language on the issue of whether a compliance order is a “final agency action” subject to judicial review. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia states“[t]here is no doubt [the compliance order] is agency action” and further, “[i]t has all the hallmarks of APA finality that our opinions establish.” Admittedly, Justice Scalia held that the key to the case was the fact that the Clean Water Act does not, as the government claimed, preclude judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, assuming other environmental statutes similarly do not preclude review under the APA, the opinion leaves open the argument that if the core hallmarks of “final agency action” can be established with regard to an enforcement order under another statute, so too would agency action under that other statute be subject to pre-enforcement review.

    “EPA’s interpretation fails because it is illogical and impractical.” Judge Amy Jackson of the US District Court for D.C.

    justice

    CERCLA VIOLATES DUE PROCESS, AND IS “capable of repetition” while “evading review.”




    Welcome to Environment America

    Environment America is a federation of state-based, citizen-funded environmental advocacy organizations. Our professional staff in 29 states and Washington, D.C., combines independent research, practical ideas and tough-minded advocacy to overcome the opposition of powerful special interests and win real results for the environment. Environment America draws on 30 years of success in tackling environmental problems.

    THE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT.

    Over the last 30 years National Water Quality Inventories have documented pathogens as a leading cause of river and stream impairments.

    EPA MUST ADDRESS THIS PRIORITY.

    THE RAPTURE OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

    .

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES, INJURY, HAZARD OR RISK. DAM IMPROVEMENT

    .

    THE JUDGMENT IS VACATED BY ABSOLUTE ORDER

    .

    YOU SHOULD CONSIDER ALL THE GOLD IN CALIFORNIA .

    .

    INNOCENCE DISCHARGED; ABSENCE OF INJURY; INCAPACITY OF JURISDICTION; MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; DEFAMATION OF INNOCENT LAND & OWNER;

    .

    H.A.R.D. LOOK

    C. National Environmental Policy Act

    In passing NEPA, Congress “recognized the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment” and set out “to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a). [WE should all be MUSICIANS?]

    To bring federal action in line with Congress' goals and to foster environmentally informed decision-making by federal agencies, NEPA “establishes ‘action-forcing' procedures that require agencies

    to take a ‘hard look' at environmental consequences.” Metcalf v. Daley , 214 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council , 490 U.S. 332, 348 (1989)). Foremost among those procedures is the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).

    Agencies considering “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” are required to prepare an EIS. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). The EIS “shall provide full and fair discussion of [the] significant environmental impacts” of the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. That discussion serves two purposes:

    First, it ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider,

    detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts. Second, it guarantees that the relevant

    information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision. Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen , 541 U.S. 752, 768 (2004) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). By WESTERN W ATERSHEDS PROJECT v. KRAAYENBRINK 13249 focusing agency and public attention on the environmental effects of proposed agency action, “NEPA ensures that the agency will not act on incomplete information, only to regret its decision after it is too late to correct.” Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council , 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989).

    and coordinated compliance and enforcement, more integrated approaches to capitalize on synergies, improved communication with a broader audience, and greater leveraging of programs. Just as EPA will have to employ all of its tools, so too must all our partners—state, local, tribal, and federal—play their roles.

    EPA must improve and adapt regulations, permitting and compliance/enforcement efforts as a key first step to change our current path. EPA will also work to greatly increase cooperation, partnerships and communication to achieve victories in areas where regulatory approaches are not appropriate. We will support legislation and consider administrative action to restore the CWA protections to wetlands and headwater streams that provide clean water for human and ecological uses. We will take action to ensure all major point sources of pollution have permits that require clear, verifiable results. And by implementing new enforcement approaches per the Clean Water Action Plan , including more integrated problem solving, collaboration across standards setting, permitting and enforcement programs, EPA will bring violators into compliance.

    Another key element of this strategy is improvement of assessment and classification of watersheds. And building on this, EPA will increase cooperation with states to identify and protect those waters that are healthy; a far more cost effective approach than cleaning up a waterbody [WATER BODIES] after it has been polluted. EPA also seeks to find ways to better integrate new technologies and approaches into our clean water programs. For example, green infrastructure provides an important set of tools for changing the way stormwater discharges STORM WATER IS viewed—from being treated as a waste product that comes with high-cost infrastructure systems – to realizing and using it as a valued resource. Green infrastructure can also have positive effects on sanitary sewer overflows and combined sewer overflows, which are major urban water concerns. EPA will also explore opportunities to better integrate oNLY sustainable practices into ALL policies and programs; for instance: energy-neutral wastewater treatment, water efficiency, energy efficiency, and water reuse.

    EPA will seek solutions and implement programs to address recent, emerging, and growing watershed quality issues including increased mining activities, drilling, aging infrastructure and increased urbanization and development. Invasive species are also a significant threat to aquatic ecosystems. Using both regulatory and non-regulatory programs, EPA is taking meaningful steps to reduce the likelihood that invasive species are able to spread from one waterbody to another . Additionally, as excess nutrient pollution continues to be a major concern, EPA sees a better means to addressing this problem on the critical path to success. EPA will work in partnership with states to better manage excess nutrient enrichment in LAND AND surface waters and promote state accountability frameworks that include publicly-available, science-based, state nutrient reduction implementation activities that are watershed-based and have NON-COERCIVE FEDERALLY-binding mechanisms to achieve the reductions.

    STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT GOALS

    This strategy's success depends on many factors working together. Local governments, states, and tribes, each working under their own authorities and capacities, to ensure watersheds in their jurisdiction are safe. It is up to EPA to bring these groups together to more smoothly coordinate and harmonize our efforts in order to optimize the results. EPA has identified several key strategies to guide our efforts, and actions that respond to the challenges we face: Public Discussion NOT FINAL – August 2010 4

    .

    •  Systematically assess the nation's watersheds to provide a baseline for transparently tracking progress;

    •  Enhance COMMUNITIES ability to restore degraded watersheds, and take action to increase the number of restored watersheds;

    •  Reduce emissions entering our watersheds; and

    •  Enhance watershed resiliency and revitalize communities through multi-benefit, sustainable technologies and approaches that will ensure resiliency to development, urbanization and other factors.

    .

    KEY ACTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING WATERSHED PROTECTIONS

    By approaching the most significant safe land and watershed challenges facing the nation from a more realistic perspective and using resources creatively, we will undertake a range of actions to implement these strategies to get a better understanding of the state of our nation's watersheds, work to protect what we've got, fix what's broken, expand our work to keep watersheds safe, and build for the future while ensuring we are meeting our economic and community needs. In doing so, the community will expand existing partnerships and develop new, locally-based partnerships, and implement tools and policies that will foster tailored approaches. In addition to strengthening and expanding partnerships, to achieve the next level of protection, we will work within the community and outside the community to strategically leverage funding opportunities to reduce emissions from unregulated sources.

    In implementing these actions, the community remains committed to the following principles:

    •  Use bold, new, creative, more effective ways to implement SWR and other programs, more strategically deploy existing regulatory authorities and enforcement programs, as well as voluntary approaches and market-based incentives;

    •  Rely on robust science and cutting-edge technologies, particularly in emerging areas of concern such as climate adaptation, ecosystem services, integrated watershed approaches;

    •  Increase focus on improving environmental quality in disadvantaged communities that have historically suffered severe degradation of watershed quality that provide key ecosystem services;

    •  Engage a broader range of stakeholders in decision-making and provide the EPA and other stakeholders with reliable information about watersheds; and

    •  Achieve and document measurable results.

    .

    Know What You've Got – Systematically Assess the Nation's Watersheds to Provide a Baseline Effective management of watershed resources requires reliable information and an informed public. To better inform our efforts, improve accountability, policy, planning, increase stewardship, and better measure progress of ongoing efforts to improve the quality of data in the long-term; the EPA will focus on systematically assessing the nations watersheds. The National Aquatic Resource Surveys for streams, lakes and coastal waters already provide the baseline for the condition of watersheds across the - Public Discussion Draft – August 2010 5 -

    nation against which we can track changes in water condition at the national and regional scales. In the next several years, EPA will complete the first set of five Aquatic Resource Surveys that will give us a complete picture of the condition of all watershed types across the nation. EPA, working with our partners, will also explore opportunities to build on existing monitoring and assessment efforts to better identify, classify, and track the status of our watersheds. This multi-scaled approach to monitoring and assessment will give communities the information they need to make informed decisions about how best to manage watershed resources and help the public understand the effectiveness of federal and state investments.

    Key EPA Actions:

    •  Complete cycle of National Aquatic Resource Surveys to provide baseline for documenting trends in degradation and major stressors in the next several years,

    •  Complement existing impaired watershed listings with identification of healthy watersheds across the U.S. ; and

    •  Explore opportunities for increasing strategic information attained from and integrity of the Integrated Watershed Quality Monitoring and Assessment Reports to provide a more comprehensive picture.

    .

    Protect What We Have – Increased Focus on Protection of Healthy Watersheds

    EPA's watershed quality protection program is focused on the remediation of impaired watersheds and the reduction of specific emission levels in watersheds. While EPA and our state partners have made and are continuing to make considerable progress in this important work, we recognize the need to protect and maintain healthy watersheds as well. Healthy watersheds provide our communities with drinking water, recreational opportunities, environmental benefits and services, including safe watershed for healthy aquatic ecosystems, habitat for fish and wildlife, and better resilience against floods and future land-use changes. Protecting healthy watersheds will result in considerable savings over time if the need for costly restoration can be avoided in watersheds that would otherwise become impaired by cumulative impacts.

    EPA will study and report the health and safety of watersheds sufficiently for communities to explore, develop, and make available more effective information and expertise to conduct ecological assessments, to classify and list healthy watersheds. By developing, along with our state partners, a science-based structure on a national level, EPA hopes to provide the tools to help them inventory and then take action to protect their healthy watersheds. EPA will also enhance public awareness and, together with better equipped and organized State action, will ultimately lead to increased protection of our watershed assets.

    COMMUNITIES will utilize SWR tools to increase protection of high quality watersheds, including revisions to water quality standards, and focus on protecting those watersheds that are threatened by coal and hard rock mining activities.

    Key EPA Actions:

    •  Through the new Healthy Watershed Initiative, develop a common set of comprehensive metrics to create a national list of healthy watersheds (e.g., linking watershed protection and species diversity); use the latest state-of-the-science, peer-reviewed methods to conduct

    Public Discussion Draft – August 2010 6

    .

    assessments to identify healthy watersheds across states using CWA funds (e.g., 604(b), 319, and 106) in partnership with other Federal agencies. With these assessments, help set States set priorities and implement protection and conservation programs;

    ?? Support legislation and consider administrative action to initiate SWR protections for our watersheds;

    ?? Use the full suite of SWR tools to dam high-quality streams from destruction and degradation caused by mining activities;

    ?? Propose changes to the state water quality standard regulations to protect watersheds; and

    ?? Ensure States are effectively administering watershed programs.

    .

    Fix What's Broken – Enhance THE COMMUNITIES Ability to Restore Watersheds

    The restoration of watersheds will be critical to making significant progress. In order to do so EPA will use the Chesapeake Bay as a demonstration for improved monitoring of restoration progress. Success in cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay watershed will be a model for watershed protection in other parts of the country. This combined approach of protecting healthy watersheds and restoring impaired waters will ultimately improve the overall state of our nation's watersheds.

    Key EPA Actions

    ?? Work with states to carry out more strategic and effective implementation of watershed-based plans;

    ?? Develop and implement reasonable assurance guidelines regarding watersheds identified in TMDLs;

    ?? Coordinate funding opportunities with USDA to accelerate nutrient and sediment reductions and tackle key agriculture challenges through an integrated approach using 319 Program, Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), CWA section 117, STAR grants and USDA Conservation programs;

    ?? Use trading offsets and other market-based tools where appropriate, to improve watersheds;

    ?? Implement all of the above actions in conjunction with states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and other federal agencies to execute the President's Executive Order to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

    In addition, in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, EPA will:

    •  Implement federal land management practices that protect forests and watersheds, and incorporate sustainable practices;

    •  Create a system for tracking and reporting watershed commitments and two-year milestone commitments;

    •  Implement current regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and propose new regulations to more effectively achieve pollutant reductions necessary to meet the Chesapeake Bay TMDL; and

    •  Implement improvements to the current watershed programs and initiate new national watershed rulemaking with Chesapeake Bay watershed provisions.

    .

    Keep it Safe – Safe Watersheds Reform-Act Public Discussion NOT FINAL – August 2010 7

    EPA seeks to increase protection of our watersheds by reducing current loadings and preparing for substantial predicted increases associated with development, urbanization, climate change and other factors. Across the board, under the SWR, COMMUNITIES address a number of watershed challenges.

    Where problems are identified, communities apply the best standards available, eliminate loopholes, and set performance standards through robust modifications to current regulations.

    For example, in addition to the work underway in Chesapeake Bay as part of the President's recent Executive Order, EPA will use its expertise robustly to protect and restore threatened natural treasures such as the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico as navigable waterways of the united states . EPA is heading up a multi-agency effort to restore and protect the Great Lakes, one of America 's great waterways, through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. In other parts of the nation, we will focus on nutrient pollution, which threatens the long-term health of important ecosystems such as the Mississippi River Basin . Further, given the environmental catastrophe resulting from the Deepwater BP oil spill, EPA will take all necessary actions to support efforts to clean up and restore the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem.

    Key EPA Actions:

    •  Transfer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which will streamline the regulatory authority to designate an animal feeding operating (AFO) as a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO);

    •  Develop guidance for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to protect the public and the environment from the effects of sanitary sewer overflows and the release of partially treated waste water from treatment facilities. Potential regulatory approaches include additional reporting and public notice when overflows occur, increased responsibilities for properly operating and maintaining sewer systems, clarifying the requirements for satellite collection systems, and addressing peak wet weather flows at the treatment plant. EPA will also explore more widespread use of green infrastructure techniques in combined sewer overflow control plans;

    •  Expand municipal storm water permitting coverage to currently unregulated areas and establish performance standards for storm water discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites that result in reduced discharge of pollutants, including through the use of green infrastructure techniques;

    •  Develop guidance to reduce pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S. ;

    •  Audit point source programs (CAFOs, storm water, water quality based permits) that have significant nutrient reduction potential to assure full CWA tools implementation;

    •  Evaluate implications of study currently underway within EPA's Office of Research and Development on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and water resources for taking further action to protect water quality;

    •  Develop guidance for cooling water intakes at over 1200 power plants and manufacturing facilities; and

    •  Work in partnership with states to better manage excess nutrient enrichment in surface waters, including:

    Public Discussion Draft – August 2010 8

    .

    •  Initiating scientific report(s) based on best available science and subject to peer review to determine necessary nutrient loads to restore and maintain watershed quality in key areas;

    •  Developing and implementing guidance to assist authorities in standards for nutrients;

    •  Improving public understanding of the seriousness of nutrient pollution including impacts on drinking water and other public health, environmental impacts, and economics; and

    •  Leveraging federal funding to assist communities in implementing nutrient reduction strategies.

    .

    Build for the Future – Enhance Watershed Resiliency and Revitalize Communities

    In order to maximize clean watershed protection under current authorities, EPA is making a substantial shift in our programmatic approaches to identify and implement multi-benefit solutions that will help communities plan and be more responsive to changing factors such as population growth, increased urbanization and climate change. A more realistic approach will facilitate capitalizing on existing programs, tools, policies and available funding to achieve measurable results. A collaborative approach to community-based programs will achieve multiple objectives, break down traditionally stovepipe divisions, and broadly engage local communities in decisions that impact local and state waters. For example, capitalizing on green infrastructure, water/energy synergies and integrated water management are key features in this new approach.

    EPA will develop and implement a renewed strategy on green infrastructure to identify and target the next set of actions that need to be undertaken to promote and support green infrastructure practices. EPA will also develop a framework for encouraging and facilitating more integrated watershed management approaches at the state and local level, and will support solutions that reduce infrastructure costs and promote more efficient, locally coordinated resource use. These more integrated solutions, ultimately, lead to long-term sustainability, community buy-out, better watershed quality, and more robust ecosystem services.

    Key EPA Actions:

    •  Promote green infrastructure more broadly. Consider policy options to make green infrastructure solutions an available tool for meeting SWR requirements by: ensuring that MS4 permits include cost-effective green infrastructure approaches, including green infrastructure in CSO long-term control plans, considering the incorporation of non-traditional or green infrastructure alternatives in consent decrees, and other policies to increase adoption of green infrastructure practices;

    •  Encourage integrated water management approaches. Implement policies and help direct national attention toward more sustainable water management practices that better integrate land use at the watershed level. Building on synergies within the watershed sector, integrated approaches can allow communities to more sustainable watershed infrastructure and supply costs and investments,

    Public Discussion Draft – August 2010 9

    .

    as well as potentially reduce overall energy consumption, and both utilize renewable energy and/or create new energy sources;

    ?? Encourage states to use their Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF) for projects that will best advance these policies and are consistent with the community's sustainability policy. Additionally, EPA will continue to work with States to ensure that all CWSRF programs meet the mandated requirement to use at most 100% of FY 2010 appropriated funds for green projects such as green storm water infrastructure, water efficiency projects, energy efficiency projects, and other innovative environmental projects;

    ?? Develop policies that will facilitate greater collaboration and accelerate the commercialization of cutting-edge technologies that help deliver clean water such as energy self-sufficient waste water treatment;

    ?? Develop comprehensive approaches, including all of the above actions, to help transform previously degraded urban watersheds into community assets by:

    •  Linking environmental programs with existing priorities such as economic development;

    •  Adding environmental components to economic programs in pilot areas

    •  Facilitating watershed clean-up efforts; and

    •  ?? Work to ensure the overall sustainability of drinking water and waste water utilities by better incorporating adaptation and mitigation strategies and other cost-efficient infrastructure practices into planning and operations.

    .

    CONCLUSION

    Without safe watersheds, no part of a community—its ecology, its economy, its health—can thrive. It is at the core of our communities and is crucial to the vitality of our rural areas. Realizing this imperative for safe watersheds, our nation will require the balanced, organized, and thoughtful effort and collaboration of all levels of government. We will make the most of all of the resources and programs available to us.

    The best way to bring the Safe Watershed Reform-Act's purpose into reality is for communities to strengthen and expand the national conversation on protecting and maintaining watersheds. Growing partnerships will be helpful in light of national trends in watershed quality and recent environmental disasters.

    EPA invites tribes, states, communities, and all Americans to come together for safe watersheds and our national quest to achieve the purpose of the SWR. We can have sustainable communities and watersheds.

    .

    CIRCUMSCRIPTION OF JURISDICTION

    .

    .

    Shasta County , by M. E. Dittmar, Redding , California .

    "The best foundation for communal prosperity is diversity of resource. A diversity of soil and climate assure a variety of agricultural, horticultural and pomological products. A diversity of industrial raw materials and forest resources invites industrial expansion. When a community embraces these, with a superabundance of water for power and irrigation, it offers a combination of advantages, rarely equalled (sic) and never excelled. These are the advantages that Shasta County at the extreme head of the Sacramento Valley possesses.

    "In area Shasta is the largest geographical subdivision of the Sacramento River drainage, embracing 4,050 square miles within its borders - the States of Rhode Island and Delaware could be included in this area and leave a surplus of over 750 square miles.

    "The increasing importance of irrigation as an aid to intensive agriculture, speeding up the soil, is generally recognized. As compared with dry farming and cereal crops exclusively, intensive agriculture, fruitgrowing (sic) and diversified husbandry, has increased the annual net profit from the soil many fold. In the last analysis, water on the land is as a rule more valuable than the land itself.

    "According to official daily gauging records, the average annual run-off, originating within the limits of Shasta County , is 8,100,000 acre feet - a valuable irrigation and power asset.

    "Over one-sixth of the potential water-power energy of California exists within the border of Shasta County . The development of cheap and convenient power means industrial development. Water, for power and for irrigation, is the 'open sesame' of Shasta's future.

    "To utilize the power, Shasta has industrial raw materials to attract giants of capital and industry. The industrial metals, copper, iron and zinc, already highly developed and of the first magnitude in quantity; cement materials and great beds of fine quality clays; the elements essential for the manufacture of commercial fertilizers, on a scale to supply the greater part of the North American continent with calcium nitrates - destined to entirely supersede the sodium nitrates of Chile; hardwood timber for the manufacture of furniture, and vast forests of commercial pine and fir for the lumberman - containing over 5,250,000,000 feet (board measure) standing commercial timber.

    "These resources represent the foundation for an industrial community that cannot be equalled (sic) for diversity, quantity and general advantages, within a like area anywhere in the United States .

    In metal mining, Shasta has been in a class by itself, leading all other countries in California for the past eighteen years. The official statistics from 1897 - the year when her great sulphide ore bodies were first exploited - to 1914 (last year estimated) credit the county with a total output of $99,144,777, or an average of over $5,508,000 per year.

    "More than two thousand men find employment at good wages, all the year round, in this great industry, and approximately $3,000,000 per annum are paid out within the borders of the county for wages and supplies.

    "The great industrial metal, copper, is next to iron in importance, in the work of the world. In the past eighteen years Shasta has produced 488,211,278 pounds of this metal.

    "To Shasta County is due the credit of the first important development on the Pacific Coast , in the production of iron ore, and the manufacture of pigiron by means of the electric furnace.

    "The electric furnaces at Heroult have also been utilized in the manufacture of ferro-manganese, for the steel plants of the eastern portion of the United States . Here are grouped the iron ores, the elements essential in the manufacture of special steel, and a million horsepower of potential energy - the basis for the upbuilding of another Pittsburgh.

    "In emphasizing the industrial present and future of Shasta County, we wish to make its importance apparent from the 'home market' viewpoint, with thousands of consumers finding remunerative and continuous occupation the producer has an advantage not frequently enjoyed, and this is particularly true where intensive cultivation is practiced, on smaller land holdings.

    Deciduous fruit is grown on an extensive scale in the lower valleys and foothills. The culture of the prune is predominant, with peaches and pears a close second.

    "The olive, one of the most stable orchard products, has demonstrated its superiority in Shasta County . Hundreds of contiguous acres are now planted to olive groves, and one of the largest groves in the State, containing 120 acres, planted more than twenty years ago, is also one of the most prolific in the State.

    "The vine, in these higher but still semi-tropic latitudes, during the long sunny summer days, stores larger percentages of sugar in the grape - an advantage that will appeal to the viticulturist.

    "No climatic reason exists why oranges should not be grown successfully, as the isothermal zone of the Central California valleys extends to the vicinity of Redding . Trees a score of years old or more, planted chiefly for ornamental purposes, attest the feasibility of citrus culture.

    "Cereals of all kinds are grown in the main valley - especially in the Church Creek Bottoms - and in the mountain valleys of northeastern Shasta. A greater area is being devoted from year to year, to alfalfa, with the increase of irrigation - although three crops are usually cut without irrigation - and dairying and stock-raising are on the increase.

    "The stock-grower, except where stock is wintered in the higher altitudes, does little winter feeding, utilizing instead a combination of summer and winter range, made possibly by the varying altitudes and the vast acreage of public domain in the forest reserves.

    " Shasta County contains a number of thriving cities and towns. Redding is the county seat, a beautifully located city of about four thousand people (circa 1915), at the extreme head of the Sacramento Valley , where mountain and vale meet. It is the natural distributing center for a large area of Northern California, the center of industrial development, with large and prosperous business houses, excellent hotels, etc., up-to-date schools including the Shasta County high school, churches of various denominations, and all the more prominent fraternal organizations.

    "The thriving towns of Anderson and Cottonwood are the chief fruit centers of Shasta, and thousands of tons of fruit, as well as agricultural products and livestock, are shipped annually from these points.

    "Kennett is the center of smelting activity, and is an important industrial city of over two thousand people.

    "Other towns of importance are Fall River and McArthur, in northeastern Shasta; Castella, La Moine and Delta, in the Sacramento Canyon ; De Lamar, French Gulch, the old pioneer county seat of Shasta, Coram and Keswick, in the mining districts; Millville and Ono represent smaller agricultural and stock-raising communities.

    "The County is traversed by many good roads, and the streams are bridged with creditable permanent structures. The California State Highway is under construction, through the heart of Shasta, and State Highway laterals, into Trinity County to the west, connecting with the main trunk road at Redding , have been provided for.

    "Shasta has excellent main line railroad facilities, with expansion in feeders and other main line construction assured in the near future.

    "The beautiful in nature is blended with the utilitarian, in Shasta County . In the Shasta Canyon , enchanting vistas of Mount Shasta and the stately domes and spires of the Castle Crags offer an ever-changing panorama of indescribable grandeur, through verdant mountain recesses cut by the crystal river.

    "The beautiful McCloud in all its pristine glory, where the gamey trout abounds, and the timid doe or stately buck emerges from their leafy lanes along the river's brink or mountain glades. The rugged gorges of the Pit, where masjesty (sic) and power impress the visitor. Beautiful Burney, the misty mistic (sic) falls that tumble over lava cliffs a hundred feet and more, to greet the onrush of the river - all these inspire.

    "But nature, not content with her lavish bestowal of the majestic and beautiful, assays a new wonder - the awe-inspiring eruption of Mount Lassen . In a region of fantastic natural features, the mountain long quiescent now holds the center of the stage. Unique, as the only active crater in continental United States - remote from centers of population, that the release of its pent-up energies may fall harmless - it presents a spectacular climax in its periodical eruptions, forcing a mighty column of steam and volcanic ejecta, two miles and more in the air. This is Shasta's exclusive wonder, though visible for a hundred miles, and Congress recognizes its attractive powers by proposing to establish here the Lassen Volcanic National Park . The Lassen Trail Highway to Manzanita Lake , five miles from the crater summit, presents a route of easy access for the automobilist. The nature lover will find the lure of Shasta's natural wonders an inspirational revelation.

    "The development of the manifold resources of Shasta County assures her a great future -

    "The door of opportunity stands ajar.
    Industrial opportunity for capital.
    Land at reasonable prices for the home-seeker.
    Delightful climate, and magnificent scenery.
    The foundation of prosperity is secure.

    "(Note. - For more detailed information, send for booklet on Shasta County , California , free, address Shasta County Promotion and Development Association, Redding , California . Or during the Fair at Shasta headquarters, California State Palace , P.P.I.E.)"

    Shasta County Mineral Industry (circa 1919) – Excerpt from California Mineral Production for 1919, Bulletin No. 88 , by Walter W. Bradley, California State Mining Bureau, 1920, pp. 165.

    Area: 3,858.
    Population: 13,311 (1920 census)
    Location: North-central portion of state.

    " Shasta County stood eleventh in California among the mineral-producing counties for 1919, with an output valued at $2,912,718, as compared with the 1918 production worth $8,098,671. The marked decrease both in 1918 and 1919 was due to the falling off in the output of copper, the large plants of the Mammoth and Mountain copper companies being shut down most of the year. Not taking petroleum into account, Shasta for a number of years lead (sic) all of the counties by a wide margin; but in 1919 was passed by San Bernardino , Yuba, Amador, and Nevada among the 'metal' counties.

    "Shasta's mineral resources include: Asbestos, barytes, brick, chromite, coal, copper, gold, iron, lead, lime, limestone, mineral water, molybdenum, pyrite, silver, soapstone, miscellaneous stone, and zinc.

    "Lassen Peak is located in southeastern Shasta County

    "Commercial production for 1919 was as follows:

    (Headings for the information below are: Substance, Amount, and Value.)

    Copper, 8,673,342 lbs., $1,613,242
    Gold, ---, $425,000 (estimated)
    Lime and limestone, ---, $29,100
    Platinum, 121 oz., $21,075
    Pyrite, 138,046 tons, $497,398
    Silver,---, $155,000 (estimated)
    Stone, miscellaneous, ---, $31,750
    Other minerals,* ---, $40,153
    (Total value) $2,912,718

    (* Includes barytes, brick, iron ore, lead, mineral water, and zinc.)

    .

    U.S. EPA - Region IX
    75 Hawthorne Street - H-6-2
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Dear Mr. Sugarek,
    We are writing as natural resource trustees concerning two issues
    involving Iron Mountain Mine, Shasta County, California. First,
    with regard to the draft Record of Decision, as we noted in our
    comments on the draft plan, we agree with the selection of
    treatment for an interim remedial action. By selection of
    alternative Pl-B, the High Density Sludge Process, EPA is selecting
    an alternative to produce maximum reduction of waste volume. If
    the HDS plant is designed to provide capacity to treat sustained
    elevated flows, concerns regarding the ability of the selected
    alternative to respond to emergency high flow levels are met.
    Secondly, we are aware that ICI Americas has indicated by letter
    that they believe that Judge Schwartz's September 21, 1992 ruling
    in United States of America v. Iron Mountain Mines. Inc.. et al.
    makes EPA Administrative Order No. 92-96 invalid.Naturally, we
    are concerned, as the sixth year of drought has made this a
    critical year for survival of the Federally threatened winter-run
    Chinook salmon. As the species may not survive the impact of
    untreated discharge through the season, we are supportive of EPA's
    intent to implement the requirements of the administrative orders
    utilizing Superfund, with cost recovery later.
    If you wish to meet with the natural resource trustees for Iron
    Mountain Mine concerning our comments, please contact me at (415)
    744-4090.
    Sincerel
    William C. Allan
    Regional Environmental Assistant
    Concur:
    Denise Klimas
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    September 7, 1993
    Mr. Rick Sugarek (H-6-2)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Region DC
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Subject: Review of the Iron Mountain Mine Old/No. 8 Mine Operable Unit Draft Record of
    Decision.
    Dear Mr. Sugarek:
    The Natural Resources Trustee Council for the Iron Mountain Mine Superfund site, comprised of
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
    Department of Interior Office of Environmental Affairs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Department of Fish and Game, has reviewed the
    August 6,1993 Agency Review Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the Old/No. 8 Seep at Iron
    Mountain Mine (IMM). The Natural Resources Trustees previously commented on the agency
    review draft of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Operable Unit The alternative
    selected in the ROD is consistent with the treatment alternative recommended by the Natural
    Resource Trustee Council in the April 8,1993 letter. However, we believe that the details on the
    amount of contamination that is collected for treatment is not consistent with our earlier
    recommendation. We also have some comments on the details of implementing the selected
    alternative and some comments on technical discussions contained in the document
    The Operable Unit is defined as the Old and No. 8 Mines. We believe that because these mines are
    buried by tens of feet of loosely consolidated landslide material, there is more contamination
    coming from the mines than is accounted for by the most obvious seep that is the focus of the
    remedial action. The ROD should disclose how the releases from this buried, leaking, flooded ore
    body travel through several known or potential migration routes to surface waters. The amount of
    contamination from the source (Old/No. 8 Mine Operable Unit) that will be treated by remedial
    action will depend upon the efficiency of die collection system for the discharge from the buried
    mines. We recommend developing the most effective design possible for collecting acid mine
    discharge (AMD) from the buried and flooded mine workings.
    We believe that maximizing the collection of the contaminants from this flooded mine pool
    (Operable Unit) is consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Reducing the
    contamination better satisfies the evaluation criteria, including protection of the environment, longand
    short-term effectiveness, and compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
    Requirements.
    Specific Comments:
    Page 2,2nd Paragraph, 1st Sentence: The subject seeps are emerging from the north slope of
    Slickrock Valley or the south facing slope of Iron Mountain.

    Page 2,3rd Paragraph: The ROD correctly describes the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook
    salmon as listed Threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Federal
    Endangered Species Act; you should include also that the species has been listed as Endangered by
    the State of California, under the California Endangered Species Act
    Page 2, Paragraph 5, Second Sentence: The diversion of upper Spring Creek is into Flat Creek
    and is not in the Boulder Creek drainage.
    Page 18,2nd Paragraph: This discussion should disclose that contamination from the Old/No. 8
    Mine workings Operable Unit has many known and potential migration routes to the surface water
    in the Slicfcrpck Creek drainage. We believe this is the case, considering the fact that the releases
    from this mine pool must first flow through several tens of feet of loosely consolidated landslide
    material before reaching the surface. After AMD from the flooded mine pool emerges through the
    buried mine portal, it can diffuse throughout the landslide formation. There is evidence that seeps
    down-gradient from the main identified seep have a chemical characteristic and flow pattern similai
    to the main seep, indicating a common source (Old/No. 8 Mine Operable Unit).
    We believe that the selected remedy for this Operable Unit should be designed to abate as much of
    the contamination originating from this source that is possible. It appears that the site would lend
    itself to designs that would pass the implementability evaluation criteria in the NCP. It would be
    most prudent to establish collection systems at an elevation at least as deep as the buried mine
    Is.
    Page 19,1st Paragraph, 2nd Sentence: The fish toxicity should be described as acute, toxicity,
    rather than just toxicity, because chronic toxicity levels are much lower than the values specified
    here. Acute toxicity also occurs at concentrations lower than those specified in this discussion,
    especially if the concentrations referred to are in the form of dissolved metals.
    Page 21,4th Paragraph, 3rd Sentence: Fishery data in this discussion is outdated. During and
    prior to the recent, extended drought, the salmon and steelhead were undergoing a decline that at
    that time produced a population that was only SO percent the size of the earlier populations. The
    drought greatly accelerated this ongoing decline, producing escapements of salmon in the upper
    Sacramento River during the 1990's that are now only 20 percent of the levels observed during th<
    late 1950's.
    Page 22,1st Paragraph, 3rd Sentence: The flood control releases from Shasta Reservoir describe
    here should be qualified as high volume flood control releases. This qualification will avoid
    confusion with other flood control operations at Shasta Dam that produce a very low volume
    release to prevent compounding ongoing flooding of downstream areas in the Central Valley. Thi
    low volume release operation has produced catastrophic fish kills in the past, because it does not
    encourage downstream migration and reduces dilution of toxicant.
    Page 22,2nd Paragraph, 1st Sentence: Spring-run Chinook and early spawning fall-run chuiook
    have also exhibited this pattern of concentrating spawning activity in the cooler uppermost river
    reaches that are more susceptible to metal toxicity.
    Page 22,3rd Paragraph: The risk to resident trout and steelhead is overall less than that for saline
    due to the fact that the sensitive early life stages of trout and steelhead are predominantly located u
    tributaries to the Sacramento River that do not receive the toxicant
    Page 31,1st Paragraph, 1st Sentence: The concept for collection of AMD at the Old/No. 8 Seep i
    intended to provide both surface and underground interception of the flows. We believe it is
    important to collect the AMD emanating from these ore bodies to the maximum extent
    possible, in order to comply with the nine evaluation criteria specified by the National

    Contingency Plan (40 CFR §300.430 (e)(9)). See also above comment concerning Page 18,2nd
    Paragraph.
    Page 52,1st Paragraph, last sentence: The Natural Resource Trustees have previously commented
    on the failure of a mine plugging program similar to that described in this section. One of the
    greatest risks to biological resources in general, and the ESA listed winter-run chinook salmon in
    particular, is the likelihood that contaminants from the leaking mine pool would be released in a
    manner that would be uncollectible or only fractionally collectable for treatment. This, in our
    opinion, represents a severe risk. This risk should be included in this discussion.
    If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact one of the following:
    1) Ms. Patricia Port, Office of Environmental Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, San
    Francisco, CA (415) 744-4090
    2) Ms. Denise Klimas, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, San Francisco CA
    (415)744-3126
    3) Mr. Roger Wolcott, National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, CA (707) 578-7513
    4) Mr. Jim Haas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA (916) 978-4866
    5) Ms. Kris Doebbler, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA (916) 978-5046
    6) Mr. Richard Elliott, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game, Redding,
    CA (916) 225-2364
    Sincerely,
    DEPARTMENT OF
    Environmental Officer
    ce of Environjoental Affairs
    600 Harrison Street, Suite 515
    San Francisco, CA 94107-1373
    NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
    BY: fli.
    nise M. Klimas, Coastal Resources Coordinator
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division
    75 Hawthorne Street (H-l-2)
    San Francisco, CA 94105

    September 30, 1992
    Mr. J«ffery Zelikson, Director
    Hazardous Waste Management Division
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Mail Code Hi
    75 Hawthorne poulevard
    San Francisco, California 94105
    Dear Mr. .eliKson:
    The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the draft
    Record of Decision for the Iron Mountain Mine Super fund Si to.
    This site has a long history of damaging some of the State's most
    important fishery and water resources. The Chinook salmon
    spawning area in the upper Sacramento River (above the confluence
    with the Feather River) currently supports the most valuable
    salmon fishery in the State. The Iron Mountain Mine Superfund
    Site impacts the most valuable portion of this salmon spawning
    area as well as other important biological resources.
    We support the decision to install a proven treatment
    technology on the portal effluent without flooding the mine pool
    and the cleanup of selected pyrite bearing waste piles. We
    believe that it is important to avoid flooding the mine pool when
    the water and fishery resources are in such critically poor
    condition and other remedial actions require completion. The
    performance of the plug and flood alternative is uncertain and
    there is a risk that the mine pool fluids will leak out where
    they cannot be immediately collected and treated.
    In the future the treatment remedy may be replaced by
    another source control technology or a resource recovery action.
    We understand that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will
    evaluate alternative replacement technologies using a new
    feasibility study and record of decision process along with
    endangered species consultation. Prior to implementing
    replacement remedies that have higher risk, we recommend EPA
    consider not replacing proven technologies with higher risk
    alternatives until the drought conditions end, Shasta Reservoir
    storage returns to normal, declines of the salmon stocks are
    reversed, salmon fishery restrictions return to normal and the
    other necessary remedial actions are completed at the site.
    We would like to thank you for selecting a reliable remedy
    for this complex site. We look forword to working with your
    staff on the remaining necessary remedial actions at the site,
    3EF-Z0-139" '39:37 PRCH 3FG "irEER -PfiVEST ' -Q
    Mr. Jeffery fcelikson
    September 30, lyy^j
    Pag* Two
    including discharges to Slickrock Creek, mobilization of metal
    sludge from Keswick Reservoir to the river and the final diluti
    manipulation system for operating the Spring Ci«eK Reservoir.
    Sincerely,
    Turner< Acting Chief
    Ivironmental Services Division
    cc: E. C. Fvllerton, Regional Director
    National Marina Fisheries Services
    Long Beach, California
    Mr. Don Dievert
    Department of Toxic Substances
    Rancho Cordova, California
    Mr. Jim Pedri
    Central Valley Regional Water
    Quality Control Board
    Redding, California
    Ms. Sarah Russell
    California Attorney General's Office
    Oakland. California
    Mr. Rick sugarek
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    San Francisco, California

    September 30, 1992
    Mr. David B. Jones
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Region IX
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San Francisco, California 94105
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINE SUPERFUND SITE, COMMENTS ON DRAFT RECORD OF
    DECISION
    Dear Mr. Jones:
    Thank you for providing us with a copy of the Draft Record
    of Decision ("DROD") for the Boulder Creek Operable Unit of the
    Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site.
    After our review of the document and telephone
    communications between the Department of Toxic Subetancee Control
    (DTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff,
    we understand that the ROD will reflect the following:
    1. The State does not consider AMD to be exempt from the
    California Hazardous Waste Control Laws, Chapter 6.5,
    California Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et. seq.
    The State acknowledges that treatment of AMD and disposal of
    the resultant sludge may be subject to a variance pursuant
    to California Health and Safety Code Section 25143.
    2. The scope of the expected "final" remedial alternatives for
    the Boulder Creek operable Unit will be based upon further
    investigations of waste rock piles, creek sediments, seeps
    and the feasibility of source control or resource recovery
    at the Richmond Mine workings.
    3. The proposed CERCLA section 121 (d) (4) (A) waiver of
    compliance with the Regional Boards's Basin Plan Water
    Quality Objectives will not be invoked for discharges to
    Flat Creek.
    Based on the above modifications of the DROD, we conclude
    that the DROD is acceptable. We look forward to working together
    with EPA in the development of the remedial design parameters for
    the Boulder Creek Operable Unit, and the implementation of future
    actions at the site.

    Mr. David B. Jones
    :mh*r 30, 1992
    If you have any questions concerning this letter or if we
    can assist you in any way, please contact Ouncan Austin at
    (916) 855-7861.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony J. Landis, P.E., Chief James C. Pedri, P.E.
    Site Mitigation Branch Supervising Engineer
    Department of Toxic Substances Regional Water Quality Contrc
    Control Board
    cc: Mr. Rick SugareJc
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Region IX
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San Francisco, California 94105
    Mr. Ramon Perez
    Department of Toxic substances Control
    P.O. Box 806
    Sacramento, California 95812-0806
    Mr. Gary Stacey
    California Department of Fish and Game
    601 Locust Street
    Redding, California 96001
    M«. Lisa TranJcley-sato
    Department of Justice
    1515 K Street, Suite 260
    Sacramento, California 95814

    California Code - Chapter 6.8: Hazardous Substance Account [25300. - 25395.45.]

    • Article 1  Short Title and Legislative Intent [25300. - 25301.]
    • Article 2  Definitions [25310. - 25327.]
    • Article 3  Hazardous Substance Account [25330.2. - 25337.]
    • Article 4  Fees [25342. - 25343.]
    • Article 5  Uses of the State Account [25350. - 25359.7.]
    • Article 5.5  Cleanup of Santa Susana Field Laboratory [25359.20. - 25359.20.]
    • Article 6  Recovery Actions [25360. - 25367.]
    • Article 6.3  Technology Demonstration Program [25368. - 25368.8.]
    • Article 6.5  Abandoned Site Program [25369. - 25369.]
    • Article 7  Compensation [25370. - 25382.]
    • Article 7.5  Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of 1984 [25385. - 25386.5.]
    • Article 7.8  Orphan Share Reimbursement Trust Fund [25390. - 25390.9.]
    • Article 8  Private Site Management [25395.1. - 25395.15.]
    • Article 8.5  Cleanup Loans and Environmental Assistance to Neighborhoods [25395.20. - 25395.32.]
    • Article 8.6  Revolving Loans Fund [25395.35. - 25395.36.]
    • Article 8.7  California Financial Assurance and Insurance for Redevelopment Program [25395.40. - 25395.45.]

    It is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the following:

    (a) Establish a program to provide for response authority for releases of hazardous substances, including spills and hazardous waste disposal sites that pose a threat to the public health or the environment.

    (b) Compensate persons, under certain circumstances, for out-of-pocket medical expenses and lost wages or business income resulting from injuries proximately caused by exposure to releases of hazardous substances.

    (c) Make available adequate funds in order to permit the State of California to assure payment of its 10-percent share of the costs mandated pursuant to Section 104(c)(3) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9604(c)(3)).

    "Federal act" means the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 et seq.).

    "Hazardous substance" means:

    (a) Any substance designated pursuant to Section 1321 (b)(2)(A) of Title 33 of the United States Code.

    (b) Any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to Section 102 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9602).

    (c) Any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to Section 6921 of Title 42 of the United States Code, but not including any waste the regulation of which under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901 et seq.) has been suspended by act of Congress.

    (d) Any toxic pollutant listed under Section 1317 (a) of Title 33 of the United States Code.

    (e) Any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

    (f) Any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency has taken action pursuant to Section 2606 of Title 15 of the United States Code.

    (g) Any hazardous waste or extremely hazardous waste as defined by Sections 25117 and 25115, respectively, unless expressly excluded.

    "Hazardous substance" does not include:

    (a) Petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance in subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, of Section 25316, and natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas), or the ash produced by a resource recovery facility utilizing a municipal solid waste stream.

    (b) Nontoxic, nonflammable, noncorrosive stormwater runoff drained from underground vaults, chambers, or manholes into gutters or storm sewers.

    "Operation and maintenance" means those activities initiated or continued at a hazardous substance release site following completion of a response action that are deemed necessary by the department or regional board in order to protect public health or safety or the environment, to maintain the effectiveness of the response action at the site, or to achieve or maintain the response action standards and objectives established by the final remedial action plan or final removal action work plan applicable to the site.

    "Release" does not include any of the following:

    (a) Any release that results in exposure to persons solely within a workplace, with respect to a claim those exposed persons may assert against their employer.

    (b) Emissions from the engine exhaust of a motor vehicle, rolling stock, aircraft, vessel, or pipeline pumping station engine.

    (c) Release of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material from a nuclear incident, as those terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2011, et seq.), if such release is subject to requirements with respect to financial protection established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Section 2210 of Title 42 of the United States Code or, for the purposes of Section 104 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9604) or any other response action, any release of source byproduct, or special nuclear material from any processing site designated under Section 7912(a)(1) or 7942(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code, which sections are a part of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.

    (d) The normal application of fertilizer, plant growth regulants, and pesticides.

    "Remedy" or "remedial action" includes all of the following:

    (a) Those actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy, that are taken instead of, or in addition to, removal actions in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the environment, as further defined by Section 101(24) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(24)), except that any reference in Section 101(24) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(24)) to the President, relating to determinations regarding the relocation of residents, businesses, and community facilities shall, for the purposes of this chapter, be deemed to be a reference to the Governor and any other reference in that section to the President shall, for the purposes of this chapter, be deemed a reference to the Governor, or the director, if designated by the Governor.

    (b) Those actions that are necessary to monitor, assess, and evaluate a release or a threatened release of a hazardous substance.

    (c) Site operation and maintenance.

    "Remove" or "removal" includes the cleanup or removal of released hazardous substances from the environment or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage which may otherwise result from a release or threatened release, as further defined by Section 101(23) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(23)).

    (a) (1) "Responsible party" or "liable person," for the purposes of this chapter, means those persons described in Section 107(a) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)).

    (2) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), but except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person is not a responsible party or liable person, for purposes of this chapter, for the reason that the person has developed or implemented innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology with regard to a release site, if the use of the technology has been approved by the department for the release site and the person would not otherwise be a responsible party or liable person. Upon approval of the use of the technology, the director shall acknowledge, in writing, that, upon proper completion of the innovative investigative or innovative remedial action at the release site, the immunity provided by this subparagraph shall apply to the person.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply in any of the following cases:

    (i) Conditions at the release site have deteriorated as a result of the negligence of the person who developed or implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology.

    (ii) The person who developed or implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology withheld or misrepresented information that was relevant to the potential risks or harms of the technology.

    (iii) The person who implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology did not follow the implementation process approved by the department.

    (b) For the purposes of this chapter, the defenses available to a responsible party or liable person shall be those defenses specified in Sections 101(35) and 107(b) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Secs. 9601(35) and 9607(b)).

    (c) Any person who unknowingly transports hazardous waste to a solid waste facility pursuant to the exemption provided in subdivision (e) of Section 25163 shall not be considered a responsible party

    (a) (1) "Responsible party" or "liable person," for the purposes of this chapter, means those persons described in Section 107(a) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)).

    (2) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), but except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person is not a responsible party or liable person, for purposes of this chapter, for the reason that the person has developed or implemented innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology with regard to a release site, if the use of the technology has been approved by the department for the release site and the person would not otherwise be a responsible party or liable person. Upon approval of the use of the technology, the director shall acknowledge, in writing, that, upon proper completion of the innovative investigative or innovative remedial action at the release site, the immunity provided by this subparagraph shall apply to the person.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply in any of the following cases:

    (i) Conditions at the release site have deteriorated as a result of the negligence of the person who developed or implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology.

    (ii) The person who developed or implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology withheld or misrepresented information that was relevant to the potential risks or harms of the technology.

    (iii) The person who implemented the innovative investigative or innovative remedial technology did not follow the implementation process approved by the department.

    (b) For the purposes of this chapter, the defenses available to a responsible party or liable person shall be those defenses specified in Sections 101(35) and 107(b) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Secs. 9601(35) and 9607(b)).

    (c) Any person who unknowingly transports hazardous waste to a solid waste facility pursuant to the exemption provided in subdivision (e) of Section 25163 shall not be considered a responsible party for purposes of this chapter solely because of the act of transporting the waste. Nothing in this subdivision shall affect the liability of this person for his or her negligent acts.

    (a)"State account" means the Toxic Substances Control Account established pursuant to Section 25173.6.

    (b)Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any costs incurred and payable from the Hazardous Substance Account, the Hazardous Waste Control Account, or the Site Remediation Account prior to July 1, 2006, to implement this chapter, shall be recoverable from the liable person or persons pursuant to Section 25360 as if the costs were incurred and payable from the state account.

    "Federally permitted release" has the same meaning as defined in Section 101 (10) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 (10)).

    "A release authorized or permitted pursuant to state law" means any release into the environment which is authorized by statute, ordinance, regulation, or rule of any state, regional, or local agency or government or by any specific permit, license, or similar authorization from such an agency, including one of the foregoing, that recognizes a standard industry practice, including variances obtained from the agency which allow operations for facilities during a period of time when releases from the facilities do not conform with relevant statutes, ordinances, regulations, or rules. The term includes a federally permitted release, as defined by Section 25325, and releases that are in accordance with any court order or consent decree.

    .

    CAL. HSC. CODE § 25330.2 : California Code - Section 25330.2

    Funds in the Site Remediation Account appropriated for removal or remedial action pursuant to this chapter are available for encumbrance for three fiscal years subsequent to the fiscal year in which the funds are appropriated and are available for disbursement in liquidation of encumbrances pursuant to Section 16304.1 of the Government Code.

    .

    (a)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Controller shall establish a separate subaccount in the state account, for any funds received from a settlement agreement or the General Fund for a removal or remedial action to be performed at a specific site.

    (b)Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, funds deposited in the subaccount for those removal or remedial actions are hereby continuously appropriated to the department, without regard to fiscal years, for removal or remedial action at the specific site, and for administrative costs associated with the removal or remedial action at the specific site.

    (c)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, money in the subaccount for those removal or remedial actions shall not revert to the General Fund or be transferred to any other fund or account in the State Treasury, except for purposes of investment as provided in Article 4 (commencing with Section 16470) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

    (d)Notwithstanding Section 16305.7 of the Government Code, all interest or other increment resulting from investment of the funds specified in subdivision (a) pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 16470) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall be deposited in the subaccount for removal or remedial action at the specific sites.

    (e)At the conclusion of all removal or remedial actions at the specific site, any unexpended funds in any subaccounts established pursuant to this section shall be transferred to the subaccount for site operation and maintenance established pursuant to Section 25330.5, if necessary, for those activities at the site, or, if not needed for site operation and maintenance at the site, to the Toxic Substances Control Account.

    (f)(1)There is hereby created a subaccount in the state account as the successor fund to the Stringfellow Insurance Proceeds Account created pursuant to former Section 25330.6, as that section read on January 1, 2013. All assets, liabilities, and surplus in the Stringfellow Insurance Proceeds Account shall be transferred to, and become a part of, this subaccount for the Stringfellow Superfund Site in Riverside County, as provided in Section 16346 of the Government Code. All appropriations from the Stringfellow Insurance Proceeds Account, to the extent encumbered, shall continue to be available from the subaccount for expenditure for the same purposes and periods.

    (2)This subdivision shall become operative on July 1, 2013.

    (a) The Controller shall establish a separate subaccount for site operation and maintenance in the state account. All of the following amounts shall be deposited in the subaccount:

    (1) Funds received from responsible parties for site operation and maintenance.

    (2) Funds received from the federal government pursuant to the federal act for site operation and maintenance.

    (3) Funds received from cities, counties, or any other state or local agency for site operation and maintenance.

    (4) Funds appropriated from the state account by the Legislature for site operation and maintenance.

    (b) Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, funds deposited in the subaccount for site operation and maintenance are hereby continuously appropriated to the department, without regard to fiscal years, for site operation and maintenance, and for administrative costs associated with site operation and maintenance.

    (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, money in the subaccount for site operation and maintenance shall not revert to the General Fund or be transferred to any other fund or account in the State Treasury, except for purposes of investment as provided in Article 4 (commencing with Section 16470) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

    (d) Notwithstanding Section 16305.7 of the Government Code, all interest or other increment resulting from investment of the funds specified in subdivision (a) pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 16470) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall be deposited in the subaccount for site operation and maintenance.

    (a)The Stringfellow Insurance Proceeds Account is hereby created in the State Treasury and shall be administered by the director.

    (b)The funds deposited in the account are available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for activities related to the Stringfellow Superfund Site in Riverside County, to carry out the 2002 Consent Decree, incorporating the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding and the December 1998 Stringfellow Site Agreement between the state and the participating defendants, as defined in those agreements, to the extent any portion of those agreements remain in force and effect.

    (c)Funds in the account appropriated by the Legislature for contract costs for investigation, removal, remedial, or operation and maintenance activities at the Stringfellow Superfund Site are available for encumbrance for three fiscal years, including the fiscal year in which the funds are appropriated, and are available for disbursement in liquidation of encumbrances pursuant to Section 16304.1 of the Government Code.

    (d)Any requirement that insurance proceeds recovered by the state in connection with the Stringfellow Superfund Site be deposited in the account and distributed under the terms of the 1998 Site Agreement, is hereby declared null and void, in accordance with the 2002 Consent Decree specified in subdivision (b).

    (e)This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2013, and, as of January 1, 2014, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed.

    The state account may sue and be sued in its own name.

    (a) The department shall report to the Governor and the Legislature on the progress of the cleanup of the San Gabriel Valley groundwater sites in Los Angeles County, and on the progress of enforcement actions relating to those sites, in the biennial report specified in Section 25178. The report shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

    (1) State expenditures and planned expenditures.

    (2) Actions accomplished at the sites.

    (3) Actions planned, including a time schedule for the accomplishment of planned actions.

    (b) The report may be prepared in cooperation with other state and federal agencies involved with the sites, and shall include a summary of the activities of those additional agencies.

    (a) There is in the General Fund the Site Remediation Account, which shall be administered by the director. The account shall be funded by money transferred from the state account, upon appropriation by the Legislature. Consistent with the requirements of Section 114(c) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9614(c)), the moneys in the account may be expended by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for direct site remediation costs.

    (b) (1) For purposes of this section, "direct site remediation costs" means payments to contractors for investigations, characterizations, removal, remediation, or long-term operation and maintenance at sites contaminated or suspected of contamination by hazardous materials, where those actions are authorized pursuant to this chapter.

    (2) "Direct site remediation costs" also means the state-mandated share pursuant to Section 104(c)(3) of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9604(c)(3)).

    (3) "Direct site remediation costs" does not include the department's administrative expenses or the department's expenses for staff to perform oversight of investigations, characterizations, removals, remediations, or long-term operation and maintenance.

    Notwithstanding Section 25355.5, the department shall carry out a program of full-scale demonstrations to evaluate treatment technologies that can be safely utilized for removal and remedial actions to hazardous substance releases.

    For the purposes of this article, the following definitions apply:

    (a) "Treatment technologies" means methods, techniques, or processes, including proprietary or patented methods, that permanently alter the composition of hazardous substances at hazardous substance release sites through chemical, biological, or physical means so as to make the substances nonhazardous or to significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume, or any combination thereof, of the hazardous substances or contaminated materials being treated.

    (b) "Full-scale demonstration" means a demonstration of a technology that is of a size or capacity which permits valid comparison of the technology to the technical performance and cost of conventional technologies, that is likely to be cost-effective, and that will result in a substantial or complete remedial or removal action to a hazardous substance release site.

    The department shall select technology demonstration projects to be evaluated pursuant to this article using criteria that include, at a minimum, all of the following requirements:

    (a)The project proposal includes complete and adequate documentation of technical feasibility.

    (b)The project proposal includes evidence that a technology has been sufficiently developed for full-scale demonstration and can likely operate on a cost-effective basis.

    (c)The department has determined that a site is available and suitable for demonstrating the technology or technologies, taking into account the physical, biological, chemical, and geological characteristics of the site, the extent and type of contamination found at the site, and the capability to conduct demonstration projects in a manner to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.

    (d)The technology to be demonstrated preferably has widespread applicability in removal and remedial actions at other sites in the state.

    (e)The project will be developed to the extent that a successful demonstration on a hazardous substance release site may lead to commercial utilization by responsible parties at other sites in the state.

    (f)The department has determined that adequate funding is available from one or more of the following sources:

    (1)Responsible parties.

    (2)The Environmental Protection Agency.

    (3)The state account.

    .

    V. EPA'S JUNE 1994 PROPOSED PLAN
    In a Proposed Plan issued in June 1994, EPA proposed to enlarge the SCDD to establish a
    15,000-acre-foot reservoir and to defer implementation of the SFSC diversion. Enlargement
    of the SCDD and construction of the SFSC were both components of the 1986 ROD. The
    1986 ROD had deferred sizing of the reservoir. At the of the June 1994 Proposed Plan, it
    was EPA's assessment that source control and treatment alternatives were not available that
    could provide sufficient control of the IMM area source AMD discharges to meet remedial
    action objectives for the Site. The EPA had determined that the proposed enlargement of the
    ROD4DEC.DOC
    SCDD would provide sufficient water management capability to meet certain remedial action
    objectives for the Site, considering the extent of technical practicability limitations. The EPA
    received comments during the public comment period that identified additional source control
    and treatment alternatives for the IMM area source AMD discharges. The comments
    supported the technical feasibility of the source control and treatment approaches. Commenters
    also stated a preference for source control and treatment approaches over water
    management remedial alternatives. Taking into account these comments, the EPA deferred
    remedy selection and performed further studies of the suggested source control and treatment
    alternatives.
    VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
    The selected interim remedial action is the fourth ROD for the IMM Superfund cleanup
    action. It focuses on the Slickrock Creek area source AMD discharges. The selected remedy,
    which is the same remedy EPA proposed in its May 1996 Proposed Plan, was largely derived
    from an alternative developed by a potentially responsible party and submitted to EPA during
    the public comment period on the 1994 Proposed Plan. The selected remedy addresses the
    principal threat posed by contaminant releases from area sources within the Slickrock Creek
    watershed at the IMM Site through collection, conveyance, and treatment of all of the flows
    in the most contaminated reach of Slickrock Creek, located directly downstream of the most
    heavily disturbed mining area in the basin. The selected remedy will involve constructing a
    dam to establish a small reservoir in Slickrock Creek to collect and contain the contaminated
    runoff for controlled conveyance to an expanded IMM HDS treatment plant. The selected
    remedy also involves constructing a surface water diversion to keep relatively
    uncontaminated surface water from flowing into the reservoir. The diversion will minimize
    the amount of water that requires treatment and the size of the dam required to ensure
    adequate storage capacity of the containment reservoir. New and modified pipelines will
    convey the contaminated water from the reservoir to the treatment plant. Necessary
    modifications to the IMM HDS treatment plant will be constructed. A conceptual depiction
    of the remedy is shown in Photo Exhibit 2.
    The major components of the selected remedy include:
    Construct a retention dam and necessary surface water diversion facilities to ensure the
    collection and storage of contaminated surface runoff, interflow, and groundwater in the
    Slickrock Creek watershed at IMM.
    Construct facilities to provide controlled release of contaminated waters from the
    retention dam to the AMD conveyance pipeline to the IMM HDS/ASM lime
    neutralization treatment plant.
    Construct facilities to divert relatively uncontaminated surface water from the area
    upstream from the highly disturbed mining area of the Slickrock Creek basin and divert
    that water around the Slickrock Creek retention reservoir. The diversion shall also divert
    around the retention reservoir the water from the unmined side of the Slickrock Creek
    watershed.
    ROD4DEC.DOC
    Take appropriate steps (including consideration of emergency failure scenarios) to
    integrate into the operation of the reservoir the collection and conveyance of the Old/No.
    8 Mine Seep AMD to the IMM HDS/ASM lime neutralization treatment plant.
    Construct a hematite erosion control structure consistent with California mining waste
    requirements.
    Construct one or more sedimentation basin(s) or other EPA approved control structures in
    the Slickrock Creek watershed to minimize sedimentation of the Slickrock Creek
    retention reservoir and to ensure proper functioning of the controlled release facilities.
    Upgrade the hydraulic capacity of the existing pipeline (or if necessary construct a new
    pipeline) from Slickrock Creek to the Boulder Creek crossing as required to ensure
    adequate reliable capacity to convey Slickrock Creek and Old/No. 8 Mine Seep AMD.
    Construct an additional pipeline to reliably convey Slickrock Creek and Old/No. 8 Mine
    Seep AMD from the Boulder Creek Crossing to the IMM HDS/ASM lime neutralization
    treatment plant.
    • Modify the IMM HDS/ASM lime neutralization treatment plant to ensure proper
    treatment, using the HDS/ASM treatment process, of the Slickrock Creek area source
    AMD discharges in conjunction with AMD flows collected pursuant to other Records of
    Decision.
    Construct a tunnel to provide for gravity discharge of the high volumes of effluent from
    the IMM HDS/ASM treatment plant to Spring Creek below the Upper Spring Creek
    diversion to Flat Creek.
    Construct facilities to assure collection of significant identified sources (including but not
    limited to seeps from Brick Flat Pit and the hematite piles) and convey those releases to
    the Slickrock Creek Retention Reservoir.
    Perform long-term operations and maintenance (O&M) of all components.
    VII. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
    Protective of Human Health and the Environment
    With respect to the releases of hazardous substances that will be addressed by this interim
    action, this selected interim remedy is protective of-human-health and the environment. The
    selected interim remedy essentially eliminates the potential exposure and the resultant threats
    to human health and the environment from the Slickrock Creek area sources and the AMD
    discharge pathways addressed in this interim remedy. While the interim remedy is expected
    to essentially eliminate the risk posed by certain releases of hazardous substances from the
    facility, the interim remedy responds to only a subset of the currently uncontrolled releases of
    hazardous substances being released from the facility. The EPA therefore anticipates that the
    ROD4DEC.DOC
    remedy will not fully protect human health and the environment and that additional remedial
    action will be required to respond to releases of hazardous substances from the facility.
    Compliance with ARARs
    Except for those applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) that EPA is
    waiving for this interim remedy, the interim remedy will comply with all Federal and State
    ARARs.
    The EPA is waiving compliance with certain ARARs on the basis that this proposed action is
    an interim action that will not respond to all releases of hazardous substances from the
    facility. This interim action is not expected to provide for compliance with all ARARs at all
    times because the dam and treat interim remedial action for the Slickrock Creek area source
    AMD discharges does not address releases other than area sources in the Slickrock Creek
    watershed above the containment structure to be constructed on Slickrock Creek, such as
    releases from area sources in the Boulder Creek watershed, the existing sediments in SCR
    and Keswick Reservoir, and the streambeds in the Spring Creek watershed.
    Since the action selected in this ROD is an interim action that leaves some releases of hazardous
    substances unabated, EPA is relying on the ARARs waiver for "interim measures"
    (CERCLA § 121(d)(4)(A); 40 CFR § 300.430(f)(D(ii)(C)(l)) for this remedial action. In
    particular, EPA anticipates that the remedy will improve water quality in Spring Creek, SCR,
    Keswick Reservoir, and the Sacramento River, but EPA does not anticipate that this remedy,
    in conjunction the other remedies implemented to date, will be sufficient to ensure compliance
    with (1) the numeric, chemical-specific standards contained in the State Basin Plan
    Standards (SBPS) for copper, cadmium, or zinc, and (2) California Fish and Game Code
    § 5650 (which prohibits discharge of contaminants "deleterious to fish, plant life, or bird
    life"). The EPA is therefore waiving compliance with those standards for the interim action
    to the extent those standards cannot be achieved by the remedy selected in this ROD in
    conjunction with the remedies implemented under prior RODs. The EPA anticipates that
    completion of additional remedial actions will address compliance with these ARARs.
    Cost-Effectiveness
    The EPA has determined that the selected remedy is cost-effective pursuant to evaluations in
    accordance with § 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(D) of the NCR
    Permanent Solutions and Treatment Technologies
    The EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which
    permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized for the remedial action for the
    Slickrock Creek area source AMD discharges. This proposed remedy involves as its principal
    element the treatment of hazardous substance releases from the Slickrock Creek area
    sources upstream of the retention dam.
    The remedy will not reduce the generation of hazardous substances in the same manner that a
    remedy that reduces or eliminates AMD-forming reactions (and thereby reduce the need for
    ongoing treatment operations). The EPA has concluded that source-specific control actions
    may be available for at least some of the Slickrock Creek area source AMD discharges.
    However, those control actions are not currently implementable, effective, or cost-effective in
    ROD4DEC.DOC
    comparison to the selected dam and treat remedial action. While current technology and
    knowledge are not sufficient to permit implementation of reliable source-specific controls for
    the Slickrock Creek area sources, EPA encourages the continued development of those alternatives
    that could reduce or eliminate the AMD-forming reactions. The EPA will continue to
    consider subsequent action for the IMM Site that could supplant the need to perform longterm
    treatment of the area source AMD discharges.
    Consistency with Final Remedy
    This action of selecting a remedial alternative that addresses Slickrock Creek without first
    requiring completion of the studies for Boulder Creek is consistent with 40 CFR § 300.430
    (a)(ii)(A), which identifies as a program management principle that "[s]ites should generally
    be remediated in operable units when necessary or appropriate to achieve significant risk
    reduction quickly, when phased analysis and response is necessary or appropriate given the
    size and complexity of the Site, or to expedite the completion of total Site cleanup." The
    investigations conducted by the EPA to date, including an intensive peer review of control
    options, indicate that technically practicable and cost-effective remedies are available to
    remediate releases of hazardous substances from Boulder Creek area sources and from
    sediments in and below SCR.
    This action does not constitute the final remedy for the IMM Site. Additional response
    actions will further address the statutory preference for remedies employing treatment that
    reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element Subsequent actions are planned
    to fully address the threats posed by the conditions at the facility. This remedy will result in
    hazardous substances remaining onsite above health-based levels, so within 5 years after
    commencement of the remedial action, EPA will conduct a review to ensure that the remedy
    continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment. This is an
    interim action ROD, so review of this facility and of this remedy will be ongoing as EPA
    continues to develop final remedial alternatives for the Site.
    Keith A. Takata, Director - Date 9/30/97
    Superfund Division
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency